Another big "Mail > Addresses" change?


#1

Today my “Mail > Addresses” shows not the addresses for just the active domain, but one big list of all the addresses in the account, with domains intermingled. Did I select some preference option by mistake?

Or is this now the only display available? Which will be a real PITA. It claims to show “All email addresses, showing mailboxes first then addresses by domain.” (does Class “email address” really now include “mailbox” and “address”? I thought this confusion was one the previous change was designed to eliminate ) but doesn’t - it shows

mailbox/less/ addresses
mailboxed addresses
a rule
more mailbox/less/ addresses
more mailboxed addresses

within each of which the addresses are in apparently random order.


#2

Yeah, they are certainly working on something as we speak, and I’m quite sure that this will only be a temporary thingy. But I must agree that it doesn’t look good the way it is now. I have to use the “find” function of my browser to locate the e-mail addresses. Let’s hope things will eventually be settled in a way that we’re all happy with … just like so many other things here. :slight_smile:


DreamRegistrar.com - Register your own domain with DreamHost for just $14.95 now


#3

Thanks for the confirmation. Shame. And whatever happened to DH’s recently expressed sentiment:

We also really should have announced this well in advance of the change

Looking further at this new panel… what a mess. It shows a single website disk usage charged twice, to two separate addresses.

And it confusingly sorts by a field (mailbox) that can be null (a.k.a. FORWARDING ONLY, plus which whereas surely “none” is more correct). Since it is a list of addresses, it should be surely sorted by (the always non-null) address.

And ""Nothing besides " is just plain wrong, since “/Also/ forwads to:” doesn’t include . It should say just e.g. “none”.

Plus what’s with this distracting scattering of bold?

The other panels are good, so I do hope DH can put the designer of those on to sorting out this new one.


#4

They already said they goofed on this one, and that they will continue to work on it.

As far as everything else you noted, would you rather them just leave it alone? Or would you rather them change it? Pick one. You seem to be complaining that the current setup sucks, but don’t like that they’re changing it.


#5

No, they said they goofed on the last one, a week ago. This change is subsequent.

[quote]As far as everything else you noted, would you rather them just leave it alone? Or would you rather
them change it? Pick one.

[/quote]

Change it, after testing (even trialling - I’d be delighted to contribute) and announcing.

[quote]You seem to be complaining that the current setup sucks, but don’t like that they’re changing it.

[/quote]

I don’t like that DH changed the setup to one that sucks.

I do like the fact that DH are working to improve the setup. That’s part of what makes them one of the best providers IME.


#6

right, and they’re still working on the same deal…

my impression is, they know it needs to get fixed now so if they send it through a whole user testing process, it doesn’t help in the short term.

right, the new one took a little getting used to, and they’ve been working on cleaning it up. the fact is, the system has changed and they continue to work on it. For some reason to me, it seems like you’re upset with them attempting to fix the problem they created.


#7

[quote]my impression is, they know it needs to get fixed now

[/quote]

Fixed? My OP refers only to yesterday’s change in the Mail > Addresses panel, from one that showed addresses for the active domain, to one that shows all adresses for the current account in an apparent random order. I see no evidence that this was any “fix” let alone one “needed now”.

[quote]so if they send it through a whole user testing process, it doesn’t help in the short term.

[/quote]

Yet they have sent it through a “whole user testing process” - by putting it live. The material and undesirable difference being only that this has removed users’ access to the well-tested previous version.


#8

ahh, see, I looked at it last night and it wasn’t that way, and today I look at it and it is… I look at it as they continue to work on it, making minor improvements here and there rather than just waiting and release it as one big fix.

right, and the undesirable results you’ve mentioned are the effect of them trying to fix it.


#9

i agree that it will be a real PITA… i have about 30 domains in my account which equals TONS of addresses and I DO NOT want all the addresses as one big list. i want them separated by each domain. when a client calls me about their email i don’t want to have to search through tons of email address.


#10

It is a phenomenon that the email still works! I noticed yet another change to the mail menu, and I don’t even want to touch it, much less try to understand what in God’s name is happening! I won’t be adding or modifying anything yet, not until DH gets their act together.

The “mailboxes dilemma” should’ve been approached in a different way. A new email system should’ve been setup for new customers [new servers, new virtual servers, whatever], and once it was proven a success [in good working order], offer existing customers a chance to migrate to the new system IF THEY SO DESIRED! I can’t stress that enough! I have a feeling that for most of the people here this was an unwanted change. Something that DH thought would simplify the current email infrastructure had a totally opposite effect; it made email administration far more complex [for the current members].

The old system was, I have to admit, unique, but it worked very well, and it was organized well - a mailbox was an inbox for incoming email, and an email address pointed to that mailbox; simple as 1, 2 [not even a 3]. Mailbox had a global status, email addresses were domain specific. That was an email system to envy, NOT CHANGE!

Now, it seems, everything took on a system-wide status. Now a mailbox has to have an email associated with it, which in terms makes that email a primary email, and new email addresses will have to point to it, not the mailbox. The fact that it sounds fine in theory doesn’t necessarily reflect the actual outcome [as per my experience] of this experiment gone hay wired.

Conformity no more! Random email pointers now took on a ‘main’ mailbox status; email addresses which I kept for spam are now tied to the mailboxes. Some of the email addresses looked like they were fabricated out of thin air to accommodate the new email infrastructure (eg. mxxxxxxx@po.nygroup.org) – in this case a mailbox name was assigned to a pointer domain (virtual sub-domain), to make up a non-existent email address, which then took on a ‘master’ email status for 1 real email [which should’ve been assigned to the mailbox in the first place] and 1 forward, creating a totally illogical relation, and unnecessary hops.

It will take too much time for me to sort through that jumble anyway, so I’m just going to leave it as it is for the time being. If a need for another email/mailbox/relation arises, I’ll add it then. The challenge is not in mastering the new system, it’s cleaning up the mess after the migration, which was totally uncalled for and executed in a bad business manner [sorry for the harsh criticism]. I hope DH takes a note, because I prepaid for 2 years. :wink:

All sh*t aside, I haven’t had any complaints from my clients, so the system does work, even if it s a bit unorthodox. As long as it works, DH won’t hear a peep from me. I am a bit pissed off, though, but I’ll get over it. :slight_smile:


#11

[quote]I won’t be adding or modifying anything yet, not until DH gets their act together.

[/quote]

Nor I, until the docs are updated to cover the new panel.

[quote]Mailbox had a global status, email addresses were domain specific. That was an email system to envy,
NOT CHANGE!

[/quote]

For what it is worth I applaud DH for making that change. End-users were rightly unsympathetic to username: m736482 when seemingly every other provider supports username: johnsmith.

[quote]Conformity no more! … unnecessary hops.

[/quote]

Unnecessary and non-functional! Here any more than one hop fails!