Background : We're currently in the middle of a big system update here. We're moving from an existing IMAP based email system to MS exchange, including migrating something like 40,000 user's data and various other stuff.

Problem : Exchange's IMAP support sucks balls. Some (but not many) of our users don't use Outlook - it's the standard client but we allow people the choice; most don't feel the need to change - and thus we have a problem, in so far as any decent client is likely to break the Exchange IMAP service from time to time.

Solution : We custom designed a proxy server to sit between the user and Exchange, trapping the various IMAP commands Exchange doesn't support properly and either dealing with them or politely failing them back to the client. This was Some Significant Work. The consequence for users is they have to request IMAP access be enabled once they have been moved to the Exchange system (which basically means them being switched to use the proxy), since the proxy could not support everyone using it at the same time. This is very simple task, which requires them to input a few pieces of information into a web page and click 'OK'. Bear in mind all this work was, in the end, to make life easier for the few hundred (out of 40,000) users who don't like Outlook. The alternative was to say "sorry, we're standardising on Outlook. Get used to it" but we didn't think that was polite and we like to give our users a choice if we can. The proxy request web page is a standard form for our business, and has a 'comments' section at the bottom.

The following comment came in along with a request this afternoon.



And he never even said 'please'...

I believe the standard procedure is to wipe their mailbox, replace all their files on the server with questionable material then send an email from their account to the MD calling him/her every name under the sun & they're quitting to join company X, "p.s. I've already got a copy of the database" is a good line to add.

Aber is slowly transitioning from exim to MS Exchange. The email admin hates it, he's had so much extra work to do because of it. Things worked well before, and as far as I can see, it's only someone from up the ladder shouting down to make it all Exchange, there doesn't appear to be a concrete reason to change...

TBH, if I was in this position, I'd not be happy...
From a user standpoint - Make it easy for me. If I can't use my lovely Thunderbird anymore, tell me. I'll grumble for a bit, but I'll get used to it.
From an admin standpoint - Why add more that could go wrong? Every connection has the potential to increase faults, so minimise connections. Get rid of the proxy and tell users to man up and use Outlook, I know it a heap of steaming sh*t, but that's what the boss says you've got to use.

Alternative to Saspro's suggestion would be a simple email, quoting the above and stating "and this is why you aren't a sys-admin"

Bunch of gaylords. I wouldn't have given them the choice. You've clearly got more patience than me.

Hi folks this is the new corporate standard, don't like it tough. Simple

Oh I would prefer that no doubt. However we are an academic institution and the more... authoritative commercial style of management simply wouldn't wash here. Some Professor or Dean would get the hump, pull rank on the head of IS and we'd be told our solution wasn't acceptable. And we have a lot of Professors and Deans. So we have to play nice.

I am currently contemplating some mild BOFH style retribution on said user. Possibly involving redirecting all the spam email we get into his inbox, or fiddling with the phones so he gets all the calls about blocked toilets.

You know the worst thing though? He's not some academic, he's actually a techie. He deals with the big supercomputers that do the maths crunching for protein matching and the like. And he's written the absolutely rudest, snottiest, 'I obviously know more about your job than you do' email he could to a fellow techie, when he patently doesn't even understand how the IMAP protocol actually works (small kudos to anyone who can explain why his proposed solution is in fact no solution at all).

It's seeing emails like that, when I've had no lunch and it's 4pm already and there's not much chance of me being out of the office before 7pm, that just make me wish my bosses didn't consider physical violence to be gross misconduct.

I'll get the carpet. Jon, fetch the quick lime.

And most of the police in the north are currently chasing that ginger nutter round the Northumberland moors. Hmm.. Tempting.

As said, time to kick into BOFH mode!

The thing I don't get is this: how is it that people get things wrong despite you providing screen shores, instructions and (at times) videos showing hoe things should be done?

Because they're 'tards.

Mark

I don't know about the uni you work in, but the people in Aber who run the part of IS that interfaces with the users actually don't know anything, they are a group of CS students on their industrial year who can't be arsed to look for a proper job, they are then managed by a group of people who coo over their policies but don't actually understand them or their users needs. Once you get past that and actually talk to the people who run the servers you understand that they do know what they are talking about, but the first impression (to a techie) is that the university computer system is run by a bunch of monkeys who still marvel at sliced cake borders around their Word documents and Comic Sans.

Yeah, well, I can't make any judgement about your experience. I'm not like that though. I've been doing this for nearly 20 years. I'm also doing this job on a version .0 product because my management wants to be 'cutting edge'.

I deal with users every day. I'm actually pretty good at it - comes from starting out in another field I think. I don't expect users to agree with me. I do t expect them to understand everything I'm trying to explain. I do expect them to be polite and I don't expect to be called 'unprofessional' for asking someone to fill in a web page, especially when they're simultaneously demonstrating they have absolutely no clue about the technical complexities of the issues involved.