Webmail Support



  • Disclaimer: This is long, and it's only really worth it if you enjoy tech support wtfs.  That said, it's been pissing me off for the past 2 weeks or so, and I figured I'd share. It's an email log for the past 2 weeks with 1and1.com support. It's really mild, so if you don't enjoy tech support issues, then you won't enjoy this.

    I have yet to find a really great webmail app, so given, I don't really expect much. However, the one 1and1 has produced is apparently incapable of opening two emails at once without duplicating the email body... which is just about the only thing webmail software is supposed to do in the first place! After 2 weeks of frustrated emailing...

    Here it is:
    ---------------------------------------------------- 

    Hello there.

    I'm on Firefox 2, Ubuntu 7. When looking at my inbox, if I right-click, and select "open in new tab" on one email, then quickly left click another message, the newly tabbed window opens with the message of the second email, but the sender and headers of the first email.

    This is reproducible on my machine.

    For example, if I have two emails:
    From: John Doe
    Date: Monday
    Subject: Test subject
    Body: Hey there. This is a test body

    From: Susy Smith
    Date: Friday
    Subject: Read this email
    Body: I'm glad you read this email

    This behavior will result in one correct email in a popup, and the following email in a tab:
    From: John Doe
    Date: Monday
    Subject: Read this email
    Body: I'm glad you read this email

    I've attached a screenshot (with part of the message blotted out).

    Thanks,
    -Jess

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dear Jess Mann, (Customer ID: xxxxxxxx)

    Thank you for contacting us.

    Have you already double check the settings for each profile? It could be
    that you created another duplicate of profile to John Doe. When did this
    issue happened? And what was the last thing you did before encountering
    the issue? Can you also double check because it could be that it is just
    a forwarded email or a reply to you. Any information from you would be
    very much appreciated.

    Thank you.


    If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us.

    --
    Sincerely,
    Lucille Basillote

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hello,

    No. This is not a 'profile' issue. In fact, I don't have any 'profiles' defined for any contacts. This is also reproducible with any two emails. Yours included. If I open either of the two alone, I get the proper email. However, if I repeat the steps outlined earlier, I get a cross of the two. Please see the screenshot I attached in my previous email. It clearly has all the heading information of a different email... as the actual email I had intended to open was from the original contact, as detailed in the email.

    I'm attaching -another- screenshot. This time of your email, with the body of the "Sue" figure in the last screenshot's heading. Clearly, I never received any email from support@1and1 with that body.

    Again, this is reproducible with any two emails. I've been a professional web developer for many years. I guarantee you it's an issue on your end.

    Also, to answer other questions you posed in your last response:

    I didn't do anything out of the ordinary before this. The problem is reproducible any time of the day, even after logging out and back in, and so forth. I just did it to create the last screenshot at approximately 11:48.

    Thanks,
    -Jess

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dear Jess Mann, (Customer ID: xxxxxxxx)

    Thank you for contacting us.

    Are you using the Webmail Interface or any email client? Because if your
    using any email client then there's an option to hide the header. Your
    immediate response is highly appreciated for the fast resolution of your
    case.

    If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us.

    --
    Sincerely,
    Ariel Contreras

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hello there. As clearly displayed in my screenshots (I've provided 2), I'm using the webmail interface.

    Also, "hiding the header" isn't really a solution here... this is a problem on your end. That would be like suggesting that, if your server crashed any time a customer hit the "home" button, that customers stop hitting the button.

    There exists a common error whereby emails are displayed to me as having come from different people, at different times, than they really did. Not doing that is pretty essential to webmail software... In fact, that's just about all webmail software is responsible for...

    As I've mentioned, I can reproduce this issue every time I try. At the very least, could someone please test it?

    Thanks,
    -Jess

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hello.

    I sent a reply to support more than three days ago, and haven't yet gotten a reply back. The last reply I received (before my response) told me to ignore the problem.

    If someone could get back to me, that would be greatly appreciated.

    Thank you,
    -Jess

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dear Jess Mann, (Customer ID: xxxxxxxx)

    Thank you for contacting us.

    Have you tried to use other browser like windows explorer?

    If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us.

    --
    Sincerely,
    Froilan Tayong
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hello.

    There are so many problems what that suggestion, I'm not sure where to begin.
    1) I'm not on Windows. You don't only support Windows. By stating that I was running Linux, I would assume one would deduce I don't run IE (or "Windows Explorer", which is not a browser, by the way).
    2) The problem is on --YOUR-- end. Not mine. The data I'm getting from YOU is wrong. YOUR SITE is generating an HTML page which includes the header of one message, and the subject and body of another.
    3) Yes

    This is getting a little ridiculous. Could someone --please-- try to reproduce the issue? I can do so on multiple machines, in multiple browsers, EVERY time I try.

    I've had nothing but good experiences with 1and1's support in the past... but the last number of emails I've gotten on this subject have astounded me.

    Thank you,
    -Jess

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dear Jess Mann, (Customer ID: xxxxxxxx)

    Thank you for contacting us.

    We do sincerely apologized for the inconvenience this has caused you.
    For us to test it on our end and to reproduce the error, please provide
    us the email address and your password. If you're not at ease providing
    this information via email. Kindly contact us through phone so that we
    can initiate Netviewer session. Netviewer is a completely safe program
    that will give me view-only access to your desktop. You have full
    control of what you want me to see.

    If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us.

    --
    Sincerely,
    Ritchel Panugalinog
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As far as I can tell, Netviewer appears to be available exclusively for
    Windows. Again... I am not on windows.

    This is not an issue with my account. I am also able to reproduce this
    problem on other domains (and thus other email addresses) I use through
    your service.

    On a quick scan of the page source, it appears you're pulling the
    message body via AJAX, which indicates to me that, in all likelihood,
    since the two requests are so close to one another, you are storing the
    current action somewhere for my user, and querying that action twice
    (once for each email)... thus resulting in the same email body for
    multiple email messages.

    In other words, the first click results in the action being modified to
    "view email 10". The window is opened for that email, and the header is
    loaded. The second click results in the action being modified to "view
    email 11". The AJAX call for the first email, which was delayed, now
    queries the action... returning the body of message 11. Thus, I get a
    message with headers from email 10, and a body from email 11.

    That is not an issue with my browser, or my computer, or my account.
    That is an issue with your script on the other end of that AJAX call.

    I don't have any interest in sending my password, in clear text, via an
    unsecure email for no reason. This issue is present in your 1and1
    webmail app... not in my account. If you open up firefox, and give it a
    shot (on any account, yours included), you should experience the same
    behavior.

    1) Open firefox (or any browser that supports tabs)
    2) Go to 1and1's webmail
    3) Login, and click on "Inbox"
    4) Right click on one email and select "open in new tab"
    5) Quickly, before the first email loads, left click on a different
    email

    Email 2 will be the second email
    Email 1 will be the headers of email 1 and the body of email 2

    This happens, unfailingly, every try on every account at every time on
    every operating system.

    Thank you,
       -Jess

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dear Jess Mann, (Customer ID: xxxxxxxx)

    Thank you for contacting us.

    We understand for your concern, we have tried replicating the issue in
    our end using a webmail account and followed the steps that you have
    mentioned. We also had used firefox in doing this and tried right
    clicking to open a new tab to read a new message and then left click to
    another message right away, however, we did not encounter the same issue
    that you currently experiencing in your end. If it is ok to you, that
    we could ask for a screenshot for an email that you opened with a
    different header with its body of the letter as well as a screenshot
    where it shows what its header and its body of letter should be. Please
    do understand that we need this informations so that we can recify this
    issue. Thank you for your patience and bearing with us.

    If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us.

    --
    Sincerely,
    Mary Jane Pisueña
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hello.

    Please understand that my frustration is not with you (or any individual
    who has contacted me in hopes of rectifying the issue). I appreciate
    your efforts. Instead, my frustration is directed at the general service
    as a whole.

    I have received around 5 emails on this issue as of yet, from 5 entirely
    different people. Each email has requested information that I already
    provided to a prior contact. My --first-- email provided a screenshot.
    My 3rd email provided another. Now I'm being asked for more. I've been
    told to install or use windows software twice (I'm on Linux), to describe
    things present in the screenshots I've provided on multiple occasions, and
    also to ignore the issue twice, in different ways. Hopefully you can
    understand why this all begets a bit of frustration.

    I've attached all the screenshots I've already provided, plus another 2.
    (4 in total).

    If possible, could I have a single point of contact for this issue to be
    resolved? I don't want to be asked for steps to replicate the issue, or
    screenshots, or my password, or what operating system I'm running again
    in another 2 days.

    Again, I do appreciate the help (Really!). I'd just like to not be passed
    around to every support rep at 1and1.

    [[snip long, overly simplified description of screenshots]]

    Again, I can reproduce this issue with any two emails.

    Thank you,
        -Jess

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dear Jess Mann, (Customer ID: xxxxxxxx)

    Thank you for contacting us.

    We were able to replicate your issue. This issue isn't operating system
    dependent. It appears the current version of the 1&1 webmail wasn't
    originally designed to handle what you're trying to do. I've filed a
    bug report with the webmail developers. Hopefully an enhancement can be
    made to the current webmail. Unfortunately I cannot give you an
    official time frame as to when this issue can be rectified however I'm
    letting you know now that we'll investigate further.

    If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us.

    --
    Sincerely,
    Jeremy Braid 

     
    -----------------------

    I suppose this is mostly frustrating because I'm going through worse, via the phone, with 2 other companies... but oh well. I guess I should just be thankful I don't have to deal with Rackspace anymore.

    Best of Luck,
        -Jess



  • @mann_jess said:

    I suppose this is mostly frustrating because I'm going through worse, via the phone, with 2 other companies... but oh well. I guess I should just be thankful I don't have to deal with Rackspace anymore.

    Sounds like the crap I went through with various hosting companies that seem to be based out of India. I've had superb phone support since I switched to GoDaddy.



    Rackspace is bad? Seems like most I know like them for dedicated hosting.



  • @AbbydonKrafts said:

    @mann_jess said:
    I suppose this is mostly frustrating because I'm going through worse, via the phone, with 2 other companies... but oh well. I guess I should just be thankful I don't have to deal with Rackspace anymore.

    Sounds like the group I went through with various hosting companies that seem to be based out of India. I've had superb phone support since I switched to GoDaddy.



    Rackspace is bad? Seems like most I know like them for dedicated hosting.

    Can you give us the tl;dr?  I mean, I'm normally pretty patient but that post is more than I read in college... although, that might explain why I never graduated...  holy crap, I still have a few roaches left here.. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Can you give us the tl;dr?

    1. Webmail screws up when opening second e-mail in new tab immediately after opening first e-mail in original tab.
    2. Support cannot comprehend problem. Blames contact settings.
    3. Each reply to support results in a reply from a new person with a foreign-sounding name.
    4. Support ignores screenshots, technical details, the fact that OS is Linux -- insists on using Windows applications.
    5. After hammering them with more descriptions and a load of screenshots, they admit fault with open-ended resolution time.


  • @AbbydonKrafts said:

    After hammering them with more descriptions and a load of screenshots, they admit fault with open-ended resolution time.
    You forgot the lovely "I can has j00 passwordz plz" and the suggestion of using Windows Explorer instead of Internet Explorer (technically the same program up until IE 7 + Vista).



  • @Lingerance said:

    Windows Explorer instead of Internet Explorer (technically the same program up until IE 7 + Vista).
     

    Not really... but ok.



  • @Lingerance said:

    You forgot the lovely "I can has j00 passwordz plz"

    Oh yeah. That was a great one.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Not really... but ok.
    I was my understanding that all explorer.exe did to activate IE mode was import a dll called iexplorer.dll (something like that). Is that misinformed?



  • @Lingerance said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:
    Not really... but ok.
    I was my understanding that all explorer.exe did to activate IE mode was import a dll called iexplorer.dll (something like that). Is that misinformed?
     

    That is not what I would call "the same program". By that method of thinking, Firefox is the same thing as Internet explorer, because IE tab loads Internet Explorer into it.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    That is not what I would call "the same program". By that method of thinking, Firefox is the same thing as Internet explorer, because IE tab loads Internet Explorer into it.
    Touche.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @Lingerance said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:
    Not really... but ok.
    I was my understanding that all explorer.exe did to activate IE mode was import a dll called iexplorer.dll (something like that). Is that misinformed?
     

    That is not what I would call "the same program". By that method of thinking, Firefox is the same thing as Internet explorer, because IE tab loads Internet Explorer into it.

    I'm gonna call "grey area" on this one.  I wouldn't claim they are the same program, really, they just share some library code and are able to seamlessly transition between each other.  The main reason they were decoupled completely in Vista was so upgrades to IE didn't affect Windows Explorer at all. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    The main reason they were decoupled completely in Vista was so upgrades to IE didn't affect Windows Explorer at all. 
    I thought it was so IE crashes wouldn't take the start menu with it. Although I think they fixed that in SP1 for XP. Not that I really cared, it only happened once and I knew how to fix it.



  • @Lingerance said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    The main reason they were decoupled completely in Vista was so upgrades to IE didn't affect Windows Explorer at all. 
    I thought it was so IE crashes wouldn't take the start menu with it. Although I think they fixed that in SP1 for XP. Not that I really cared, it only happened once and I knew how to fix it.
     

    I don't think I EVER saw that behavior in any windows version. If explorer.exe crashed, then yes, but even in Windows 98, IE wouldn't take out the start menu or anything else if it crashed...



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    I don't think I EVER saw that behavior in any windows version. If explorer.exe crashed, then yes, but even in Windows 98, IE wouldn't take out the start menu or anything else if it crashed...

    I never saw it in XP, but if IE crashed on the Windows 98 computer my wife used to use, it would always take Explorer with it.



  • @Lingerance said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    The main reason they were decoupled completely in Vista was so upgrades to IE didn't affect Windows Explorer at all. 
    I thought it was so IE crashes wouldn't take the start menu with it. Although I think they fixed that in SP1 for XP. Not that I really cared, it only happened once and I knew how to fix it.
     

    morbius is right.  Also, there were a few security reasons (e.g. maintaining the integrity of "IE7 protected mode"):

    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/928675 



  • @AbbydonKrafts said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:
    I don't think I EVER saw that behavior in any windows version. If explorer.exe crashed, then yes, but even in Windows 98, IE wouldn't take out the start menu or anything else if it crashed...

    I never saw it in XP, but if IE crashed on the Windows 98 computer my wife used to use, it would always take Explorer with it.

     

    Hmm maybe my memory is getting hazy... I may have to fire up a VM and refresh my memory...



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @AbbydonKrafts said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:
    I don't think I EVER saw that behavior in any windows version. If explorer.exe crashed, then yes, but even in Windows 98, IE wouldn't take out the start menu or anything else if it crashed...

    I never saw it in XP, but if IE crashed on the Windows 98 computer my wife used to use, it would always take Explorer with it.

     

    Hmm maybe my memory is getting hazy... I may have to fire up a VM and refresh my memory...

    If Active Desktop was enabled, an IE crash would take down the entire system.  Otherwise, it usually wasn't that bad, although it did occassionally take down explorer, but not often.  Still, you could ctrl-alt-del, click New Task and start explorer back up. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    If Active Desktop was enabled, an IE crash would take down the entire system. 
     

    That might be the discrepency. I never enable active desktop... That was always the first thing I turned off.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    That might be the discrepency. I never enable active desktop... That was always the first thing I turned off.

    That's probably it, then.  Active desktop was a very neat feature and quite advanced for its time, but it was quite unstable.  I generally turned it off, but sometimes Win98 would insist on activating it for no good reason.  I think it was a subtle bug in how you enabled a desktop wallpaper that would cause it to activate out-of-the-blue.  What really amuses me is that everyone gave MS shit for active desktop 10 years ago but when Apple added it to OS X and called it Dashboard, those same people loved it. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    That's probably it, then.  Active desktop was a very neat feature and quite advanced for its time, but it was quite unstable. 

     

    I honestly never found a use for it. But to each his own.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I think it was a subtle bug in how you enabled a desktop wallpaper that would cause it to activate out-of-the-blue. 
     

    Plus, I think if you wanted to use a non-BMP wallpaper, you had to enable Active Desktop. 



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    I honestly never found a use for it. But to each his own.

    Yeah, it was really one of those "what if" features.  In 1998, there just wasn't a need for it, but the idea of writing custom widgets for you desktop that embedded live information from the Internet was pretty cool.  I don't think it's the kind of thing I would use day-to-day, but there are plenty of people who just want small apps that provide them with real-time data from the Internet.  If anything, I think the story of active desktop is a good summary of the bad decisions MS has made over the last 10 years or so.  They developed something really unique that there was not yet a market for, but instead of sticking with it and improving it, they gave in to the critics and dropped it, only to see one of their competitors pick it up years later.  Frequently, MS is criticized for not being innovative enough, but I think the real problem is that there is a lack of confidence in many of their more untraditional features and they give up without seeing it through to wide-spread adoption.  My main complaint with MS is that they have almost seemed to accept their designation as the "take no risks" standard.  They still continue to make great software with well-designed features, but it feels like there isn't as much willingness to experiment with risky new ideas as there was 8 or so years ago.



  • @CodeSimian said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    I think it was a subtle bug in how you enabled a desktop wallpaper that would cause it to activate out-of-the-blue. 
     

    Plus, I think if you wanted to use a non-BMP wallpaper, you had to enable Active Desktop. 

    I was tempted to say that was it, but I'm not sure that was quite the case.  I think if you set the wallpaper from IE, it would enable active desktop without you realizing it, but it may be my faulty memory.



  • @CodeSimian said:

    Plus, I think if you wanted to use a non-BMP wallpaper, you had to enable Active Desktop. 
     

    I don't think so... I am pretty sure I always used .jpg wallpapers, and I never used Active Desktop.

    Pretty sure Active Desktop's main appeal was that it allowed a website as your desktop right?



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @CodeSimian said:

    Plus, I think if you wanted to use a non-BMP wallpaper, you had to enable Active Desktop. 
     

    I don't think so... I am pretty sure I always used .jpg wallpapers, and I never used Active Desktop.

    Pretty sure Active Desktop's main appeal was that it allowed a website as your desktop right?

    It could do that, but it also allowed for all kinds of custom widgets.  There was also tight integration with IE's "channels" feature, which was pretty much a precursor to RSS. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I think if you set the wallpaper from IE, it would enable active desktop without you realizing it, but it may be my faulty memory.
     

    I used to do this all the time, and I can't remember ever experiencing that behavior...



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    I think if you set the wallpaper from IE, it would enable active desktop without you realizing it, but it may be my faulty memory.
     

    I used to do this all the time, and I can't remember ever experiencing that behavior...

    You are probably right then.  I know it was something like this, but it always seemed like an unintentional bug to me.  Like, you'd set something in a particular way and active desktop would just be enabled without warning.  I avoided active desktop like the plague because it always crashed my system but it kept getting turned on through some action.  This was Win98SE, too, so perhaps they changed the default behavior, but probably not.  Honestly, I can't remember the particulars of it and I quickly learned how to prevent active desktop from being enabled, so it wasn't a huge deal.  I still think it was a neat feature, but it was certainly not ready for prime time.



  • I'm not quoting anyone because I'm responding to multiple posts.


    With Windows 98 I distinctly recall Active Desktop being enabled whenever I set a non-BMP wallpaper, I also recall some people in the Starcraft modding community creating a really tidy HTML page with embedded Google search (comes up in a new IE window), underneath it had four columns of their favorite sites there was like 70+ links, it look really classy especially with the desktop icons removed. I was actually slightly disappointed to see it dropped in XP (I went from 98SE to XP).


    As for crashing explorer with IE I might have it backwards, all I recall for sure is one of the two died hard (I may have killed a "[Not Responding]" window), when one went down all of my open explorer windows went with it, as I had quite a few open at the time I was quite annoyed, though I didn't have anything major going on and it took me less than a minute to restore everything.



    WTF was channels about anyways?



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    I don't think so... I am pretty sure I always used .jpg wallpapers, and I never used Active Desktop.

    Pretty sure Active Desktop's main appeal was that it allowed a website as your desktop right?

     

    No, if you set the desktop wallpaper from IE (in XP, for example), IE will copy the image and convert it to BMP first (and save it as "IE Wallpaper.bmp" or something similar).

    I am talking about directly using a non-BMP wallpaper: i.e. Desktop -> Properties -> Wallpaper -> Browse for file.

    http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/gp/141.mspx?mfr=true

    <font size="3">Allow only bitmapped wallpaper</font>

    User Configuration\AdministrativeTemplates\Desktop\Active Desktop

    Description

    Permits only bitmap images for wallpaper.

    This policy limits the desktop background ("wallpaper") to bitmap (.bmp) files. If users select files with other image formats, such as JPEG, GIF, PNG, or HTML, the wallpaper does not load.

    This policy is designed to avoid the Active Desktop prompt. When users select a wallpaper with an alternate image format, the system prompts them to enable Active Desktop. By limiting users to bitmapped files, the prompt is avoided.

     

    Even in Vista, when you use "Windows Image Preview" or "Windows Photo Gallery" to set your desktop wallpaper, a copy of your image is made ("Windows Photo Gallery Wallpaper.jpg").  In this case, it is converted to JPG (not BMP), and it may also be automatically zoomed or cropped to fit your current resolution/aspect ratio.  

     The real WTF is Vista still doesn't support "fill screen and preserve aspect ratio" mode when you set the wallpaper directly, unless you install Vista Ultimate Dreamscene.  Of course you can get around this by using Windows Photo Gallery -> Set As Desktop Background.



  • @Lingerance said:

    I'm not quoting anyone because I'm responding to multiple posts.


    With Windows 98 I distinctly recall Active Desktop being enabled whenever I set a non-BMP wallpaper, I also recall some people in the Starcraft modding community creating a really tidy HTML page with embedded Google search (comes up in a new IE window), underneath it had four columns of their favorite sites there was like 70+ links, it look really classy especially with the desktop icons removed. I was actually slightly disappointed to see it dropped in XP (I went from 98SE to XP).


    As for crashing explorer with IE I might have it backwards, all I recall for sure is one of the two died hard (I may have killed a "[Not Responding]" window), when one went down all of my open explorer windows went with it, as I had quite a few open at the time I was quite annoyed, though I didn't have anything major going on and it took me less than a minute to restore everything.

    I remember Win98 being quite a pain, but it was the only OS I used on a regular basis.  I also had a Redhat 6 machine, but it was basically worthless because it wasn't even possible to get it to open a web browser so it could crash.

     

    @Lingerance said:

    WTF was channels about anyways?

    My memory is very vague and I'm too lazy to look it up, but it was basically a way to "subscribe" to certain websites so you received information in a more desktop-like format as the info was updated.  I think it was similar in theory to RSS but almost nobody provided feeds for it and the interface was a little too wonky to use. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    My memory is very vague and I'm too lazy to look it up
    I was bored, so Wikipedia to the rescue!



  • @Lingerance said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    My memory is very vague and I'm too lazy to look it up
    I was bored, so Wikipedia to the rescue!

    Ha ha, I got you to do all the hard work for me!  Channels was a neat feature in theory but I remember thinking "who the hell wants to subscribe to Disney?"  The screenshot doesn't do it justice, but the interface was sort of a half-desktop, half-browser thing.  Most "links" were single-click but it had all kinds of weirdness that made it awkward to use. 



  • @AbbydonKrafts said:

    Rackspace is bad? Seems like most I know like them for dedicated hosting.

    No. Rackspace's dedicated hosting is good, and their support is awesome all around. Probably some of the best support I've seen from a large company before. However, their managed exchange service will have you calling support multiple times a week... so the good service doesn't really make it any more pleasant.  

    I was a sys admin at my previous company, and management/etc would never listen to requests to move our exchange service in-house... even despite throwing more money out the window paying for service from rackspace than investing in another server to put in our existing data center, and (most importantly) despite the constant problems. So, every couple days, another issue would pop up. 

    The most memorable had to be the unexpected password changes which seemed to occur every 2-3 weeks. I'd be doing work, when suddenly I'd get this flood of emails from around 10% of our staff (mostly sales guys) that "outlook was broken".  Sure enough, every time, as soon as I changed their password, they'd be able to connect again. It happened to different people every time, which is probably the only reason I couldn't conclude that all the dense sales guys hadn't gotten together and decided to change and then promptly forget their passwords. 

    In a close second were the unannounced maintenance periods. Those were always a blast. Our sales team can't do work from 3-5? Oh, don't worry, it's just maintenance rackspace had planned for a week but didn't bother to tell us about. 

    Then, there was the time some idiot drove his truck into their data center, screwing up a major portion of their AC system. So, their solution was to forcibly shutdown all the servers belonging to their low-end clients (without warning, I might add), and keep them down for close to 2 days until they could do necessary repairs. Of course, that hit our dedicated hosting service as well, shutting down our entire production system too, but that was one of the only issues we ever had with their dedicated hosting service, so whatever. 

    That's just my experience, I guess, but I've heard similar things from others as well...

    Best of Luck,
       -Jess



  • Even though it's long, this story is hillarious.  Before reaching the end though, I feel compelled to reply....

    1) Open firefox (or any browser that supports tabs)
    2) Go to 1and1's webmail
    3) Login, and click on "Inbox"
    4) Right click on one email and select "open in new tab"
    [b]5) Quickly, before the first email loads[/b], left click on a different
    email

     If anybody does actually bother to test it, they'll do so against a test box running on their LAN and will never be able to reproduce the delay.  Ooooh, I hope that's where the story is heading.



  • @Lingerance said:

    With Windows 98 I distinctly recall Active Desktop being enabled whenever I set a non-BMP wallpaper, I also recall some people in the Starcraft modding community creating a really tidy HTML page with embedded Google search (comes up in a new IE window), underneath it had four columns of their favorite sites there was like 70+ links, it look really classy especially with the desktop icons removed. I was actually slightly disappointed to see it dropped in XP (I went from 98SE to XP).
    You can still do it in XP, just set an HTML file as the wallpaper. However when you do, all the icon labels get a solid-coloured background, which is really ugly.



  • @lolwtf said:

    @Lingerance said:
    With Windows 98 I distinctly recall Active Desktop being enabled whenever I set a non-BMP wallpaper, I also recall some people in the Starcraft modding community creating a really tidy HTML page with embedded Google search (comes up in a new IE window), underneath it had four columns of their favorite sites there was like 70+ links, it look really classy especially with the desktop icons removed. I was actually slightly disappointed to see it dropped in XP (I went from 98SE to XP).
    You can still do it in XP, just set an HTML file as the wallpaper. However when you do, all the icon labels get a solid-coloured background, which is really ugly.
    You could use an HTML table with links to local directories, which would open in explorer normally. Alternaltively, Win2K allowed you to define customised HTML folder views, and there was a tag with a name like FolderItemListIcons or some such, and this could be included in a div or iFrame. I have no idea if these work in XP though.



  • @lolwtf said:

    You can still do it in XP, just set an HTML file as the wallpaper. However when you do, all the icon labels get a solid-coloured background, which is really ugly.
    Time to try it out in Server 2003 (only thing I have licenses left for). Probably wouldn't be that bad if the background of the HTML file matched the background color explorer was told about.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    You are probably right then.  I know it was something like this, but it always seemed like an unintentional bug to me.  Like, you'd set something in a particular way and active desktop would just be enabled without warning. 
     

    Actually, MPS is wrong, and you and Lingerance are right.

    If you were using one of the standard Windows .bmp files for your desktop and decided to change it, and selected a .jpg (even one that shipped with Windows), you were shown a dialog that said "Setting this image as the desktop background requires activating Active Desktop. Do you want to activate it?"

    I distinctly remember this, because I made the mistake of OK'ing it once. It not only displayed the .jpg that I selected, but made all of the desktop shortcuts activate on a single click instead of the standard double click. For a couple of days, I'd run something from a shortcut and end up with two copies of it running because of the habitual double click. :-) I turned off Active Desktop and went back to a .bmp background as a result.



  • @KenW said:

    Actually, MPS is wrong, and you and Lingerance are right.
     

    Yeah, I guess this is sounding vaguely familiar. It has been too long (and that is a good thing) to remember.

    Since I am too lazy to verify with a VM, I concede defeat. I stand corrected.



  • @AbbydonKrafts said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    Can you give us the tl;dr?

    1. Webmail screws up when opening second e-mail in new tab immediately after opening first e-mail in original tab.
    2. Support cannot comprehend problem. Blames contact settings.
    3. Each reply to support results in a reply from a new person with a foreign-sounding name.
    4. Support ignores screenshots, technical details, the fact that OS is Linux -- insists on using Windows applications.
    5. After hammering them with more descriptions and a load of screenshots, they admit fault with open-ended resolution time.

     

     

    If not for (5), this would be representative of every tech support conversation ever. There's nothing hugely special about this story, though it's amusing if you like generic tech-support horror stories (and I do). I'm just really surprised it ended up with any kind of happy ending, even an open-ended one. Come on, you think the email tech flunkies know what 'AJAX', a 'web browser', or an 'operating system' is? My ISP techs tell me to clear my browser cookies to fix my 80% packet loss. This is because they can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground.

     

    </jaded> 



  • @Nether said:

    Come on, you think the email tech flunkies know what 'AJAX', a 'web browser', or an 'operating system' is?
    I ended up talking to Telus' (my ISP not by choice) Teir 2 tech support (mostly because Tier 1 was stoned out of his mind) asked him if having my own DHCP server would mess with the Telus TV boxes he said it would not affect anything. Turns out yes a DHCP server will fuck the Telus TV boxen up because the router they gave us has a hidden feature as it acts as a DHCP relay agent for some kind of 10.x.x.x network which the TV boxes use. Also it appears Arch Linux will send enough DHCP response messages through a firewalled interface to confuse them (it also responds to ARPs from any interface about any IP an interface has, eg: if it receives and ARP for it's eth1 interface it will respond out eth0 if it came from that way).


    Note: I didn't call my Dad did when I was in the middle of trying to debug the issue.



  • @Nether said:

    If not for (5), this would be representative of every tech support conversation ever.

    It also applies to support in general if it's been outsourced. I needed to add a brand-new car to my State Farm insurance policy on the weekend so I could drive the car off the lot. The damn guy on the other end couldn't understand what it was I wanted to do! I told him to forget it and I called Geico. Not only was it an American, but he lived in the same state as me. He was able to quickly create a policy for me and fax a proof-of-insurance copy to the dealership.



    I dropped State Farm. If I call an insurance company on the weekend, I fully expect the person who answers to understand all aspects of said insurance! I'd hate to know what happens when someone actually has an accident on the weekend and needs their help.



  • @Lingerance said:

    (it also responds to ARPs from any interface about any IP an interface has, eg: if it receives and ARP for it's eth1 interface it will respond out eth0 if it came from that way).

    Wat?  I'm trying to decipher what you mean here..  you're saying it responds to ARPs for an IP that isn't bound to the interface the ARP came in on?  That would be fucked up, but why do you have another machine ARPing for an IP not even on its network?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Wat?  I'm trying to decipher what you mean here..  you're saying it responds to ARPs for an IP that isn't bound to the interface the ARP came in on?  That would be fucked up, but why do you have another machine ARPing for an IP not even on its network?
    That is correct. I was testing it out because I have two dual-homed machines that seemed to not care how they were connected (setup is both connect to the same 100mbps switch and have a 1gbps cross-over), I can switch the ports on one machine and it still works, I just have a hard-time telling where the packets go through. I'm not sure if it is the way Arch is setup or how the kernel is built but it's a minor security concern. I need to do some more testing.



  • @Lingerance said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    Wat?  I'm trying to decipher what you mean here..  you're saying it responds to ARPs for an IP that isn't bound to the interface the ARP came in on?  That would be fucked up, but why do you have another machine ARPing for an IP not even on its network?
    That is correct. I was testing it out because I have two dual-homed machines that seemed to not care how they were connected (setup is both connect to the same 100mbps switch and have a 1gbps cross-over), I can switch the ports on one machine and it still works, I just have a hard-time telling where the packets go through. I'm not sure if it is the way Arch is setup or how the kernel is built but it's a minor security concern. I need to do some more testing.

    So let me run through this step-by-step:

    1) physically swap the cross-over and switch cables on one machine

    2) non-swapped machine ARPs over the cross-over connection requesting IP for interface that is now on the switch

    3) swapped machine replies with MAC of interface that is on the switch

     

    And you're sure that both machines have cleared ARP caches?  Also, do the connections still work?  For example, does the non-swapped machine route packets for the IP bound to the cross-over interface through the interface plugged into the switch?  That would be super screwy. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    And you're sure that both machines have cleared ARP caches?  Also, do the connections still work?  For example, does the non-swapped machine route packets for the IP bound to the cross-over interface through the interface plugged into the switch?  That would be super screwy.
    The first time I plugged them together I actually had it so the IPs were swapped on the machine with only on gigabit card, although I will try tests with cleared caches. But yes the step-by-step is on par.



  • @Lingerance said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    And you're sure that both machines have cleared ARP caches?  Also, do the connections still work?  For example, does the non-swapped machine route packets for the IP bound to the cross-over interface through the interface plugged into the switch?  That would be super screwy.
    The first time I plugged them together I actually had it so the IPs were swapped on the machine with only on gigabit card, although I will try tests with cleared caches. But yes the step-by-step is on par.
    Hmm... Sounds like [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_ARP]Proxy ARP[/url] to me... (Disclaimer: I've never actually used/needed to use it, but have come across the concept several times, and it seems to correspond to what you're describing here...)



  • @random_garbage said:

    Hmm... Sounds like Proxy ARP to me... (Disclaimer: I've never actually used/needed to use it, but have come across the concept several times, and it seems to correspond to what you're describing here...)

    Doesn't sound like Proxy ARP to me.  If this is right, it's a bug with his kernel because a normal Linux machine should never return a MAC address for an IP that is not bound to the interface the ARP request came in on. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @random_garbage said:

    Hmm... Sounds like Proxy ARP to me... (Disclaimer: I've never actually used/needed to use it, but have come across the concept several times, and it seems to correspond to what you're describing here...)

    Doesn't sound like Proxy ARP to me.  If this is right, it's a bug with his kernel because a normal Linux machine should never return a MAC address for an IP that is not bound to the interface the ARP request came in on

     

    Not true. 

    If it's what I think it is, this behaviour is actually by design.  For example, if you configure both ethernet interfaces for the same subnet, the kernel will respond to ARPs for either address on any given interface.  The rough idea is that IP addresses are associated with the machine, and not necessarily just the individual interfaces.

    This "feature" can be disabled by turning on arp filtering in the Linux kernel (use sysctl or /proc interface):

     http://www.davidgoode.net/linux/networking/ingress_filter.html#%20arp_filter

     

    The true intent of ARP filtering revolves around the behavior of Linux
    regarding how it treats bound P addresses. In short, Linux treats the sum of IP
    addresses bound to it's various interfaces as being owned by the Linux device as
    a whole, and not by a specific interface only.
    This means that in certain cases,
    ARP replies pertaining to a particular IP, will contain the MAC address of an
    interface to which the IP in question is not bound.  One common example
    where this behavior is seen is when two interfaces with IP's from the same
    subnet are plugged into the same hub. ARP requests for an IP bound to eth0, but
    received on eth1, will be answered with the MAC address of eth1 and not that of
    eth0.

    The arp_filter variable in controlled by:

    /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/{all | dev}/arp_filter

    It accepts a BOOLEAN value of either "0" meaning FALSE or disabled, or "1" meaning TRUE or enabled. To enable for a given interface, at least one of conf/all/arp_filter  or conf/dev/arp_filter must be TRUE. The default is FALSE.

     



  • @CodeSimian said:

    Not true. 

    If it's what I think it is, this behaviour is actually by design.  For example, if you configure both ethernet interfaces for the same subnet, the kernel will respond to ARPs for either address on any given interface.  The rough idea is that IP addresses are associated with the machine, and not necessarily just the individual interfaces.

    This "feature" can be disabled by turning on arp filtering in the Linux kernel (use sysctl or /proc interface):

     http://www.davidgoode.net/linux/networking/ingress_filter.html#%20arp_filter

    Um, that doesn't seem to be the same thing at all.  Lingerance had different physical networks with different network addresses, so an interface should not respond to an ARP with the MAC of another interface on a separate network. 


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.