cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
1,079 Views
Message 41 of 61

Re: New webmail release 2.20.2

Nope. You would never persuade me to use a web browser to deal with email, its not natural.

As I am wont to say, it is akin to eating soup with a fork. 😀

1,013 Views
Message 42 of 61

Re: New webmail release 2.20.2

Another improvement!! I now appear to be on v 2.22.1, and the issue of replying to an email, and hitting the 'carriage return' now actually accepts an input from the keyboard rather than just a blank screen! Onward & upwards guys... 😀

926 Views
Message 43 of 61

Re: New webmail release 2.20.2

@SeanD Is there any news on updates for webmail, as there hasn't been any further news since the start of the year?

0 Ratings
Reply
814 Views
Message 44 of 61

Re: New webmail release 2.20.2


@Stephen5000wrote:

Another improvement!! I now appear to be on v 2.22.1, and the issue of replying to an email, and hitting the 'carriage return' now actually accepts an input from the keyboard rather than just a blank screen! Onward & upwards guys... 😀


v 2.22.1 ???   Is that a Beta?  I'm still showing 2.20.2

0 Ratings
Reply
631 Views
Message 45 of 61

Re: New webmail release 2.20.2

It's been 1 and a half years now (pre pandemic!) since the 'new' BT webmail launch, and there is still one really annoying failure.

When a new email arrives in a sub folder, the sub folder registers there are unread messages in it, but, when you open the sub folder, they aren't there, unless, you refresh the folder and they magically appear.

Is Santa delegating this to an Elf to sort out before the new year??

0 Ratings
Reply
622 Views
Message 46 of 61

Re: New webmail release 2.20.2

I wish they'd sort it out so when one deletes an email, the next email is viewed, just like it was before this rolling mess was introduced.

Efficient & user friendly it's assuredly not.

0 Ratings
Reply
595 Views
Message 47 of 61

Re: New webmail release 2.20.2

Well I seem to have V.2.22.1 now and I can't say it's great, or even any better.  Forward a few messages and it stops marking them as forwarded. Replying can be the same. Sometimes a refresh helps, sometimes not. Then check a message check box, go to the next and the first unchecks itself. The sometimes it can't make it's mind up if you want to check a message or open it. Then sometimes you act on the screen view of the message list and the system believes you are acting on an adjacent one. Really it's just all a bit hopeless but one struggles on with it. Some here have suggested not to use it at all but I need to keep copies because POP3 download no longer saves downloaded messages in trash (as BTYahoo did), but deletes them entirely (so no back-up to be able to refer back to if needed) and I say what's the point of having an ISP facility which was sold as having it (webmail) if you can't use it? If I'm not at base I can't use POP3 download and it wouldn't make any difference to the webmail oddities if I was using EMAP anyway.

It was brave for BT to migrate users to this and attempt to build their own webmail but brave is about all one can say. Otherwise it's a bit of a flop, regrettably. Shame. Maybe they should have licenced something as I am caused to wonder if the economics of this make sense. But maybe that's the route cause...

 

Oh, and why am I forwarding messages? Well, I'm reporting the vast amount of phishing spam that gets through to one or two of the inboxes in the forlorn hope that one day it might decrease.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

580 Views
Message 48 of 61

Re: New webmail release 2.20.2

@Stephen5000....just the ONE FAILURE that's really annoying?  What about:

  • The 'unexpected error' - which I've seen several times every day for more than a year and which NO-ONE could POSSIBLY now say is 'unexpected'?
  • The blacklisting function which permits 500 addresses to be blocked, but which offers zero management functions (such as sorting and searching) with which to manage this list?
  • the programming error (or maybe specification failure) that prevents '*' being used in a subdomain (to for instance block *@*.onmicrosoft.com)?
  • the multiple bugs in the rules software which: cause display errors after setting or modifying rules; or which make rules using 'ends with' not work? These examples are non-exhaustive.
  • the functional deficiencies of the rules software, which omit the 'apply rules now' function that is vital to help debug a rule, and which is made the more necessary to have by the other failings above?
  • The hidden characters which screw up formatting and give unpredictable results when editing formatted text while composing messages?
  • The 'select all' tickbox for messages, which selects an arbitrary maximum of 50 messages.  What use is this when managing folders with hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of messages?
  • The character matching software used when finding email addresses in the address-book, which offers incorrect character matches?
  • And most damning of all, the complete absence (after more than a year of problems with this no-longer-new webmail interface) of an EFFECTIVE channel of communications between technically knowledgeable users able and motivated to characterise and report problems such as these, and the development team which in a competent software house would be working to fix them?  Instead we have this forum, whose limited use is proof of its ineffectiveness, and moderators who, having no proper answers, are obliged to keep their heads below the parapet.

This, as my plain-speaking Yorkshire father would have said - is no way to run a ruddy chip shop!

What I have written above is evidence of failures in:  1) coding/programming; 2) analysis/functional specification; 3) management.

1) is inevitable in all software projects, but is readily solved with good management and testing.  2) is more problematic, but is also soluble with good management.  3) is fatally damaging, in every case.

I asked, when this rubbish software first appeared, whether BT was merely ticking a box by producing it - to be able to say it offered a webmail function, or whether instead BT aspired to develop it to be among the market leaders.  I was told it was the latter, but events have proven this not to be the case.

If BT wished to remedy the mess we now find ourselves in, 3 things would be needed.  It would establish:

  • a (self-selecting) user group of those willing to provide constructive UX reports,
  • a development team sized and managed to respond to these, and
  • an open communication channel between the two.

For this to happen, recognition of the problem needs to occur several pay grades above the moderators who might see this message.  So I ask....no I BESEECH....the mods to take this message and the thread it is connected to, to their senior management. And I cross my fingers in hope.

576 Views
Message 49 of 61

Re: New webmail release 2.20.2

@Thersites

Darn fine post! You missed one though which I encounter frequently, if an exchange of emails gets too big to one recipient, you get the following error. (Overcome by starting a new email, but then you lose the chain of communication!)

too big an email.jpg 

554 Views
Message 50 of 61

Re: New webmail release 2.20.2

I too soldier on with it and the changes do seem to reveal new issues that indicate the s/w people are just fire fighting sections rather than understanding the real issues.

You seem to have hit quite a large nail on the head and if it were me and i was that bothered anymore i'd have poked this at the CEO level and rattled their cage if you title it and its a weekend you may even be lucky and they might read it!. It will be passed to the same people here if things haven't changed I think but they will give it way more importance i feel and may have to have to report it back if you word it accordingly. 

I have considered moving to a better platform, BTyahoo in my opinion had its flaws but it was way better than this crock of **** has been over the last 2 years or so.

Good luck with getting this sorted sadly in my case having so much stuff pointing at my BT email i have had for more than 20 years or so. I was an employee until retirement in 2007 and had my email way before that - sadly i lost my internal email account when leaving means that to change would be so much work and to be honest i just ignore most of the junk (I do try to find ways to stop it using the tools available but its annoying as one has to check the spam and processed out items to be sure one is not lost - a recent meat order came without my receiving name on it and it got processed out using my rule of must always have my email name in the TO: section to be for me - still not sure how they did that one but i guess there are loads of firms around creating emails that are not strictly correctly defined who knows.)

Good luck though