Windows Live - no more Outlook Express

PA Bear [MS MVP] · Apr 30, 2008

thanatoid wrote:
<snip>
> ...However I
> believe that the user agreement clearly states (as they ALL do)
> that the service is provided with no guarantees of /any/ kind.

<QP>
21. LIABILITY LIMITATION.
You can recover from the Microsoft parties only direct damages up to an
amount *equal to your service fee* [emphasis added] for one month. You
cannot recover any other damages, including consequential, lost profits,
special, indirect, incidental or punitive damages.
<snip>
[This limitation] also applies even if:
• this remedy does not fully compensate you for any losses, or fails of its
essential purpose or
• Microsoft knew or should have known about the possibility of the damages.
<snip>
22. Changes to the Service If We Cancel the Service.
We may change the service or delete features at any time and for any reason.
We may cancel or suspend your service at any time. Our cancellation or
suspension may be without cause and/or without notice. Upon service
cancellation, your right to use the service stops right away. Once the
service is cancelled or suspended, any data you have stored on the service
may not be retrieved later.
<snip>
29. Contracting Party, Choice of Law and Location for Resolving Disputes.
....You and we irrevocably consent to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of
the state or federal courts in King County, Washington, USA for all disputes
arising out of or relating to this contract.
<snip>
Support
Customer support is not offered for the service, unless provided otherwise
in this contract or the materials we publish in connection with a particular
service specify that it includes customer support.
</QP>
Source: http://help.live.com/help.aspx?project=tou&mkt=en-us

Translation: If it's a free Hotmail account, you're SOL.
--
~PA Bear

thanatoid · Apr 30, 2008

"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:#BKX82uqIHA.3568@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:

> Why would I have you KF'd?

I tend to bring that action out in people. -)

> What was it that you presented, anywhere in this
> discussion group, that I
> was supposed to respond to?

I admit it is presumptuous of me to think that something I write
deserves a reply to begin with, and I also understand you are
very upset and busy with the situation of possibly losing all
your important email, but theoretically speaking, /someone/ (not
necessarily you, but /including/ you) /could/ have commented on
my longish post about how no one should trust ANY piece of
hardware on this planet (like MS mail servers) with anything of
theirs (like important email) - ONLY their own computer(s)
and/or CD/DVD backup(s).

Anyway, I have not been following closely but I certainly hope
that SOME way of solving your (and millions of others') problem
can be found.

Regards
t.

--
Of course, it is no easy matter to be polite in so far, I mean,
as it requires us to show great respect for everybody, whereas
most people deserve none at all and again in so far as it
demands that we should feign the most lively interest in people,
when we must be very glad that we have nothing to do with them.

- Arthur Schopenhauer

thanatoid · Apr 30, 2008

"PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in
news:#C561TvqIHA.4884@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:

> <QP>
> 21. LIABILITY LIMITATION.
> You can recover from the Microsoft parties only direct
> damages up to an amount *equal to your service fee*
> [emphasis added] for one month. You cannot recover any
> other damages,

No one cares about their $20/year (or whatever the paid accounts
cost), people care about their often invaluable MAIL CONTENT.

Just like most people with a brain would probably rather have a
computer do something in 10 seconds with solid windows in the
GUI than in 2 minutes with semi-transparent windows with
shadows. (Just rough estimates - my relationship with MS stopped
with 98SE {Lite'd} so I have no idea EXACTLY what "important
improvements" and at what cost Vista has brought upon the
world).

<SNIP the standard legalese>

>...You and we irrevocably consent to
> the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the state or
> federal courts in King County, Washington

Isn't it time the county name was changed to Gates County or
Microsoft County?

<SNIP>

> Translation: If it's a free Hotmail account, you're SOL.

I am reasonably certain you are equally SOL even if it is a paid
one, but anyone who uses webmail - let alone for important
things - well...

Regards
t.

--
Of course, it is no easy matter to be polite in so far, I mean,
as it requires us to show great respect for everybody, whereas
most people deserve none at all and again in so far as it
demands that we should feign the most lively interest in people,
when we must be very glad that we have nothing to do with them.

- Arthur Schopenhauer

MEB · Apr 30, 2008

"PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OBD$aLvqIHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
| Apples and oranges: It does work if the messages are available in (have
been
| downloaded to) the Hotmail-in-OE folders, Maurice. The fact that
| some/many/most of yours are not available has nothing to do with this
| functionality.
| --
| ~PA Bear

Ah but it does to those millions of users {per Scott} that may presently
have linked accounts, which may have used the accounts as a repository,
which apparently will no longer have that access UNLESS they use XP SP2 or
VISTA.

Remember, this ISN'T Microsoft's OS, or its EMAIL client, or anything
related. It IS a publicly offered SERVICE, in which millions of users may
now be unduly affected by the change, with NO WAY presently provided by the
service to remove their property.

As for your SOL,, or even the service agreement presentation,, these are
written by attorney's to disuade suits. They are not "iron plate", nor
"bullet proof".

|
| MEB wrote:
| > Sorry, this doesn't work for these accounts, which Live is well aware
of.
| >
| >> Make a local folder for the purpose and drag the to it.
| >>
| >>> And, since I didn't quite catch this part, the way to do that is to
| >>> what,
| >>> "move" or "copy" them to local OE folders? Or is HM/Live so screwed up
| >>> that even that doesn't work?
| >>>
| >>>> If he's still running Win98, he /will/ lose access to all Hotmail
| >>>> folders
| >>>> in OE after 30 June 2008, as will anyone else running Win9x or Win2K.
| >>>> Those running WinXP have several options.
|
--
MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________

Gary S. Terhune · Apr 30, 2008

Thank you, gentlemen.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23nMNe6uqIHA.1872@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Yes, at least until after 30 June 2008 when all Hotmail messages and
> folders will disappear (in OE only) when/if OE attempts to synchronize
> with the non-existant WebDAV servers.
>
> NB: If you uncheck "Include this account when receiving mail and
> synchronizing" in OE Tools | Accounts | Mail | Hotmail | Properties |
> General by 30 June 2008 and do NOT attempt to synchronize with the Hotmail
> servers manually (via Send/Receive dropdown menu), the messages and
> folders /should/ not be affected.
> --
> ~Robear
>
>
> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>> And that works whether you're a paying member or not?
>>
>>
>> "Frank Saunders MS-MVP IE,OE/WM" <franksaunders@mvps.org> wrote in
>> message
>> news:40ADDCD5-6FE5-49AD-AB1A-FA2CD32CE08C@microsoft.com...
>>> Make a local folder for the purpose and drag the to it.
>>>
>>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
>>> news:u6i6SIuqIHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>> And, since I didn't quite catch this part, the way to do that is to
>>>> what,
>>>> "move" or "copy" them to local OE folders? Or is HM/Live so screwed up
>>>> that even that doesn't work?
>>>>
>>>> "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:OZTfsZnqIHA.3804@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>> If he's still running Win98, he /will/ lose access to all Hotmail
>>>>> folders in OE after 30 June 2008, as will anyone else running Win9x or
>>>>> Win2K. Those running WinXP have several options.
>>>>>
>>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>>> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
>>>>>>> Prolly tilting at another windmill.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I don't know enough about Windows Live to say whether he faces
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> real problem with the new MS policy. (I never used it, & it looks to
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> too complex to quickly fathom.) Sounds like he's got a lot of data he
>>>>>> fears he may lose. It's in yours & Hammer's hands! And MEB's!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PCR wrote:
>>>>>>>> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
>>>>>>>>> MEB wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, as we are also presently discussing this in the OE news
>>>>>>>>>> group [soon to be defunct apparently]...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Neither OE nor the OE newsgroups are "soon to be defunct."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Although MS stopped all development of OE in 2006 (...), support
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> OE (i.e., critical security updates) will continue as long as the
>>>>>>>>> OS
>>>>>>>>> in which OE is running is supported. Although (twice-)Extended
>>>>>>>>> Support for Win9x ended in July 2006, WinXP SP3 will be supported
>>>>>>>>> through 2014.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That being said and although MS has said nothing publically about
>>>>>>>>> this, I wouldn't be surprised if the little-trafficked
>>>>>>>>> microsoft.public.win98.internet.outlookexpress newsgroup
>>>>>>>>> disappeared
>>>>>>>>> from the MS newsserver soon.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> PA! Where is MEB? Have you & that MS personage Scott Hammer sent
>>>>>>>> him
>>>>>>>> to oblivion at an irradiated, disappearing, booby-trapped NG!!??
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> OE-specific newsgroup:
>>>>>>>>> news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlookexpress.general
>

PCR · Apr 30, 2008

MEB wrote:
| Nope, still waiting for Scott or Live to respond...

Ah! There you are! My apologies to Bear & Hammer for thinking they may
have done you in! And I hope you discover how to migrate your files too.

| Not a windmill PA, but a real possibility. Particularly as Microsoft
| is attempting the take over of Yahoo. Might have bearing with the FTC
| as well.

I realized afterward it was a class action lawsuit that Bear referred to
as a windmill. OK. I'm not sure-- didn't they say how to download your
files/E-Mails?

| Microsoft isn't god after all...Injunctions have been issued for far
| less than what is presently proposed.

It looks like that contract of MS's regarding the software is ironclad,
unless thanatoid or you have a point. (Maybe you do.) But can't you just
get your files?

| --
| MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| --
| _________
|
| "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
| news:OaB6HgnqIHA.2188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
|| PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
|| | If he's still running Win98, he /will/ lose access to all Hotmail
|| | folders in OE after 30 June 2008, as will anyone else running Win9x
|| | or Win2K. Those running WinXP have several options.
||
|| Uh-oh-- that's no Cervantes windmill, then! But you &/or Hammer told
|| him how to save it, right? (I didn't quite get it.)
||
|| | PCR wrote:
|| |> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
|| |>> Prolly tilting at another windmill.
|| |>
|| |> Well, I don't know enough about Windows Live to say whether he
|| |> faces a real problem with the new MS policy. (I never used it, &
|| |> it looks to be too complex to quickly fathom.) Sounds like he's
|| |> got a lot of data he fears he may lose. It's in yours & Hammer's
|| |> hands! And MEB's!
|| |>
|| |>> PCR wrote:
|| |>>> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
|| |>>>> MEB wrote:
|| |>>>> <snip>
|| |>>>>> Moreover, as we are also presently discussing this in the OE
|| |>>>>> news group [soon to be defunct apparently]...
|| |>>>>
|| |>>>> Neither OE nor the OE newsgroups are "soon to be defunct."
|| |>>>>
|| |>>>> Although MS stopped all development of OE in 2006 (...),
|| |>>>> support for OE (i.e., critical security updates) will continue
|| |>>>> as long as the OS in which OE is running is supported.
|| |>>>> Although (twice-)Extended Support for Win9x ended in July
|| |>>>> 2006, WinXP SP3 will be supported through 2014.
|| |>>>>
|| |>>>> That being said and although MS has said nothing publically
|| |>>>> about this, I wouldn't be surprised if the little-trafficked
|| |>>>> microsoft.public.win98.internet.outlookexpress newsgroup
|| |>>>> disappeared from the MS newsserver soon.
|| |>>>
|| |>>> PA! Where is MEB? Have you & that MS personage Scott Hammer sent
|| |>>> him to oblivion at an irradiated, disappearing, booby-trapped
|| |>>> NG!!??
|| |>>>
|| |>>>> --
|| |>>>> OE-specific newsgroup:
|| |>>>>
|| news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlookexpress.general
|| |>>>>
|| |>>>> ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
|| |>>>> MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Desktop Experience - since
|| |>>>> 2002
||
|| --
|| Thanks or Good Luck,
|| There may be humor in this post, and,
|| Naturally, you will not sue,
|| Should things get worse after this,
|| PCR
|| pcrrcp@netzero.net

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net

N. Miller · May 1, 2008

"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u%23hG52uqIHA.3568@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> "Frank Saunders MS-MVP IE,OE/WM" <franksaunders@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:40ADDCD5-6FE5-49AD-AB1A-FA2CD32CE08C@microsoft.com...

> | "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> | news:u6i6SIuqIHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> | > And, since I didn't quite catch this part, the way to do that is to
> what,
> | > "move" or "copy" them to local OE folders? Or is HM/Live so screwed up
> | > that even that doesn't work?

> | Make a local folder for the purpose and drag the to it.

> I'll use this one for response [as the rest are basically the same
> suggestions].
>
> Sorry, this doesn't work for these accounts, which Live is well aware of.

I just tried moving email from a Windows Live Hotmail account folder, to an
MS Outlook Express Local Folder. The email messages were successfully moved
from the server to the local client. I then tried a rigth click on the
selected messages in the Local Folders of MSOE, and used the context menu to
call for a copy back to the Windows Live Hotmail account folder. The files,
which had be removed from the server by the "Move" action, were replaced on
the server by the "Copy:" action.

--
Norman
~Shine, bright morning light,
~now in the air the spring is coming.
~Sweet, blowing wind,
~singing down the hills and valleys.

N. Miller · May 1, 2008

"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OFx0AFxqIHA.3508@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OBD$aLvqIHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> | Apples and oranges: It does work if the messages are available in (have
> | been| downloaded to) the Hotmail-in-OE folders, Maurice. The fact that
> | some/many/most of yours are not available has nothing to do with this
> | functionality.

> Ah but it does to those millions of users {per Scott} that may presently
> have linked accounts, which may have used the accounts as a repository,
> which apparently will no longer have that access UNLESS they use XP SP2 or
> VISTA.

What, exactly, is a "linked" account? How does it work? I've read your posts
up to this one, but they read like legal briefs, full of lawyer "pursuant
to"s, and other jargon, which carries no techical meaning that I can grasp.

> Remember, this ISN'T Microsoft's OS, or its EMAIL client, or anything
> related. It IS a publicly offered SERVICE, in which millions of users may
> now be unduly affected by the change, with NO WAY presently provided by
> the
> service to remove their property.
>
> As for your SOL,, or even the service agreement presentation,, these are
> written by attorney's to disuade suits. They are not "iron plate", nor
> "bullet proof".

OTOH, I would be seriously dissuaded from offering anything which might be
remotely construed as a "Public Service", if such an operation were so
easily found financially liable for damages in the event of a meltdown,
despite any legal disclaimers. Of course, maybe that is your intent, in the
end? Bringing financial ruin down on people whose service fails to perform
to your expectations, even when the provdier disclaims any guarantees?

PA Bear [MS MVP] · May 1, 2008

[Ooo, this should be good! <eg>]

N. Miller wrote:
> "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OFx0AFxqIHA.3508@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:OBD$aLvqIHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> Apples and oranges: It does work if the messages are available in (have
>>> been| downloaded to) the Hotmail-in-OE folders, Maurice. The fact that
>>> some/many/most of yours are not available has nothing to do with this
>>> functionality.
>
>> Ah but it does to those millions of users {per Scott} that may presently
>> have linked accounts, which may have used the accounts as a repository,
>> which apparently will no longer have that access UNLESS they use XP SP2
>> or
>> VISTA.
>
> What, exactly, is a "linked" account? How does it work? I've read your
> posts
> up to this one, but they read like legal briefs, full of lawyer "pursuant
> to"s, and other jargon, which carries no techical meaning that I can
> grasp.
>
>> Remember, this ISN'T Microsoft's OS, or its EMAIL client, or anything
>> related. It IS a publicly offered SERVICE, in which millions of users may
>> now be unduly affected by the change, with NO WAY presently provided by
>> the
>> service to remove their property.
>>
>> As for your SOL,, or even the service agreement presentation,, these are
>> written by attorney's to disuade suits. They are not "iron plate", nor
>> "bullet proof".
>
> OTOH, I would be seriously dissuaded from offering anything which might be
> remotely construed as a "Public Service", if such an operation were so
> easily found financially liable for damages in the event of a meltdown,
> despite any legal disclaimers. Of course, maybe that is your intent, in
> the
> end? Bringing financial ruin down on people whose service fails to perform
> to your expectations, even when the provdier disclaims any guarantees?

PA Bear [MS MVP] · May 1, 2008

[Yes, but those messages were available to you in the Hotmail-in-OE
folder(s), Norman. It would appear that most of MEB's aren't available
(i.e., message headers are present in the Hotmail-in-OE folders but the
message bodies can't be retrieved from the server). He's not told us if
these messages are available via the webmail page.]

N. Miller wrote:
> I just tried moving email from a Windows Live Hotmail account folder, to
> an
> MS Outlook Express Local Folder. The email messages were successfully
> moved
> from the server to the local client. I then tried a rigth click on the
> selected messages in the Local Folders of MSOE, and used the context menu
> to
> call for a copy back to the Windows Live Hotmail account folder. The
> files,
> which had be removed from the server by the "Move" action, were replaced
> on
> the server by the "Copy:" action.

MEB · May 1, 2008

"N. Miller" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:u9615K1qIHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
| "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:OFx0AFxqIHA.3508@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| > "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:OBD$aLvqIHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
| > | Apples and oranges: It does work if the messages are available in
(have
| > | been| downloaded to) the Hotmail-in-OE folders, Maurice. The fact
that
| > | some/many/most of yours are not available has nothing to do with this
| > | functionality.
|
| > Ah but it does to those millions of users {per Scott} that may presently
| > have linked accounts, which may have used the accounts as a repository,
| > which apparently will no longer have that access UNLESS they use XP SP2
or
| > VISTA.
|
| What, exactly, is a "linked" account? How does it work? I've read your
posts
| up to this one, but they read like legal briefs, full of lawyer "pursuant
| to"s, and other jargon, which carries no techical meaning that I can
grasp.

Live/Hotmail presently allows web and other EMail accounts to be linked to
other accounts - linked - meaning that account can either be poled for
messages sending them to that service or will recieve messages from that
other service. However, Saved messages are not received/sent/syncronized to
the other accounts, even when marked as unread and placed in the INBOX [the
syncronizing area]..

The supposed "legal jarjon" is in response to the posted links and
suggested presentations by others. What do you think I'm supposed to do,,,
as these parties suggest, and leave the users with the impression they have
no recourse. Sorry, Windows may be a "religion", but Microsoft is not a god.

|
| > Remember, this ISN'T Microsoft's OS, or its EMAIL client, or anything
| > related. It IS a publicly offered SERVICE, in which millions of users
may
| > now be unduly affected by the change, with NO WAY presently provided by
| > the
| > service to remove their property.
| >
| > As for your SOL,, or even the service agreement presentation,, these are
| > written by attorney's to disuade suits. They are not "iron plate", nor
| > "bullet proof".
|
| OTOH, I would be seriously dissuaded from offering anything which might be
| remotely construed as a "Public Service", if such an operation were so
| easily found financially liable for damages in the event of a meltdown,
| despite any legal disclaimers. Of course, maybe that is your intent, in
the
| end? Bringing financial ruin down on people whose service fails to perform
| to your expectations, even when the provdier disclaims any guarantees?
|
|

Oh right, let's attempt to place this as MY attempt to bring down poor old
Microsoft, or some innocent business/service somewhere...

Using your purposed leniency, we should excuse:
credit card companies from accidentally allowing employees to steal IDs and
other information, or "losing" it to the Internet
banks for accidentally allowing your account to be used by others and/or be
completely drained. or for posting your account information
PayPal for losing or releasing credit account information, or posting your
information
ISPs for releasing account information or closing service leaving the users
without the ability to retrieve their mails and other
any site which receives donations or takes credit cards or other
information, and that information being exposed to others
and all the other things that are presently being done, from hack sites
masquerading as legitimate sites, to phony ADs being fronts for data and
information collection.. Heck using your presentation, we could even think
of Email hacks as just another "service" which we should protect... after
all, all they want is your information, to hack your computer, to maybe
something as innocent as installing a rootkit... whatever could be wrong
with that????????

Right, let's do that,,, hey, here's an idea, why don't you send your bank
account, credit card, health, and other information to one of the hacker
sites,,,, no wait, why not just post that on the Internet right here.....
All of those are services, which you apparently think shouldn't be
controlled, be held responsible, or have liability. Gosh, you must have
really spent a lot of time contemplating your proposal...

Let's go the other direction to business, market, and investors.

Microsoft IS losing ground to other alternative OSs and services. So as a
brilliant business maneuver, Microsoft pisses off millions of its service's
users at one time. Microsoft turns its public, open to any OS and email
client service, into an OS specific and proprietary client service.

Will this increase the market share for Microsoft?
Will this bring new investments to Microsoft?
Will this ensure Microsoft garners more of the market?
Should the parties that thought up this rather stupid idea still remain
employed by Microsoft?

--
MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________

MEB · May 1, 2008

"PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uJkOGd7qIHA.4560@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| [Yes, but those messages were available to you in the Hotmail-in-OE
| folder(s), Norman. It would appear that most of MEB's aren't available
| (i.e., message headers are present in the Hotmail-in-OE folders but the
| message bodies can't be retrieved from the server). He's not told us if
| these messages are available via the webmail page.]

Gosh, you guys need to learn how to comprehend what you read... I posted
that information.
Not even the message headers are transfered.... get it yet.... they ARE on
the web only access.. ARE in the INBOX, ARE marked as "unread", and even
when opened individually and "forwarded", are run through the Live filters
which chop up the message into headers and body text as an attachment OR
removes the original formatting and ATTEMPTS to make it web

HTML:

 style,
and even this must be done individually,,, message by message... which makes
these messages NOT original or available for records....

 Now try to imagine what messages are going to look like AFTER the
proprietary protocol and client is emplaced...

|
| N. Miller wrote:
| > I just tried moving email from a Windows Live Hotmail account folder, to
| > an
| > MS Outlook Express Local Folder. The email messages were successfully
| > moved
| > from the server to the local client. I then tried a rigth click on the
| > selected messages in the Local Folders of MSOE, and used the context
menu
| > to
| > call for a copy back to the Windows Live Hotmail account folder. The
| > files,
| > which had be removed from the server by the "Move" action, were replaced
| > on
| > the server by the "Copy:" action.
|

-- 
MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
-- 
_________

N. Miller · May 1, 2008

On Thu, 1 May 2008 19:41:21 -0400, MEB wrote:

> "N. Miller" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:u9615K1qIHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>| "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>| news:OFx0AFxqIHA.3508@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>|> "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
>|> news:OBD$aLvqIHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>|> | Apples and oranges: It does work if the messages are available in
>|> | (have been downloaded to) the Hotmail-in-OE folders, Maurice. The
>|> | ( fact that some/many/most of yours are not available has nothing
>|> | ( to do with this functionality.

>|> Ah but it does to those millions of users {per Scott} that may presently
>|> have linked accounts, which may have used the accounts as a repository,
>|> which apparently will no longer have that access UNLESS they use XP SP2
>|> or VISTA.

>| What, exactly, is a "linked" account? How does it work? I've read your
>| posts up to this one, but they read like legal briefs, full of lawyer
>| "pursuant to"s, and other jargon, which carries no techical meaning that
>| I can grasp.

> Live/Hotmail presently allows web and other EMail accounts to be linked to
> other accounts - linked - meaning that account can either be poled for
> messages sending them to that service or will recieve messages from that
> other service.

Well, I can find out how to forward email from my Hotmail account to another
account (limited to one destination email address in the 'hotmail.com',
'msn.com', 'live.com', or whatever custom domain I may have), and how to
receive email into my Hotmail account from other email accounts without
using POP3 access (presumably, a Hotmail Plus account allows to fetch email
from other POP3 serves). But I can't poll other accounts using a free
Hotmail account.

And I don't understand, "registered with the government account", unless
that means "linked" by POP3 polling?

> However, Saved messages are not received/sent/syncronized to
> the other accounts, even when marked as unread and placed in the INBOX [the
> syncronizing area]..

I was not aware that a Hotmail account "Inbox" was a "synchronizing" area
for linked accounts. The only synchronization I have been able to do is
between the Hotmail servers and the MS Outlook Express client.

All of my Hotmail account folders synchronize with my local folders in MS
Outlook Express but, from there, all actions are manual. I can, in fact,
copy/move an email from a Hotmail folder to an IMAP folder in MS Outlook
Express. And open that account in another client (Pegasus Mail), and see it
in the appropriate folder.

I am, as I write this, looking at the headers of a message in a Local Folder
in MS Outlook Express, and in a local folder in Pegasus Mail, a client which
has no capacity to utilize any proprietary MSFT communication format. They
are indistinguishable.

> The supposed "legal jarjon" is in response to the posted links and
> suggested presentations by others. What do you think I'm supposed to do,,,
> as these parties suggest, and leave the users with the impression they have
> no recourse. Sorry, Windows may be a "religion", but Microsoft is not a god.

>|> Remember, this ISN'T Microsoft's OS, or its EMAIL client, or anything
>|> related. It IS a publicly offered SERVICE, in which millions of users
>|> may now be unduly affected by the change, with NO WAY presently provided by
>|> the service to remove their property.
>|>
>|> As for your SOL,, or even the service agreement presentation,, these are
>|> written by attorney's to disuade suits. They are not "iron plate", nor
>|> "bullet proof".

>| OTOH, I would be seriously dissuaded from offering anything which might be
>| remotely construed as a "Public Service", if such an operation were so
>| easily found financially liable for damages in the event of a meltdown,
>| despite any legal disclaimers. Of course, maybe that is your intent, in
>| the end? Bringing financial ruin down on people whose service fails to perform
>| to your expectations, even when the provdier disclaims any guarantees?

> Oh right, let's attempt to place this as MY attempt to bring down poor old
> Microsoft, or some innocent business/service somewhere...

> Using your purposed leniency...

I am questioning the basis of a tort, not proposing leniency...

> ...we should excuse:
> credit card companies from accidentally allowing employees to steal IDs and
> other information, or "losing" it to the Internet

Not comparable to the problem of changing a format on a service in a manner
which inconveniences some users.

> banks for accidentally allowing your account to be used by others and/or be
> completely drained. or for posting your account information
> PayPal for losing or releasing credit account information, or posting your
> information

Not comparable to the problem of changing a format on a service in a manner
which inconveniences some users.

> ISPs for releasing account information or closing service leaving the users
> without the ability to retrieve their mails and other

Not comparable to the problem of changing a format on a service in a manner
which inconveniences some users.

> any site which receives donations or takes credit cards or other
> information, and that information being exposed to others

Not comparable to the problem of changing a format on a service in a manner
which inconveniences some users.

> and all the other things that are presently being done, from hack sites
> masquerading as legitimate sites, to phony ADs being fronts for data and
> information collection..

Not comparable to the problem of changing a format on a service in a manner
which inconveniences some users.

> Heck using your presentation, we could even think
> of Email hacks as just another "service" which we should protect... after
> all, all they want is your information, to hack your computer, to maybe
> something as innocent as installing a rootkit... whatever could be wrong
> with that????????

A lawyerly attempt at a "reductio absurdum" argument?

> Right, let's do that,,,

Let's not put words in other people's mouths.

> hey, here's an idea, why don't you send your bank account, credit card, health,
> and other information to one of the hacker sites,,,, no wait, why not just post
> that on the Internet right here.....

Because that has no connection whatsoever with trying to deal with a
forthcoming technical change in the way that MSFT is operating.

> All of those are services, which you apparently think shouldn't be
> controlled, be held responsible, or have liability. Gosh, you must have
> really spent a lot of time contemplating your proposal...

Phising sites are "services"? Boy, am I ever confused now.

> Let's go the other direction to business, market, and investors.
>
> Microsoft IS losing ground to other alternative OSs and services. So as a
> brilliant business maneuver, Microsoft pisses off millions of its service's
> users at one time. Microsoft turns its public, open to any OS and email
> client service, into an OS specific and proprietary client service.

When was MSFT *ever* "open to the public"? Its OS has always been
proprietary. I was not aware that it ever opened up WebDAV as an open source
protocol.

> Will this increase the market share for Microsoft?
> Will this bring new investments to Microsoft?
> Will this ensure Microsoft garners more of the market?
> Should the parties that thought up this rather stupid idea still remain
> employed by Microsoft?

To the best of my knowledge, the WebDAV protocol was emminently abusable,
and heavily abused by spammers when MSN finally cut off access to newly
opened MSN Hotmail accounts about Sept. 26, 2004. To the best of my
knowledge, the change in protocols was intended to improve the ability of
Windows Live to service their Hotmail accounts.

And, as somebody who has moved on to Windows XP, and learned how to utilize
the new client, I have the ability to deal with the change. In 2004, when
they cut off WebDAV to new, free accounts, I had moved all my email off of
two Hotmail accounts, figuring (incorrectly, as it turned out) that they
were going to go away. The email from those accounts still resides in the
message store, accessible through Pegasus Mail, a free email client with
only POP3, IMAP, and SMTP capability and a unique, proprietary means of
direct coordination with an associated MTA. One doesn't *need* the MTA for
the POP3, IMAP, and SMTP access but having that MTA set up is the reason I
can move email from a Hotmail account accessed through MSOE to a local,
LAN-based IMAP account. I *could* have set up either an AOL, Gmail, or
Fastmail IMAP account in MSOE, and moved my Hotmail messages to those
servers.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

MEB · May 2, 2008

"N. Miller" <anonymous@msnews.aosake.net> wrote in message
news:1eh8nntr70gu0$.dlg@msnews.aosake.net...
| On Thu, 1 May 2008 19:41:21 -0400, MEB wrote:
|
| > "N. Miller" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
| > news:u9615K1qIHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
|
| >| "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| >| news:OFx0AFxqIHA.3508@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
|
| >|> "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
| >|> news:OBD$aLvqIHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
|
| >|> | Apples and oranges: It does work if the messages are available in
| >|> | (have been downloaded to) the Hotmail-in-OE folders, Maurice. The
| >|> | ( fact that some/many/most of yours are not available has nothing
| >|> | ( to do with this functionality.
|
| >|> Ah but it does to those millions of users {per Scott} that may
presently
| >|> have linked accounts, which may have used the accounts as a
repository,
| >|> which apparently will no longer have that access UNLESS they use XP
SP2
| >|> or VISTA.
|
| >| What, exactly, is a "linked" account? How does it work? I've read your
| >| posts up to this one, but they read like legal briefs, full of lawyer
| >| "pursuant to"s, and other jargon, which carries no techical meaning
that
| >| I can grasp.
|
| > Live/Hotmail presently allows web and other EMail accounts to be linked
to
| > other accounts - linked - meaning that account can either be poled for
| > messages sending them to that service or will recieve messages from that
| > other service.
|
| Well, I can find out how to forward email from my Hotmail account to
another
| account (limited to one destination email address in the 'hotmail.com',
| 'msn.com', 'live.com', or whatever custom domain I may have), and how to
| receive email into my Hotmail account from other email accounts without
| using POP3 access (presumably, a Hotmail Plus account allows to fetch
email
| from other POP3 serves). But I can't poll other accounts using a free
| Hotmail account.
|
| And I don't understand, "registered with the government account", unless
| that means "linked" by POP3 polling?
|
| > However, Saved messages are not received/sent/syncronized to
| > the other accounts, even when marked as unread and placed in the INBOX
[the
| > syncronizing area]..
|
| I was not aware that a Hotmail account "Inbox" was a "synchronizing" area
| for linked accounts. The only synchronization I have been able to do is
| between the Hotmail servers and the MS Outlook Express client.
|
| All of my Hotmail account folders synchronize with my local folders in MS
| Outlook Express but, from there, all actions are manual. I can, in fact,
| copy/move an email from a Hotmail folder to an IMAP folder in MS Outlook
| Express. And open that account in another client (Pegasus Mail), and see
it
| in the appropriate folder.
|
| I am, as I write this, looking at the headers of a message in a Local
Folder
| in MS Outlook Express, and in a local folder in Pegasus Mail, a client
which
| has no capacity to utilize any proprietary MSFT communication format. They
| are indistinguishable.
|
| > The supposed "legal jarjon" is in response to the posted links and
| > suggested presentations by others. What do you think I'm supposed to
do,,,
| > as these parties suggest, and leave the users with the impression they
have
| > no recourse. Sorry, Windows may be a "religion", but Microsoft is not a
god.
|
| >|> Remember, this ISN'T Microsoft's OS, or its EMAIL client, or anything
| >|> related. It IS a publicly offered SERVICE, in which millions of users
| >|> may now be unduly affected by the change, with NO WAY presently
provided by
| >|> the service to remove their property.
| >|>
| >|> As for your SOL,, or even the service agreement presentation,, these
are
| >|> written by attorney's to disuade suits. They are not "iron plate", nor
| >|> "bullet proof".
|
| >| OTOH, I would be seriously dissuaded from offering anything which might
be
| >| remotely construed as a "Public Service", if such an operation were so
| >| easily found financially liable for damages in the event of a meltdown,
| >| despite any legal disclaimers. Of course, maybe that is your intent, in
| >| the end? Bringing financial ruin down on people whose service fails to
perform
| >| to your expectations, even when the provdier disclaims any guarantees?
|
| > Oh right, let's attempt to place this as MY attempt to bring down poor
old
| > Microsoft, or some innocent business/service somewhere...
|
| > Using your purposed leniency...
|
| I am questioning the basis of a tort, not proposing leniency...
|
| > ...we should excuse:
| > credit card companies from accidentally allowing employees to steal IDs
and
| > other information, or "losing" it to the Internet
|
| Not comparable to the problem of changing a format on a service in a
manner
| which inconveniences some users.
|
| > banks for accidentally allowing your account to be used by others and/or
be
| > completely drained. or for posting your account information
| > PayPal for losing or releasing credit account information, or posting
your
| > information
|
| Not comparable to the problem of changing a format on a service in a
manner
| which inconveniences some users.
|
| > ISPs for releasing account information or closing service leaving the
users
| > without the ability to retrieve their mails and other
|
| Not comparable to the problem of changing a format on a service in a
manner
| which inconveniences some users.
|
| > any site which receives donations or takes credit cards or other
| > information, and that information being exposed to others
|
| Not comparable to the problem of changing a format on a service in a
manner
| which inconveniences some users.
|
| > and all the other things that are presently being done, from hack sites
| > masquerading as legitimate sites, to phony ADs being fronts for data and
| > information collection..
|
| Not comparable to the problem of changing a format on a service in a
manner
| which inconveniences some users.
|
| > Heck using your presentation, we could even think
| > of Email hacks as just another "service" which we should protect...
after
| > all, all they want is your information, to hack your computer, to maybe
| > something as innocent as installing a rootkit... whatever could be wrong
| > with that????????
|
| A lawyerly attempt at a "reductio absurdum" argument?
|

Dream on, its as relevent as any argument, read some complaints and
rulings...

| > Right, let's do that,,,
|
| Let's not put words in other people's mouths.

Why not, let's extend your attempt to present this as merely an
"inconvenience".

So you take your computer to the local repair shop, who sends it to
another, and to pick it up you have to drive 700 miles to do so, they don't
ship... hey its just an inconvenience..

You trade on line, and the service you have your accounts with fails to
update your sale immediately so you loose $50,000.00... hey its just an
inconvenience.

You have your families genological history saved in your Hotmail account,
took you fifteen years to collect, but after client change you lose
access... hey its just an inconvenience.

You have hundreds of irreplacable photos stored on your Hotmial/Live
account, after the change they are essentially unretreivable... hey its only
an inconvenience.

Go ahead hotshot, place VALUE on each of those...

|
| > hey, here's an idea, why don't you send your bank account, credit card,
health,
| > and other information to one of the hacker sites,,,, no wait, why not
just post
| > that on the Internet right here.....
|
| Because that has no connection whatsoever with trying to deal with a
| forthcoming technical change in the way that MSFT is operating.

Ah but there is, and if you are legally qualified, you are well aware of
that fact.
Shall we start posting rulings?

|
| > All of those are services, which you apparently think shouldn't be
| > controlled, be held responsible, or have liability. Gosh, you must have
| > really spent a lot of time contemplating your proposal...
|
| Phising sites are "services"? Boy, am I ever confused now.

Hey, did you miss that, its their SERVICE, they phish for themselves or
others.... shouldn't we let them get a nifty legal document which disclaims
all responsibility and liability, . . . how about hack sites, let's let
them place a legal disclaimer which absolves them from responsibility...
those are as absurd as attempting to state Microsoft/Live will not be
responsible for changing its format which harms and damages the people who
use it.

|
| > Let's go the other direction to business, market, and investors.
| >
| > Microsoft IS losing ground to other alternative OSs and services. So as
a
| > brilliant business maneuver, Microsoft pisses off millions of its
service's
| > users at one time. Microsoft turns its public, open to any OS and email
| > client service, into an OS specific and proprietary client service.
|
| When was MSFT *ever* "open to the public"? Its OS has always been
| proprietary. I was not aware that it ever opened up WebDAV as an open
source
| protocol.

Boy you really should pay attention to what's being attempted right now...
Microsoft is ATTEMPTING to convince the public that it should support its
new "open source" attitude. One could easily equate that to most of the best
programmers who are now out in the open source area, like in Linux or
Solaris.

So here you have one segment of Microsoft going proprietary, saying screw
the users, to another segment attempting to dupe open source programmers
into helping it program while it holds the patents and will likely claim ALL
the coding once its done [that is its history after all].

|
| > Will this increase the market share for Microsoft?
| > Will this bring new investments to Microsoft?
| > Will this ensure Microsoft garners more of the market?
| > Should the parties that thought up this rather stupid idea still remain
| > employed by Microsoft?
|
| To the best of my knowledge, the WebDAV protocol was emminently abusable,
| and heavily abused by spammers when MSN finally cut off access to newly
| opened MSN Hotmail accounts about Sept. 26, 2004. To the best of my
| knowledge, the change in protocols was intended to improve the ability of
| Windows Live to service their Hotmail accounts.

Right, that's suposition with this new protocol. So why don't YOU explain
the necessity for the proprietary client.
So using that new protocol then, was there a noticable improvement in the
service by you?

Moreover, we should then presume that spammers will not be able to use this
protocol and client, right? Seems I get alot of junk FROM Live accounts.
Hmm, guess that isn't a factual reality.

|
| And, as somebody who has moved on to Windows XP, and learned how to
utilize
| the new client, I have the ability to deal with the change. In 2004, when
| they cut off WebDAV to new, free accounts, I had moved all my email off of
| two Hotmail accounts, figuring (incorrectly, as it turned out) that they
| were going to go away. The email from those accounts still resides in the
| message store, accessible through Pegasus Mail, a free email client with
| only POP3, IMAP, and SMTP capability and a unique, proprietary means of
| direct coordination with an associated MTA. One doesn't *need* the MTA for
| the POP3, IMAP, and SMTP access but having that MTA set up is the reason
I
| can move email from a Hotmail account accessed through MSOE to a local,
| LAN-based IMAP account. I *could* have set up either an AOL, Gmail, or
| Fastmail IMAP account in MSOE, and moved my Hotmail messages to those
| servers.
|
| --
| Norman
| ~Oh Lord, why have you come
| ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Right, so to you, having moved to XP, you could care less [that's what you
indicate, middle finger in the air attitude] whether Linux users or other OS
users or users using other Email clients, with accounts on MSN and/or
Hotmail/Live have or will lose their access in the fashion to which they are
accustomed. Got it..

Well gosh, guess everyone should just move to XP and wait till 2014 for
that to end as well... dang good idea... by then Microsoft will have likely
shot its self in the head enough to be just a bad memory.

--
MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________

Gary S. Terhune · May 2, 2008

You seem to think it was a *prudent* idea to store your valuable documents
on someone else's server. Moreover, you chose to store them on Microsoft's
servers, knowing full well it's just these kinds of shenanigans MS pulls all
the time. As far as I'm concerned, you were just plain stupid to do what you
did and I can find 50 strangers in my tiny town who would tell you so
(nothing personal.) I propose that the plaintiff holds too much of the
liabilility to support the tort. Not that *that* legal notion holds much
sway in our courts these days, though I think it should be the first rule of
torts.

Paperless billing... BAH!! (Just so you understand where I'm coming from, I
don't trust ANY electronic storage.)

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23IEhmXBrIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
> "N. Miller" <anonymous@msnews.aosake.net> wrote in message
> news:1eh8nntr70gu0$.dlg@msnews.aosake.net...
> | On Thu, 1 May 2008 19:41:21 -0400, MEB wrote:
> |
> | > "N. Miller" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> | > news:u9615K1qIHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> |
> | >| "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | >| news:OFx0AFxqIHA.3508@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> |
> | >|> "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
> | >|> news:OBD$aLvqIHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> |
> | >|> | Apples and oranges: It does work if the messages are available in
> | >|> | (have been downloaded to) the Hotmail-in-OE folders, Maurice. The
> | >|> | ( fact that some/many/most of yours are not available has nothing
> | >|> | ( to do with this functionality.
> |
> | >|> Ah but it does to those millions of users {per Scott} that may
> presently
> | >|> have linked accounts, which may have used the accounts as a
> repository,
> | >|> which apparently will no longer have that access UNLESS they use XP
> SP2
> | >|> or VISTA.
> |
> | >| What, exactly, is a "linked" account? How does it work? I've read
> your
> | >| posts up to this one, but they read like legal briefs, full of lawyer
> | >| "pursuant to"s, and other jargon, which carries no techical meaning
> that
> | >| I can grasp.
> |
> | > Live/Hotmail presently allows web and other EMail accounts to be
> linked
> to
> | > other accounts - linked - meaning that account can either be poled for
> | > messages sending them to that service or will recieve messages from
> that
> | > other service.
> |
> | Well, I can find out how to forward email from my Hotmail account to
> another
> | account (limited to one destination email address in the 'hotmail.com',
> | 'msn.com', 'live.com', or whatever custom domain I may have), and how to
> | receive email into my Hotmail account from other email accounts without
> | using POP3 access (presumably, a Hotmail Plus account allows to fetch
> email
> | from other POP3 serves). But I can't poll other accounts using a free
> | Hotmail account.
> |
> | And I don't understand, "registered with the government account", unless
> | that means "linked" by POP3 polling?
> |
> | > However, Saved messages are not received/sent/syncronized to
> | > the other accounts, even when marked as unread and placed in the INBOX
> [the
> | > syncronizing area]..
> |
> | I was not aware that a Hotmail account "Inbox" was a "synchronizing"
> area
> | for linked accounts. The only synchronization I have been able to do is
> | between the Hotmail servers and the MS Outlook Express client.
> |
> | All of my Hotmail account folders synchronize with my local folders in
> MS
> | Outlook Express but, from there, all actions are manual. I can, in
> fact,
> | copy/move an email from a Hotmail folder to an IMAP folder in MS Outlook
> | Express. And open that account in another client (Pegasus Mail), and see
> it
> | in the appropriate folder.
> |
> | I am, as I write this, looking at the headers of a message in a Local
> Folder
> | in MS Outlook Express, and in a local folder in Pegasus Mail, a client
> which
> | has no capacity to utilize any proprietary MSFT communication format.
> They
> | are indistinguishable.
> |
> | > The supposed "legal jarjon" is in response to the posted links and
> | > suggested presentations by others. What do you think I'm supposed to
> do,,,
> | > as these parties suggest, and leave the users with the impression they
> have
> | > no recourse. Sorry, Windows may be a "religion", but Microsoft is not
> a
> god.
> |
> | >|> Remember, this ISN'T Microsoft's OS, or its EMAIL client, or
> anything
> | >|> related. It IS a publicly offered SERVICE, in which millions of
> users
> | >|> may now be unduly affected by the change, with NO WAY presently
> provided by
> | >|> the service to remove their property.
> | >|>
> | >|> As for your SOL,, or even the service agreement presentation,, these
> are
> | >|> written by attorney's to disuade suits. They are not "iron plate",
> nor
> | >|> "bullet proof".
> |
> | >| OTOH, I would be seriously dissuaded from offering anything which
> might
> be
> | >| remotely construed as a "Public Service", if such an operation were
> so
> | >| easily found financially liable for damages in the event of a
> meltdown,
> | >| despite any legal disclaimers. Of course, maybe that is your intent,
> in
> | >| the end? Bringing financial ruin down on people whose service fails
> to
> perform
> | >| to your expectations, even when the provdier disclaims any
> guarantees?
> |
> | > Oh right, let's attempt to place this as MY attempt to bring down
> poor
> old
> | > Microsoft, or some innocent business/service somewhere...
> |
> | > Using your purposed leniency...
> |
> | I am questioning the basis of a tort, not proposing leniency...
> |
> | > ...we should excuse:
> | > credit card companies from accidentally allowing employees to steal
> IDs
> and
> | > other information, or "losing" it to the Internet
> |
> | Not comparable to the problem of changing a format on a service in a
> manner
> | which inconveniences some users.
> |
> | > banks for accidentally allowing your account to be used by others
> and/or
> be
> | > completely drained. or for posting your account information
> | > PayPal for losing or releasing credit account information, or posting
> your
> | > information
> |
> | Not comparable to the problem of changing a format on a service in a
> manner
> | which inconveniences some users.
> |
> | > ISPs for releasing account information or closing service leaving the
> users
> | > without the ability to retrieve their mails and other
> |
> | Not comparable to the problem of changing a format on a service in a
> manner
> | which inconveniences some users.
> |
> | > any site which receives donations or takes credit cards or other
> | > information, and that information being exposed to others
> |
> | Not comparable to the problem of changing a format on a service in a
> manner
> | which inconveniences some users.
> |
> | > and all the other things that are presently being done, from hack
> sites
> | > masquerading as legitimate sites, to phony ADs being fronts for data
> and
> | > information collection..
> |
> | Not comparable to the problem of changing a format on a service in a
> manner
> | which inconveniences some users.
> |
> | > Heck using your presentation, we could even think
> | > of Email hacks as just another "service" which we should protect...
> after
> | > all, all they want is your information, to hack your computer, to
> maybe
> | > something as innocent as installing a rootkit... whatever could be
> wrong
> | > with that????????
> |
> | A lawyerly attempt at a "reductio absurdum" argument?
> |
>
> Dream on, its as relevent as any argument, read some complaints and
> rulings...
>
> | > Right, let's do that,,,
> |
> | Let's not put words in other people's mouths.
>
> Why not, let's extend your attempt to present this as merely an
> "inconvenience".
>
> So you take your computer to the local repair shop, who sends it to
> another, and to pick it up you have to drive 700 miles to do so, they
> don't
> ship... hey its just an inconvenience..
>
> You trade on line, and the service you have your accounts with fails to
> update your sale immediately so you loose $50,000.00... hey its just an
> inconvenience.
>
> You have your families genological history saved in your Hotmail account,
> took you fifteen years to collect, but after client change you lose
> access... hey its just an inconvenience.
>
> You have hundreds of irreplacable photos stored on your Hotmial/Live
> account, after the change they are essentially unretreivable... hey its
> only
> an inconvenience.
>
> Go ahead hotshot, place VALUE on each of those...
>
> |
> | > hey, here's an idea, why don't you send your bank account, credit
> card,
> health,
> | > and other information to one of the hacker sites,,,, no wait, why not
> just post
> | > that on the Internet right here.....
> |
> | Because that has no connection whatsoever with trying to deal with a
> | forthcoming technical change in the way that MSFT is operating.
>
> Ah but there is, and if you are legally qualified, you are well aware of
> that fact.
> Shall we start posting rulings?
>
> |
> | > All of those are services, which you apparently think shouldn't be
> | > controlled, be held responsible, or have liability. Gosh, you must
> have
> | > really spent a lot of time contemplating your proposal...
> |
> | Phising sites are "services"? Boy, am I ever confused now.
>
> Hey, did you miss that, its their SERVICE, they phish for themselves or
> others.... shouldn't we let them get a nifty legal document which
> disclaims
> all responsibility and liability, . . . how about hack sites, let's let
> them place a legal disclaimer which absolves them from responsibility...
> those are as absurd as attempting to state Microsoft/Live will not be
> responsible for changing its format which harms and damages the people who
> use it.
>
> |
> | > Let's go the other direction to business, market, and investors.
> | >
> | > Microsoft IS losing ground to other alternative OSs and services. So
> as
> a
> | > brilliant business maneuver, Microsoft pisses off millions of its
> service's
> | > users at one time. Microsoft turns its public, open to any OS and
> email
> | > client service, into an OS specific and proprietary client service.
> |
> | When was MSFT *ever* "open to the public"? Its OS has always been
> | proprietary. I was not aware that it ever opened up WebDAV as an open
> source
> | protocol.
>
> Boy you really should pay attention to what's being attempted right now...
> Microsoft is ATTEMPTING to convince the public that it should support its
> new "open source" attitude. One could easily equate that to most of the
> best
> programmers who are now out in the open source area, like in Linux or
> Solaris.
>
> So here you have one segment of Microsoft going proprietary, saying screw
> the users, to another segment attempting to dupe open source programmers
> into helping it program while it holds the patents and will likely claim
> ALL
> the coding once its done [that is its history after all].
>
> |
> | > Will this increase the market share for Microsoft?
> | > Will this bring new investments to Microsoft?
> | > Will this ensure Microsoft garners more of the market?
> | > Should the parties that thought up this rather stupid idea still
> remain
> | > employed by Microsoft?
> |
> | To the best of my knowledge, the WebDAV protocol was emminently
> abusable,
> | and heavily abused by spammers when MSN finally cut off access to newly
> | opened MSN Hotmail accounts about Sept. 26, 2004. To the best of my
> | knowledge, the change in protocols was intended to improve the ability
> of
> | Windows Live to service their Hotmail accounts.
>
> Right, that's suposition with this new protocol. So why don't YOU explain
> the necessity for the proprietary client.
> So using that new protocol then, was there a noticable improvement in the
> service by you?
>
> Moreover, we should then presume that spammers will not be able to use
> this
> protocol and client, right? Seems I get alot of junk FROM Live accounts.
> Hmm, guess that isn't a factual reality.
>
> |
> | And, as somebody who has moved on to Windows XP, and learned how to
> utilize
> | the new client, I have the ability to deal with the change. In 2004,
> when
> | they cut off WebDAV to new, free accounts, I had moved all my email off
> of
> | two Hotmail accounts, figuring (incorrectly, as it turned out) that they
> | were going to go away. The email from those accounts still resides in
> the
> | message store, accessible through Pegasus Mail, a free email client with
> | only POP3, IMAP, and SMTP capability and a unique, proprietary means of
> | direct coordination with an associated MTA. One doesn't *need* the MTA
> for
> | the POP3, IMAP, and SMTP access but having that MTA set up is the
> reason
> I
> | can move email from a Hotmail account accessed through MSOE to a local,
> | LAN-based IMAP account. I *could* have set up either an AOL, Gmail, or
> | Fastmail IMAP account in MSOE, and moved my Hotmail messages to those
> | servers.
> |
> | --
> | Norman
> | ~Oh Lord, why have you come
> | ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
>
> Right, so to you, having moved to XP, you could care less [that's what you
> indicate, middle finger in the air attitude] whether Linux users or other
> OS
> users or users using other Email clients, with accounts on MSN and/or
> Hotmail/Live have or will lose their access in the fashion to which they
> are
> accustomed. Got it..
>
> Well gosh, guess everyone should just move to XP and wait till 2014 for
> that to end as well... dang good idea... by then Microsoft will have
> likely
> shot its self in the head enough to be just a bad memory.
>
> --
> MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> --
> _________
>
>
>

MEB · May 2, 2008

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
news:u16wFhGrIHA.1236@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
| You seem to think it was a *prudent* idea to store your valuable documents
| on someone else's server. Moreover, you chose to store them on Microsoft's
| servers, knowing full well it's just these kinds of shenanigans MS pulls
all
| the time. As far as I'm concerned, you were just plain stupid to do what
you
| did and I can find 50 strangers in my tiny town who would tell you so
| (nothing personal.) I propose that the plaintiff holds too much of the
| liabilility to support the tort. Not that *that* legal notion holds much
| sway in our courts these days, though I think it should be the first rule
of
| torts.
|
| Paperless billing... BAH!! (Just so you understand where I'm coming from,
I
| don't trust ANY electronic storage.)
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS-MVP Shell/User
| www.grystmill.com

Over-ruled. Parties have a reasonable expectation that a service will
perform in the form for which it is presented..

BTW: Homeland Security [those government docs I post here] just issued a
WARNING concerning the use of these types of services, citng in fact,
MSN/Live as one of the examples.... how's that for impact.

--
MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________

|
| "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:%23IEhmXBrIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| >
| > "N. Miller" <anonymous@msnews.aosake.net> wrote in message
| > news:1eh8nntr70gu0$.dlg@msnews.aosake.net...
| > | On Thu, 1 May 2008 19:41:21 -0400, MEB wrote:
| > |
| > | > "N. Miller" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:u9615K1qIHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
| > |
| > | >| "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > | >| news:OFx0AFxqIHA.3508@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| > |
| > | >|> "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > | >|> news:OBD$aLvqIHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
| > |
| > | >|> | Apples and oranges: It does work if the messages are available
in
| > | >|> | (have been downloaded to) the Hotmail-in-OE folders, Maurice.
The
| > | >|> | ( fact that some/many/most of yours are not available has
nothing
| > | >|> | ( to do with this functionality.
| > |
| > | >|> Ah but it does to those millions of users {per Scott} that may
| > presently
| > | >|> have linked accounts, which may have used the accounts as a
| > repository,
| > | >|> which apparently will no longer have that access UNLESS they use
XP
| > SP2
| > | >|> or VISTA.
| > |
| > | >| What, exactly, is a "linked" account? How does it work? I've read
| > your
| > | >| posts up to this one, but they read like legal briefs, full of
lawyer
| > | >| "pursuant to"s, and other jargon, which carries no techical meaning
| > that
| > | >| I can grasp.
| > |
| > | > Live/Hotmail presently allows web and other EMail accounts to be
| > linked
| > to
| > | > other accounts - linked - meaning that account can either be poled
for
| > | > messages sending them to that service or will recieve messages from
| > that
| > | > other service.
| > |
| > | Well, I can find out how to forward email from my Hotmail account to
| > another
| > | account (limited to one destination email address in the
'hotmail.com',
| > | 'msn.com', 'live.com', or whatever custom domain I may have), and how
to
| > | receive email into my Hotmail account from other email accounts
without
| > | using POP3 access (presumably, a Hotmail Plus account allows to fetch
| > email
| > | from other POP3 serves). But I can't poll other accounts using a free
| > | Hotmail account.
| > |
| > | And I don't understand, "registered with the government account",
unless
| > | that means "linked" by POP3 polling?
| > |
| > | > However, Saved messages are not received/sent/syncronized to
| > | > the other accounts, even when marked as unread and placed in the
INBOX
| > [the
| > | > syncronizing area]..
| > |
| > | I was not aware that a Hotmail account "Inbox" was a "synchronizing"
| > area
| > | for linked accounts. The only synchronization I have been able to do
is
| > | between the Hotmail servers and the MS Outlook Express client.
| > |
| > | All of my Hotmail account folders synchronize with my local folders in
| > MS
| > | Outlook Express but, from there, all actions are manual. I can, in
| > fact,
| > | copy/move an email from a Hotmail folder to an IMAP folder in MS
Outlook
| > | Express. And open that account in another client (Pegasus Mail), and
see
| > it
| > | in the appropriate folder.
| > |
| > | I am, as I write this, looking at the headers of a message in a Local
| > Folder
| > | in MS Outlook Express, and in a local folder in Pegasus Mail, a client
| > which
| > | has no capacity to utilize any proprietary MSFT communication format.
| > They
| > | are indistinguishable.
| > |
| > | > The supposed "legal jarjon" is in response to the posted links and
| > | > suggested presentations by others. What do you think I'm supposed to
| > do,,,
| > | > as these parties suggest, and leave the users with the impression
they
| > have
| > | > no recourse. Sorry, Windows may be a "religion", but Microsoft is
not
| > a
| > god.
| > |
| > | >|> Remember, this ISN'T Microsoft's OS, or its EMAIL client, or
| > anything
| > | >|> related. It IS a publicly offered SERVICE, in which millions of
| > users
| > | >|> may now be unduly affected by the change, with NO WAY presently
| > provided by
| > | >|> the service to remove their property.
| > | >|>
| > | >|> As for your SOL,, or even the service agreement presentation,,
these
| > are
| > | >|> written by attorney's to disuade suits. They are not "iron plate",
| > nor
| > | >|> "bullet proof".
| > |
| > | >| OTOH, I would be seriously dissuaded from offering anything which
| > might
| > be
| > | >| remotely construed as a "Public Service", if such an operation were
| > so
| > | >| easily found financially liable for damages in the event of a
| > meltdown,
| > | >| despite any legal disclaimers. Of course, maybe that is your
intent,
| > in
| > | >| the end? Bringing financial ruin down on people whose service fails
| > to
| > perform
| > | >| to your expectations, even when the provdier disclaims any
| > guarantees?
| > |
| > | > Oh right, let's attempt to place this as MY attempt to bring down
| > poor
| > old
| > | > Microsoft, or some innocent business/service somewhere...
| > |
| > | > Using your purposed leniency...
| > |
| > | I am questioning the basis of a tort, not proposing leniency...
| > |
| > | > ...we should excuse:
| > | > credit card companies from accidentally allowing employees to steal
| > IDs
| > and
| > | > other information, or "losing" it to the Internet
| > |
| > | Not comparable to the problem of changing a format on a service in a
| > manner
| > | which inconveniences some users.
| > |
| > | > banks for accidentally allowing your account to be used by others
| > and/or
| > be
| > | > completely drained. or for posting your account information
| > | > PayPal for losing or releasing credit account information, or
posting
| > your
| > | > information
| > |
| > | Not comparable to the problem of changing a format on a service in a
| > manner
| > | which inconveniences some users.
| > |
| > | > ISPs for releasing account information or closing service leaving
the
| > users
| > | > without the ability to retrieve their mails and other
| > |
| > | Not comparable to the problem of changing a format on a service in a
| > manner
| > | which inconveniences some users.
| > |
| > | > any site which receives donations or takes credit cards or other
| > | > information, and that information being exposed to others
| > |
| > | Not comparable to the problem of changing a format on a service in a
| > manner
| > | which inconveniences some users.
| > |
| > | > and all the other things that are presently being done, from hack
| > sites
| > | > masquerading as legitimate sites, to phony ADs being fronts for data
| > and
| > | > information collection..
| > |
| > | Not comparable to the problem of changing a format on a service in a
| > manner
| > | which inconveniences some users.
| > |
| > | > Heck using your presentation, we could even think
| > | > of Email hacks as just another "service" which we should protect...
| > after
| > | > all, all they want is your information, to hack your computer, to
| > maybe
| > | > something as innocent as installing a rootkit... whatever could be
| > wrong
| > | > with that????????
| > |
| > | A lawyerly attempt at a "reductio absurdum" argument?
| > |
| >
| > Dream on, its as relevent as any argument, read some complaints and
| > rulings...
| >
| > | > Right, let's do that,,,
| > |
| > | Let's not put words in other people's mouths.
| >
| > Why not, let's extend your attempt to present this as merely an
| > "inconvenience".
| >
| > So you take your computer to the local repair shop, who sends it to
| > another, and to pick it up you have to drive 700 miles to do so, they
| > don't
| > ship... hey its just an inconvenience..
| >
| > You trade on line, and the service you have your accounts with fails to
| > update your sale immediately so you loose $50,000.00... hey its just an
| > inconvenience.
| >
| > You have your families genological history saved in your Hotmail
account,
| > took you fifteen years to collect, but after client change you lose
| > access... hey its just an inconvenience.
| >
| > You have hundreds of irreplacable photos stored on your Hotmial/Live
| > account, after the change they are essentially unretreivable... hey its
| > only
| > an inconvenience.
| >
| > Go ahead hotshot, place VALUE on each of those...
| >
| > |
| > | > hey, here's an idea, why don't you send your bank account, credit
| > card,
| > health,
| > | > and other information to one of the hacker sites,,,, no wait, why
not
| > just post
| > | > that on the Internet right here.....
| > |
| > | Because that has no connection whatsoever with trying to deal with a
| > | forthcoming technical change in the way that MSFT is operating.
| >
| > Ah but there is, and if you are legally qualified, you are well aware of
| > that fact.
| > Shall we start posting rulings?
| >
| > |
| > | > All of those are services, which you apparently think shouldn't be
| > | > controlled, be held responsible, or have liability. Gosh, you must
| > have
| > | > really spent a lot of time contemplating your proposal...
| > |
| > | Phising sites are "services"? Boy, am I ever confused now.
| >
| > Hey, did you miss that, its their SERVICE, they phish for themselves or
| > others.... shouldn't we let them get a nifty legal document which
| > disclaims
| > all responsibility and liability, . . . how about hack sites, let's let
| > them place a legal disclaimer which absolves them from responsibility...
| > those are as absurd as attempting to state Microsoft/Live will not be
| > responsible for changing its format which harms and damages the people
who
| > use it.
| >
| > |
| > | > Let's go the other direction to business, market, and investors.
| > | >
| > | > Microsoft IS losing ground to other alternative OSs and services.
So
| > as
| > a
| > | > brilliant business maneuver, Microsoft pisses off millions of its
| > service's
| > | > users at one time. Microsoft turns its public, open to any OS and
| > email
| > | > client service, into an OS specific and proprietary client service.
| > |
| > | When was MSFT *ever* "open to the public"? Its OS has always been
| > | proprietary. I was not aware that it ever opened up WebDAV as an open
| > source
| > | protocol.
| >
| > Boy you really should pay attention to what's being attempted right
now...
| > Microsoft is ATTEMPTING to convince the public that it should support
its
| > new "open source" attitude. One could easily equate that to most of the
| > best
| > programmers who are now out in the open source area, like in Linux or
| > Solaris.
| >
| > So here you have one segment of Microsoft going proprietary, saying
screw
| > the users, to another segment attempting to dupe open source programmers
| > into helping it program while it holds the patents and will likely claim
| > ALL
| > the coding once its done [that is its history after all].
| >
| > |
| > | > Will this increase the market share for Microsoft?
| > | > Will this bring new investments to Microsoft?
| > | > Will this ensure Microsoft garners more of the market?
| > | > Should the parties that thought up this rather stupid idea still
| > remain
| > | > employed by Microsoft?
| > |
| > | To the best of my knowledge, the WebDAV protocol was emminently
| > abusable,
| > | and heavily abused by spammers when MSN finally cut off access to
newly
| > | opened MSN Hotmail accounts about Sept. 26, 2004. To the best of my
| > | knowledge, the change in protocols was intended to improve the ability
| > of
| > | Windows Live to service their Hotmail accounts.
| >
| > Right, that's suposition with this new protocol. So why don't YOU
explain
| > the necessity for the proprietary client.
| > So using that new protocol then, was there a noticable improvement in
the
| > service by you?
| >
| > Moreover, we should then presume that spammers will not be able to use
| > this
| > protocol and client, right? Seems I get alot of junk FROM Live accounts.
| > Hmm, guess that isn't a factual reality.
| >
| > |
| > | And, as somebody who has moved on to Windows XP, and learned how to
| > utilize
| > | the new client, I have the ability to deal with the change. In 2004,
| > when
| > | they cut off WebDAV to new, free accounts, I had moved all my email
off
| > of
| > | two Hotmail accounts, figuring (incorrectly, as it turned out) that
they
| > | were going to go away. The email from those accounts still resides in
| > the
| > | message store, accessible through Pegasus Mail, a free email client
with
| > | only POP3, IMAP, and SMTP capability and a unique, proprietary means
of
| > | direct coordination with an associated MTA. One doesn't *need* the MTA
| > for
| > | the POP3, IMAP, and SMTP access but having that MTA set up is the
| > reason
| > I
| > | can move email from a Hotmail account accessed through MSOE to a
local,
| > | LAN-based IMAP account. I *could* have set up either an AOL, Gmail, or
| > | Fastmail IMAP account in MSOE, and moved my Hotmail messages to those
| > | servers.
| > |
| > | --
| > | Norman
| > | ~Oh Lord, why have you come
| > | ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
| >
| > Right, so to you, having moved to XP, you could care less [that's what
you
| > indicate, middle finger in the air attitude] whether Linux users or
other
| > OS
| > users or users using other Email clients, with accounts on MSN and/or
| > Hotmail/Live have or will lose their access in the fashion to which they
| > are
| > accustomed. Got it..
| >
| > Well gosh, guess everyone should just move to XP and wait till 2014 for
| > that to end as well... dang good idea... by then Microsoft will have
| > likely
| > shot its self in the head enough to be just a bad memory.
| >
| > --
| > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| > --
| > _________
| >
| >
| >
|

Gary S. Terhune · May 2, 2008

>
> Over-ruled. Parties have a reasonable expectation that a service will
> perform in the form for which it is presented..
>

LOL, try that one at the carnival.

Not when they already KNOW that it won't. Any due diligence by yourself
would have suggested that your storage scheme, while ideally feasible, would
never stand up to real-world stress, and that, in fact, the defendant is
WELL KNOWN for stranding significant numbers of parties on a regular basis
in the name of technology upgrade.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23YwJrkHrIHA.2520@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> news:u16wFhGrIHA.1236@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> | You seem to think it was a *prudent* idea to store your valuable
> documents
> | on someone else's server. Moreover, you chose to store them on
> Microsoft's
> | servers, knowing full well it's just these kinds of shenanigans MS pulls
> all
> | the time. As far as I'm concerned, you were just plain stupid to do what
> you
> | did and I can find 50 strangers in my tiny town who would tell you so
> | (nothing personal.) I propose that the plaintiff holds too much of the
> | liabilility to support the tort. Not that *that* legal notion holds much
> | sway in our courts these days, though I think it should be the first
> rule
> of
> | torts.
> |
> | Paperless billing... BAH!! (Just so you understand where I'm coming
> from,
> I
> | don't trust ANY electronic storage.)
> |
> | --
> | Gary S. Terhune
> | MS-MVP Shell/User
> | www.grystmill.com
>
> Over-ruled. Parties have a reasonable expectation that a service will
> perform in the form for which it is presented..
>
> BTW: Homeland Security [those government docs I post here] just issued a
> WARNING concerning the use of these types of services, citng in fact,
> MSN/Live as one of the examples.... how's that for impact.
>
> --
> MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> --
> _________
>
>
> |
> | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | news:%23IEhmXBrIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> | >
> | > "N. Miller" <anonymous@msnews.aosake.net> wrote in message
> | > news:1eh8nntr70gu0$.dlg@msnews.aosake.net...
> | > | On Thu, 1 May 2008 19:41:21 -0400, MEB wrote:
> | > |
> | > | > "N. Miller" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> | > | > news:u9615K1qIHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> | > |
> | > | >| "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | > | >| news:OFx0AFxqIHA.3508@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> | > |
> | > | >|> "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
> | > | >|> news:OBD$aLvqIHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> | > |
> | > | >|> | Apples and oranges: It does work if the messages are available
> in
> | > | >|> | (have been downloaded to) the Hotmail-in-OE folders, Maurice.
> The
> | > | >|> | ( fact that some/many/most of yours are not available has
> nothing
> | > | >|> | ( to do with this functionality.
> | > |
> | > | >|> Ah but it does to those millions of users {per Scott} that may
> | > presently
> | > | >|> have linked accounts, which may have used the accounts as a
> | > repository,
> | > | >|> which apparently will no longer have that access UNLESS they use
> XP
> | > SP2
> | > | >|> or VISTA.
> | > |
> | > | >| What, exactly, is a "linked" account? How does it work? I've read
> | > your
> | > | >| posts up to this one, but they read like legal briefs, full of
> lawyer
> | > | >| "pursuant to"s, and other jargon, which carries no techical
> meaning
> | > that
> | > | >| I can grasp.
> | > |
> | > | > Live/Hotmail presently allows web and other EMail accounts to be
> | > linked
> | > to
> | > | > other accounts - linked - meaning that account can either be poled
> for
> | > | > messages sending them to that service or will recieve messages
> from
> | > that
> | > | > other service.
> | > |
> | > | Well, I can find out how to forward email from my Hotmail account to
> | > another
> | > | account (limited to one destination email address in the
> 'hotmail.com',
> | > | 'msn.com', 'live.com', or whatever custom domain I may have), and
> how
> to
> | > | receive email into my Hotmail account from other email accounts
> without
> | > | using POP3 access (presumably, a Hotmail Plus account allows to
> fetch
> | > email
> | > | from other POP3 serves). But I can't poll other accounts using a
> free
> | > | Hotmail account.
> | > |
> | > | And I don't understand, "registered with the government account",
> unless
> | > | that means "linked" by POP3 polling?
> | > |
> | > | > However, Saved messages are not received/sent/syncronized to
> | > | > the other accounts, even when marked as unread and placed in the
> INBOX
> | > [the
> | > | > syncronizing area]..
> | > |
> | > | I was not aware that a Hotmail account "Inbox" was a "synchronizing"
> | > area
> | > | for linked accounts. The only synchronization I have been able to do
> is
> | > | between the Hotmail servers and the MS Outlook Express client.
> | > |
> | > | All of my Hotmail account folders synchronize with my local folders
> in
> | > MS
> | > | Outlook Express but, from there, all actions are manual. I can, in
> | > fact,
> | > | copy/move an email from a Hotmail folder to an IMAP folder in MS
> Outlook
> | > | Express. And open that account in another client (Pegasus Mail), and
> see
> | > it
> | > | in the appropriate folder.
> | > |
> | > | I am, as I write this, looking at the headers of a message in a
> Local
> | > Folder
> | > | in MS Outlook Express, and in a local folder in Pegasus Mail, a
> client
> | > which
> | > | has no capacity to utilize any proprietary MSFT communication
> format.
> | > They
> | > | are indistinguishable.
> | > |
> | > | > The supposed "legal jarjon" is in response to the posted links
> and
> | > | > suggested presentations by others. What do you think I'm supposed
> to
> | > do,,,
> | > | > as these parties suggest, and leave the users with the impression
> they
> | > have
> | > | > no recourse. Sorry, Windows may be a "religion", but Microsoft is
> not
> | > a
> | > god.
> | > |
> | > | >|> Remember, this ISN'T Microsoft's OS, or its EMAIL client, or
> | > anything
> | > | >|> related. It IS a publicly offered SERVICE, in which millions of
> | > users
> | > | >|> may now be unduly affected by the change, with NO WAY presently
> | > provided by
> | > | >|> the service to remove their property.
> | > | >|>
> | > | >|> As for your SOL,, or even the service agreement presentation,,
> these
> | > are
> | > | >|> written by attorney's to disuade suits. They are not "iron
> plate",
> | > nor
> | > | >|> "bullet proof".
> | > |
> | > | >| OTOH, I would be seriously dissuaded from offering anything which
> | > might
> | > be
> | > | >| remotely construed as a "Public Service", if such an operation
> were
> | > so
> | > | >| easily found financially liable for damages in the event of a
> | > meltdown,
> | > | >| despite any legal disclaimers. Of course, maybe that is your
> intent,
> | > in
> | > | >| the end? Bringing financial ruin down on people whose service
> fails
> | > to
> | > perform
> | > | >| to your expectations, even when the provdier disclaims any
> | > guarantees?
> | > |
> | > | > Oh right, let's attempt to place this as MY attempt to bring down
> | > poor
> | > old
> | > | > Microsoft, or some innocent business/service somewhere...
> | > |
> | > | > Using your purposed leniency...
> | > |
> | > | I am questioning the basis of a tort, not proposing leniency...
> | > |
> | > | > ...we should excuse:
> | > | > credit card companies from accidentally allowing employees to
> steal
> | > IDs
> | > and
> | > | > other information, or "losing" it to the Internet
> | > |
> | > | Not comparable to the problem of changing a format on a service in a
> | > manner
> | > | which inconveniences some users.
> | > |
> | > | > banks for accidentally allowing your account to be used by others
> | > and/or
> | > be
> | > | > completely drained. or for posting your account information
> | > | > PayPal for losing or releasing credit account information, or
> posting
> | > your
> | > | > information
> | > |
> | > | Not comparable to the problem of changing a format on a service in a
> | > manner
> | > | which inconveniences some users.
> | > |
> | > | > ISPs for releasing account information or closing service leaving
> the
> | > users
> | > | > without the ability to retrieve their mails and other
> | > |
> | > | Not comparable to the problem of changing a format on a service in a
> | > manner
> | > | which inconveniences some users.
> | > |
> | > | > any site which receives donations or takes credit cards or other
> | > | > information, and that information being exposed to others
> | > |
> | > | Not comparable to the problem of changing a format on a service in a
> | > manner
> | > | which inconveniences some users.
> | > |
> | > | > and all the other things that are presently being done, from hack
> | > sites
> | > | > masquerading as legitimate sites, to phony ADs being fronts for
> data
> | > and
> | > | > information collection..
> | > |
> | > | Not comparable to the problem of changing a format on a service in a
> | > manner
> | > | which inconveniences some users.
> | > |
> | > | > Heck using your presentation, we could even think
> | > | > of Email hacks as just another "service" which we should
> protect...
> | > after
> | > | > all, all they want is your information, to hack your computer, to
> | > maybe
> | > | > something as innocent as installing a rootkit... whatever could be
> | > wrong
> | > | > with that????????
> | > |
> | > | A lawyerly attempt at a "reductio absurdum" argument?
> | > |
> | >
> | > Dream on, its as relevent as any argument, read some complaints and
> | > rulings...
> | >
> | > | > Right, let's do that,,,
> | > |
> | > | Let's not put words in other people's mouths.
> | >
> | > Why not, let's extend your attempt to present this as merely an
> | > "inconvenience".
> | >
> | > So you take your computer to the local repair shop, who sends it to
> | > another, and to pick it up you have to drive 700 miles to do so, they
> | > don't
> | > ship... hey its just an inconvenience..
> | >
> | > You trade on line, and the service you have your accounts with fails
> to
> | > update your sale immediately so you loose $50,000.00... hey its just
> an
> | > inconvenience.
> | >
> | > You have your families genological history saved in your Hotmail
> account,
> | > took you fifteen years to collect, but after client change you lose
> | > access... hey its just an inconvenience.
> | >
> | > You have hundreds of irreplacable photos stored on your Hotmial/Live
> | > account, after the change they are essentially unretreivable... hey
> its
> | > only
> | > an inconvenience.
> | >
> | > Go ahead hotshot, place VALUE on each of those...
> | >
> | > |
> | > | > hey, here's an idea, why don't you send your bank account, credit
> | > card,
> | > health,
> | > | > and other information to one of the hacker sites,,,, no wait, why
> not
> | > just post
> | > | > that on the Internet right here.....
> | > |
> | > | Because that has no connection whatsoever with trying to deal with a
> | > | forthcoming technical change in the way that MSFT is operating.
> | >
> | > Ah but there is, and if you are legally qualified, you are well aware
> of
> | > that fact.
> | > Shall we start posting rulings?
> | >
> | > |
> | > | > All of those are services, which you apparently think shouldn't be
> | > | > controlled, be held responsible, or have liability. Gosh, you must
> | > have
> | > | > really spent a lot of time contemplating your proposal...
> | > |
> | > | Phising sites are "services"? Boy, am I ever confused now.
> | >
> | > Hey, did you miss that, its their SERVICE, they phish for themselves
> or
> | > others.... shouldn't we let them get a nifty legal document which
> | > disclaims
> | > all responsibility and liability, . . . how about hack sites, let's
> let
> | > them place a legal disclaimer which absolves them from
> responsibility...
> | > those are as absurd as attempting to state Microsoft/Live will not be
> | > responsible for changing its format which harms and damages the people
> who
> | > use it.
> | >
> | > |
> | > | > Let's go the other direction to business, market, and investors.
> | > | >
> | > | > Microsoft IS losing ground to other alternative OSs and services.
> So
> | > as
> | > a
> | > | > brilliant business maneuver, Microsoft pisses off millions of its
> | > service's
> | > | > users at one time. Microsoft turns its public, open to any OS and
> | > email
> | > | > client service, into an OS specific and proprietary client
> service.
> | > |
> | > | When was MSFT *ever* "open to the public"? Its OS has always been
> | > | proprietary. I was not aware that it ever opened up WebDAV as an
> open
> | > source
> | > | protocol.
> | >
> | > Boy you really should pay attention to what's being attempted right
> now...
> | > Microsoft is ATTEMPTING to convince the public that it should support
> its
> | > new "open source" attitude. One could easily equate that to most of
> the
> | > best
> | > programmers who are now out in the open source area, like in Linux or
> | > Solaris.
> | >
> | > So here you have one segment of Microsoft going proprietary, saying
> screw
> | > the users, to another segment attempting to dupe open source
> programmers
> | > into helping it program while it holds the patents and will likely
> claim
> | > ALL
> | > the coding once its done [that is its history after all].
> | >
> | > |
> | > | > Will this increase the market share for Microsoft?
> | > | > Will this bring new investments to Microsoft?
> | > | > Will this ensure Microsoft garners more of the market?
> | > | > Should the parties that thought up this rather stupid idea still
> | > remain
> | > | > employed by Microsoft?
> | > |
> | > | To the best of my knowledge, the WebDAV protocol was emminently
> | > abusable,
> | > | and heavily abused by spammers when MSN finally cut off access to
> newly
> | > | opened MSN Hotmail accounts about Sept. 26, 2004. To the best of my
> | > | knowledge, the change in protocols was intended to improve the
> ability
> | > of
> | > | Windows Live to service their Hotmail accounts.
> | >
> | > Right, that's suposition with this new protocol. So why don't YOU
> explain
> | > the necessity for the proprietary client.
> | > So using that new protocol then, was there a noticable improvement in
> the
> | > service by you?
> | >
> | > Moreover, we should then presume that spammers will not be able to use
> | > this
> | > protocol and client, right? Seems I get alot of junk FROM Live
> accounts.
> | > Hmm, guess that isn't a factual reality.
> | >
> | > |
> | > | And, as somebody who has moved on to Windows XP, and learned how to
> | > utilize
> | > | the new client, I have the ability to deal with the change. In 2004,
> | > when
> | > | they cut off WebDAV to new, free accounts, I had moved all my email
> off
> | > of
> | > | two Hotmail accounts, figuring (incorrectly, as it turned out) that
> they
> | > | were going to go away. The email from those accounts still resides
> in
> | > the
> | > | message store, accessible through Pegasus Mail, a free email client
> with
> | > | only POP3, IMAP, and SMTP capability and a unique, proprietary
> means
> of
> | > | direct coordination with an associated MTA. One doesn't *need* the
> MTA
> | > for
> | > | the POP3, IMAP, and SMTP access but having that MTA set up is the
> | > reason
> | > I
> | > | can move email from a Hotmail account accessed through MSOE to a
> local,
> | > | LAN-based IMAP account. I *could* have set up either an AOL, Gmail,
> or
> | > | Fastmail IMAP account in MSOE, and moved my Hotmail messages to
> those
> | > | servers.
> | > |
> | > | --
> | > | Norman
> | > | ~Oh Lord, why have you come
> | > | ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
> | >
> | > Right, so to you, having moved to XP, you could care less [that's what
> you
> | > indicate, middle finger in the air attitude] whether Linux users or
> other
> | > OS
> | > users or users using other Email clients, with accounts on MSN and/or
> | > Hotmail/Live have or will lose their access in the fashion to which
> they
> | > are
> | > accustomed. Got it..
> | >
> | > Well gosh, guess everyone should just move to XP and wait till 2014
> for
> | > that to end as well... dang good idea... by then Microsoft will have
> | > likely
> | > shot its self in the head enough to be just a bad memory.
> | >
> | > --
> | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> | > --
> | > _________
> | >
> | >
> | >
> |
>
>

MEB · May 2, 2008

Point well taken, the attorneys will approach the bench for a discussion off
record.[grin]

--
MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
news:e9rD6rHrIHA.3456@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
| >
| > Over-ruled. Parties have a reasonable expectation that a service will
| > perform in the form for which it is presented..
| >
|
| LOL, try that one at the carnival.
|
| Not when they already KNOW that it won't. Any due diligence by yourself
| would have suggested that your storage scheme, while ideally feasible,
would
| never stand up to real-world stress, and that, in fact, the defendant is
| WELL KNOWN for stranding significant numbers of parties on a regular basis
| in the name of technology upgrade.
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS-MVP Shell/User
| www.grystmill.com
|
| "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:%23YwJrkHrIHA.2520@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
| >
| > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| > news:u16wFhGrIHA.1236@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
| > | You seem to think it was a *prudent* idea to store your valuable
| > documents
| > | on someone else's server. Moreover, you chose to store them on
| > Microsoft's
| > | servers, knowing full well it's just these kinds of shenanigans MS
pulls
| > all
| > | the time. As far as I'm concerned, you were just plain stupid to do
what
| > you
| > | did and I can find 50 strangers in my tiny town who would tell you so
| > | (nothing personal.) I propose that the plaintiff holds too much of the
| > | liabilility to support the tort. Not that *that* legal notion holds
much
| > | sway in our courts these days, though I think it should be the first
| > rule
| > of
| > | torts.
| > |
| > | Paperless billing... BAH!! (Just so you understand where I'm coming
| > from,
| > I
| > | don't trust ANY electronic storage.)
| > |
| > | --
| > | Gary S. Terhune
| > | MS-MVP Shell/User
| > | www.grystmill.com
| >
| > Over-ruled. Parties have a reasonable expectation that a service will
| > perform in the form for which it is presented..
| >
| > BTW: Homeland Security [those government docs I post here] just issued a
| > WARNING concerning the use of these types of services, citng in fact,
| > MSN/Live as one of the examples.... how's that for impact.
| >
| > --
| > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| > --
| > _________
| >
| >
| > |
| > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > | news:%23IEhmXBrIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| > | >
| > | > "N. Miller" <anonymous@msnews.aosake.net> wrote in message
| > | > news:1eh8nntr70gu0$.dlg@msnews.aosake.net...
| > | > | On Thu, 1 May 2008 19:41:21 -0400, MEB wrote:
| > | > |
| > | > | > "N. Miller" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
| > | > | > news:u9615K1qIHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
| > | > |
| > | > | >| "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > | >| news:OFx0AFxqIHA.3508@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| > | > |
| > | > | >|> "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > | >|> news:OBD$aLvqIHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
| > | > |
| > | > | >|> | Apples and oranges: It does work if the messages are
available
| > in
| > | > | >|> | (have been downloaded to) the Hotmail-in-OE folders,
Maurice.
| > The
| > | > | >|> | ( fact that some/many/most of yours are not available has
| > nothing
| > | > | >|> | ( to do with this functionality.
| > | > |
| > | > | >|> Ah but it does to those millions of users {per Scott} that may
| > | > presently
| > | > | >|> have linked accounts, which may have used the accounts as a
| > | > repository,
| > | > | >|> which apparently will no longer have that access UNLESS they
use
| > XP
| > | > SP2
| > | > | >|> or VISTA.
| > | > |
| > | > | >| What, exactly, is a "linked" account? How does it work? I've
read
| > | > your
| > | > | >| posts up to this one, but they read like legal briefs, full of
| > lawyer
| > | > | >| "pursuant to"s, and other jargon, which carries no techical
| > meaning
| > | > that
| > | > | >| I can grasp.
| > | > |
| > | > | > Live/Hotmail presently allows web and other EMail accounts to
be
| > | > linked
| > | > to
| > | > | > other accounts - linked - meaning that account can either be
poled
| > for
| > | > | > messages sending them to that service or will recieve messages
| > from
| > | > that
| > | > | > other service.
| > | > |
| > | > | Well, I can find out how to forward email from my Hotmail account
to
| > | > another
| > | > | account (limited to one destination email address in the
| > 'hotmail.com',
| > | > | 'msn.com', 'live.com', or whatever custom domain I may have), and
| > how
| > to
| > | > | receive email into my Hotmail account from other email accounts
| > without
| > | > | using POP3 access (presumably, a Hotmail Plus account allows to
| > fetch
| > | > email
| > | > | from other POP3 serves). But I can't poll other accounts using a
| > free
| > | > | Hotmail account.
| > | > |
| > | > | And I don't understand, "registered with the government account",
| > unless
| > | > | that means "linked" by POP3 polling?
| > | > |
| > | > | > However, Saved messages are not received/sent/syncronized to
| > | > | > the other accounts, even when marked as unread and placed in the
| > INBOX
| > | > [the
| > | > | > syncronizing area]..
| > | > |
| > | > | I was not aware that a Hotmail account "Inbox" was a
"synchronizing"
| > | > area
| > | > | for linked accounts. The only synchronization I have been able to
do
| > is
| > | > | between the Hotmail servers and the MS Outlook Express client.
| > | > |
| > | > | All of my Hotmail account folders synchronize with my local
folders
| > in
| > | > MS
| > | > | Outlook Express but, from there, all actions are manual. I can,
in
| > | > fact,
| > | > | copy/move an email from a Hotmail folder to an IMAP folder in MS
| > Outlook
| > | > | Express. And open that account in another client (Pegasus Mail),
and
| > see
| > | > it
| > | > | in the appropriate folder.
| > | > |
| > | > | I am, as I write this, looking at the headers of a message in a
| > Local
| > | > Folder
| > | > | in MS Outlook Express, and in a local folder in Pegasus Mail, a
| > client
| > | > which
| > | > | has no capacity to utilize any proprietary MSFT communication
| > format.
| > | > They
| > | > | are indistinguishable.
| > | > |
| > | > | > The supposed "legal jarjon" is in response to the posted links
| > and
| > | > | > suggested presentations by others. What do you think I'm
supposed
| > to
| > | > do,,,
| > | > | > as these parties suggest, and leave the users with the
impression
| > they
| > | > have
| > | > | > no recourse. Sorry, Windows may be a "religion", but Microsoft
is
| > not
| > | > a
| > | > god.
| > | > |
| > | > | >|> Remember, this ISN'T Microsoft's OS, or its EMAIL client, or
| > | > anything
| > | > | >|> related. It IS a publicly offered SERVICE, in which millions
of
| > | > users
| > | > | >|> may now be unduly affected by the change, with NO WAY
presently
| > | > provided by
| > | > | >|> the service to remove their property.
| > | > | >|>
| > | > | >|> As for your SOL,, or even the service agreement presentation,,
| > these
| > | > are
| > | > | >|> written by attorney's to disuade suits. They are not "iron
| > plate",
| > | > nor
| > | > | >|> "bullet proof".
| > | > |
| > | > | >| OTOH, I would be seriously dissuaded from offering anything
which
| > | > might
| > | > be
| > | > | >| remotely construed as a "Public Service", if such an operation
| > were
| > | > so
| > | > | >| easily found financially liable for damages in the event of a
| > | > meltdown,
| > | > | >| despite any legal disclaimers. Of course, maybe that is your
| > intent,
| > | > in
| > | > | >| the end? Bringing financial ruin down on people whose service
| > fails
| > | > to
| > | > perform
| > | > | >| to your expectations, even when the provdier disclaims any
| > | > guarantees?
| > | > |
| > | > | > Oh right, let's attempt to place this as MY attempt to bring
down
| > | > poor
| > | > old
| > | > | > Microsoft, or some innocent business/service somewhere...
| > | > |
| > | > | > Using your purposed leniency...
| > | > |
| > | > | I am questioning the basis of a tort, not proposing leniency...
| > | > |
| > | > | > ...we should excuse:
| > | > | > credit card companies from accidentally allowing employees to
| > steal
| > | > IDs
| > | > and
| > | > | > other information, or "losing" it to the Internet
| > | > |
| > | > | Not comparable to the problem of changing a format on a service in
a
| > | > manner
| > | > | which inconveniences some users.
| > | > |
| > | > | > banks for accidentally allowing your account to be used by
others
| > | > and/or
| > | > be
| > | > | > completely drained. or for posting your account information
| > | > | > PayPal for losing or releasing credit account information, or
| > posting
| > | > your
| > | > | > information
| > | > |
| > | > | Not comparable to the problem of changing a format on a service in
a
| > | > manner
| > | > | which inconveniences some users.
| > | > |
| > | > | > ISPs for releasing account information or closing service
leaving
| > the
| > | > users
| > | > | > without the ability to retrieve their mails and other
| > | > |
| > | > | Not comparable to the problem of changing a format on a service in
a
| > | > manner
| > | > | which inconveniences some users.
| > | > |
| > | > | > any site which receives donations or takes credit cards or other
| > | > | > information, and that information being exposed to others
| > | > |
| > | > | Not comparable to the problem of changing a format on a service in
a
| > | > manner
| > | > | which inconveniences some users.
| > | > |
| > | > | > and all the other things that are presently being done, from
hack
| > | > sites
| > | > | > masquerading as legitimate sites, to phony ADs being fronts for
| > data
| > | > and
| > | > | > information collection..
| > | > |
| > | > | Not comparable to the problem of changing a format on a service in
a
| > | > manner
| > | > | which inconveniences some users.
| > | > |
| > | > | > Heck using your presentation, we could even think
| > | > | > of Email hacks as just another "service" which we should
| > protect...
| > | > after
| > | > | > all, all they want is your information, to hack your computer,
to
| > | > maybe
| > | > | > something as innocent as installing a rootkit... whatever could
be
| > | > wrong
| > | > | > with that????????
| > | > |
| > | > | A lawyerly attempt at a "reductio absurdum" argument?
| > | > |
| > | >
| > | > Dream on, its as relevent as any argument, read some complaints and
| > | > rulings...
| > | >
| > | > | > Right, let's do that,,,
| > | > |
| > | > | Let's not put words in other people's mouths.
| > | >
| > | > Why not, let's extend your attempt to present this as merely an
| > | > "inconvenience".
| > | >
| > | > So you take your computer to the local repair shop, who sends it to
| > | > another, and to pick it up you have to drive 700 miles to do so,
they
| > | > don't
| > | > ship... hey its just an inconvenience..
| > | >
| > | > You trade on line, and the service you have your accounts with fails
| > to
| > | > update your sale immediately so you loose $50,000.00... hey its just
| > an
| > | > inconvenience.
| > | >
| > | > You have your families genological history saved in your Hotmail
| > account,
| > | > took you fifteen years to collect, but after client change you lose
| > | > access... hey its just an inconvenience.
| > | >
| > | > You have hundreds of irreplacable photos stored on your Hotmial/Live
| > | > account, after the change they are essentially unretreivable... hey
| > its
| > | > only
| > | > an inconvenience.
| > | >
| > | > Go ahead hotshot, place VALUE on each of those...
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | > hey, here's an idea, why don't you send your bank account,
credit
| > | > card,
| > | > health,
| > | > | > and other information to one of the hacker sites,,,, no wait,
why
| > not
| > | > just post
| > | > | > that on the Internet right here.....
| > | > |
| > | > | Because that has no connection whatsoever with trying to deal with
a
| > | > | forthcoming technical change in the way that MSFT is operating.
| > | >
| > | > Ah but there is, and if you are legally qualified, you are well
aware
| > of
| > | > that fact.
| > | > Shall we start posting rulings?
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | > All of those are services, which you apparently think shouldn't
be
| > | > | > controlled, be held responsible, or have liability. Gosh, you
must
| > | > have
| > | > | > really spent a lot of time contemplating your proposal...
| > | > |
| > | > | Phising sites are "services"? Boy, am I ever confused now.
| > | >
| > | > Hey, did you miss that, its their SERVICE, they phish for themselves
| > or
| > | > others.... shouldn't we let them get a nifty legal document which
| > | > disclaims
| > | > all responsibility and liability, . . . how about hack sites, let's
| > let
| > | > them place a legal disclaimer which absolves them from
| > responsibility...
| > | > those are as absurd as attempting to state Microsoft/Live will not
be
| > | > responsible for changing its format which harms and damages the
people
| > who
| > | > use it.
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | > Let's go the other direction to business, market, and
investors.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Microsoft IS losing ground to other alternative OSs and
services.
| > So
| > | > as
| > | > a
| > | > | > brilliant business maneuver, Microsoft pisses off millions of
its
| > | > service's
| > | > | > users at one time. Microsoft turns its public, open to any OS
and
| > | > email
| > | > | > client service, into an OS specific and proprietary client
| > service.
| > | > |
| > | > | When was MSFT *ever* "open to the public"? Its OS has always been
| > | > | proprietary. I was not aware that it ever opened up WebDAV as an
| > open
| > | > source
| > | > | protocol.
| > | >
| > | > Boy you really should pay attention to what's being attempted right
| > now...
| > | > Microsoft is ATTEMPTING to convince the public that it should
support
| > its
| > | > new "open source" attitude. One could easily equate that to most of
| > the
| > | > best
| > | > programmers who are now out in the open source area, like in Linux
or
| > | > Solaris.
| > | >
| > | > So here you have one segment of Microsoft going proprietary, saying
| > screw
| > | > the users, to another segment attempting to dupe open source
| > programmers
| > | > into helping it program while it holds the patents and will likely
| > claim
| > | > ALL
| > | > the coding once its done [that is its history after all].
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | > Will this increase the market share for Microsoft?
| > | > | > Will this bring new investments to Microsoft?
| > | > | > Will this ensure Microsoft garners more of the market?
| > | > | > Should the parties that thought up this rather stupid idea
still
| > | > remain
| > | > | > employed by Microsoft?
| > | > |
| > | > | To the best of my knowledge, the WebDAV protocol was emminently
| > | > abusable,
| > | > | and heavily abused by spammers when MSN finally cut off access to
| > newly
| > | > | opened MSN Hotmail accounts about Sept. 26, 2004. To the best of
my
| > | > | knowledge, the change in protocols was intended to improve the
| > ability
| > | > of
| > | > | Windows Live to service their Hotmail accounts.
| > | >
| > | > Right, that's suposition with this new protocol. So why don't YOU
| > explain
| > | > the necessity for the proprietary client.
| > | > So using that new protocol then, was there a noticable improvement
in
| > the
| > | > service by you?
| > | >
| > | > Moreover, we should then presume that spammers will not be able to
use
| > | > this
| > | > protocol and client, right? Seems I get alot of junk FROM Live
| > accounts.
| > | > Hmm, guess that isn't a factual reality.
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | And, as somebody who has moved on to Windows XP, and learned how
to
| > | > utilize
| > | > | the new client, I have the ability to deal with the change. In
2004,
| > | > when
| > | > | they cut off WebDAV to new, free accounts, I had moved all my
email
| > off
| > | > of
| > | > | two Hotmail accounts, figuring (incorrectly, as it turned out)
that
| > they
| > | > | were going to go away. The email from those accounts still resides
| > in
| > | > the
| > | > | message store, accessible through Pegasus Mail, a free email
client
| > with
| > | > | only POP3, IMAP, and SMTP capability and a unique, proprietary
| > means
| > of
| > | > | direct coordination with an associated MTA. One doesn't *need* the
| > MTA
| > | > for
| > | > | the POP3, IMAP, and SMTP access but having that MTA set up is the
| > | > reason
| > | > I
| > | > | can move email from a Hotmail account accessed through MSOE to a
| > local,
| > | > | LAN-based IMAP account. I *could* have set up either an AOL,
Gmail,
| > or
| > | > | Fastmail IMAP account in MSOE, and moved my Hotmail messages to
| > those
| > | > | servers.
| > | > |
| > | > | --
| > | > | Norman
| > | > | ~Oh Lord, why have you come
| > | > | ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
| > | >
| > | > Right, so to you, having moved to XP, you could care less [that's
what
| > you
| > | > indicate, middle finger in the air attitude] whether Linux users or
| > other
| > | > OS
| > | > users or users using other Email clients, with accounts on MSN
and/or
| > | > Hotmail/Live have or will lose their access in the fashion to which
| > they
| > | > are
| > | > accustomed. Got it..
| > | >
| > | > Well gosh, guess everyone should just move to XP and wait till 2014
| > for
| > | > that to end as well... dang good idea... by then Microsoft will have
| > | > likely
| > | > shot its self in the head enough to be just a bad memory.
| > | >
| > | > --
| > | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| > | > --
| > | > _________
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| >
| >
|

PA Bear [MS MVP] · May 2, 2008

Source, please?

MEB wrote:
<snip>
> BTW: Homeland Security [those government docs I post here] just issued a
> WARNING concerning the use of these types of services, citng in fact,
> MSN/Live as one of the examples....

MEB · May 2, 2008

Home Land Security - US CERT

http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/signup.html

--
MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________

"PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:O8ir7kIrIHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
| Source, please?
|
| MEB wrote:
| <snip>
| > BTW: Homeland Security [those government docs I post here] just issued a
| > WARNING concerning the use of these types of services, citng in fact,
| > MSN/Live as one of the examples....

Windows Live - no more Outlook Express

PA Bear [MS MVP]

thanatoid

thanatoid

MEB

Gary S. Terhune

PCR

N. Miller

N. Miller

PA Bear [MS MVP]

PA Bear [MS MVP]

MEB

MEB

N. Miller

MEB

Gary S. Terhune

MEB

Gary S. Terhune

MEB

PA Bear [MS MVP]

MEB

Similar threads