Originally Posted by Franklin K. Wyman
I am a Ph.D. candidate, over 50 years of age, and not a genius at technology. Therefore, I strongly object to the seemingly constant changes in the various Drew software systems with which we are expected to deal. It seems that as soon as I learn how to deal with one system or interface, CNS discards it in favor of another that is even more arcane and complex.
The latest switch is a perfect example of this frustrating trend. With the soon to be outgoing system, the "delete" button was too small for anyone but an eagle-eyed undergraduate to detect. I became aware of its location only after I asked about it. Why did I have to ask how to delete mail that I do not want to read? If your objective in providing a spam filter is to avoid spam, why did you select a system in which the "delete" button is so hard to see? It would appear that the spammers are in league with those who designed the filter, or vice versa.
But, lo and behold, now that I have at long last figured out how to delete mail I do not want, I see that CNS has chosen a new system. My choices appear to be to ignore it or to take valuable time in learning a system, that, perhaps, will soon be replaced in its turn.
This must stop.
Franklin K. Wyman
With both the old and new sstem, it is not necessary to delete messages from the Quarantine manually. Messages that are not released by you are automatically removed after 7 days, so you can simply allow them to remain and they will expire on their own.
As to switching to the new product-- we did not intend to make the switch during the semester. We recognize that switching software during mid-semester is disruptive to the user community and would only consider such actions when absolutely necessary. As Mike's message indicated, we experienced a serious failure with the previous product this morning that resulted in a multi-hour outage of email service. This outage has been preceeded by a variety of persistent unresolvable problems with the product, that had resulted in us investigating the Barracuda product in the first place. This morning's outage was the last straw in a long history of issues.
Rather than continue to subject the University community to unreliable email service, we took the prudent course and cut over to the new system right away.
Also, please do keep in mind, that it is not always up to Drew University's CNS department when we implement a new piece of software. We are forced by industry trends and vendor's support policies to stay current with this software. When we switched from GWGuardian to M+ Guardian one year ago, this was not by choice. The vendor that supported the product had started to discontinue support for GWGuardian and was no longer keeping it up to date, pushing customers who were renewing their contracts to the new software. We were actually quit happy with GWGuardian would have been content to continue using it, but it was no longer being actively maintained by the vendor. It is simply not an option to be running an anti-spam and anti-virus product that is not actively updated by the vendor, as the system would be incapable of detecting new spam and viruses and this would be both an inconvenience and a security risk to the University.
Due to the persistent issues we've had with M+ Guardian since we were pushed to switch to it a year ago, and the failure we experienced this morning, we are exercising our option not to renew our contract for another year for that product and are putting the Barracuda in place two months ahead of schedule.
We've been evaluating the Barracuda for a while and are confident that it will provide more reliable service than M+ Guardian. The product's interface for users has been relatively unchanged for several years and we have every reason to believe that they will keep it as is with only minor changes for a while yet to come...