Don't seem to be able to comment on "ID: 2860271" not that you've rejected and closed it.
It's your call, but if this is "as designed", it's a deficient design in my opinion. Reasonable effort should be made to protect the integrety of the users data.
Obviously, if there's a intentional effort on the part of system who's intent is questionable, those efforts are more difficult to deter, but if it's just the matter of a poorly designed proxy, that's a different story. I didn't ask for nearly 1000 feeds to be rewritten and it's doubtful the proxy of the hotel actively reverse wngineered the internal structure of RSS Bandit's feed storage and rewrote them. RSS Bandit changed them and it shouldn't have.
I'd really like to understand how this "as designed", was designed to benefit me because in this case it didn't. I'd like to think the average less tech savy user likely woun't have been able to correct the issue as I did. If the software is designed to destroy their feeds without notice when connecting through a poorly design proxy (something they'd typically have no knowledge of the proxy's design) then I guess it is as designed and worknig perfectly well.
If you would please reconsider your decision, I'd greatly appreciate it. If you think the design should stay, I'd love to know why as a user I want it the way it is.
Obviously as with anything, a free software is you get what you pay for and you're obligated to do nothing. But without plans to correct this issue or offer some safegaurds to the unsuspecting end user, or an explaination as to why I should prefer it as is, or how I'd know in the future a person should reasonably know and have the ability to prevent this, I'll have to find another solution. I simply can't continue to use a software package that views putting my data at risk for corruption "as designed" without it being corrected or my understanding where I was negligent in the cause of this.