Re: [cpx] not intuitive, at all. (cpx)

["Mark A. Sharkey" <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

Scott Wiersdorf wrote:
> Mark, if you are reading this, I'd appreciate some help understanding
> where CPX is lacking for James's sake (or helping James understand how
> CPX works). I didn't hope for CPX to be all things to all people, but
> we thought we'd done a pretty good job for most people's needs.

I'll do my best to act as intrepreter.  James/Scott, correct me wherever 
I assume something that one of you did not intend. ;-)  First, a little 
background:

I've been involved with CPX since the early design phase (offering 
opinions and helping test).  It was my hope that the first release of 
cpx would have *at a minimum* the same functionality of imanager and 
imanagerpro.  Because, until it catches up with iManagerPro, it is quite 
frankly a downgrade for *my* type of clients.

When it became obvious that it would not meet that goal of being 
imanagerpro-ish, I was still supportive of launching it as a 'phase 
one'.  My reasoning was that Verio needs to hear the suggestions from 
all of us resellers as a whole.  It will be better for the developers to 
hear this now, in the early stages, then to have put out a product they 
felt was finished, and in reality it was severely lacking in 
functionality.

CPX is a work in progress, and this is merely the first release.  My 
hope is that CPX updates and enhancements come fast and furiously from 
this point, based on the suggestions and needs of the resellers.



> > 1. assigned usernames.  (like imanpro)
>
>
> What does this mean? Is it like adding a prefix to the username (e.g.,
> jgc_useranme)? We've had a request for this functionality as an
> enhancement already. Am I guessing right?

Yes, a user prefix (or even an incremental suffix).  It is a big 
timesaver for resellers that are doing virtual sub hosting, to not have 
to explain why the user 'webmaster' is already taken to each domain 
admin that wants it.  With iManagerPro, I give the server admin the 
ability to set a login prefix for each domain admin.  When the domain 
admin goes to create a user, the login prefix is prepended to whatever 
they use (giving you jgc_username type users).

I also allow the server admin to assign a userid that increments by one 
for each new user a domain admin creates - and not allow the domain 
admin to pick a userid.  So, if I use 'jgc' as the login prefix for a 
domain admin, then each new user that the domain admin creates will 
automatically have the userid assigned for them as jgc1, jgc2, jgc3.

Finally, we also have the option just like CPX, where the domain admin 
can create any userid they like, so long as it is not already being used.


> > 2. one step email administration.  (like imanpro)
>
>
> Not sure about this either; you know that when you add a user, a
> default email address is setup that you can edit right there in the
> user setup screen? You can then add additional email addresses in the
> mail management section.

The complaint here is two fold.

The first problem, is that our 'basic' domain admin type of person is 
familiar with terms like "mail forwards" and "POP3 accounts".  In 
iManagerPro, the domain admin would see a link to 'maintain email 
account'.  From there, they see two different areas.  One for 
maintaining POP3 users and one for maintaining Forwards.  So, this part 
is mostly a learning curve with CPX.  With CPX, domain admins have to 
understand that in order to create a POP account, they need to add a 
user.  In order to create a mail forward, they need to work in the 
"Email Addresses" section.  Not that big of a change, IMO.

The second problem that James is talking about, is that it is currently 
a 3 step process to create a user in CPX; whereas with iManagerPro it is 
two (fill out the fields, submit, confirm).  You could easily do the 
same in CPX.

> > 3. abitlity to "limit" the email accounts to be "lower" than main ftp 
> > quota. Umm.. if I give someone 200 megs of ftp space and they add a bunch 
> > of email accounts, well, duh, each of their email accounts "can be" 200 
> > megs. That's, umm.. for lack of a better word, "stupid".
>
>
> Sorry I'm not "getting it" (I'm not an imanpro pro). In VPS v2, each
> user has a quota assigned to them. If they use their disk space for
> files (via ftp, etc) or email, we don't care. There isn't any way to
> divorce the two (unlike on VPS 1) unless you setup a separate user
> (i.e., one user for mail only and another for ftp). What am I missing
> here?
>
> A domain admin may not over-allocate past their own quota: if I'm a
> DA with 200MB quota, I can create 10 users with 20MB quotas each
> (leaving nothing for myself--my quota is shrunk with each user I add
> under me). Is this what you mean?

James, you'll have to give this one another stab.  I'm with Scott.  I'm 
not quite following you here.  I really like how CPX does not allow a 
domain admin to over allocate past their resources.  This is a big 
enhancement from iManagerPro IMO.

> > 4. password protection.  (like imanpro)
>
>
> I'm assuming you mean something like Apache's Basic Authentication to
> password protect a web directory. Right? This is also a scheduled
> enhancement.

Yes, I put a htaccess authentication manager into iManagerPro.  Any 
client that has FTP permissions, is able to password protect their 
directories using Apache Basic Authentication.  They use the file 
manager to traverse to the directory of choice, and then they are 
presented with the htaccess screen (add/modify/delete users).

> > Ultimately, I just need a way for users to maintain their own email 
> > accounts.
>
>
> This functionality is (for the CPX paradigm) the responsibility of the
> domain administrator (the person who owns the domain and creates
> users under a particular domain, etc.)
>
> The end users *can* control their primary mailbox and what happens to
> it (e.g., mail is forwarded to another place, or an autoresponder is
> setup, etc.). End users cannot create more mail aliases for themselves
> (only the DA can do that) for now. What else do you mean by "maintain
> their own email accounts"?

I think that CPX is structured correctly here.

> > All that other flashy stuff is really just flash.  I need users 
> > to be able to 'easily' add/remove/edit their 'own' email accounts.
>
>
> I'm guessing you mean email addresses (we use the term 'account' to
> mean a username/login pair--having a user delete himself would be bad,
> imo). Do other people want this functionality also?

I think that CPX is structured correctly here.

> We've extended the ability to add/remove/edit email addresses from the
> server administrator to the domain administrator--are you requesting
> that it go one step further to the end user also?
>
>
> > Ideally, just a simple username/password, puts them right into the screen 
> > to manage their mail accounts. That's it.
>
>
> We also have an enhancement request to change the default landing page
> (the page you see after logging in) so that users can go right to
> webmail after logging in.

That will be helpful, Scott.

> > And Mark, I know your reading this.. if only imanpro would allow for 
> > administering multiple domains, it would be a slam dunk!  Please don't 
> > throw imanpro away!  Too many of us are using it without problems.

I'm releasing a new iManagerPro today.  And yes, it does have the 
ability for domain admin to administer multiple domains!

Mark

--
vps1 -> vps2 migrations for only $229.00!

Mark A. Sharkey
PrecisionPros.com Network
6543 East Omega Street
Mesa, Arizona 85215
800 844 4434 toll free
480 461 9765 local
480 461 9312 fax
======================================================================
This is <cpx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>      <http://www.groupmail.org/lists/cpx/>
Before posting a question, please search the archives (see above URL).