Re: Windows Live - no more Outlook Express
"PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uF0BrutpIHA.4848@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
| PS: Is the "missing" Hotmail-in-OE data available at the webmail page for
| the account(s)?
|
| (Contact) Windows Live Hotmail Support
|
https://support.live.com/default.aspx?productkey=wlmail
| --
| ~PA Bear
|
|
| PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
| >> Impossible to do, the accounts are not synchronized...
| >
| > Sorry to hear that. FWIW, I still have messages in my Hotmail-in-OE
| > folders
| > available from October 2002. Perhaps the back-up and long-term storage
| > information Scott described in his most recent reply
| >
(
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion/msg/5f
edf03e884d8b22)
| > is at play in your case.
Okay, this is a somewhat more sensible post. While waiting for a response
here and/or via Live Support:
---
I addressed [prior to reading your post] the issue of retrieval/access
through/to Live, I will inform this discussion of the correspondence and/or
outcome.
-------
Yes, as Scott presented [and I indicated], the mail IS saved upon the web
based account [since 2004/5], it is NOT transfered when placed back into the
INBOX so it can be retreived WITHOUT causing the need to access the
individual messages/saved materials *using the web access*, and then
forwarding them, individually, elsewhere.. It is NOT an issue of deleted or
removed mail, it is an issue of means and method of removal/transfer.
The error is, Microsoft/Live has been [as have most rulings related to this
type of activity] repeatedly advise in various cases [and via other general
business related rulings], that should changes be made which may unduely
effect the users abilitiy to access their accounts and/or services, and or
which otherwise affect usage, measures must be taken to ensure those
clients/customers are properly noticed of this fact; and must be supplied
with methods and means to first remove and/or change their service PRIOR to
the service's/usage change.
The private user's rights generally outwiegh the corporation's when
confronting the property of the user. Users/consumers have a reasonable
expectation that the service will continue AND that if changes are made,
they have been specifically informed that it will affect their usage and how
it will affect that usage, save in special circumstances {bankruptcy,
seizure, other extenuating circumstances]
The questions/responses to Scott, were civilly presented questions noting
the key features, reminding him [a party WITH direct contact and in
Microsoft's employ, and specifically as Sr. Support Program Manager, Windows
Live Mail Technologies] of those [and other] issues.
IF Microsoft makes this proprietary change WITHOUT supplying proper Notice
with disclosure, and the method and means, then the class is instantly
created, including ALL users of the service {MSN/Hotmail/Live} using ANY OS,
EMail client, or other, who may be and/or will be precluded from accessing
their accounts in the manner to which they are presently accustomed.
IF Microsoft has supplied third parties with the code so it can be used
*cross-platform*, hence NOT requiring the {only} two supported OSs AND
client, then the affected parties may have their accustomed usage. If not,
then the *public* service has become a *private* service, and the present
users have been unduly affected.
= Now here's a an overly simplified thoretical present in the spirit of the
discussion. It does, however supply the manner in which to address this
purported Hotmail/Live change:
Think of it like this [using money, since most would be able to understand
this, or just think of it as personal property -
pictures/mail/documents/business correspondence/etc; each has "value" under
its defining Laws, and Hotmail and Live IS/WAS a publicly offered service]:
You use a bank who; until a certain point, had been using SSL as its method
of access for online banking. You, in good faith, created the account, used
the service, stored your money, and otherwise used this service [direct
deposit, direct payment, direction to the service for credit, etc.] .
You are informed by this banking service that a change will be made in the
access, to a new proprietary protocol and client application. The
Notification indicates there will be no noticeable change in service; that
one merely needs to allow and/or install this new client/protocol. You find
out, however, that to install this client/protocol so you may continue to
use the service in the method and manner in which and via which you have
used,; it can only be installed [with support] into two OSs, XP SP2 and
Vista. You do not have those OSs; they were NOT required when the account
was created. You were also previously able to use other methods/clients to
access the account.
You {having researched the impact} attempt to remove your money from the
account, but find out that the means were NOT provided for you to do so
EXCEPT via small increments, so you can not close the account without
incurring substantial hardship, investing substantial time, and other.
Other users of the service also find out, after the change, [having
mistakenly relied upon the notification that it would make no noticeable
impact] their access has been destroyed in the form to which they are
accustomed. They believe they were not adequately informed prior to the
loss; and also find that their personal property has been made essentially
inaccessible EXCEPT via the service's online web page OR by using the OSs,
proprietary protocol and client, which removes their ability to make an
informed choice of their own. The service is also directly related to and
REQUIRES the use of those specific OSs AND client, which they may or may not
be able to install or use, or do not wish to use.
It would be within the bank/service's defense, to present its agreements
which state it has authority to change the service at its discretion and
that it made no guarantees, and that the users had agreed to those terms and
other, prior to account creation.
It would be within the {millions of users} class action, to point out that
they were not properly Notified of the full ramifications; were not afforded
proper means and method to retrieve their property; and have essentially
lost access to substantial personal property due to this activity, causing
extreme harm and damage. They would be able to point to the Notification,
which appears to indicate there would be no noticeable impact upon the
accounts. They would be able to point to the "direct" relationship between
the service and the now required OSs, and client with its private
proprietary protocol. They would present that they were not required, upon
account creation, to use these specific OSs and proprietary client/protocol.
They would produce evidence that prior changes [also presented by the
service as not effecting access] did NOT affect their access, until the
change to the proprietary protocol/client which created the issue, to the
detriment of the class.
Who would be at fault? Is it you and/or the class for using the service and
supposedly signing away your rights, or the service for failing to
adequately and fully inform you of the impact of the change, and for failing
to provide the means and method to retrieve your property should you wish to
discontinue the service or otherwise protect your property prior to or after
the change?
Would this be deemed merely an inconvenience or having caused harm and
damage, by the jury, in your opinion?
Prosecution against Microsoft/Live
A state's and/or federal prosecution could easily point to the apparent
violations of the Sherman Act [anti-trust/monopoly - see prior related
rulings], prior rulings and agreements concerning Microsoft, and other
statutes/commercial Law/consumer protection Laws/other which this change
would appear to violate and/or be found in fault. It would also be easy to
point to repeated/repeat violations. Requiring a specific set of OSs and the
proprietary client/protocol for a once public offered service which did not
previously require such, creates a direct avenue for attack.
Other nations courts and prosecutors, and other nation's peoples would
also have the authority to address these issues in the form and manner which
are addressable there [its a world-wide offered service]. Any claim that a
service shall be considered under the Laws of {wherever} can be addressed
first for International application and jurisdiction which might be found
[treaties, commercial agreements, nation's authority, etc.]
Microsoft is well aware of this international [and US] application, as it
has been done/used repeatedly, both by Microsoft and against Microsoft, here
and abroad.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________
| > MEB wrote:
| >> Impossible to do, the accounts are not synchronized...
| >>
| >> Pa, you should from experience, understand what mode I'm presently in,
| >> beware.
| >>
| >> In present form, Microsoft/Live stands in undue effect pursuant a
| >> previously PUBLICLY offered, and CROSS PLATFORM available service
| >> [accessible via other clients/applications], which will soon be
| >> inaccessible
| >> to this CLASS of users.... I appreciate you may not understand the
issue,
| >> but I would suggest you stand aside until this is resolved.
| >>
| >> --
| >> MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| >>
| >> "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
| >> news:Om8aOtjpIHA.2256@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
| >>> 1. Ignore the Read/Unread marking: Make sure all messages in all
| >>> Hotmail-in-OE folders have been opened (i.e., message contents have
been
| >>> downloaded).
| >>>
| >>> 2. Move, drag, or Copy all messages to local OE folders you've created
| >>> for
| >>> this purpose.
| >>> --
| >>> ~PA Bear
| >>>
| >>>
| >>> MEB wrote:
| >>>> Well perhaps that would be a good idea, however, having just
attempted
| >>>> the
| >>>> move of the saved messages to the INBOX of the web account, and
| >>>> attempted
| >>>> to
| >>>> retrieve them via the linked DAV account [the first 25 messages of a
| >>>> few
| >>>> hundred], I find they are NOT transferred, even AFTER marking them as
| >>>> NOT
| >>>> READ. Therefore there may still be a decided interest in this
| >>>> discussion
| >>>> pursuant the 98 groups, at least until some resolution to the issue
is
| >>>> proved..
| >>>>
| >>>> --
| >>>> MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| >>>>
| >>>> "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
| >>>> news:us35QehpIHA.5096@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
| >>>>> Request: Since Windows Live Mail is not supported in Win9x, please
| >>>>> discontinue the pointless crossposting of further replies to
| >>>>> microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion and
| >>>>> microsoft.public.win98.internet.outlookexpress newsgroups.
| >>>>>
| >>>>> Thanks.
| >>>>> --
| >>>>> ~PA Bear
| >>>>>
| >>>>>
| >>>>> MEB wrote:
| >>>>>> "Windows Live Mail Technologies Support"
| >>>>>> <WindowsLiveMailTechnologiesSupport@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote
| >>>>>> in
| >>>>>> message news:93EC9EE3-E733-41FA-A530-FFD34C255AF1@microsoft.com...
| >>>>>>> HI MEB,
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>> Heeey Scott, perhaps I should mention the name is Maurice so at
least
| >>>>>> we
| >>>>>> are on an even keel, so to speak.
| >>>>>> MEB is *M*aurice *E*dward, *B*rahier
|