The new MailWasher Pro FAQs

[stan_qaz]

The Firetrust marketing weasels love the bounce, we are lucky we got it depreciated as much as we did!

They are planning an enhanced reporting feature that will be a big improvement over what was in v6. They felt other features were more important than the reporting in the initial release so it didn't make the cut. What you see in 2010 is over two years of work!

I just let my old mw run along side the new and drop over there to report my spam. It works fairly well since the two versions are happy to run together.

[Hoov]

Thank you!

[OTtChris]

No, the intent is that the program will expire as we don't intend to block users from installing updates, not getting support etc...

We could on the flip side do this of course, but we felt the management of such things wasn't in the best interests.

Apologies for quoting from a slightly old post and if I am not in the most appropriate thread/topic; I just needed to quote from someone 'authoritative' on this particular issue.

I've been a Mailwasher Pro user since 2004. I had just dropped in on this forum to voice my opinion that MWP2010 is not up to production standard; it may look flashy but having run it for several weeks it *feels* beta (e.g. I seem to be spending a lot of time marking mail as Spam that it should have learn't was spam by now and a number of facilities from the previous version have yet to be implemented in the new version). However, I have been sidetracked by the discovery that this new version is time-limited if I understand the conversations in this thread correctly. Now, I'm not averse to paying subscriptions for services such as AV signature updates or paying for major upgrades but only when I am told up front about them. I don't see any mention of the new version being time-limited in the "What has changed in MailWasher Pro 2010?" section on the FireTrust web site. I have never used First Alert and was not aware that in paying for an upgrade to MWP2010 I was in reality buying a years subscription to First Alert with some time-limited software bundled in that would cease working after one year if I did not renew a subscription to a service I didn't want. If that is correct I will be demanding a refund, the money IMHO having been obtained by deception. I shall also be reinstalling the previous MWP version while a have a new look at other Spam Filtering products.

I note elsewhere on the Firetrust site the following statement: "We're still making sure the old MailWasher Pro 6.x will be available to users forever and we'll post updates and bug fixes for it. But given that MailWasher Pro 2010 isn't a simple update to MailWasher Pro, we are treating this as an entirely new product." Come on! It will be a significant upgrade when it is finished but it is NOT a new product. The irony is that for a normal major version upgrade I would have been more than willing to pay much more than the 6.86 GBP subscription/upgrade to the so-called new product.

[twl845]

Just a thought about getting a refund. The new MW 2010 has a 30 trial period, but everybody was so excited that the long awaited version finally came out that they immediately paid their $10 and registered the new MW. Why do you think there is such a thing as a trial period? Almost every app on the market has some sort of trial period so you can use it until you are satisfied the app is good to go. Now we see folks demanding a refund because they didn't check the Firetrust forum to find out they have a subscription based app. I realize we shouldn't have to resort to investigating the app to find this out, but that's the way it is I guess. If I had paid I would wait it out for the year I just paid for and see how MW2010 evolves. I have a feeling policy's will eventually change.

[OTtChris]

Just a thought about getting a refund. The new MW 2010 has a 30 trial period, but everybody was so excited that the long awaited version finally came out that they immediately paid their $10 and registered the new MW. Why do you think there is such a thing as a trial period? Almost every app on the market has some sort of trial period so you can use it until you are satisfied the app is good to go. Now we see folks demanding a refund because they didn't check the Firetrust forum to find out they have a subscription based app. I realize we shouldn't have to resort to investigating the app to find this out, but that's the way it is I guess. If I had paid I would wait it out for the year I just paid for and see how MW2010 evolves. I have a feeling policy's will eventually change.

I take your points about trial periods and waiting to see how it evolves. Maybe I was stupid to rely on the 'trust' part of Firetrust having been using MWPro for six years. I admit given the amount involved, requesting (not demanding) a refund is hardly worth the effort; I just feel irritated enough to do it. It wouldn't be so bad if in it's current state MWP2010 was an improvement over the previous version. It may have taken a long time in development but it feels like a beta released before its time.

[twl845]

Just a thought about getting a refund. The new MW 2010 has a 30 trial period, but everybody was so excited that the long awaited version finally came out that they immediately paid their $10 and registered the new MW. Why do you think there is such a thing as a trial period? Almost every app on the market has some sort of trial period so you can use it until you are satisfied the app is good to go. Now we see folks demanding a refund because they didn't check the Firetrust forum to find out they have a subscription based app. I realize we shouldn't have to resort to investigating the app to find this out, but that's the way it is I guess. If I had paid I would wait it out for the year I just paid for and see how MW2010 evolves. I have a feeling policy's will eventually change.

I take your points about trial periods and waiting to see how it evolves. Maybe I was stupid to rely on the 'trust' part of Firetrust having been using MWPro for six years. I admit given the amount involved, requesting (not demanding) a refund is hardly worth the effort; I just feel irritated enough to do it. It wouldn't be so bad if in it's current state MWP2010 was an improvement over the previous version. It may have taken a long time in development but it feels like a beta released before its time.

I guess all the old timers using MW for 6 to 9 years in my case trusted Firetrust a little too much. I think the sticking point is the $10 a year, not the $10 up front for existing "life time" members. But as I said, I think the overwhelming dissatisfaction will eventually make them do the math over again.

[Duck]

I guess all the old timers using MW for 6 to 9 years in my case trusted Firetrust a little too much. I think the sticking point is the $10 a year, not the $10 up front for existing "life time" members. But as I said, I think the overwhelming dissatisfaction will eventually make them do the math over again.

+1 (Well Said)!

[Elektra]

I hate to say it but I have to agree. I never used FirstAlert and don't want it. It may be good for private users but for businesses I see it as poison.
Being forced to pay for something you don't want is enough to put off many potential users. Add to that the negative word of mouth that comes from such a tactic and you have the perfect motive for Firetrust to rapidly rethink their marketing strategy.

When I understood that FirstAlert was obligatory in the new version, I instantly decided it was not for me. v6.54 is so good I really don't see any reason to change anyway. By their own admission, v6.54 has plenty more features than the new version and it doesn't have any bugs (at least that I'm aware of).

I would upgrade to the new version if:
1. it has at least the same level of functionality as the existing v6.54,
2. FirstAlert was optional as with v6.54, and
3. The upgrade cost was a one-time payment.

Nick, if you are reading this, over the years you have built a fantastic reputation and have a very large base of loyal customers. These people have anxiously awaited the launch of your new all-singing, all-dancing product. It was the opportunity to get everyone talking about the product again. The last thing you need now is to undo all the hard work you put into building your company and its product by upsetting your flock.

[Sidewinder]

I would upgrade to the new version if:
2. FirstAlert was optional as with v6.54,

FA is not mandatory. There is a user option to use or not use.

[Elektra]

FA is not mandatory. There is a user option to use or not use.

If that is the case, why is the $10 annual subscription mandatory, given that in previous posts here we have been informed that this sum is for FirstAlert?

[Sidewinder]

FA is not mandatory. There is a user option to use or not use.

If that is the case, why is the $10 annual subscription mandatory, given that in previous posts here we have been informed that this sum is for FirstAlert?

You pay less than $.03 US/Day to "use" the program to clean up "your" inbox and pay the company to keep it up to date and provide the support that is needed.

[Elektra]

You pay less than $.03 US/Day to "use" the program to clean up "your" inbox and pay the company to keep it up to date and provide the support that is needed.

There is no point in breaking it down to a daily cost. That's a rather old marketing technique used to diffuse the reality.
And what is "the reality"?

- Most of those who are employed find their salaries ever on the decrease. Those who are self-employed struggle harder than ever to survive (current figures from our local chamber of commerce show that 68% won't).
- The cost of living is continually on the increase, as are taxes, energy costs, etc.

So, while our incomes decrease and our costs increase beyond the scope of all imagination, everybody and his dog want to add just one other "little" monthly fee in a time when we, the consumers, desperately need to lower our outgoings.

There are other anti-spam technologies out there that are either 100% free or have only a one time purchase fee. I'm a loyal MW user since v2.0 and if my memory serves me well, that's 11 years ago. I am used to the way it works and find it preferable to most other solutions available. That's why I was happy to pay for the Pro version and am happy to stick with v6.54. If, as I said previously, the new version was at least up to the same standard, I would be happy to pay a one-time fee again because certainly the work involved needs to be paid for however, telling me that existing customers have to bear the brunt of Firetrust's inability to source new customers by paying an annual subscription, simply doesn't wash (and isn't that what Mailwasher was supposed to do?)

Being a marketing man, I can see what is wrong and guarantee this is down to a poor marketing strategy. New customers for products like this come from people talking enthusiastically. If the new version had been better than the old one, that would have been exactly what would have happened resulting in an onslaught of new customers dumping their previous anti-spam solution. Instead, it gets launched in an unfinished state and loyal MW advocates are asked to fork out $10 each to assist in beta testing so that eventually the product will be up to scratch. The mere fact that several people have voiced discontent should be a major red flag that something is wrong with the company's marketing strategy. Arguing that the customer is wrong will not make him join your side. On the contrary, in most cases it will turn him against Firetrust and lose his loyalty.

The REAL questions to be asking are:
1. what do our customers want?
2. how can we give it to them?
3. what needs to be done to attract new customers?
4. what do we need to do to insure our own survival without alienating our customers?

[Duck]

You pay less than $.03 US/Day to "use" the program to clean up "your" inbox and pay the company to keep it up to date and provide the support that is needed.

There is no point in breaking it down to a daily cost. That's a rather old marketing technique used to diffuse the reality.
And what is "the reality"?

- Most of those who are employed find their salaries ever on the decrease. Those who are self-employed struggle harder than ever to survive (current figures from our local chamber of commerce show that 68% won't).
- The cost of living is continually on the increase, as are taxes, energy costs, etc.

So, while our incomes decrease and our costs increase beyond the scope of all imagination, everybody and his dog want to add just one other "little" monthly fee in a time when we, the consumers, desperately need to lower our outgoings.

There are other anti-spam technologies out there that are either 100% free or have only a one time purchase fee. I'm a loyal MW user since v2.0 and if my memory serves me well, that's 11 years ago. I am used to the way it works and find it preferable to most other solutions available. That's why I was happy to pay for the Pro version and am happy to stick with v6.54. If, as I said previously, the new version was at least up to the same standard, I would be happy to pay a one-time fee again because certainly the work involved needs to be paid for however, telling me that existing customers have to bear the brunt of Firetrust's inability to source new customers by paying an annual subscription, simply doesn't wash (and isn't that what Mailwasher was supposed to do?)

Being a marketing man, I can see what is wrong and guarantee this is down to a poor marketing strategy. New customers for products like this come from people talking enthusiastically. If the new version had been better than the old one, that would have been exactly what would have happened resulting in an onslaught of new customers dumping their previous anti-spam solution. Instead, it gets launched in an unfinished state and loyal MW advocates are asked to fork out $10 each to assist in beta testing so that eventually the product will be up to scratch. The mere fact that several people have voiced discontent should be a major red flag that something is wrong with the company's marketing strategy. Arguing that the customer is wrong will not make him join your side. On the contrary, in most cases it will turn him against Firetrust and lose his loyalty.

The REAL questions to be asking are:
1. what do our customers want?
2. how can we give it to them?
3. what needs to be done to attract new customers?
4. what do we need to do to insure our own survival without alienating our customers?

I apologize for quoting the entire post but I have to say that this is the most eloquent post to date that bespeaks the issue that we have all been trying to put into words. If anyone was to read just one post about the feeling that is out here...this would be the one to read!

I still believe that Firetrust is a reasonable group and they are listening.

[rusticdog]

We're listening of course, but I think the conversation is going in circles. Not everyone will agree with what we've done but only time will tell. We're getting more than enough positive feedback to know we've at least found some kind of stable balance.

Other experts might have their own ideas, but frankly unless you've seen first hand everything and been in the environment, posting expertise advice is simply speculation based on assumption.

[Duck]

Other experts might have their own ideas, but frankly unless you've seen first hand everything and been in the environment, posting expertise advice is simply speculation based on assumption.

This is possibly very true RD, but from the layman's POV, it seems that most of the support is coming from those who have worked on the program and beta tested it. I favor the debates and POV's because it should give most of us a general census, but I will yield to your vantage point of seeing more than the rest of us. However, circular or not, that was a GREAT post by Electra that sums it up for the majority of those opposed.

Thanks again for listening I'm opting to give it a shot and if I don't like it, then I will not renew and I will default to the older MWP.

V/r,
Duck