Re: OE and Hotmail
From: David Kelsey (david_kelseyNO_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 10/02/04
- Next message: irapfeiffer_at_wideopenwest.com: "When I am in outlook express e-mail"
- Previous message: Blue Men of Morocco: "Re: http://insideoe.tomsterdam.com/tips/forceid.htm"
- In reply to: RRR_News: "Re: OE and Hotmail"
- Next in thread: David Kelsey: "Re: OE and Hotmail"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 13:32:43 +0100
PA
Sorry, my response to your mail went into the line above by mistake (mine).
David
RRR_News wrote:
> PA Bear,
> I just hope that MS uses the $19.95/year subscription fee, to get
> Hotmail's interfacing with OE out of the Beta phase. Especially
> keeping the servers up and running continuously, not down for days at
> a time, as been the case since 1999 when this service offered with
> OE5.
>
> The WebDAV technology has not been a success for MS. They should go
> back to Pop access for HotMail. One of the biggest reasons they state
> for the new charges, is all SPAM problems with their service. Well as
> many other ISPs (such as Earthlink) are doing, use corporate SPAM
> filters for their POP service, to handle the abuse.
>
> And the announcement for the increase size in storage, for their
> accts, is that they can with their "own good conscious", can fill the
> Inbox with the SPAM that their advertisers pay for. What should be
> included in the web interface, is to create UNLIMITED message rules,
> which would include any messages for HotMail services. Juno sends the
> SPAM, from their paid advertisers, under the guise of service news.
> And don't allow you to delete them, or move them to the Deleted Items
> folders automatically.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Add MS to your News Reader: news://msnews.microsoft.com
> Rich/rerat
>
> (RRR News) <message rule>
> <<Previous Text Snipped to Save Bandwidth When Appropriate>>
>
>
> "PA Bear" <PABear@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:OHBs117pEHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Some observations and facts upon reading your epistle, Mr. Kelsey, in
> no
> particular order:
>
> Please keep in mind that MSN/Hotmail is still a free email account.
> Accessing the account in OE or OL is what MSN/Hotmail is beginning to
> charge
> for...and cheaply, too: At US$19.95/year, Hotmail Plus costs 5½¢ a day
> (that's .044 ? or .03 £) for unlimited sending/receiving. For that
> money,
> in addition to the ability to access the accounts in a Mail Client,
> subscribers also get:
>
> - 2GB storage space (vs. the default 250MB inbox),
>
> - the ability to send/receive attachments of up to 20MB (vs. 10MB
> default; Try either in your ISP's account!),
>
> - no account expiration (as long as your accouns in good
> standing), and
>
> - no ads in your messages.
>
> All MSN/Hotmail accountholders also have access to MSN Calendar
> again, a
> privilege withdrawn from free accounts about a year ago, which can be
> shared
> with other MSN/Hotmail accountholders.
>
> Tell me this, does BT give you your telephone service, local,
> national and
> international, free of charge? Does the Royal Mail let you send
> letters,
> postcards and packages all over the world for free? (Of course,
> Hotmail is
> about as reliable as BT and Royal Mail when it comes to on time
> delivery
> <eg> and all three couldn't care less about making anything
> convenient for
> you.)
>
> You heard it here first: If you do indeed have 5,000 contacts in your
> Yahoo
> addressbook, I advise you *not* to synch it with Address
> Book...unless you
> don't care about being able to *see* your contacts listed in Address
> Book or
> Contacts pane.
>
> All Hotmail accounts are personal accounts. Using a Hotmail account
> for
> business purposes is a violation of MSN/Hotmail's User Agreement.
>
> As http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=878462#appliesto clearly points
> out,
> the new policy applies to all currently supported versions (5.5, 6
> and 6
> SP1) OE versions in all currently supported OSS (Win98/98SE/ME,
> kinda/sorta,
> and Win NT, Win2K, WinXP and WinServer 2003, not just WinXP SP2.
>
> The problem with spam doesn't necessarily refer to *received* spam
> but,
> mainly, sent spam, most of it virus-laden. How much spam is there
> these
> days?
>
> "Spam filtering company Postini is reporting that the percentage of
> email
> processed by them which was identified as spam has dropped between the
> months of August and September (2004). Unfortunately, the number only
> dropped from 76% to 75%, meaning that the vast majority of email is
> still
> spam. According to Postini, more than 5.6 billion pieces of email went
> through their system during the month of September, and they stopped
> nearly
> 79 million instances of viruses."
> cf. http://spam.weblogsinc.com/entry/8928259724858914/
>
> Mind you, that's just mail that went through Postini's system!
>
> While MS may be beginning to return some shareholders money in the
> form of
> dividends, I can assure you that *none* of these monies was generated
> by
> Hotmail. As for "lobbing" some of that money "towards the users who
> made
> those profits for them," MS is doing just that. MS investors, by
> "loaning"
> money to MS in the form of purchasing shares of stock, helped "make
> that
> profit for MS", not Hotmail users. Have you no idea of capitalist
> theory?
- Next message: irapfeiffer_at_wideopenwest.com: "When I am in outlook express e-mail"
- Previous message: Blue Men of Morocco: "Re: http://insideoe.tomsterdam.com/tips/forceid.htm"
- In reply to: RRR_News: "Re: OE and Hotmail"
- Next in thread: David Kelsey: "Re: OE and Hotmail"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
