It is impossible to comment on this specific example without seeing the actual email exchange. What I can say, is that a user chooses how to disclose their identity and the identity of their company making the best analysis of an imperfect situation. Having worked for largely smaller companies (not in the business of protecting the global internet), I've been relatively lax in posting who I am and where I work. This transparency has been helpful on more than a few occasions.
If you are a "large and/or interesting" company, it would behoove you to disclose your identity in a safe and responsible way to projects (open source or otherwise) who represent any important part of your business. The trick is to do so in such a manner so as to derive the many benefits (increased responsiveness) without the many liabilities (spam, sales calls, etc).
By remaining mum about who you are, the signal to noise ratio of your requests do not stand out from the crowd. This is unfortunate for both sides. It does, however, reinforce the notion that companies and projects should aspire to provide excellent support to all users. You never know when you have a "secret shopper" in your midst.
If you are a "large and/or interesting" company, it would behoove you to disclose your identity in a safe and responsible way to projects (open source or otherwise) who represent any important part of your business. The trick is to do so in such a manner so as to derive the many benefits (increased responsiveness) without the many liabilities (spam, sales calls, etc).
By remaining mum about who you are, the signal to noise ratio of your requests do not stand out from the crowd. This is unfortunate for both sides. It does, however, reinforce the notion that companies and projects should aspire to provide excellent support to all users. You never know when you have a "secret shopper" in your midst.