e-m4i1 from filepro with attachment

Thu Jun 29 06:27:22 PDT 2006

Bad idea to *wait*. Raise the price to $150 now, today. I put a little demo
of Lightmail on the 2006 Quarter 2 CD. I pointed people to your site and
told them this is a valuable and useful program at any price. Especially for
SCO users... who don't have the ability to "attach" files to their outgoing
email. I did not know the price, so I said it was $99 or $150 I couldn't
remember... if anyone is interested by the quick review, they wil not be
"any the wiser" that it *used* to be $99 (except for everyone reading this
now, that is... :-) )  Who cares. The time is now to put the price at
something reasonable which will keep you writing software. The difference in
price from 99 to 150 against zero for the "freebie" things out there will be
of no concern to the people who want the ease of use and integration to
filePro through the SYSTEM command Lighmail brings. Change the price before
anywone gets the CD... which may be as soon as today or tomorrow.

Price is not why your products might not be selling as well as they could...
so the $50 doesn't matter.

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: filepro-list-bounces+john=valar.com at lists.celestial.com
> [mailto:filepro-list-bounces+john=valar.com at lists.celestial.com]On
> Behalf Of Fairlight
> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 8:14 AM
> To: filePro Mailing List
> Subject: Re: e-m4i1 from filepro with attachment
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 02:04:13PM -0400, John Esak, the prominent pundit,
> witicized:
> > I think it is a little cheap at $99... $150 should be the price... $149.
>
> I'll take that under advisement, John. :) I mean, seriously, I'm thinking
> about it.  I don't see any reason not to.  I've tried competing on price
> before (OneGate)...it doesn't work.  My only worry is that someone may
> think it's -already- overpriced.  All here who think software these days
> isn't overpriced, raise your hands.  Yeah, thought so. :) So do I.  But it
> -is- powerful mojo that can be used at the enterprise level, so yes, I may
> soon raise the price at your suggestion.  Possibly next week.  I'm
> considering my options for a few days.  Rash decisions usually end up
> poorly for me.  :)
>
> Actually, someone recommended sendEmail as a free alternative.  So I just
> -had- to look at what I was up against, of course.  I just went over the
> docs -and- the source.  I'm frightened. :) No, seriously...in an
> effort NOT
> to use any existing, known-good modules, he basically
> reimplemented a basic
> SMTP conversation and rudimentary MIME formatting.  It didn't look like a
> very robust implementation of either, to me.
>
> There were also several things missing that I handle with LightMail, such
> as inline image attachments (the images display inline in the message),
> utilising a local MTA if one is present (I can do that in addition to just
> using an SMTP server elsewhere), -unlimited- custom headers (he provides
> a whopping -one-), and HTML-only message bodies ONLY when specified, not
> taking the MS approach and doing it if it sees "<html>" (which may or may
> not even APPEAR in some HTML, depending what generated it)...  That's
> seriously how he tells whether he should be sending as pure html or not.
> His MIME encoding is crude compared to what the modules I used avail me
> of.  I'd expect that; he rolled the -entire- thing by hand,
> reinventing the
> wheels for SMTP and MIME in a -very- minimalistic sense.
>
> About the only thing his does that mine doesn't is SASL authentication.  I
> could add that in under an hour, beta test, and have it out the door in
> under two if I -really- needed to.  In fact, it -almost- went in at one
> point, but it turned out not to be needed for a potential customer after
> all, so I didn't waste the time rerouting the transport to a manually
> controlled object just to accomodate it.  Ah, and his will take the main
> message file from STDIN--on unix only.  I had a reason for avoiding
> that--namely I never wanted it to infinitely hang if nothing was fed to
> STDIN and no file location was defined.  His code comments flat-out say
> that his methodology for using alarm doesn't work in Win32.  I didn't want
> something that wouldn't work 100% cross-platform.
>
> Then there's the part where sending attachments that are large may not
> actually work with his alarm system.  This is hilarious if you read his
> comments:
>
>         ## Disable the alarm so people on modems can send big attachments
>         alarm(0) if ($^O !~ /win/i);  ## alarm() doesn't work in win32
>
> Okay, so if you're on Win32, you're what, potentially boned if you want to
> send big attachments via modem?  Great idea!
>
> I won't get into his assumption about hardwired colour escape
> sequences for
> echoing things to the console--assuming there's only going to be one
> terminal type.  Oh, wait, I just did.  :)
>
> I've seen far worse, but I wasn't impressed.  If I was me, <scrooged>And I
> -AM-! *plink!*</scrooged>, I'd take LightMail over sendEmail any day, cost
> notwithstanding.
>
> Not really wanting to -bash- other software, but since someone
> else brought
> it up, I figured I'd take a look and do a comparative analysis of the
> "competition".  There were a lot of shortcomings there.  After seeing it,
> I can say that the two are conceived like apples and oranges.  They're
> both fruit, but there's a fundamental design difference.  Kudos to the
> author on his achievements, and I wish him the best of luck, but
> I wouldn't
> personally trust it, having read the source.  YMMV.
>
> mark->
> _______________________________________________
> Filepro-list mailing list
> Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list