🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4jmvcu$2mu@Nntp1.mcs.net> poleary@mcs.com (Peter O'Leary) writes:

   From: poleary@mcs.com (Peter O'Leary)
   Newsgroups: mcs.support,chi.internet,mcs.general
   Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 22:02:12 GMT
   Organization: MCSNet Internet Services
   Path: rtd.com!news.goodnet.com!news1.agis.net!agis!news.walltech.com!news.aimnet.com!ns2.mainstreet.net!bug.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!in-news.erinet.com!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!usenet
   Lines: 127
   NNTP-Posting-Host: poleary.pr.mcs.net
   X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

   Why won't MCS give some kind of answer to the tickets I have opened
   recently (3/20 and 3/25) ?  The problem with your machines not
   accepting login/password pair persists and I have opened another
   ticket today with Mike.  BTW he suggested changing the order of the
   DNS servers in my Chameleon setup as a fix (hmm?)
   I have asked to be called back on all three tickets, yet I have not
   been called back.
   This problem is random and chronic, things seem to have been fine for
   the last six days with a 90 percent plus connection rate, now today
   it's under 50 percent.  I have provided times and lines for all three
   tickets.






   What follows is a copy of original post:
   ________________________________________________________
   xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

   poleary@mcs.com on 03/25/95 wrote:

   Just what is an open issue?  The same as an open ticket? There should
   be an open ticket on this issue as well as with RNAs and dead modems
   on Unified opened by me last Wednesday night.  Opened (with Adelia),
   yet still waiting for an email or phone call back on the resolution of
   these issues.


   Karl wrote today,
   >There are no open issues with passwords on Unified or anywhere else.
   >
   >If you have a specific issue, get the techs the line number, server number,
   >and the exact date and time.  We can look at the logs given that
   >information.  It is displayed when you connect.
   >
   >--
   >--
   >Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)

   The following is a log of my last four connection attempts made 0n
   03/25/95 between 22:53 and 22:55....


   ATQ0V1E0ATQ0V1E0
   OK
   ATS0=0
   OK
   ATDT598-2207
   CONNECT 14400/REL-LAPM-COMP
   MCSNet Services Chicago #1
   Connected to V3.08x31-exp from Chi/Unified-8 at line25

   Type "mcs" for MCSNet Shell Services
   Type "ccs" for the Chicago Computer Society BBS

   Chi/Unified-8 login:poleary
   +++ATH
   OK
   [note: hung here and timed out after 45 seconds]

   ATQ0V1E0
   OK
   ATS0=0
   OK
   ATDT598-2207
   CONNECT 14400/REL-LAPM-COMP
   MCSNet Services Chicago #1
   Connected to V3.08x31-exp from Chi/Unified-10 at line17

   Type "mcs" for MCSNet Shell Services
   Type "ccs" for the Chicago Computer Society BBS

   Chi/Unified-10 login:poleary
   [note: hung here and timed out after 45 seconds]

   ATQ0V1E0
   OK
   ATS0=0
   OK
   ATDT598-2207
   NO CARRIER
   [note: modem at MCS picked up - no negotiation tones]

   ATQ0V1E0
   OK
   ATS0=0
   OK
   ATDT598-2207
   CONNECT 14400/REL-LAPM-COMP
   MCSNet Services Chicago #1
   Connected to V3.08x31-exp from Chi/Unified-9 at line15

   Type "mcs" for MCSNet Shell Services
   Type "ccs" for the Chicago Computer Society BBS

   Chi/Unified-9 login:poleary
   poleary
   Password:********
   [note: successful connection]


   This represents a near-quadrupling of my Ameritech bill thanks to MCS.

   Just for the record, I'm calling tech support to open a ticket on
   this... done. Ticket opened with Adelia tonight.

   The problem indicated by the following log is a fair representation of
   the problems I have been experiencing from MCS for the last three
   weeks (save for countless RNAs at both Lakeview and Loop).

   I feel that Karl's defacto trivialization and dismissal of these
   problems is certainly not welcome by me.

   As I have stated before, I do not think this is a reasonable level of
   service, however, I do feel it would be reasonable for MCS to provide
   some refund or credit toward service in consideration for the loss of
   service, inconvenience, and incidental expenses.

   As an aside, I have a request from anyone wishing to respond.  It is:
   does anyone find this article abusive?
   --
   Peter J. O'Leary