Re: Vendor Participation on List and Proper Identification

[Theresa M Rowe <rowe () OAKLAND EDU>]

I have been contacted by vendors based on posts to the
lists.  Vendors need to think before trying to contact based
on list posts.

Our university has a no solicitation policy, so I do not
respond (responding would be viewed as a policy violation).
It would be nice if vendors would check such things before
soliciting; I wouldn't have to delete 40 or so email and
phone messages without responding.

I also don't care for the attitude left on my phone and
email when I do not respond.  If a vendor does not get a
response from the first contact, a vendor should not try a
second contact.  Leaving a message with that "You weren't
even polite enough to return my call" is not a way to make a
sale - even if you could.

My voicemail says to contact our purchasing department and
that I do not return unsolicited vendor calls.  Can you
imagine that vendors STILL leave messages?  They even will
say "I say your post, so I can't believe your message
applies to me."  I still do not return their calls.

Bottom line - posting to the list should not be construed to
mean that I am open to vendor contact, that I am interested
in the vendor product, that university policy supports such
a contact, or that I have funding for a solution.

Theresa Rowe


---- Original message ----
> Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:52:57 -0400
> From: "Dennis Meharchand, CEO Valt.x" <dennis () VALTX COM>
> Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Vendor Participation on List and
Proper Identification
> To: SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU
>
> I am a vendor. Most every vendor understands the #1 rule of
the forum -
> do not try to sell on the forum itself. The question is
whether
> targeting a prospective sale by knowing of the need via the
forum is
> acceptable or not. This is up to the members to decide and
then modify
> the policy if necessary. Our company needs to know what the
problems are
> so that we can go out and make the stuff to solve the
problems. Not
> having access to the forum would be a significant drawback
to our
> product development process.  P.S. The person that started
the barracuda
> spam discussion should get an award.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Bossie [mailto:tbossie () CITADEL COM]
> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 8:53 AM
> To: SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU
> Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Vendor Participation on List and
Proper
> Identification
>
> Let's face it; given the human factor you're always going
to have those
> that
> honor the rules and those that take advantage of the
situation.
> To be honest, this list-serv feels a little invasive in
general. To
> anomalously listen to the various issues and problems,
ignoring our
> nature
> to sell, is a daily temptation. And given the general
business
> environment
> these days there is a strong tendency to exploit the
available venues in
> competing for the available funds!(revenue) Like the song
says: sales is
> a
> "sorry substitution for a spiritual life".
>
> I can appreciate the need to have a private (education
only) forum, for
> all
> the obvious reasons. It sounds like these forums already
exist from a
> previous posting. Your (Edu) comments are valuable to us
(Vendor).
> Maybe
> Educause could publish the contents of the discussion
strings sans the
> individual identities on a daily basis and allow a separate
facility for
> response by vendors. Then you could decide to call the
vendor directly
> at
> your discretion.
>
> Or create a vendor list-serv where your members could ask
questions to
> the
> vendor community when and if they wish, using some sort of
common alias
> to
> avoid the marketing backlash. I'm sure there is way to make
it work,
> that's
> why we go to school!
>
> Tom Bossie
> Citadel Security Software
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Koontz [mailto:dkoontz () MBC EDU]
> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 6:29 PM
> To: SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU
> Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Vendor Participation on List and
Proper
> Identification
>
> IMO this issue seems to be a little broader that than just
a simple
> "List-Serve" issue.
>
> Shortly after I responded to an email on this list
regarding our various
> problems with Cisco's Acquitition of Perfigo, I have been
swamped with
> calls
> from various vendors. Since I did not post my direct phone
number in my
> posting, these calls have all came through our main campus
phone line,
> asking for me.  As this is the only forum in which I've
mentioned
> anything
> about this issue, it's pretty clear where these vendors got
my contact
> information.
>
> While I agree that vendor input on issues and questions can
be very
> valuable
> here, this list should not be used as a sales /
marketing "Hit List".
> Jamie
> @ CBSI  did the correct thing, Identified himself as a
Vendor, attempted
> to
> answer our questions.  It seems that there are many other
vendors out
> there
> that are using this list soley as a marketing / sales lead
tool.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Information Security [mailto:infosecurity () UTPA EDU]
> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 9:26 AM
> To: SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU
> Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Vendor Participation on List and
Proper
> Identification
>
> Parker, Ron wrote:
>
> > Before we all bounce down this road about vendors on the
list, remember
> > that EDUCAUSE's policies do allow it. I think it can be
valuable in
> > many cases.
>
> Seconded.  Let's save that argument until the day someone
abuses the
> list.
> Jamie Stapleton's posts are generally helpful and worth
reading, and
> it's
> clear from his email address he is a vendor.  Not a problem
to me.
> Let's
> return to the discussion of spam appliances...  I'm
surprised no-one has
> mentioned Brightmail yet - that's usually the one I hear
when a company
> is
> programming-phobic and wants a managed solution.  As far as
I understand
> it,
> their approach is primarily spamtrap-based and they mark
only mails that
> they've seen elsewhere in spamtraps.  They have a good
reputation but I
> worry that betting the farm on one technique is a long-term
risk, as
> polymorphic and customised spams become more prevalent.
>
> I've already started receiving spams where some of
the 'whitening' text
> was
> taken from my own web site, in order to get past my
Bayesian filters.
> That's
> pretty sophisticated, and I have to wonder why the spammers
bother,
> because
> if someone goes to the effort of installing a spam filter
you might
> imagine
> that they'd never respond to spam even if it did slip
through.
> Graham
Theresa Rowe
Assistant Vice President
University Technology Services
www.oakland.edu/uts - the latest news from University Technology Services