Is it common for support to ghost you?

I have a ticket #945335, that has not have a response from support for almost 5 months now, even after I've shared extensively what I believe is not working correctly (even with videos) and even what kind of response I expect in there. Whole text of the ticket can be read here (note, that some links use, which may not be available anymore, so you will need to replace it with, if you are will want to follow them). In short, the issue is that you can't use dynamic paths for custom error pages (something that works in OLS and Apache).
So my question is: "Is this normal with Litespeed support?" I am not asking for a fix for the reported issue (which I do believe to be an issue), not even asking to agree with me, that it is, indeed, an issue. I am asking to acknowledge, that the evidence provided shows inconsistent behavior (since this is factual, it is not just my imagination), and add this to whatever backlog the devs have for consideration of a fix/adjustment in the future.
I do not believe I am asking for that much, but... 5 months of literal silence get me feeling as if I am treated as literal dirt, even though I did buy the license, and as such expect at least basic level of tech support as result. Am I the only one getting this level of quality of support or is this a common thing?


Well-Known Member
Sorry, but I don't understand your problem.

LiteSpeed Support has given you sufficient information, but with the consequence that what you want is not possible with LSWS. Your criticism of LiteSpeed Support can therefore not be justified by the fact that you no longer receive a reaction from LiteSpeed Support. The support services are exhausted. You must therefore look for alternative options, although I also ask myself the question: what do you need dynamic error pages for? Especially since it seems that you are trying to combine a 403 with a redirect. It does not work like that. Neither with Apache nor with LSWS! So take a moment and think about your concept.
I am not combining redirect with 403 (or any other error code for that matter). As per Apache's documentation for ErrorDocument you can use dynamic pages. It literally says so on the manual page:
And then in the example they use"/cgi-bin/crash-recover" for 500 error on the 2nd line
And this thing does work in Apache (I am using it on my test PC, since it's on Windows) and it accidentally works on OLS. Or at least used to back in November (have not checked afterwards).
Furthermore built-in help in LSWS itself says that it can be a dynamic page:

Sorry, but your "It does not work like that. Neither with Apache nor with LSWS!" is clearly incorrect. If you want I can share my config for Apache and .htaccess, so that you can try replicating this, if the above is not enough.

Why would one want dynamic pages? Well, why do people use PHP or other "generators" to create dynamic content? For the sake of serving dynamic content, obviously. Having a script handle all this stuff allows me to use the same design and content of everything around the main content block as I use on all other pages, and portions of that can be dynamic. For example, I have a sidebar which can show some information about current user, including notifications. It can also be used to generate suggestions for other pages, which can be useful for 404 pages. Yes, one can use some JS script that will populate the data through separate calls or use SSI, but... That's not a reason not to allow use of dynamic pages or script for error pages.

Have LiteSpeed support exhausted the support service here? No. It's not like I am calling this a bug, that needs fixing, and they say "it's not a bug" and I want to prove them wrong. I am fine considering this a limitation of the current version. Even though it somehow works in OLS. I mean, OLS is a separate product, so that's fine. And it is clearly not critical even for me, because I was able to find a sort of workaround, that works.
My problem is that there is no acknowledgement of this behavior contradicting the documentation and no assurance that this will be looked into at any point in the future (even if it won't be, which is what I actually expect to happen). I literally shared the exact simple words that I want to hear from support representative in this ticket, that would make me consider this case closed and support having done what it should have as per description of tech support responsibilities, and yet I am ghosted for 5 months. Which is unreasonable and should never happen in a professional relationship.


Well-Known Member
I am not combining redirect with 403 (or any other error code for that matter). As per Apache's documentation for ErrorDocument you can use dynamic pages.
As you have already been informed by LiteSpeed Support, the LSWS is almost, again almost, compatible with Apache, but not completely. You're welcome to criticize that, but there's no reason for that, because no one claims that the LSWS is fully compatible with the Apache web server. LiteSpeed is LiteSpeed and Apache is Apache.

So your criticism is inappropriate. I can only ask you again to look for alternative solutions. Otherwise take it or leave it. Nobody forces you to use the LSWS.

As a tech support person you pose as you should know not to post sensitive information about a server in public. Nevertheless, I advise you to remove the link to the ticket!
Again, I am not criticizing LSWS for not being the same as Apache. Never did in the whole ticket history. I am not criticizing that.
But there is a contradiction between what the manual says I can do and what I can actually do. And I am criticizing the fact, that LiteSpeed does not want to acknowledge that, and does not want to simply add this "criticism" as an item to their development backlog.

Am I asking too much, when all I am asking is a reply in the ticket that would look something like this?
Hi! We agree, that the help text may be misleading we will update that. As for using dynamic pages for custom Error Pages, we have registered this as a feature request. We can't guarantee that it will be implemented, but our developers will analyze it as per internal process. Thank you for sharing.
Hi! We agree, that the help text may be misleading we will update that. As for using dynamic pages for custom Error Pages, please, create a thread on our forums, so that developers can look into possibility of implementing this feature. Thank you.
Is it really that difficult to write something like this? It takes less than a minute. Like, really, if an actual LiteSpeed supporter sees this - go ahead, copy-paste any of the 2 responses above into the ticket and feel free to close it, I will be satisfied. Even
yes, there is a weird behavior, we will look into it, when resources are available
which I suggested in the ticket itself works for me.

I really do not see how me clearly showing with extensive evidence that there is an unexpected behavior and saying exactly the words, that will satisfy me justify ghosting me for 5 months.
I do not mind doing that. But I do want to see support representative write this in the ticket. It can be closed right after that. It is the purpose of a support ticket - to get agreement between 2 parties on whether an issue is a bug, user error or a feature request and process it accordingly. And it should be done within the ticket, because tickets are used in order to track the process of support requests. If someone will search whatever ticketing system LiteSpeed is using and will stumble on my ticket and they see it in its current state, they will have no idea whether it was resolved in any way or form or it was just ignored in the end.

Anyway, this thread was created not for the sake of me complaining, but for the sake of learning, if others had similar issues in the past. I've spent 13 years in tech support, and it just pains me, when I see this kind of stuff, and if this the norm, maybe there is something that can be done to fix this.

And no, thank you, I think I know enough to be able to generate error pages in PHP. Do not see a need to waste any more of your time on this.
I think it depends on the situation.

For instance, some people ghost if it's a super casual, 1 or 2 date thing. They just don't think it's worth having a conversation about.
I was talking about Tech Support specialist ghosting you in tickets, not about dating...