Windows Live - no more Outlook Express

--

_________

May 1, 2008

Re: Windows Live - no more Outlook Express

"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

 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.

|

--

--

_________

May 2, 2008

Re: Windows Live - no more Outlook Express

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

May 2, 2008

Re: Windows Live - no more Outlook Express

"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.

--

--

_________

May 2, 2008

Re: Windows Live - no more Outlook Express

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

http://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.

>

> --

| http://www.grystmill.com

> --

> _________

>

May 2, 2008

Re: Windows Live - no more Outlook Express

"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

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" <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.

| >

| > --

| > --

| > _________

| >

|

May 2, 2008

Re: Windows Live - no more Outlook Express

>

> 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

http://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

> | http://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" <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

> | > --

> | > _________

> | >

> |

>

May 2, 2008

Re: Windows Live - no more Outlook Express

Point well taken, the attorneys will approach the bench for a discussion off

record.[grin]

--

| http://www.grystmill.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

|

| "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

| > | http://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.

| >

| > --

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

| > --

| > _________

| >

| > |

| > | "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

| > | > --

| > | > _________

| > | >

| > |

| >

|

May 2, 2008

Re: Windows Live - no more Outlook Express

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....

May 2, 2008

Re: Windows Live - no more Outlook Express

Home Land Security - US CERT

--

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

--

_________

"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....

May 2, 2008

Re: Windows Live - no more Outlook Express

Publicly available source?

MEB wrote:

> Home Land Security - US CERT

>

>

> --

http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/tips/ST05-009.html

>

> "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....

May 2, 2008

Re: Windows Live - no more Outlook Express

--

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

--

_________

"PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:e6DyZ%23IrIHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

| Publicly available source?

|

| MEB wrote:

| > Home Land Security - US CERT

| >

| >

| > --

> http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/tips/ST05-009.html

| >

| > "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....

|

May 2, 2008

Re: Windows Live - no more Outlook Express

"MSN/Live" is not cited anywhere on that page.

>>>>> Parties have a reasonable expectation that a service will

>>>>> perform in the form for which it is presented.

Nor is there anything pertinent to the above.

--

~PA Bear

MEB wrote:

>

> --

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

>

> "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:e6DyZ%23IrIHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>> Publicly available source?

>>

>> MEB wrote:

>>> Home Land Security - US CERT

>>>

>>>

>>> --

>>> 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>

>>>>> 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....

May 3, 2008

Re: Windows Live - no more Outlook Express

" Many service providers offer free email accounts (e.g., Yahoo!,

Hotmail, Gmail)." now let's see MSN was Hotmail, Hotmail became Live...

ah duh, think they might be the same.

PA, really the statement comes from court rulings... get a grip dude...

your Windows pants are showing...

--

| > http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/tips/ST05-009.html

--

_________

"PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:%23m27bKKrIHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

| "MSN/Live" is not cited anywhere on that page.

|

| >>>>> Parties have a reasonable expectation that a service will

| >>>>> perform in the form for which it is presented.

|

| Nor is there anything pertinent to the above.

|

| --

| ~PA Bear

|

| MEB wrote:

| >

| > --

> http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/tips/ST05-009.html

| >

| > "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message

| > news:e6DyZ%23IrIHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

| >> Publicly available source?

| >>

| >> MEB wrote:

| >>> 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>

| >>>>> 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....

|

May 3, 2008

Re: Windows Live - no more Outlook Express

On Fri, 2 May 2008 17:43:34 -0400, MEB wrote:

Our government concerned about our privacy? This would be the same

government whose NSA has violated our Constitutional rights through

warrantless wiretaps on the AT&T data transit network? There's a laugh.

--

Norman

~Oh Lord, why have you come

~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

May 16, 2008

Re: Windows Live - no more Outlook Express

On Thu, 1 May 2008 19:58:57 -0400, MEB wrote:

> ...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

 style...[/color]

That make absolutely no sense whatsoever. The messages are not "chopped up"

by "filters", they are displayed according to the MIME encoded instructions.

If you receive email from some client which mangles the MIME encoding on the

sending end, the receiving client sometimes does not know how to unmangle

what was sent.

--

Norman

~Oh Lord, why have you come

~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

May 16, 2008

Re: Windows Live - no more Outlook Express

So "chopped up" is worse or less descriptive than "mangled", right, got

it...

"Filters" {which are actually coding} and advertising additions are

modifications ADDED or USED by servers, which happens to be the Live

service. A service which, until recently, DID NOT cause these issues. The

messages on the service displayed exactly as sent, and could be forwarded

out and received in that same fashion/format. Hence, the issue is the new

coding/filters now being used, as nothing has change in the client

configuration on this machine.

So you don't like my simply explanation, and we are now dealing in

semantics... got it...

--