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