Slashdot Mirror


MSN Forces Outlook POP

Phoenix-D writes: "Qwest.net, my Phoenix-area DSL provider and ISP, recently decided to hand over their ISP buisness to MSN. No huge deal, right? Well, check out this blurb: 'Due to the Microsoft anti-spam initiative, customers are restricted to use their mail services. Therefore, POP3 service is only available when using MSN Explorer, Microsoft Outlook, or Microsoft Outlook Express.'" Awesome. Microsoft's Anti-Spam initiative forces POP users to use the primary sender of mail worms.

729 comments

  1. It could be worse by zerofoo · · Score: 2, Funny

    They could force everyone to use a MAPI client.

    1. Re:It could be worse by Lxy · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      ssshhh... they'll hear you!!!

      --

      There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
      :wq
    2. Re:It could be worse by Boomer2 · · Score: 1

      You bet it could be worse. We could only have one ISP in Phoenix. Luckily, I found another one (FastQ) with a good reputation.

      Now if only DirecTVDSL would re-establish a presence. Putting up with Earthlink's crappy service is not enticing.

    3. Re:It could be worse by rm-r · · Score: 1, Troll

      Surely this is anti-competetive behaviour? A smell a court case a comin'...

      --

      J-aims
      --
      Yo, whatever happened to peas? Join T( H)GS
    4. Re:It could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MAPI.. Microsoft Anti Privacy Initiative ?

    5. Re:It could be worse by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · · Score: 2, Informative

      Trust me on this - you don't want DirecTVDSL. I have it, and after having had 784/784 Kbps SDSL service for over a year, they switched me to 640/80 Kbps ADSL service at the same high price.

      To make matters worse, they just put a cap on their news-servers of 128 Kbps, although I've yet to talk to another user who can get above a 5 or 6 Kbps download from the news-server.

      If DirecTVDSL is your only option, then I guess you might have to, but if you have a choice, don't pick 'em! Just the $0.02 of a slightly disatisfied DirecTVDSL customer...

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
    6. Re:It could be worse by Organic_Info · · Score: 2, Funny

      Surely this is anti-competetive behaviour? A smell a court case a comin'...


      Yeah 'cause the last one made loads of difference.

      --
      "Things that you own end up owning you" - Tyler Durden (via Diogenes of Sinope).
    7. Re:It could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Since handing the service over to MSN. They have also started giving out crappy modems as a sales pitch. This modem doens't support WIN98, only WIN98SE. I know quite a few people that were forced to purchase the upgrade just to be able to use the modem. Phoenix is not that bad when it comes to high speed internet service providors, wait until you have lived in Tucson. ;-) It's either Cox@Home or USWorst(Qwest/MSN) DSL. I have tried both and have been disappointed with both.

    8. Re:It could be worse by wolf- · · Score: 1

      I hadnt had a problem with DirectTV (telocity) until the newsgroup issue. The cap is not only absurd, but there was no warning given.

      --
      ----- LoboSoft specializes in Digital Language Lab
    9. Re:It could be worse by Sj0 · · Score: 2

      as much as it pains me to admit it, MS is virtually immune from the law. Even in the antitrust case, they are hanging it up so long that by the time the decision comes out, it won't matter anymore. I remember saying this to myself when I first heard about the MS case in 1999. Imagine Microsofts immunity to a small joke of a lawsuit like this after being able to battle it out against the full force of the DoJ and a bunch of states and businesses.

      It makes me depressed just to be alive when a corp. is so far above the law that they can't even be brought down by the government of the nation that spawned it.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    10. Re:It could be worse by BlueFashoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Continue to enjoy POP3 e-mail service, with an option to switch to the world's largest Web-based e-mail service, MSN Hotmail®, via MSN Internet Explorer and get up to nine e-mail screen names for you and the rest of your family. (Due to the Microsoft anti-spam initiative, customers are restricted to use their mail services. Therefore, POP3 service is only available when using MSN Explorer, Microsoft Outlook, or Microsoft Outlook Express.)

      I think what they mean is that you can only use microsoft products to download mail from hotmail, which is allready true for everyone. I won't do it though, because I hate the look and functionality of msn explorer and outlook has more virii than a $0.50 whore.

      --
      Nice Marmot
    11. Re:It could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A troll? I'm hurt...

    12. Re:It could be worse by MrT · · Score: 1

      They are. It is. You're on...?

    13. Re:It could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did I mis-read that? It looks to me not that POP3 accounts can only use MS clients, but the opposite. MS Clients can only use POP3 to retrieve mail.

    14. Re:It could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are in Phoenix and looking for a great alternative to MSN, I would check out Deru Internet - www.deru.com - they have more bandwidth than any other local provider in town, news retention measured in months, and will give static ips addresses if you ask... It's a /.'s dream...

  2. Fool the system? by Quasar1999 · · Score: 4, Troll

    How exactly is this enforced? I'm sure there has got to be someway to get around it, if they allow Outlook to use it, then there has to be some way to fool the system into thinking whatever you are using is outlook... isn't there?

    --

    ---
    Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
    1. Re:Fool the system? by damiam · · Score: 1

      If I were them, I'd have Outlook use some secret algorithm to generate a message checksum that would be checked by the server. That would probably still be hacked, though.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    2. Re:Fool the system? by nick_burns · · Score: 5, Funny

      They probably check to see if you're sending out 300 copies of the latest email worm.

    3. Re:Fool the system? by yogensha · · Score: 2

      No, this is POP3 we're talking about. The only thing the client does is issue some commands to download mail. The messages are generated by the sender.

      --


      Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure.
      --Ambrose Bierce
    4. Re:Fool the system? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If MS is RFC compliant (no secret fields that identify the client) they can't enforce it. There is no cliet field in POP3.

      I say it is not enforceable and that they're just saying it to force the average user to use MS clients. POP is POP. Try something else and I bet it would work.

    5. Re:Fool the system? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      They are just forcing the use of a MSN email account. This was from the link:

      Q: Will I still be able to use my Qwest.net e-mail account after I transition my account to MSN®?

      A: No. When you begin the MSN transition process, you will be given the one time option of forwarding your Qwest.net primary e-mail account to your new MSN e-mail address. Additionally, you will have the choice to activate an auto reply feature that automatically sends your new MSN e-mail address back to anyone who sends an e-mail message to your old Qwest.net e-mail address. These e-mail features will be in place for at least 18 months from the date you transition your account to MSN Internet Access

    6. Re:Fool the system? by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

      Hmm...fits well with
      The intelligence of a mob is calculated by taking the lowest individual IQ in the mob, and dividing it by the number of people

    7. Re:Fool the system? by Ford+Fulkerson · · Score: 1
      There are probably ways to fool this system similar to changing the User-agent string in a web browser. But that is definitely not the right way to solve this problem.

      User should not have to put uf with this.

      --

      Somewhere in the heavens... they are waiting.
    8. Re:Fool the system? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be easy enough for the server to require some undocumented command from the client in response to the greeting presented by the server in order to "recognize" Outlook.

      Think outside the small confines of your tiny brain for just a moment.

    9. Re:Fool the system? by Skip666Kent · · Score: 2

      This is one of those dumbass jokes that actually succeeded in making me laugh.

      Thanks!

      --
      **>>BELCH
    10. Re:Fool the system? by donarb · · Score: 1

      They are just forcing the use of a MSN email account.

      That's because QWest customers become MSN customers, unless you switch to some other ISP.

      Don

    11. Re:Fool the system? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah that is dumb but funny as shit!!

    12. Re:Fool the system? by RevDobbs · · Score: 2
      No, this is POP3 we're talking about.

      No, this isn't POP3, at least not in the strictist sense, I believe... my impression (from some something I read? a dream? *shrug*) was that the MS email clients were neccessay because they were going to do some kind of unique user verification... proprietary crypto? SMTP user verification? I don't know, but it was a tweaking of the protocol that brought about the "Only Our Software" policy.
    13. Re:Fool the system? by Sir_Real · · Score: 1

      So.... I can't get my e-mail if I run linux? I hope I'm misunderstanding something.

    14. Re:Fool the system? by the+Man+in+Black · · Score: 1

      And MSN e-mail requires the creating of a Microsoft Passport account. The path towards the all-MS desktop/Internet experience seems to be going more quickly than even I thought.

      "All too easy" -- Darth Vader

    15. Re:Fool the system? by IronChef · · Score: 2


      Microsoft Entourage and Outlook Express for the Mac can cause some POP daemons to dump core when they check mail. It's faaaaaaaantastic!

    16. Re:Fool the system? by Bobo+the+Space+Chimp · · Score: 1

      I never use the ISP-supplied E-mail anyway, except once a month or so to check on messages from the ISP (and even then usually forget to check that regularly.)

      I use longer-term ISP addresses, like Hotmail (ok, MS has access to me that way) and AOL.

      --
      I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
    17. Re:Fool the system? by Bobo+the+Space+Chimp · · Score: 2

      > "All too easy" -- Darth Vader

      "Good, right on schedule." -- Max Zorin, looking at his watch

      "Is there no one on this planet who can challenge me?" -- Zod

      "That's 'Zod'." -- Zod

      "No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die." -- Goldfinger

      --
      I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
    18. Re:Fool the system? by Organic_Info · · Score: 1

      How exactly is this enforced? I'm sure there has got to be someway to get around it, if they allow Outlook to use it, then there has to be some way to fool the system into thinking whatever you are using is outlook... isn't there?


      Ssssshhhhhh..That's violating the DMCA. Don't let them here you for they will come...
      **********
      On a more serious note it would probably violate they're TOS then they would kick you off.

      --
      "Things that you own end up owning you" - Tyler Durden (via Diogenes of Sinope).
    19. Re:Fool the system? by Falshire · · Score: 1

      I tried to log on to my MSN account using my Powerbook running OS X and the Mail.app program last night, and it wouldn't recognize my user id (even though it was correct). Time to cancel my MSN account (especially, since I don't have any Windows PC's anymore).

      --
      "Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons...for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
    20. Re:Fool the system? by hummer · · Score: 1

      Which pop daemons exactly? Sounds like you need to find a new one.

    21. Re:Fool the system? by S.Lemmon · · Score: 1

      I think the original article is wrong about it being POP3 (probably written by a PR rep who assumed email=POP3).

      Outlook actually uses a special WevDAV based protocol when talking to hotmail (although in fine MS tradition, even the WebDAV part of it isn't quite standard).

      It has little in common with POP3 - it's an extension of HTTP actually (and has caused me no end of troubles because it doesn't like proxies much). MSN recently started forcing new users to use this instead of traditional POP3, forcing MSN users to use Outlook for email. Eventually POP3 (and competing email clients) will be phased out entirely.

      What worries me is how long will it be until all connections (especially broadband) are either AOL or MSN? Will any "real" ISPs even exist in a few years?

    22. Re:Fool the system? by frost22 · · Score: 1

      If I understood the article correctly, they block all other pop3 services. So it's their pop3 or no pop3.

      May they rot in hell.

      f.

      --
      ...and here I stand, with all my lore, poor fool, no wiser than before.
    23. Re:Fool the system? by COAngler · · Score: 1
      No, this is POP3 we're talking about. The only thing the client does is issue some commands to download mail. The messages are generated by the sender.



      Sure it's POP3? I've got a pack of Camel Lights that say M$ either already has, or will in the near futute embrace and extend POP3 as we know it.



      To be fair, I've never heard of Outhouse being used to send spam. Trying to sustain a connection that long would probably crash it.

    24. Re:Fool the system? by MadCamel · · Score: 1

      My ISP (earthlink/mindspring) does the same thing. You can't access port 25 except on their mail servers. What's worse, they block incoming port 25 so I can't run my own smtp. I got around this by setting up an IP tunnel. Now, I have a static IP, with the filters _I_ want. If you know anybody with some bandwidth, and an extra IP, this is the ultimate solution to ISP restrictions of any kind.

    25. Re:Fool the system? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Make it a pack of Camel straights, and you're on.

      MS doesn't need to embrace/extend POP3 -- it's a legacy protocol. Instead see the Hotmail interface in OE which uses some sort of HTTP-based method of getting the same results.

      SPA apparently is a 'standard', although I can't seem to find anything about it.

    26. Re:Fool the system? by jrockway · · Score: 1

      Use IMAP. It's nicer anyways.

      --
      My other car is first.
    27. Re:Fool the system? by aka-ed · · Score: 1
      Atually MSN email is a Passport account. Any microsoft email id/pw combo will log you into Passport as well. In XP, ANY use of their mail client, even for non-MS account, actually logs you into Passport via MS Messenger at the same time (at least by default, haven't really looked for a means to disable that).

      --
      I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
    28. Re:Fool the system? by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      >Ssssshhhhhh..That's violating the DMCA. Don't let them here you for they will come..

      Don't be ridiculous, this has nothing to do with copyright protection.....

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    29. Re:Fool the system? by warkeng · · Score: 1

      I can verify this.
      There is an option in Outlook that you can turn on that says something about authenticate using an encrypted login sequence. I do not remember the exact wording - I refuse to install that steaming pile of *^$# at home. [guess mode] Knowing M$ it is not APOP compatible. [/guess mode]

      --
      -- Spammers: My E-mail server is in California. Consider yourself warned.
    30. Re:Fool the system? by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      No, this is a GOOD thing....it may be an inconvenience for you (and you could always run fetchmail, and set up sendmail or whichever MTA you use to use your ISPs server as a smart host, so that to the clients on your network it's transparent).
      But it does help prevent SPAM, by making it impossible for just anyone to run a mail server, (and even those not using theirs for SPAM may still be a cause of it, if they allow relaying)

      By preventing incoming and outgoing STMP, there is no way anyone on their network can be responsible for sending out SPAM, unless they go through earthlink's server.

      What MS is doing is completely different to this, they're preventing you from using any email client other than one of theirs. So if you use Eudora, Netscape, KMail, Pine, or anything else, you're screwed.

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    31. Re:Fool the system? by IronChef · · Score: 1


      popper3, v 3.32 I think it is. I think there were 1 or 2 others, but this is the one I have. Yes, it's a bit old, but since I only had one Outlook user it was easier to make THEM change clients.
      :)

      My point is simply that MS wasn't crafting great POP3 clients, they were the only ones that caused trouble.

    32. Re:Fool the system? by funky+womble · · Score: 1

      There's not much about it, but the Whistle InterJet pop3 server seems to support it, so there's at least one implementation on UNIX.

  3. Good by Rombuu · · Score: 2, Funny

    Awesome. Microsoft's Anti-Spam initiative forces POP users to use the primary sender of mail worms.

    Good... maybe that will force people to apply their damn patches so I quit getting their documents in my mailbox.

    --

    DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
    1. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did that exactly, I loaded Linux-Mandrake on all my PC's and saved a bundle of $$ at the same time.

    2. Re:Good by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 2

      Good... maybe that will force people to apply their damn patches

      People don't even need to do THAT much to be safe!

      Turn off the preview pane (Preview Pain), turn of all the other bloat, and don't open e-mail from people you don't know (or if you must read it, just view the source), and you know what? Outlook is every bit as secure as any other client out there.

      Why everybody quivers in fear of Outlook is beyond me, except maybe they doubt their own abilities to turn off the crap that makes Outlook insecure. Those "neat features" make the program a time-bomb. Some of them are features other programs don't have, so they are features I don't mind turning off.

      I happen to like Outlook. Worms have never infected me. Maybe Microsoft should take an "opt-in" stance with all of their feature-bloat. Disabled by Default. It's the way to be.

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
    3. Re:Good by derF024 · · Score: 1

      some people actually like those features, especially auto-preview. the problem with outlook is that every other client does auto-preview (or tons of other outlook niceities that also happen to be security holes) properly. why can't outlook?

      i've never heard anyone tell me "disable auto-preview in mutt! it will excute arbitrary shell code as root"

    4. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the preview bugs came from George Gunski (sp) who was apparently being paid by Netscape to find holes in MS products.

      As anyone ever been paid to find holes in Netscape? Judging by the relative stability of that POS, it wouldn't shock me if it was ridden with 'autolaunch' bugs and buffer overflows that nobody's bothered finding. Same goes for a raft of other crappy software (Eudora - I'm talking about you!)

  4. Big Surprise by The_Unforgiven · · Score: 1

    Micro$uck tightens it's grip on faithful customers... I'm not very surprised... :)

    I wonder how long until they have their own, seperate internet, just for msn... okay.. I'm just ranting, but really, who is surpised that Microsoft is limiting their customers.

    Interesting news though.

    --
    http://wsulug.org
    1. Re:Big Surprise by psychalgia · · Score: 2
      I wonder how long until they have their own, seperate internet, just for msn... "

      you mean like aol? thats fine, keep em outta myt hair...keep the viruses in msn/net and off my machine!

      --

      ________________________________________________

    2. Re:Big Surprise by The_Unforgiven · · Score: 1

      Hmm... ya know you're right...

      lol.. And dumb 'ole me implied it'd be a bad thing.. :)

      --
      http://wsulug.org
    3. Re:Big Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you spelled different wrong in your qoute

    4. Re:Big Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahaha, 'Micro$uck', that is like so funny, and like so intelligent and witty and mature.

      You rock man, you rock.

    5. Re:Big Surprise by Bonker · · Score: 2

      I wonder how long until they have their own, seperate internet, just for msn... okay..

      If only... Gawd... to never have to deal with an AOL'er again. The internet would revert to the kind of place it was back when the big online service providers were 'private communities' rather than fungi and parasites on the main body of the internet. No, I don't think I'm that lucky in real life.

      Actually, I can see it happening. Between them, AOL-TW and MS will carve up the internet into two huge, vast pieces, and anyone who really cares about having a 'real' internet will start to use a 'piggyback' service ala freenet, or something inbetween freenet and ip6. This is feasible now that there are so many cable modems and DLS connections.

      Who are we kidding, though? The big ISP-Software-As-a-Service-Provider will simply block any traffic that doesn't directly connect to their online applications.

      --
      The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    6. Re:Big Surprise by ichimunki · · Score: 2

      Except that these aren't faithful MS customers. These are customers they bought from Qwest.net.

      Articles like this make me glad I was unable to get Qwest DSL and went with TW RoadRunner instead... my biggest fear now is that RR will somehow be merged with AOL down the road.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    7. Re:Big Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      You need to brush up on current events. AOL previously had their own, isolated mini-internet. In some ways it was very good. They didn't have as much content, but there was very little crap to wade through. I could use AOL Keywords and get fast answers to questions.

      In the last few years, AOL has nuked all their own content reroutes everyone to the net. This wouldn't be such a bad thing, except that they are so damn slow and about a quarter of the time, their servers won't let me get out. So it's Ch47 r00mZ or nothing.

      I know, I know, I should dump 'em. But I've had the same e-mail address since 1988, so it's hard to let go.

      Anonymous Kev
      Proudly posting as AC since 1997

    8. Re:Big Surprise by Another+MacHack · · Score: 1

      Dude, pull my finger.

    9. Re:Big Surprise by archen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I wonder how long until they have their own, seperate internet".

      Well if things keep going at the rate they are, they very well might get something very similar:

      1) can't access pop3 account without MS Outlook

      2) can't view certain pages without MS IE

      3) can't view certain media content without MS media player

      4) can't chat with people unless you use MSN Messenger

      Now we have a choice in all of the above, not to use them, and use something else. But if MS continues to gain marketshare, and put a stranglehold on their closed technologies - we could very well see a fair portion of the Internet locking out non MS users.

    10. Re:Big Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      youre a retard, the "old" aol as you imply was nothign but an ad network...when it spread out it corrupted the real net, the way it is today...

    11. Re:Big Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wait until service pack 1 for Windows XP starts shipping with MS-TCP/IP and service pack 2 removes the 'backwards compatibility' with IPv4. Think your boss will let you keep running your site on Apache when 98% of the world's desktops will only be able to reach IIS servers?

    12. Re:Big Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this not a troll, but the comment above was?

  5. For all those who defend M$ here. by 7-Vodka · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Another example of M$ behaving like assholes and leveraging their monopoly power to squelch the competition.


    How many more would you like?

    --

    Liberty.

    1. Re:For all those who defend M$ here. by einhverfr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not leveraging a monopoly, but not moral either.

      If I was a Qwest customer using Linux, I would be pissed (I am not a Qwest customer...).

      Their reasoning seems to be that network snoopers could overhear plain-text passwords coming into the pop server and use that to send email through the SMTP servers. Why not just use Qmail with an SSL X509 cert? Would provide better protection in general...

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    2. Re:For all those who defend M$ here. by MadAhab · · Score: 2
      I've noticed many Outlook versions try APOP before trying plaintext passwords, so I don't see why they couldn't use that.

      I can't say that it gives me great confidence in their network if they are worried about snoopers sitting on it, though!

      And as a Linux/FreeBSD user, I'd have to give them the finger for this. As a state A.G., I'd have to think about starting a whole new anti-trust suit. But if I were a user getting shafted by this, I'd be wondering which would come first, fetchmail supporting SPA, or me figuring out how to destroy Qwest with a backhoe.

      Am I the only one who can't tell if the ./ article is just hype and Qwest is merely *offering* a mysterious and unverifiable "anti-spam" service to see if they can sucker you into using LookOut, with no plans at all to abort other users?

      --
      Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
    3. Re:For all those who defend M$ here. by sswanson · · Score: 1

      Qwest uses Qmail already. Just not the SSL cert.

    4. Re:For all those who defend M$ here. by einhverfr · · Score: 2

      And as a Linux/FreeBSD user, I'd have to give them the finger for this. As a state A.G., I'd have to think about starting a whole new anti-trust suit. But if I were a user getting shafted by this, I'd be wondering which would come first, fetchmail supporting SPA, or me figuring out how to destroy Qwest with a backhoe.

      The backhoe is what comes to mind first. But in reality, it would be Fetchmail.

      But here is another question for you folks: Even if (IF) SPA is the reason and if it can be trusted (not that Microsoft seems to hire a good many design engineers with security backgrounds), why not a solution built on open standards unless, such an open solution is not supported by Microsoft products. This approach MIGHT indicate an illegal leveraging of market power (trying to use market power in the desktop/office productivity market to secure market power in the server market). I think the EU might be interested in this.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  6. uh, isn't pop3 open? by O · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How is this even possible? POP3 is an open standard, and most every client speaks that protocol. To restrict it to one set of clients seems like a futile measure, as clients will just start coming with options to spoof their client ID, just like Opera and iCab can for http.

    --

    1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21 -- Mathematics is the Language of Nature.
    1. Re:uh, isn't pop3 open? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      you can restrict it to only certain clients at the firewall with stateful inspection.. that's one way of doing it.

    2. Re:uh, isn't pop3 open? by garcia · · Score: 2

      *I am not saying MS is FORCING this*

      If they did though, what's your basis for this statement? How many other "open" ideas has MS gone against and forced w/their own bullshit? ActiveX, Java, etc? Come on, be serious.

    3. Re:uh, isn't pop3 open? by Cymbaline · · Score: 2, Interesting

      POP3 is open. But there's also IMAP. Guess who promotes IMAP? Yup. And IIRC, IMAP allows for sending of mailer type. IIR*incorrectly*, feel free to smite me down.

    4. Re:uh, isn't pop3 open? by parc · · Score: 1, Insightful

      IMAP is a better protocol. Seriously. And it's just as open as POP[23]. For more info, see the RFC.

      So now, just because MS likes a protocol, we're not allowed to like/use it?

    5. Re:uh, isn't pop3 open? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is a classic Embrace and Extend attack. Mere spoofing probably won't avoid it. It will require reverse engineering to figure out the Wonderful Innovation that MS has added to the protocol.

    6. Re:uh, isn't pop3 open? by vstanescu · · Score: 1

      IMAP is a very good protocol. Way better than pop3. Too bad it is not used more often.

    7. Re:uh, isn't pop3 open? by pantaz · · Score: 1

      It's possible for the same reasons we always see when Microsoft gets involved. They corrupted HTML, C++, JAVA, etc. Why should POP be any different?

    8. Re:uh, isn't pop3 open? by mab · · Score: 1

      IMAP is a much better protocol
      but still has limits as has POP in that when you are on the end of a slow connecton and forward mail it is sucked down the line and then sent back down the line

      what we need is IMAP ver 5 where if you mark a file to be forwarded it is forwarded from the server

      then it would be good

    9. Re:uh, isn't pop3 open? by maggard · · Score: 5, Informative
      Smite.

      POP3is a lovely protocol but it has one terrible disadvantage: It's a download only process. Oh sure email can be left on the server but there's no flagging, folders, etc. possible.

      IMAP4 is an interesting protocol. Many developers (Steve Dorner of Eudora being a notable one) complain that IMAP makes too many assumptions about how folks are implementing it, the underlying system, etc. On the other hand it works well at this point for managing remote mailboxes, setting flags, folders, partially downloading messages, etc.

      So why one over the other? POP is fine for tied-to-one machine folks. You get your mail, you download it, it's your problem. IMAP is suited to those who work from multiple machines or prefer the security of their email being kept on a server.

      Guess which population is growing? More importantly guess which population corporate types are part of?

      As an email administrator which would you prefer to work with:

      Every person having a mail file on their own computer where it can get damaged, stolen, lost along with the laptop, etc.

      or

      One server holding all of the mail safely & securely, backed up nightly, easy for you to trouble-shoot, folks able to access it from any machine?

      Now you see why MS supports IMAP: Their customers really pushed hard for it. Is it part of some big MS-conspiracy? Possibly but there's no good evidence and certianly no rationale.

      Furthermore IMAP doesn't give a whit about "Mailer Type" (if it even has such a thing as an option in it's protocol which I doubt.) MS is using their encrypted login as a means to enforce this, nothing so trivially hackable as a client ID string.

      Actually encrypted logins are a Good Thing. It's just unfortunate MS is using them as a club to force folks to use only their email products and not supporting industry standard login strategies.

      So now we have AOL, the largest ISP requiring their email client (there were trials years ago with opening it up, indeed Claris Emailer still does so though the application was EOL'd 3 years ago by Apple) and now MSN doing the same. Indeed in spite of the fact that there are now perfecty good clients and secure ways of working these folks want to go back to the old "lock 'em in" strategy.

      --
      I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
    10. Re:uh, isn't pop3 open? by vizek · · Score: 1

      Yes it is open and the RFCs (1939, updated by 1952 etc.) say nothing about forcing a user to use a particular mail client. From my point of that mail server is not POP3. For all that I know I may talk some proprietary protocol to the MS client. As long as I cannot open a telnet session from wherever I am (work, hotel, airport) and login using standard POP3 commands that mail server doesn't support POP3

    11. Re:uh, isn't pop3 open? by Flakeloaf · · Score: 0

      One server holding all of the mail safely & securely, backed up nightly, easy for you to trouble-shoot, folks able to access it from any machine?

      And that server is owned, maintained and no doubt rifled through for anything they don't like by...

      --

      Am I the only one who heard Roxette to sing "I'm gonna get blitzed for some sex"?

    12. Re:uh, isn't pop3 open? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As an email administrator which would you prefer to work with:

      Every person having a mail file on their own computer where it can get damaged, stolen, lost along with the laptop, etc.

      Well, I _am_ one of those people, and I prefer that. The reason is simple: it's funded by public tax dollars, and anything that stays on the server can be requested through the proper channels. If they remove the mail, we don't have anything to dig up.

      This is also why my OS partition has a hefty RAID-5 setup and my mail disk is a single item that doesn't get backed up.

      There's today's look into public bureaucracy. Thanks, I'll be here all week.

    13. Re:uh, isn't pop3 open? by Publicus · · Score: 1

      I didn't know that about MS and IMAP. I thought IMAP was a fairly open protocol too. At my school (see link) all students have the option of using imap or pop on their mail folder. On the more secure itlabs subdomain we are only allowed to use imap via ssl (or something like that - I'm not well versed in mail).

      What I want to know is why someone hasn't tried to develop something like IMAP that can do some of the things Exchange can do, like calander and contacts. Obviously keeping this secure would be important, but if it were made available over internet servers, not exchange servers - which afaik are usually behind corporate firewalls - the applications would be tremendous. My father connects to his office network from home to check his email, and even though it's over cable modem, he gets really frusterated by how long it takes for Outlook to syncronize all folders. Maybe that wouldn't be any better on IMAP - does anyone know the average email size in exchange compared to imap/pop? Obviously if people are using word as their email editor it would be pretty severe, but my father's organization uses rtf - but still have huge amounts of data in their mail folders. wtf?

      --

      My Karma was at 49, then they switched to words. All that work for nothing!

    14. Re:uh, isn't pop3 open? by maggard · · Score: 2
      IMAP is a protocol designed for email. It only has a vocabulary for handling email. Download this message, now flag it "Read", move this to this folder, delete that. It hasn't the scope to handle other functions.

      Calendars are fundamentally different then email. Their concepts are all different, the type of information is all different, and most importantly there's generally lots of complex rules on the backend that folks want to search out concordant times etc.

      As to IMAP vs Exchange access ('cause MS Outlook can do both) they can be pretty much both be set to have the same load. The difference is that MS Outlook can take advantage of the propriatary calendering, address book, and message routing functions native to MS Exchange and IMAP + LDAP don't offer as many features (nor as many have pointed out is there yet a good open source standarized calendering option.)

      --
      I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
    15. Re:uh, isn't pop3 open? by TZA14a · · Score: 1
      Now you see why MS supports IMAP: Their customers really pushed hard for it. Is it part of some big MS-conspiracy? Possibly but there's no good evidence and certianly no rationale.

      They aren't supporting IMAP. I've got a Courier-IMAPD-driven mail service running, and there are all kinds of compatibility problems. For example, it used to work fine with OE5.0. Then, one day, a user comes along with OE5.5 installed, complaining he can't use subfolders.
      A quick tcpdump on my side shows that OE5.5 insists on sending slashes as folder path delimiters, no matter how much the IMAP server specifies it wants to use dots. Guess what, it works with MS Exchange...
      They're not supporting IMAP, the open standard, they're once again supporting almost-IMAP, the M$-implementation-defined standard.

    16. Re:uh, isn't pop3 open? by Evil+Grinn · · Score: 1

      Now you see why MS supports IMAP: Their customers really pushed hard for it. Is it part of some big MS-conspiracy? Possibly but there's no good evidence and certianly no rationale


      Is Microsoft pushing IMAP now? When did that start? There's nothing about it in the article.


      I've never heard of Microsoft advocating that everyone should used IMAP.
      MAPI, yes, but not IMAP.

    17. Re:uh, isn't pop3 open? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called a "thread". Read back and you'll find where this started from.

    18. Re:uh, isn't pop3 open? by cloudmaster · · Score: 2

      imap provides for sharable folders, wherin everyone could keep some randomly standardized text document with a schedule, and every mail client worth a damn supports many-user and single-user address books stored on an LDAP server. As with most good protocols, IMAP does one thing and does it well.

    19. Re:uh, isn't pop3 open? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, Outlook has two modes. Both support POP, but the Internet mode has no driver for the Exchange server protocol (and without those proprietary address book/calendar/workflow features, why would anyone willingly risk running Outlook?), while the Corporate (MAPI) mode has no driver for IMAP.

    20. Re:uh, isn't pop3 open? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some folks on /. occasionally post about a company called Bynari that makes a client that can access the Exchange calendar through IMAP. The messages are exported, but I guess most clients can't grok the format.

      And to contradict ACs Filtered Asshole, IMAP is not specifically for e-mail -- people have implemented discussion lists, calendars, and other groupware on top of the protocol.

    21. Re:uh, isn't pop3 open? by mpe · · Score: 2

      What I want to know is why someone hasn't tried to develop something like IMAP that can do some of the things Exchange can do, like calander and contacts.

      There is no logical reason to link calandering with email in the first place.

    22. Re:uh, isn't pop3 open? by rifter · · Score: 1

      Actually, there is. In a business environment in which people must constantly read/check their email because it is being used as instantaneous communication, yet also are constantly being pulled in for meetings and such, it is good to have that stuff all in one place so you don't get any more distracted than you already are.

      When you consider even in this environment you would already be working in several applications at once, yet must instantaneously respond, well, you get the picture. Besides the ability of the management to send you an email that says "you are going to a meeting at this time" with or without an opt-in, and having the mere reading of the email be enough to send it to your calendar and notify the boss that employee X has indeed been notified, and have the mail client notify you "hey that meeting is in 5 minutes!" is very useful indeed.

    23. Re:uh, isn't pop3 open? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right on -- Calendering is just one example of a "workflow" applications.

      The idea is that instead of having the user poll the software, the software polls the user (through the mail interface, because that's by far the most popular application).

    24. Re:uh, isn't pop3 open? by maggard · · Score: 2
      imap provides for sharable folders, wherin everyone could keep some randomly standardized text document with a schedule

      Well yes, that's a calendar but it's not what folks mean by calendering these days.

      In a modern system there's a master calendar with holidays and big events listed on it. Then there's the department calendar. There might also be a site calendar and a production calendar and a team calendar. Then there's the individual calendars.

      Aside from the pleathora of levels is how they're used. Folks want to check off participants, perhaps even classified under must-attend/invited/notified, also specific equipment or rooms if needed or just best-fits rooms. Then they want concordant times with the meeting invitees listed and once a time is selected, or better yet a rated series of times selected they want invites to automatically go out, the bookings made, and confirmations handled. In cases of a must-attend not attending then the whole process is typically reset for the next favored time, all of the participants notified, etc.

      It's not just a matter of a standardized text file in a common folder and it really requires dedicated technology in the backend to achieve.

      --
      I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
  7. are you sure? by garcia · · Score: 2, Informative

    it says that you have to use POP3. Why wouldn't that include any client that supports POP3? There is nothing in a POP3 transmission that is hidden. If they were really forcing you to use it (which I highly doubt) then you could trick the server into thinking that you are coming from an Outlook client.

    Personally I would complain to your ISP about the lack of service for non-MS clients (if this is truly the case).

    1. Re:are you sure? by Coward,+Anonymous · · Score: 2

      The linked to FAQ clearly states:

      Continue to enjoy POP3 e-mail service, with an option to switch to the world's largest Web-based e-mail service, MSN Hotmail®, via MSN Internet Explorer and get up to nine e-mail screen names for you and the rest of your family. (Due to the Microsoft anti-spam initiative, customers are restricted to use their mail services. Therefore, POP3 service is only available when using MSN Explorer, Microsoft Outlook, or Microsoft Outlook Express.)

    2. Re:are you sure? by stilwebm · · Score: 2

      I have seldom used Outlook and do not have a Passport account, but I recall something about Outlook using Passport for authentication when checking MSN email addresses, requiring a client capable of using Passport. Someone care to comment?

    3. Re:are you sure? by brer_rabbit · · Score: 2, Interesting
      But still, unless MS it hijacking the POP3 protocol I don't see how they can enforce what client you use.

      Perhaps they meant they only *support* those clients? That I could understand. I certainly don't expect Qwest to walk me through expunging just a single message with VM under xemacs. "Now type Meta-M..."

    4. Re:are you sure? by Ella+the+Cat · · Score: 1

      Press D to mark for deletion, # to expunge

    5. Re:are you sure? by Scooby+Snacks · · Score: 5, Informative
      I used MSN way back when, because of the $400 rebate thing that they offered.

      Anyway, IIRC (it's been 2 years and I've probably only booted MS-Windows a handful of times since then), somewhere in the mail options for Outlook Express (and Outlook too, I would imagine) there is a checkbox for an option that states something like, "Use Secure Password Authentication (SPA)?" I was never able to find out much information about this Secure Password Authentication stuff, but from what I can tell, it's a proprietary protocol. I had found a short mini-HOWTO-like document that described using MSN under Linux and it made mention of this. I could dial up and login to MSN under Linux (I had to specify the username in a particular way in my dialup scripts, dialed up to UUnet). I could even send email; they just used straight SMTP. What I could not do was receive email, as this required the previously-mentioned SPA.

      So, besides the fact that everybody already knew, that this won't stop spam unless they block outbound port 25 to all hosts, you can still send mail through their servers any way you like. The problem is actually getting to the mail you receive.

      (Addendum: After I started working for an ISP a few months later and was getting free dialup, I stopped sending in payments. They cut me off after a couple of months but never came after me for the $400.)

      --

      --
      Runnin' around, robbin' banks all whacked on the Scooby Snacks...
    6. Re:are you sure? by Publicus · · Score: 1

      After I started working for an ISP a few months later and was getting free dialup, I stopped sending in payments. They cut me off after a couple of months but never came after me for the $400

      That's great, that won't bite you in the ass until you try to buy a house!

      --

      My Karma was at 49, then they switched to words. All that work for nothing!

    7. Re:are you sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They use a user authentication protocol prior to using the POP3 protocol; if your client doesn't pass the auth test, it doesn't matter that it's perfectly POP3-compliant, you'll never get to the server.

    8. Re:are you sure? by Bobo+the+Space+Chimp · · Score: 1

      > Microsoft anti-spam initiative

      I can see how Microsoft is concerned with SPAM.

      SPAM - Some Programs Aren't Microsoft's

      --
      I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
  8. what?! by verch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is like Exxon saying if you want to use their gas you have to have an Exxon car. Someone please explain to me again why MS's business practices aren't anti-competitive? I won't even get into how oxymoronic it is to push outlook and hotmail as ways to combat spam, worms, etc..

    1. Re:what?! by RestiffBard · · Score: 5, Insightful



      hey moron boy, you call AOL, Earthlink and MSN being a vast choice? wait till you install Windows XP and tell me how many choices you get if you're a first time user. the argument isn't that Microsoft is anti-competitive to geeks but that they are anti-competitive to people that buy computers at walmart.

      of course I know that I can get net access from the local mom and pop. (in fact I just did yesterday) but I know people that are MCSEs that don't know they can use some other ISP even that they exist. Microsoft does have a monopoly and they are extending it by leaps and bounds with XP. Once everyone has XP installed do you think they'll buy Nero or Easy CD Creator? No of course not Microsoft has closed them out by including rudimentary cd-burning in the OS. thats not anti-competitive? then what the hell is? the list goes on and on. how can we stand by and just let this shit continue? how can you?

      This seriously brings into consideration whether or not you have a soul.

      --
      - /* dead coders leave no comments */
    2. Re:what?! by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Unless Exxon was the only gas station in town...as is probably the case with a dsl provider.

    3. Re:what?! by wishus · · Score: 5, Interesting
      the list goes on and on. how can we stand by and just let this shit continue? how can you?

      I don't. I haven't and won't buy Windows XP. I paid $40 for a boxed SuSE distro, to financially support an alternative. I don't buy any MS software, because I think it's crap.

      That is how capitalism works - the people "vote" with their money. I can't think of a single common application that Microsoft can do that can't be done on mac, linux, solaris, etc.

      The government does not exist to protect stupid consumers from themselves. If you want to change the software industry, start spending money in it.

    4. Re:what?! by CorwinOfAmber · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Microsoft has no monopoly power

      You're kidding, right? How could any reasonably intelligent person who has more than a passing acquaintance with a computer possibly think that "Microsoft has no monopoly power"? Even if the U.S. court system agrees that Microsoft is a monopoly.

      and furthermore because there is vast choice in the ISP market

      Unfortunately, this just is not true. Especially for DSL, cable, or other broadband internet access. For example, if I want anything other than dialup, I have to use AT&T Broadband. The unfortunate users who signed up with QWest, and are now faced with this, might not have any alternative if they want broadband access.

      and finally because there is vast choice in the way in which you access, send, and recieve electronic mail.

      Did you actually read the link, or any of the postings here? Microsoft is trying to take away their users' choice in how they receive email. If SPA is required to access a POP account, then you will only be able to access it with a Microsoft client like Outlook, until somebody reverse engineers the protocol.

      Go get a different ISP, or, bend to their will.

      These people signed up with QWest, not Microsoft. I would sure be pissed if Microsoft bought out my ISP and I was suddenly faced with this. Especially since I can't just get a different ISP and still have broadband. Getting a different ISP is not an option for everyone.

      --
      My future's determined by Thieves, thugs, and vermin -- The Offspring
    5. Re:what?! by unitron · · Score: 2

      If it were my town Exxon would be promising to build a gas station "real soon now" and I'd be propelling my Exxonmobile with a sail or towing it with a horse.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    6. Re:what?! by vample · · Score: 1
      Once everyone has XP installed do you think they'll buy Nero or Easy CD Creator? No of course not Microsoft has closed them out by including rudimentary cd-burning in the OS. thats not anti-competitive? then what the hell is? the list goes on and on.

      Yea, it also includes things like adding a TCP/IP stack to Windows. That certainly put a damper on the business of some companies, but now its viewed as an obvious part of any OS.

      The concept of what features are part of an OS evolves over time, and it grows to include things like browsers, disk-defragmenters and yes, even CD burning. Why should using CD based media be any different than using a Zip disc or compact flash card?

      --
      -- Ryan Watkins vamp@vamp.org http://www.vamp.org/
    7. Re:what?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LAME.

      What's this? A post refuting the status quo of Slashdot opinion? Jesus man, get that off of here, real quick!

    8. Re:what?! by junkpunch · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has no monopoly power in the ISP market. And that is the market we are talking about, right? If MS started selling steaks would you start screaming they are leveraging their monopoly power in the meat industry?

      Every single argument you have here is with Qwest, not Microsoft. Qwest screwed their customers by selling their service to a Windows-only ISP. The ISP could have been JunkNet, who might require MS products to access it. The difference? There is no difference.

      All the rest stops along the Mass Turnpike just switched from BurgerKing to McDonalds, so now I can't get Pepsi, only Coke. Do I have some inherent right to get Pepsi? There are no other rest stops to buy Pepsi, so who should I sue here?

    9. Re:what?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The DOJ should crater both Coke and Pepsi (we can't sue; we don't have standing) for demanding contracts that say "Thou Shall Not Offer The Other Products". Attacks on the free market don't get much more blatant than refusing to do business with anyone who also does business with your competitors.

    10. Re:what?! by CorwinOfAmber · · Score: 1
      The courts are wrong. And so are most sheeple including yourself. For proof, please visit here

      Just what exactly is that supposed to prove? I see nothing on RedHat's web site to indicate that Microsoft is not a monopoly. And, incidentally, if I were one of the people affected by this change, I wouldn't be able to check my email if I used RedHat. So what point were you trying to make here?

      It is impossible to reconcile the existenance of substantive choice and the influence of monopolists. They are mutally exclusive. Either choice exisits ergo their is no monopoly OR no choice exisits and their is a monopoly.

      By your reasoning, AT&T did not have a monopoly on long distance phone service, because you could write a letter instead of using the phone. Most people wouldn't see that as a reasonable choice. Just because some kind of choice exists does not mean there is no monopoly. A monopoly exists when there are no reasonable alternatives.

      The quality of service you get from a dialup internet connection is not the same as what you get from a broadband connection. Nor is it the same betwen satellite and cable/DSL. Your argument falls flat if you take that into account.

      And by the way, I never claimed to have a right to high-speed internet access. I was just refuting your claims that Microsoft is not a monopoly.

      --
      My future's determined by Thieves, thugs, and vermin -- The Offspring
    11. Re:what?! by CorwinOfAmber · · Score: 1
      Microsoft has no monopoly power in the ISP market. And that is the market we are talking about, right?

      Microsoft has a monopoly on the desktop. The U.S. courts have agreed on this. Now, they are unfairly leveraging their monopoly to enter a new market.

      If MS started selling steaks would you start screaming they are leveraging their monopoly power in the meat industry?

      Of course not. But that's not what is happening here. They are leveraging their monopoly to enter the ISP market. It is impossible to buy a PC that is preloaded with Windows and not be bombarded with MSN ads.

      Every single argument you have here is with Qwest, not Microsoft.

      Ummm, no. My argument was with the original poster's claim that Microsoft is not a monopoly.

      --
      My future's determined by Thieves, thugs, and vermin -- The Offspring
    12. Re:what?! by Bobo+the+Space+Chimp · · Score: 1

      Ever hear of 7-11? They've got the power to offer the "freedom to choose"

      McDonald's, Wendy's, etc. etc. etc. all have the same power. It's just that one or the other gives them a better financial deal to offer just their products. They don't have to offer you both (much less Faygo, Towne Club, Canada Dry Gingerale, ...)

      --
      I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
    13. Re:what?! by junkpunch · · Score: 1

      Now, they are unfairly leveraging their monopoly to enter a new market.

      How? How is this different than AOL buying Qwest and requiring an AOL email client? They could do that, couldn't they?

      We are not talking about buying PCs preloaded with MSN. We are talking about Qwest selling their ISP service to MSN. How does this leverage MS's monopoly? They are completely unrelated. Did MS do this to help sell Windows? Probably, but there is nothing wrong with that and has no bearing on their market share. AOL could have done the same thing, and they have no desktop OS. There is no relation between the 2 things.

      People cry "Monopoly!" anytime MS does anything, even when it does not apply, like in this case.

    14. Re:what?! by cHiphead · · Score: 0

      matter of factly, that is exactly like AOL buying Qwest and reqruiring an AOL email client. AOL has its own little land of monopolizing. Qwest sold their ISP service to MSN. The USERS of Qwest had no choice in this. Now, after the sale, MSN is FORCING THE USERS to use MS Products to check their mail. Its classic embrace and extend. Open your eyes, jackass. not everyone is a linux zealot who hates microsoft. Some of us just have enough common sense to notice when someone/some company is just an all around jerk. MS has never admitted to doing ANYTHING anti-competitive, they flat out deny it. Do you hear me? They FLAT OUT DENY destroying Netscape. or OS/2. Good Business analysts can look at what happened and tell you straight up that MS crushed them with their unscrupulous business practices.

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    15. Re:what?! by junkpunch · · Score: 1

      Let me ask you this. Let's say _I_ bought Qwest and required people to use Microsoft Outlook. I could do that, right? Would that be a shitty thing to do? So you say. Could I do it? OF COURSE! Is it because I have a monopoly in some area? Not that I know of. If you have a problem with that, find another ISP.

      Its classic embrace and extend

      No it isn't. "Embrace and extend" is a fun catchphrase people use when they want to badmouth MS and look cool. What exactly are they "embracing and extending"?

      You are right in one thing - the users of Qwest had no choice in this.Qwest screwed them. THEY sold their ISP to a Windows-only ISP supplier. It doesn't even matter that it's Microsoft. It's only fun to bitch about because it IS Microsoft.

    16. Re:what?! by CorwinOfAmber · · Score: 1
      > Now, they are unfairly leveraging their monopoly to enter a new market.

      How? How is this different than AOL buying Qwest and requiring an AOL email client? They could do that, couldn't they?

      It's not different, except that AOL hasn't done this, while Microsoft has. I would be extremely pissed if AOL bought my ISP and started requiring the use of an AOL email client to read my mail.

      We are talking about Qwest selling their ISP service to MSN. How does this leverage MS's monopoly?

      The only reason Microsoft can get away with this is because they are a monopoly. 90% or more of desktop computers use Windows, and most of those already have Outlook Express installed. They can get away with requiring Outlook Express, because most of their users already have it. People will bitch and moan about this, but in the end most of them will just start using OE, if they don't already.

      If, on the other hand, some fictitious company XYZ bought up Qwest's ISP services, and decided to start requiring the XYZ email client to access email, how successful would they be? I'm not sure if even AOL could get away with that.

      People cry "Monopoly!" anytime MS does anything, even when it does not apply, like in this case.

      Just to clarify, I didn't cry "Monopoly!" I responded to someone else's claim that Microsoft is not a monopoly. But I would argue that it does apply here -- companies that have been found to be a monopoly must play by a more restricted set of rules.

      --
      My future's determined by Thieves, thugs, and vermin -- The Offspring
    17. Re:what?! by CorwinOfAmber · · Score: 1
      You can perform the same functions with a PC, an x86 PC, with or without MS.

      That's just not true. I can't play Diablo II on Battle.net on my x86 PC without Windows. There is lots of hardware that only have Windows drivers (like winmodems). Fortunately, there are some equivalent functions that do not require windows, but not all functions have a non-windows equivalent.

      Microsoft is not monopoly. The very existenance of a high-quality non-MS operating system for desktop computers proves that.

      It proves nothing of the sort. The existence of some kind of alternative does not constitute proof against a monopoly, just ask the courts.

      Furthermore, my original post was moderated 1 Flamebait, and 2 Troll. Its clear that Slashdot as a community cant take criticism or tolerate outside opinions.

      Well, now, that is sad, but there's nothing I can do about that.

      --
      My future's determined by Thieves, thugs, and vermin -- The Offspring
    18. Re:what?! by CorwinOfAmber · · Score: 1
      Let me ask you this. Let's say _I_ bought Qwest and required people to use Microsoft Outlook. I could do that, right? Would that be a shitty thing to do? So you say. Could I do it? OF COURSE! Is it because I have a monopoly in some area? Not that I know of. If you have a problem with that, find another ISP.

      Sure you could. But you haven't been found in a court of law to be a monopoly. Microsoft has, and because of this they have to play by a different set of rules, because monopolies hurt free trade.

      But if _you_ bought Qwest and required people to use _your_ email client, that _you_ wrote, and is not already installed on millions of computers, there would be more of an outcry. You would lose a lot more users than if you required Outlook Express, because most users already have OE installed. See the difference?

      You are right in one thing - the users of Qwest had no choice in this.Qwest screwed them . THEY sold their ISP to a Windows-only ISP supplier. It doesn't even matter that it's Microsoft. It's only fun to bitch about because it IS Microsoft.

      No question about it. We're in absolute agreement here.

      --
      My future's determined by Thieves, thugs, and vermin -- The Offspring
    19. Re:what?! by muonman · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, my original post was moderated 1 Flamebait, and 2 Troll. Its clear that Slashdot as a community cant take criticism or tolerate outside opinions.

      Maybe they just have a low tolerance for stupid opinions.

      Questions: do paid M$ trolls now outnumber bonafide users on /.?

      --
      Anything NOT worth doing is NOT worth doing well...
    20. Re:what?! by ryanwright · · Score: 2

      but I know people that are MCSEs that don't know they can use some other ISP even that they exist

      Bullshit. Anyone capable of getting an MCSE on his/her own (without cheating) is perfectly capable of setting up & using a different ISP. Despite what some /. users may think, an MCSE does require a fair bit of intelligence to obtain. Note that I said "fair bit": Don't expect them to be able to use a Unix box, let alone administer one, but they certainly understand dial-up connections, messaging protocols and, yes, they know they have a choice in ISPs.

      --
      -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
    21. Re:what?! by ryanwright · · Score: 2

      Microsoft is not monopoly.

      The US Justice Department would beg to differ. I buy into their findings much easier than I buy into yours.

      The choice now is not Microsoft or no computer. If you dont believe, ask Sun, RedHat, SuSe, TurboLinux, IBM, Apple and a host of others.

      Perhaps for you, this is true. For your average user, it is not. Do you really think someone's grandmother could successfully install and use *nix? A choice that is impossible for the average person to implement is not a choice.

      --
      -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
    22. Re:what?! by RestiffBard · · Score: 2

      i didn't say that MCSEs don't know how to set up a new ISP i said that some of the ones that i know (that would be personal experience) don't know of many ISPs.

      and to the last nut that said there are thousands of ISPs in america. where are they? I've seen thousands go down and get swallowed by earthlink, msn, aol but I don't see many still standing. in my hometown (hamton roads, va a bustling metropolis) i can think of two or three decent local ISPs. after that you hit nationwide coverage and you're back with aol msn earthlink. and i don't remember if microsoft was going to put links to anyone but msn on the desktop of new users.

      and as for not having a monopoly last i heard they controlled a vast majority of the desktops in the US. well, if food lion (regional grocer) controlled as great a percentage of the grocery stores in the country as microsoft controls desktop space then i think someone would cry monopoly. so i feel perfectly fine calling MS a monopoly. at least food lion has decent prices.

      --
      - /* dead coders leave no comments */
    23. Re:what?! by electroniceric · · Score: 1

      I think you're missing the point.

      If KDE integrates Kaim and Kmerlin and KreateCD and KOtherCommonUserTasks, does this make them anticompetitive?
      (note - I actually think are effectively anticompetitive, but since KDE's not in business, the analogies break down).

      Point is, Microsoft can integrate and incorporate all they like. What makes the behavior legally suspect is using their status as the only provider of the opportunity for a sale to force companies to do their bidding. All businesses do this to some extent - they leverage their position to improve sales. Microsoft just plain goes too far.

    24. Re:what?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't take this anymore. Your definition of monopoly is irrelevant. You keep trying to prove that under your definition of monopoly, ms is not a monopoly. I will give you that one.

      The only definitions that matter is a judge, an appeals court and the supreme court. We have heard from all three and they all disagree with you. You should make up a new word for your definition of monopoly and use that instead.

    25. Re:what?! by Kalvos · · Score: 1

      It is impossible to reconcile the existenance of substantive choice and the influence of monopolists. They are mutally exclusive. Either choice exisits ergo their is no monopoly OR no choice exisits and their is a monopoly.

      Monopoly is relative, even though it may seem absolute, and there's a semantic slipperiness because of the mix of antitrust and anti-monopoly laws. Monopoly also, for example, includes the creation of monopoly status through predatory action or other actions defined as monopolistic practices ... the deliberate move to limit choice.

      Also, recall that Sherman in 1890 was talking about maintaining a decentralized economy. Even as late as 1952, Humphrey reinforced the civic intention of antitrust vs. a purely economic argument. Today's interpretation is quite different for the laws' and practices' origins, and evolution (or devolution) is a matter of perspective. The aggressive enforcement of antitrust laws has slowed considerably as Sherman's model is turned away from in a corporate-dominated legislative system.

      Ultimately, in absolutist terms, there is no monopoly where I can still drill my own well or produce my own electricity or grow my own food or create a computer from carved beads and twigs.

      Dennis
      http://maltedmedia.com/

    26. Re:what?! by RestiffBard · · Score: 2

      ok. nut, (kidding, I apologize about the name calling, you're right its juvenile but it got my dander up) you obviously know more about monopoly law than i do and have quite efectively picked apart my previous posts.

      but (you knew that was coming) I am still concerned about the walmart buying consumers. to us (us being the /, reading geeky types) no microsoft is not a monopoly. I admit that I have a plethora of choices as to OS and I take advantage of that.

      the average consumer (someone with no PC experience beyond knowing they exist and that they can help you balance your checkbook) knows only MS. they have never heard of Sun or linux or SGI or you name it. the only thing htey heard about linus is that bill gates calls it a virus. and they know to stay away from virii.

      they do not know about findanisp.com (hell i didn't know about them till i read your link) and wouldn't know how to go about finding them if they even knew to look. (which in many cases they don't) MS has told them that they are the one true thing and they need no other. from the desktop MS is anticompetitve.

      and an argument can be made that you don't see other brands telling people about the other guy in town but thats not totally true. commercials on tv though bad outhing their competitor at least admit they have one. MS doesn't even admit that they have a competitor unless compelled by congress do so. and don't say that those hearings alone mean that they have already admitted they have competitors because they don't really count. who do you know (other than me and other wierdos watch c-span?)

      i anxiously await any follow-up.

      --
      - /* dead coders leave no comments */
  9. This sucks.... by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 2

    Is this going to be MS's new way of stopping Linux from gaining ground? Make a DSL/Cable deal with a provider and force subscribers to use your tools which just so happen to be on your platform exclusively.....Anti-trust violations ad infinitum

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    1. Re:This sucks.... by Baloo+Ursidae · · Score: 1
      Is this going to be MS's new way of stopping Linux from gaining ground?

      No. If anything, restricting choice of what people can use will make them even less likely to want to stay with MSN.

      --
      Help us build a better map!
    2. Re:This sucks.... by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 2

      except, what alternatives do they have for High bandwidth Internet access? for most people it is only DSL or only Cable and satilite it out of the picture because of monthly fees and start-up costs.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    3. Re:This sucks.... by griffjon · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I'm suddenly happy that my ISP (RoadRunner) was bought out by AOL (Who hasn't made any such asinine move, yet) (they hopefully realize that the broadband users would jump ship if we had go through AOhell ads and whatnot.

      --
      Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
    4. Re:This sucks.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My god, before I take a clue bat to you.

      No one is being forced to MSN. Qwest.net and Qwest DSL are two separate entities. Users of Qwest.net (the ISP) are being moved to MSN. Makes sense since Qwest.net isn't making any money.

      Since day one of xDSL here in Phoenix Metro, Qwest DSL customers have always had the option of using an alternative ISP. I have for 3 years.

      Take your anti-trust violations and faggot penguin, and be sodomized by Beastie, you GPL cocksucker.

    5. Re:This sucks.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I am going to take the "you are a stupid, ignorant, MS is the only way, you are a consumer sheeple to the media companies, the world is perfect and you think you know everything" bat to your ass about 100 times in a public square so everyone can see what a true dumbass you realy are!

    6. Re:This sucks.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually nutwipe, this is an MS-free office

      get your cock out of your mouth and your head out of your ass before posting

      cum dribbler

    7. Re:This sucks.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Add AT&T @home to the list then too.. I called
      their 1800 number for "system requirements".. we
      went through the long list of hardware specs,
      pentium, ram, etc.. and that was it.. so i said
      i was ready to order, and asked for the info
      I'd need to set everything up under linux..

      ... long silence .. you have to use windows...

    8. Re:This sucks.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so what retard, remove the MS portion and it still rings true of you...and make that 101 times with the fucking bat.

    9. Re:This sucks.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      numb nuts, did you miss the part about I *live* in phx? i know what's going on with the Qwest.net/MSN merger ... you see, this little flyer i got from Qwest explaining it, most explanative

      afghan dune coon

    10. Re:This sucks.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK add arrogant racist asshole to that you fuck knob...I bet you like to get it up the ass by your wife with a strap-on

    11. Re:This sucks.... by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      You don't, they just don't support Linux. I use Linux with @home and it wasn't at all difficult to configure. You just have to do it yourself. Fortunately, there's quite a bit of step-by-step info on the net on how to do this.

      The clueless reps, however, might not even know what Linux is, hence the "duuuuh...." response.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
  10. What right's infringed here? by GothChip · · Score: 1, Troll

    This may be another example of Microsoft trying to use it's monopoly... but why is this in the Your Rights Onlne section?

    Who's rights are being infringed here? Either use their software and stop whining or go find a new ISP.

    1. Re:What right's infringed here? by CaptDeuce · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Troll fodder.

      The right to choose your email client. Using your [ahem] logic, denying black people mortgages is perfectly OK since they can just go another lender, right? Feh to your [scoff] logic.

      --
      "Where's my other sock?" - A. Einstein
    2. Re:What right's infringed here? by psychalgia · · Score: 1

      except MS just tried to get rights into SBC, leaving them with a stranglehold on the broadband market if they achieve that. How long is it before business customers like myself will have to forgo using Apache/*nix and start using IIS, because my ISP is owned by MS, and routers are enforcing some code that only IIS produces.

      --

      ________________________________________________

    3. Re:What right's infringed here? by pyros · · Score: 1

      The consumer's right to choice. The very thing that makes monopoly abuse A Bad Thing TM.

    4. Re:What right's infringed here? by Mr.+Sketch · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're right, of course, since there is no real infringement on anyones rights here. I used to be a Qwest customer, but as soon as I heard they signed a deal with MSN, I foresaw things like this taking place and I found a local ISP and I'm paying less than I did with Qwest. Local ISP's aren't hard to find and they're often cheaper than Qwest. If you don't like what a company is doing, find someone else, that's what an open market is all about. Corporate execs don't read slashdot, they read their bottom line and if they find enough people switching and their margins start slipping, they'll do something about their policies. I didn't like what Qwest was doing, so I stopped giving them my money (well, I still have to give them the money for the DSL line, but there's nothing I can do about that).

      If anyone lives in the denver/boulder area, I would suggest netrack.net, they have reasonable rates and they don't care if you resell the bandwidth, so I've set up a wireless network in my area and I'm charging other people to use it, works like a charm :).

    5. Re:What right's infringed here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The right to choose your email client. Using your [ahem] logic, denying black people mortgages is perfectly OK since they can just go another lender, right?

      It would only be perfectly OK if all other lenders also denied the niggers mortgages. Monetary transactions are for humans.

  11. This is absurd. by trilucid · · Score: 2


    All right, this is gonna sound bad. But let's be real here: you can dump always dump your ISP is you disagree with heinous policies. Yes, I know that in some areas there aren't many providers of decent bandwidth (especially recently with DSL companies going buh-bye left and right), but customers have to stand up for their rights on this sort of thing. Unfortunately, given our recent state of affairs in government, the only *effective* way of doing so is making your dollars do the talking.

    Of course, there's always other options too. You could always skip the ISP part and just do your email via web hosting service (no, I'm not self-serving here, it's just true). Especially for folks who run a business, this is a good option.

    What other ways are there of combating this kind of B.S.? I suspect the good folks over at Netscape and other net software providers aren't going to be too terribly thrilled with this... do any of these companies have workarounds?

    1. Re:This is absurd. by pivo · · Score: 1

      If this were a general issue walking away might be effective, but because it only affects non-MS users or MS users who are rightly afraid to use MS mail clients, QWest will retain the majority of its customers. It may not even notice the mass exidos of .5% of its customers, or whatever amounts to the clueful percentage of its customers.

      The real problem is that there may not be any alternatives and that this may mean give up your non MS OS or just do without internet service.

      Oh yeah, web based email sucks and it's insecure. No body in their right mind should use it for anything but semi-anonymous or trivial purposes.

  12. it ain't POP3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you can't use any old POP3 compliant client to connect. therefore, sue them for breach of contract for failing to provide the POP3 service they promised to.

  13. Worm sending by Green+Aardvark+House · · Score: 1

    Microsoft's Anti-Spam initiative forces POP users to use the primary sender of mail worms.

    That's why 1337 scr1p7 k1dd135 everywhere are flocking to Microsoft!

  14. You're not forced to use it (yet) by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the article :

    Currently, the plan is to transition those customers who:

    Have Qwest.net Internet Access using an analog dial-up line, Qwest DSL 256, Qwest DSL Select, or Qwest DSL Deluxe connection and,
    Use the Windows operating system.

    MAC Customers: MSN is working on a MAC solution for your Internet access needs. Until that time, there will not be any changes to your Qwest.net Internet Access service.


    No mention of Linux, but I'd assume they'll treat non-Windows the same (until they have a Mac-only fix, of course).

    Hmmm - taking a second look at the capitalization on "MAC", it looks like they don't have a "solution" for anyone using a network card :)

    1. Re:You're not forced to use it (yet) by ethereal · · Score: 1
      MAC Customers: MSN is working on a MAC solution for your Internet access needs. Until that time, there will not be any changes to your Qwest.net Internet Access service.

      So: it works just fine now, but we're busy fixing it the Microsoft Way (c) anyway. How do people get so that they think this way, heavy drug usage?

      --

      Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

    2. Re:You're not forced to use it (yet) by Chilly+Willy · · Score: 1

      "No mention of Linux, but I'd assume they'll treat non-Windows the same (until they have a Mac-only fix, of course)."

      I am, unfortunately, a Qwest customer. That is exactly how they're dealing with it. I called them up and talked to a fairly nice person about the changeover. I explained that I run Linux.

      Their response at this point is to treat me as a Mac user. They were vague on what they would do once they found a Mac solution. I didn't push the issue since I plan to have a real ISP well before that happens.

      - Chilly
      <If I had a good .sig, I'd put it here>

    3. Re:You're not forced to use it (yet) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Mac solution will most likely be

      [drumroll please]

      !!! Outlook Express 5 for Mac !!!

      which at the moment is only available for OS 9.

    4. Re:You're not forced to use it (yet) by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Actually, I just recently got Qwest/MSN and I only use Linux (Covad wouldn't help me and Cox@Home isn't taking orders since they're in Chapter 11, so MSN seems to be the only broadband available now).

      I had to use my company-owned W2K laptop to run the MSN software and set up the supplied DSL modem (which acts as a mini-router, doing PPPoE authentication); after that I connected the modem to my LinkSys router (using some tips some helpful person posted on dslreports) and now I have no problems surfing with Linux on MSN. The biggest problems I have so far are the lack of news and email: MSN doesn't seem to have an operational news server, but I found some open news servers to connect to which probably don't censor their groups as much anyway. As for mail, I'm currently using web-based email with someone else, and I've heard that Yahoo allows POP3 access. I don't really want to use MSN's email...

      As for reliability, I had Covad/Flashcom for 2 or 3 months, with zero problems. Then I had Covad/Covad.net for about 6 months, with only a brief service interruption I think. Now I've had Qwest/MSN for 1 week and already their DNS servers all went down, and when I called to complain, the whiny tech-support guy got bitchy when I said I was using Linux, and said it'd take them 12 hours to fix the DNS problem. I'm not impressed...

    5. Re:You're not forced to use it (yet) by cornice · · Score: 1

      I was a Qwest DSL customer but switched to XMission after having way too many problems with their Megabit service. DNS was a problem but routing was the biggest issue.

      Keep in mind that Qwest has to offer alternatives for the Internet connection. Most locations have _many_ alternatives. Some, like XMission, are excellent.

      I'm not certain what MSN will do with Linux but anything is better than the Qwest response - unsupported. It was one step above disallowed. I had to lie to tech support about my OS simply to get help with routing issues. "I am logged into my router and I can traceroute up to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx." I still was instructed to click my Start Button...

    6. Re:You're not forced to use it (yet) by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      What kind of routing problems? I didn't have much trouble with setting up my LinkSys router, although I wasn't about to call MSN tech support for any help.

      The MSN response is also "unsupported". I have to cut them off when they say that and ask a pointed question to get some decent information (i.e. "Your DNS server is down.").

      I'm in Phoenix, and they have some alternatives, but I think they all cost significantly more. I'm thinking I'd rather have a cable modem... Cox only charges $75/month for cable TV + internet.

    7. Re:You're not forced to use it (yet) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The biggest problems I have so far are the lack of news and email: MSN doesn't seem to have an operational news server

      netnews.msn.com for actual usenet newsgroups, msnnews.msn.com for microsoft propaganda, both require SPA.

      As for mail, I'm currently using web-based email with someone else, and I've heard that Yahoo allows POP3 access. I don't really want to use MSN's email...

      The SPA is pretty horrible, otherwise it's POP3 and the mail servers are very flakey.

      Now I've had Qwest/MSN for 1 week and already their DNS servers all went down, and when I called to complain, the whiny tech-support guy got bitchy when I said I was using Linux, and said it'd take them 12 hours to fix the DNS problem. I'm not impressed...

      Speaking as a former MSN phone tech support jock I have to say that in his defense the techs are NOT INFORMED of most outages, and when they are there is NEVER, EVER, EVER an ETR. When we find out it is a server issue we were instructed to ALWAYS tell the customer to wait 24 hours and if it still was happening call us back at that point. (At which time we would escalate to L3 which would throw out any escalations even if the name was misspelled.)

  15. Exceptions by squaretorus · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Almost every reference to MS in /. is concerned with the monopolistic practices of the company.

    Are any of Microsofts business units NOT involved in these practices? Seriously! MS is a big company, you're always going to be able to pick out stuff like this which is absolutely absurdly monopolistic.

    1. Re:Exceptions by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      you don't read very closely

      try Microsoft Research Turns 10 on 5th September

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    2. Re:Exceptions by Mhrmnhrm · · Score: 1

      There are, surprisingly enough, a couple units. These are primarily their peripheral hardware groups... Stuff like mice, joysticks, and keyboards. They're out there, but with the sheer variety of shapes, styles, and whatnot produced by companies like Logitech, Gravis, and Kensington (Which I think is someone else's rebranded stuff), it takes a lot of work to really stand out on the high end (which only the SideWinder joysticks and Natural keyboards have done), and the willingness to live in the low/no margin low end (Free PCConcepts keyboards and mice if you play their rebates right during the Christmas season), which M$ simply does not have. So in these areas, they simply can't leverage their dominance in other areas, one the high end because there's already too much choice, and on the low because they can't stand breaking even.

      --
      I suspect that one of these choices is incorrect. Correct.
  16. Very, very funny... by andres32a · · Score: 4, Funny

    From the faq on MSN-QWEST (the most hillarious thing i have ever read):

    "Q: Why should I transition my service to MSN®?

    A: There are many reasons why you should transition your service:

    With more than 230 million visitors per month, MSN is available in 33 markets and in 17 languages.
    (Source: Jupiter MediaMetrixTM Digital Media Report, April 01 for US, UK, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Japan, Spain, Brazil, Italy, Switzerland. Data are an aggregation of above listed countries.)
    When you upgrade your service, special promotions are available to you.
    Quality, reliability and speed.
    Technical support, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, at no charge!
    Continue to enjoy POP3 e-mail service, with an option to switch to the world's largest Web-based e-mail service, MSN Hotmail®, via MSN Internet Explorer and get up to nine e-mail screen names for you and the rest of your family. (Due to the Microsoft anti-spam initiative, customers are restricted to use their mail services. Therefore, POP3 service is only available when using MSN Explorer, Microsoft Outlook, or Microsoft Outlook Express.)
    Instant messaging from MSN Messenger Service, the fast growing instant messaging service.
    You get more space for your personal Web site from 5 MB to 30 MB.
    Easy access to great resources from MSN that help make your life better.
    Catch up on the latest news from MSNBC
    Listen to your favorite music
    Play games
    Send instant messages
    Create an online photo album for your family
    Personalize your home page with weather, sports, news or local events
    Shop from the convenience of your home
    Invest your money wisely
    Search for information
    Send online greeting cards
    Plan your vacation
    Take care of your family's health (This one is amazing)
    And, so much more

    1. Re:Very, very funny... by The_Unforgiven · · Score: 1

      I always love how in AOHell commercials they advertise "Instant Messaging"...

      I don't use aol... I go Download AIM...
      I get more features with it...

      So in other words if I pay for it I get less features, if I don't pay for it I get a better program... Love their logic.

      --
      http://wsulug.org
    2. Re:Very, very funny... by Muad'Dave · · Score: 3, Funny

      Continue to enjoy POP3 e-mail service, ...

      I would submit that if they're using a proprietary authentication scheme, then is ceases to be POP3 access as advertised. Get your state's Attorney General involved as this is a blatant case of interstate fraud.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    3. Re:Very, very funny... by Flakeloaf · · Score: 0
      "With more than 230 million visitors per month, MSN is available in 33 markets and in 17 languages."

      Apparently none of those languages is English.

      I won't "transition" my service quite yet. My provider doesn't restrict me to use any service I wish. All my email....

      No, I won't go quite that far.

      --

      Am I the only one who heard Roxette to sing "I'm gonna get blitzed for some sex"?

    4. Re:Very, very funny... by junkpunch · · Score: 1

      then is ceases to be POP3 access

      blatant case of interstate fraud.

      Who the hell gave this a "4, Informative"? If you don't know the difference between server authentication and the POP3 protocol, you should not open your mouth.

    5. Re:Very, very funny... by junkpunch · · Score: 1

      What I should have said is that SPA is used in addition to standard POP3 authentication, so POP3 is implemented as it should be.

    6. Re:Very, very funny... by vrt3 · · Score: 1
      This is all SO very misleading... I won't fall for it, and I know you won't fall for it, but it just outrages me.

      These are supposedly reasons to switch to the MSN service, implying you can't get it if you don't:

      • Instant messaging from MSN Messenger Service: bullshit, everyone on the Internet can use it
      • Catch up on the latest news from MSNBC: are they really trying to say MSNBC is only available to MSN users? Besides, maybe it would be better if it was.
      • Send instant messages: didn't they already mention that one?
      • ... and so on and so on ...
      As for the POP3-restrictions, it's completely outrageous. I guess it can't be difficult for open source mail clients to disguise themselves as Outlook Express or one of its cousins, but how much MSN subscribers will know about that? Just one more attempt of MS to de-commoditize a protocol (anyone remember the Halloween Documents?
      --
      This sig under construction. Please check back later.
    7. Re:Very, very funny... by fwankypoo · · Score: 1

      You get fewer features.

      --
      The time of day is 29:33.
    8. Re:Very, very funny... by fwankypoo · · Score: 1

      >>but how much MSN subscribers will know about that?

      this should read, "...but how many MSN subscribers..."

      --
      The time of day is 29:33.
    9. Re:Very, very funny... by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1


      Advertising "POP3 access to your email" implies that POP3 compliance is all that's necessary to retrieve your email. Requiring SPA in addition to POP3 in order to retrieve email is at least deceptive, if not downright false. It would be like Microsoft saying, "NT is all you need for to run a server", forgetting to mention, "Oh, and you need these 1e6 CALs". Wait, they already do that...

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    10. Re:Very, very funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take care of your family's health (This one is amazing)

      You know, that just reminded me of a political prhase used by the past president elections.
      (right before "the change")
      PRI's line was
      "bienestar para tu familia", directly translated as
      "well being for your family"
      A lot of polemic was around it.
      some people sait it was threatening.

    11. Re:Very, very funny... by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      "How many MSN subscribers..." assumes a normalcy and countability of MSN subscribers that I am unwilling to stipulate. Personally I prefer the much. It makes an amorphous blob of MSN subscribers. Pretty accurate characterization IMNSHO.

  17. How? by schmelter_tim · · Score: 1

    If the new service uses POP3, how can they stop you from using a POP3-compliant email client? Some kind of MS-specific extensions?

    --
    "Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup." --/usr/games/fortune
  18. microsoft == spam central by jweatherley · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Microsoft email spam free? I think not!

    I opened a hotmail account last week so I could set up an instant messenger account. I made sure that I had unchecked *all* the advertising, pass on your e-mail, useful partners checkboxes. I have *never* used the account and have *never* published the address yet within 24 hours I had a dozen XXX, $$$ emails in the inbox.

    --

    --
    Reverse outsourcing: it's the future
    1. Re:microsoft == spam central by 13013dobbs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For spammers, Hotmail is a big target. Spammers will used dictionary attacks against Hotmail's MX servers in an attempt to discover what accounts have been registered. Some spammers even go as far as trying everything from 'aaaaaaaa@example.com' to 'zzzzzzzz@example.com' in their attempts go get your address. There are things that can be done to slow down the rate at which spammers can do these attacks, but nothing will stop them. (Well, death would stop them, but no one has suggested that, yet.)

      --

      No replies made to AC posts. Please log in.

    2. Re:microsoft == spam central by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a Hotmail account.
      While the Hotmail service is owned by Microsoft, it isn't the same.
      So perhaps you should think more before posting again.

    3. Re:microsoft == spam central by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of email spam, and companies that harvest email addreses, has anybody heard anything more about Dimitri (sp)?

      You know, that poster boy for the Online Freedom Fighters lately.

      The one who works for the company that produces closed source software that spammers use to harvest email addresses from online content.

      Yep. That's an ethical hacker, alright. Someone who sells his servives to facilitate spammers who otherwise just wouldn't be able to spam.

      Our Hero. How nice.

    4. Re:microsoft == spam central by Shimmer · · Score: 1

      Some spammers even go as far as trying everything from 'aaaaaaaa@example.com' to 'zzzzzzzz@example.com' in their attempts go get your address.

      Let's see. That's 26^8 = 208,827,064,576 different addresses right there. I don't think so.

      -- Brian

      --
      The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
    5. Re:microsoft == spam central by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They must indeed do this as I received some spam with the to section having around ten more addresses each incremented by one letter on the end like aperson@hotmail.com apersop@hotmail.com etc...

    6. Re:microsoft == spam central by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      O.K. so that was two letters, but you get my point right.

    7. Re:microsoft == spam central by Shimmer · · Score: 1

      Okay, but they must be using some sort of algorithm or knowledge to narrow the search space. It's just not practically possible for someone to search all possible 8-letter names in a reasonable amount of time.

      -- Brian

      --
      The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
    8. Re:microsoft == spam central by erlenic · · Score: 1

      I've seen something very close. A friend of mine has a snotmail account. The name is some set of letters, we'll call it xxxxxx followed by three numbers, I think 667. He regularly gets emails addressed to xxxxxx660, xxxxxx661, etc. all the way through xxxxxx669. I think they look at valid addresses they have found/bought/stole and try every possible permeutation on the numbers at the end.

    9. Re:microsoft == spam central by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should have checked the "spam filter" checkbox. I get maybe one spam message a week ending up in my Hotmail inbox, and dozens appearing in my spam box.

      Be fair - at least they're trying.

      (Very.)

    10. Re:microsoft == spam central by shepd · · Score: 1

      >There are things that can be done to slow down the rate at which spammers can do these attacks, but nothing will stop them.

      Can't you just get the box to reject all packets from their subnet if their IP has more than 100 invalid account attempts in under an hour? No human would screw up that bad. If they do they don't deserve to be on the net anyways.

      You could re-enable their subnet when either customers complain, or after a 1 week cooling off period.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    11. Re:microsoft == spam central by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2

      I think the point here is the hypocrisy demonstrated by Microsoft. Their software -- the same software they're trying to force these people to use -- is responsible for the vast majority of virus-like e-mails and a good number of the worms recently. Count that however you like -- even scale it by number of users or installations if you want -- MS are still way at the top of the "home to viruses" list. A large proportion of my spam also comes via Hotmail accounts.

      Now, on the other hand, MS are claiming that forcing people to use this **** is part of some "anti-spam initiative". Very politically correct, I'm sure. And just as damaging as most PC rubbish. The very fact that Hotmail accounts are so subject to abuse is simply testimony to MS's inability to control the spam problem. (Yes, I know they're doing some useful things, but the point demonstrated before is that right now, they aren't good enough.)

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    12. Re:microsoft == spam central by 13013dobbs · · Score: 2

      Can't you just get the box to reject all packets from their subnet if their IP has more than 100 invalid account attempts in under an hour?

      True, ou can set your server to do that. But, spammers would just start bouncing things thru open relays or SOCKS proxies. It would slow them down, but it would not stop them.

      --

      No replies made to AC posts. Please log in.

    13. Re:microsoft == spam central by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had a hotmail account for about a year, and never got any spam on it.I haven't published it anywhere on the web, but what counts most is that it's not too short (indeed spammers won't try all 8 or 9 letters combinations) and it's original. Be jsmith or j_smith or jsmith34 and you'll get spam before you've had time to use your account.

  19. already slashdotted? Well how can they tell by GlassUser · · Score: 5, Interesting
    cached at http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:Hj0Zy1r9WSc:w ww.qwest.net/nav4/msn/faq.html+&hl=en
    Well, it loaded now, but it's slow.


    Any way, how can the tell what POP3 you're using? And why would POP3 stop spam? Wouldn't SMTP be where the action is? (I'm assuming that's what they mean). Are they looking at headers (easily emulated by spamware, ineffective) or some other signature? And I don't see how this will stop spam, anything like that is easily emulated. More and more stupidity.

  20. minnesota by Maditude · · Score: 1

    I know in the Minneapolis region Qwest sold all their DSL customers to MSN, but gave the people running non-MS operating systems a delay in the switch -- presumably to give them time to switch over to a competitor. Of course, everyone knows that cancelling their Qwest DSL and starting it new at another ISP is fraught with peril.

    1. Re:minnesota by deep13 · · Score: 1

      and for those of us in the TC metro.... visi.com is hands down the best alternative!!!! CHeck them out! Mike Horwath (visi's sysadmin) is Jesus.

    2. Re:minnesota by British · · Score: 2

      You know, my qwest DSL went down last night(longer than normal), and with this whole MSN thing, I'm really tempted to switch to sihope now, not just because a friend of mine is egging me to switch.

    3. Re:minnesota by maX_ · · Score: 1

      So I can ask WWMHD?

  21. Talk about anticompetitive... by Logic+Bomb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can't imagine a better example of anti-competitive practices. MS is going to force people who never selected them as an ISP to use MS software in a manner that does not at all aid "anti-spam initiatives" and, as the post pointed out, will almost certainly make related problems even worse. How on earth does *anything* related to what client is used to access a POP3 server effect spam??? SMTP would at least seem in the ballpark, but POP?

    1. Re:Talk about anticompetitive... by Quasar1999 · · Score: 1

      Its really difficult to spam when you must be logging onto their (MS's) server and provide user authentication to get at the POP3 mailboxes. IIRC, spammers like to get on POP3 servers, and attempt to get a list of valid mailboxes for their spamming use. I believe MS is actually trying to stop this from happening, but are going about it in a very lousy way IMO.

      --

      ---
      Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
    2. Re:Talk about anticompetitive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a user name with Logic in it, you sure do lack said logic.

      Anticompetitive practices would be MS forcing ALL ISPs to support ONLY MS mail clients, which could only be done through software (if said ISPs used MS software for e-mail handling).

    3. Re:Talk about anticompetitive... by Azghoul · · Score: 1

      Nice try genius.
      A perfectly valid example of an anticompetitive practice is using one's dominance in one industry to force consumers to use one's product in another.

      MS's abuse this time as akin to Ford saying "if thou wantest to drive our cars, thou shalt only use Goodyear tyres." Which is patently absurd (especially with the faux biblical wording...).

    4. Re:Talk about anticompetitive... by mpe · · Score: 2

      Its really difficult to spam when you must be logging onto their (MS's) server

      Use a trial/stolen account and possibly someone elses telephone line (better lines).

      IIRC, spammers like to get on POP3 servers, and attempt to get a list of valid mailboxes for their spamming use.


      You don't recall correctly, also this senario is utter nonsense anyway.

    5. Re:Talk about anticompetitive... by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

      AOL does exactly the same thing, and we don't see people complaining about it. Why is it that when a company other than Microsoft does somthing annoying it's just annoying, but when Microsoft does the same thing it's "Anti-Competitive" or "Monopolistic". Why should Microsoft be any different from any other large company?

    6. Re:Talk about anticompetitive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      AOL does exactly the same thing, and we don't see people complaining about it. Why is it that when a company other than Microsoft does somthing annoying it's just annoying, but when Microsoft does the same thing it's "Anti-Competitive" or "Monopolistic". Why should Microsoft be any different from any other large company?
      Of course, this is absurd. Lots of people complain about AOL's use of proprietary protocols.
    7. Re:Talk about anticompetitive... by darkonc · · Score: 2
      MS's abuse this time as akin to Ford saying "if thou wantest to drive our cars, thou shalt only use Goodyear tyres."

      The analogy would only hold if Goodyear Tyres only really fit on Ford cars. Yes, you can get a retrofit to make GoodYears fit on GMs, but god only knows how long Ford will keep making those.

      I think that it's more akin to them buying up a number of interstate systems and saying: If thoust whishes to use our roads, thoust must be using Ford Transmissions.

      Note that they're not forcing you to buy ford cars -- just to use ford tramsmissions (which sometimes fit in non-ford cars).

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    8. Re:Talk about anticompetitive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a Qwest DSL customer and recently transitioned to MSN. Despite what is said in the tranistion documentation Windows is not required. All the computers in my little apartment didn't even know I had made the transition.

      As for the reduction in spam I think that they are accomplishing this by not allowing you to SEND email with any smtp server besides the MSN one. I had to discontinue use of smtp.yahoo.com as I can no longer access it.

    9. Re:Talk about anticompetitive... by Malcontent · · Score: 3

      It's because they are a monopoly. Monopolies must act in a more responsible manner then "just another company". They are on trial right now for abusing that monopoly and harming consumers. In fact they have been found guilty of that by two courts. So a company which had been convicted of being an abusive monopoly has to be watched very closely. They have shown themselves to have no ethics or morals and have harmed consumers in the past.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

  22. Easy way to end this... by fmaxwell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Send them a snail-mail to MSN stating that you are an employee of a firm that makes a commercial e-mail client that competes with Outlook. Ask MSN to provide to you, in writing, a statement about the use of non-Microsoft e-mail clients on MSN. Make sure to suggest that this be handled by their lawyers.

    If you want to really get their sphincters to pucker, send a copy to the Justice Department.

    1. Re:Easy way to end this... by donutello · · Score: 2, Troll

      MSN is not a monopoly. MSN can require the use of certain software in pretty much the same way that AOL does.

      I know you want to make an anti-trust issue of this, but there is a big logical chasm to cross first.

      --
      Mmmm.. Donuts
    2. Re:Easy way to end this... by MindStalker · · Score: 2

      Yes, but they can't advertise it as pop3 if its not compatible with pop3 clients other than theirs.

    3. Re:Easy way to end this... by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      MSN is owned by Microsoft, a monopoly. End of story.

    4. Re:Easy way to end this... by Soko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of first glance, you would seem correct.

      However, the logical challenge is not that great.

      1. Some QWest customers do not own Microsoft Windows.
      2. Because of an MSN initiative, current customers require Windows to access thier paid for e-mail accounts
      3. Windows is a Microsoft product
      4. MSN is a wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft

      Microsoft is therefore requiring thier customers who currenlty do not own Windows to buy a in order to continue a service. If there are no other DSL providers in the area, Microsoft is - wittingly or not - leveraging another monopoly to stiffle compeditive products.

      Soko

      --
      "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
    5. Re:Easy way to end this... by donutello · · Score: 1

      It is not illegal to have a monopoly. It is illegal to leverage a monopoly in one area to extend it into other spaces.

      --
      Mmmm.. Donuts
    6. Re:Easy way to end this... by donutello · · Score: 1

      However, the logical challenge is not that great.



      Only if you're logically challenged yourself.



      To argue your case, you will first need to prove that Qwest has a monopoly as far as DSL is concerned. You haven't done that and I honestly see no way of doing that. Remember, the DSL provider is different from the ISP so even if you have Qwest DSL, you don't have to get Qwest/MSN as an ISP.

      --
      Mmmm.. Donuts
    7. Re:Easy way to end this... by Saurentine · · Score: 1

      Of first glance, you would seem correct.

      However, the logical challenge is not that great.


      I'm making this post only to call attention to the parent post, which should be moderated up.

    8. Re:Easy way to end this... by BlowCat · · Score: 2, Funny
      Send them a snail-mail to MSN stating that you are an employee of a firm that makes a commercial e-mail client that competes with Outlook.
      For best results, send it from Malaysia.

      Seriously, I think M$ has a good excuse not to read e-mails from anybody but their partners.

    9. Re:Easy way to end this... by Corrado · · Score: 1

      Ok, they are using their desktop OS monopoly to extend the sphere of control to ISPs.

      --
      KangarooBox - We make IT simple!
    10. Re:Easy way to end this... by Teun · · Score: 1
      Are you blind?
      They force you to change over to Outlook. And unless you get it working under WINE this means you've got to switch to M$ Windows as well. There is only one description: M$ = A Kartel striving to become a Monopoly.
      And the logical action is anti-trust legislation.

      They (M$) sure shows they trust the present governement......

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    11. Re:Easy way to end this... by fmaxwell · · Score: 2

      MSN is not a monopoly.

      MSN is Microsoft and this is another example of Microsoft leveraging their monopoly powers to crush competitors. In this case, Qwest users are being turned over to MSN without their permission. The user could be without DSL service for, possibly, weeks if they were to try to switch providers so, in effect, MSN does have a monopoly.

    12. Re:Easy way to end this... by Delrin · · Score: 1

      You got them on that one (In my opinion). here here.

    13. Re:Easy way to end this... by gorgon · · Score: 1
      Remember, the DSL provider is different from the ISP so even if you have Qwest DSL, you don't have to get Qwest/MSN as an ISP.
      In some location there are no other ISPs than Qwest that will handle DSL, so in those locations QWest has a DSL monopoly.
      --

      And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners.
      Berke Breathed
    14. Re:Easy way to end this... by Red+Avenger · · Score: 1

      RTFF Tard. It says clearly that if you aren't running windows then your service won't be affected at all. It specifically states that MSN is working on a Mac client and until one is available the service they are currently getting won't change.

      Again I would say the logical challenge is a great leap indeed.

    15. Re:Easy way to end this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What part of "require Windows to access thier paid for e-mail accounts" don't you understand?

    16. Re:Easy way to end this... by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2
      It specifically states that MSN is working on a Mac client and until one is available the service they are currently getting won't change.

      And for Linux and FreeBSD users?

    17. Re:Easy way to end this... by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 2

      What does that have to do with anything? I don't whine when they say I have to buy a Mac to use OSX, even if I paid for the operating system.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    18. Re:Easy way to end this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To argue your case, you will first need to prove that Qwest has a monopoly as far as DSL is concerned.

      No.

      You will have to prove Qwest has something called "Market Power" in a given area.

      This is not the same thing as being the only corporation of your type.

      Neither i, you, nor the person you are replying to is/are qualified to provide actual legal advice on the issues here. All slashdot legal discussion is inherently a form of intellectual mutual masturbation.

    19. Re:Easy way to end this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Microsoft is telling the truth about dealing with Mac/other OS clients the way they say they are (*IF*. the qwest merger happened *how* long ago, and they still haven't produced anything yet?), then you have addressed Soko's post.

      However, if you will oblige me for a moment and copy Soko's post into Wordpad, then use "find/replace" to replace all instances of "Windows" with "Outlook Express", and all instances of "buy" with "use", then you will have a post which is equally important but which you have not addressed at all.

      You may bring up Microsoft Outlook Express is a free product. Yes, but Eudora is not, and there are people who make their living off of Eudora.

      Either microsoft is attempting to leverage its market power in an immoral and illegal fashion, or the story we are all responding to is being grossly misinterpreted. I do not think it is the second. That's all, as far as i can tell.

    20. Re:Easy way to end this... by greenrd · · Score: 2
      No, wrong way around. Unfortunately they arguably don't have an ISP monopoly.

    21. Re:Easy way to end this... by Danse · · Score: 2

      I don't whine when they say I have to buy a Mac to use OSX, even if I paid for the operating system.


      If you had paid for and were already using the OS, but then were informed that after a certain date it would no longer function on your hardware and you would have to buy new hardware, that would be a lot more like the MSN situation.


      These people have been using the service just fine with Mac and Linux machines. Now they're being told that in order to continue to receive service, they'll have to switch to Windows. (They haven't been explicitly told this yet, but unless you think Microsoft is going to go out of its way to provide an alternate solution for Linux users, that's what will happen.)

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    22. Re:Easy way to end this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the fuck is the parent a troll? I hope the moderators who moderated it that way get spanked in the meta-mod.

      Just because the majority of slashdot users are too stupid to understand antitrust law does not mean that the parent is a troll. It is not illegal to bundle products or services. It is only illegal if one of them has a monopoly and that monopoly is being leveraged to push the other. Not the other way around.

    23. Re:Easy way to end this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you trying to say -- that MS is extending it's non-monopoly in ISPs to capture the desktop OS market?

      They have a monopoly in one market (according to the federal courts), and they are using that monopoly to extend into other markets. Is it really so hard to parse that?

      All of this begs the question of how much Microsoft paid Qwest to buy their customers...

    24. Re:Easy way to end this... by Red+Avenger · · Score: 1

      Does anyone on the service run Linux and FreeBSD? If not then its a moot point. If they are show me some numbers.

    25. Re:Easy way to end this... by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2

      MSN Linux users: probably close to zero since MSN uses non standard interfaces that must be reverse engineered.
      Qwest Linux users: probably greater than zero because up to now, Qwest used standard interfaces that a Linux user could use-- even in lieu of non-official support channels.

      I'm not privy to any exact numbers.

    26. Re:Easy way to end this... by Red+Avenger · · Score: 1

      What non standard interfaces are you talking about? I use MSN DSL (not qwest) and my linux machine works fine. TCP/IP is standard last time I checked. Or has that changed?

    27. Re:Easy way to end this... by letchhausen · · Score: 1

      Oh c'mon, I can't wait until they roll out Outlook Express for Linux.

      --
      Hey, you think your house is cool?
  23. I don't get it... by UM_Maverick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but POP is a way to *retrieve* email. How does the client that you're using to *retrieve* your mail matter when it comes to spam? Granted, OE has some mail filters that can be used, but so do other clients (procmail anyone?).

    I could see this being legit if, somehow, it prevented the SENDING of spam...but it seems like, if anything, it could only possibly prevent your receiving it...that's like telling someone...well, i don't know what that's like telling someone, because it just seems ridiculous...

    1. Re:I don't get it... by Drakino · · Score: 5, Informative
      Correct me if I'm wrong, but POP is a way to *retrieve* email. How does the client that you're using to *retrieve* your mail matter when it comes to spam? Granted, OE has some mail filters that can be used, but so do other clients (procmail anyone?).

      They are probably switching the POP3 servers to SAP, then setting SMTP servers to only allow mail from that IP after a POP3 check is successful (and for a small window of time). It's how Gateway.net (a UU.Net based solution like MSN) did it a while back, but without the SAP.

    2. Re:I don't get it... by thrig · · Score: 3, Informative

      You meant SPA (Secure Password Authentication), right?

      Why SPA, when there is SMTP AUTH [RFC 2554]?

    3. Re:I don't get it... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Funny
      It's how Gateway.net (a UU.Net based solution like MSN) did it a while back, but without the SAP.

      I would argue that if you kept using gateway.net when they did such silly things, then you were the sap. Ditto for this new issue.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it's called POP before SMTP and it's a pain in the ass to setup on a non-trivial system.

    5. Re:I don't get it... by jeavis · · Score: 1
      UM_Maverick wrote:
      I could see this being legit if, somehow, it prevented the SENDING of spam...
      The wording of their FAQ confuses the issue. Though they might make use of something Microsoft-specific in POP3, that probably isn't what they meant. They want to control SMTP.

      They are requiring the use of specific Microsoft mailers because they are the only ones which support certain SMTP AUTH mechanisms. LOGIN (a plaintext method) and NTLM are the most likely. A more complete list can be found here [sendmail.org]. They are almost certainly restricting outbound SMTP to their own servers.

      They can't stop spam with this, but it does provide them with an audit trail. If one of their user's sends spam, they can determine with reasonable certainly which account it came from. It saves them the step of matching mail log entries with corresponding dialup log entries.

    6. Re:I don't get it... by realdpk · · Score: 1

      Are you seriously asking why Microsoft would choose a proprietary protocol over an open standard? Do you know what company we're talking about here? :)

    7. Re:I don't get it... by kochsr · · Score: 1

      don't forget... windows and mac are the only supported operating systems (probably) therefore, they don't have to assume that there are any other kinds of OSes on their network, because they only support Windows and MacOS.

    8. Re:I don't get it... by thrig · · Score: 1

      Sorry, slashdot does not appear to allow the <rhetorical> tag.

      They could have easily used SMTP AUTH, and kept the passwords secure by using GSSAPI with their bastardized kerberos variant. That way, they could at least claim to be offering a "standards-compliant mail solution," and avoid the "this is the way you will go today" overtones this reeks of.

    9. Re:I don't get it... by Kanasta · · Score: 2

      Well, most ISPs simply check if the SMTP request comes from one of their own IPs. If it doesn't then you have to login to your POP or IMAP first and then try again.

      Unfortunately, when OE has mail to send, it tries to send it b4 logging in to retrieve mail. So it means you have to deal with an error msg and then send again afterwards.

    10. Re:I don't get it... by Twanfox · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, they couldn't've used SMTP AUTH. Unfortunately, Outlook Express doesn't support SMTP AUTH protocols. In fact, a lot of programs that people use as email clients don't support SMTP AUTH protocols. I know, as I tried to set up my sendmail program to work with SMTP AUTH. I got it, but to my dismay, my users programs would not support or accept it.

      Workaround: Seperate email password from Shell password. That prevents shell exploits, but unfortunatly, for sending, I still have to resort to site-based access rules.

    11. Re:I don't get it... by thrig · · Score: 1

      Outlook Express does support SMTP AUTH, assuming you have the version from '98 or later, SPA turned off, and configured your mail server properly.

      I know, as I have clients using Sendmail to relay; the main problem is that SMTP AUTH setup is not easy, as you have to compile SASL, sometimes OpenSSL, recompile sendmail with support for the previous, add configuration for the support, and configure SASL support and optionally generate SSL certificates.

      Check out my sendmail site, or this other one (Sendmail w/ PostgreSQL support) for various SMTP AUTH/Sendmail related resources, they might help you get SMTP AUTH working right.

    12. Re:I don't get it... by Twanfox · · Score: 1

      Hmm.. Actually, I think you are correct, and even I saw that :P Only protocol it supports, I *think* is plain SMTP AUTH (I had found a list of clients around somewhere, and their auth capabilities once.) That is probably what I was thinking of. :P

    13. Re:I don't get it... by thrig · · Score: 1

      Mmmm, google.

  24. Rights? by simong · · Score: 1

    Don't think so - you've still got the right to vote with your feet and find an ISP that isn't MSN, surely?

    1. Re:Rights? by psychalgia · · Score: 1

      until their deal with SBC goes through and they rule 80% of the broadband market...

      --

      ________________________________________________

  25. Probably by Sawbones · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is probably - and I do stress probably - one of those "we only support outlook and outlook express" sort of things. I mean technically AT&T@Home only allows Windows9x and Mac machines to use their network, but that sure hasn't stopped me. This way the tech support people only have to know (or deal with) two fairly similar programs.

    At least one hopes thats it.

    --

    Ad in classifieds: Pandora's Box (no box) $5
  26. U.S. Gov't, Are You Paying Attention? by Xesdeeni · · Score: 1

    The U.S. Government was absolutely right. It was a bad idea to break M$ into two companies....it should have been broken up into FIVE: Desktop O/S, Server O/S, Portable O/S, Applications, and Services.

    We've already seen them use their dominance in almost every one of these sections to force use of another. This is yet another example of using the Services to force use of desktop O/S and applications.

    Hey DoJ! Here's a quarter. Go buy a clue!

    Xesdeeni

  27. if they really wanted to stop spam by linuxpng · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When you sign up for a passport id with a hotmail account they wouldn't sell that address to everyone under the sun.

    I signed up for hotmail before MS ever took it over. I never used the email address in any form online, never even had any mail to it. I basically just had it because. After MS took over it litterally filled the account with junk mail.

    1. Re:if they really wanted to stop spam by Erasmus+Darwin · · Score: 4, Interesting
      "I signed up for hotmail before MS ever took it over. I never used the email address in any form online, never even had any mail to it."

      How guessable was the address? I've seen spammers try dictionary-based email guessing attacks on our work domain, which only has a few dozen email addresses. With hotmail, the hit rate for a dictionary-based attack has to be amazing. It might even be worthwhile for spammers to try suffixing up to two digits on each dictionary "word". The entire process would be not unlike trying to crack unix passwords, only much more effective.

      It gets even worse, of course. Once a single spammer gets a hit on your address, he can turn around and sell your address to more spammers. The number of spammers with your address will only increase.

    2. Re:if they really wanted to stop spam by destiney · · Score: 1


      That is no lie! I recently signed up for a new Hotmail account. It was one day last month when our company mail server was having issues. I never had any mail sent to it, I only sent a few messages outbound that day. I never posted it anywhere and I'm quite sure the folks I mailed that day didn't distribute it. Anyway, I came back a few weeks later and checked the account only to find it completely filled with spam... and 99% of the messages were smut spam. Fuckerz... M$ is so... wrong!

    3. Re:if they really wanted to stop spam by abolith · · Score: 1

      same here, I had none.....not one single piece of spam, then over night i was recieving over 300+ PER DAY !!! i quit using it after a while. just three days ago MS sent me an email asking me to cleanout my in box as I had not touched it in over two years and it was completly full. they were concerned because they coouldn't send me any ads for s[pecial promotions A.K.A. more spam. what the hell ?? i quit using your @ss so i wouldn't have to deal with it and now they want me to empty my box that i don't use so they can fill it up again?? they really are stupid are they ?

      --
      if you want "No More Hiroshimas" then I say "You First. No More Pearl Harbors."
    4. Re:if they really wanted to stop spam by alexburke · · Score: 4, Informative

      I signed up for a .NET Passport for use with Windows Messenger, using a non-Hotmail address that I hadn't provided to anyone else, ever.

      Never had a single spam in it... until two days after I signed up for the Passport (being careful to uncheck the "share my information" boxes) and began using it (only to sign into Windows Messenger).

      It has gone from 0 spam/day to 6-8 spam/day, in less than one week.

      I've now blackholed that email address and cancelled the Passport. I've also created a new Passport with a poisoned address (passport@DOMAIN.TLD). If I receive spam to it, I'll know those whores sold it off, even though I specifically selected not to have that done.

    5. Re:if they really wanted to stop spam by Robber+Baron · · Score: 5, Funny

      After MS took over it litterally filled the account with junk mail.

      Then every other day you get a message saying that your account is too large...

      --

      You're using her as bait, Master!

    6. Re:if they really wanted to stop spam by yota · · Score: 1

      Once I signed up for an Hotmail account, after 5 mins I logged in and there were already 5 spam messagges, I didn't even send a messagge from that account!

      Andrea

      PS looked like one spam message per minute :)

    7. Re:if they really wanted to stop spam by linuxpng · · Score: 1

      heh, it was samana1@hotmail.com go figure. Granted there are the samana islands but honestly?

    8. Re:if they really wanted to stop spam by elmegil · · Score: 1

      I setup a hotmail account for "elmegil@hotmail.com" (that I do not actually use, so Spammers have fun wasting MS disk space...) that was promptly filled up with SPAM.
      I have never seen the name "elmegil" in use in any way by anyone but myself. QED.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    9. Re:if they really wanted to stop spam by Erasmus+Darwin · · Score: 2
      "Granted there are the samana islands but honestly?"

      I found matches for 'samana' in 'net/inet-machines.Z', 'places/World.factbook.Z', 'random/Ethnologue.gz', and 'american/dic-0294.tar.gz'. I believe I downloaded these wordlists from sable.ox.ac.uk, which no longer seems to be providing them.

    10. Re:if they really wanted to stop spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just signed up a bunch of random characters and some numbers for a hotmail address.

      I'm gonna prove to myself once and for all MS sells its user list to spammers.

    11. Re:if they really wanted to stop spam by Erasmus+Darwin · · Score: 1
      "I have never seen the name "elmegil" in use in any way by anyone but myself. QED."

      I'm honestly at a loss to explain that. It doesn't seem to be on any of the dictionary lists I have and even a google search on it is relatively sparse. The closest thing I can think of would be a spammer using terms picked up on the web to populate their wordlist. Still, I admit that it's very much a stretch of the imagination.

      Even so, I would certainly feel better if someone were to do the "unused account spam test" with an account name that is listed absolutely nowhere and conforms to the traditional standards for a good password. However, in the absence of such a test being done, the evidence certainly points toward Microsoft being at fault.

    12. Re:if they really wanted to stop spam by Kithraya · · Score: 1

      The same crap happened to me. Unfortunately, most of my spam comes from @hotmail and @msn addresses. Things like hornysluts5184846581418546@msn.com really should be disallowed. It can't be blocked from my end, since the address changes every time, but I would sure think Microsoft could see what's happening and block the creation of these addresses...

    13. Re:if they really wanted to stop spam by Derek · · Score: 1

      I once set up ten hotmail accounts to test out some stuff. I used them one once (for my personal test) and I NEVER gave them out to anyone. I also was very careful to uncheck ALL the spam offers when registering the accounts. About three out of those ten accounts immediately started getting spam on the order of about 2-3 pieces per day. None of the account names are dictionary words and they all include numbers.

      I don't know what caused it, but I have to echo the suspiscion that MS (either knowingly or unknowingly) is letting some of this information out. It seems to be too frequent of a problem to be anything else.

      -Derek

    14. Re:if they really wanted to stop spam by CorporateProgrammerD · · Score: 1
      The only Hotmail address that I ever created that didn't get non HotMail service related spam was a GUID. I didn't create my own, I just grabbed one of the Office component's GUID from the registry.


      I don't use that address, I just wanted to see if the spammers were using a dictionary attack or not. I created shorter addresses with that were name/number combos at the same time, and they all got spammed. It seems like most of the spammers probably are guessing at addresses.


      Then again, on other hotmail addresses (such as me123@hotmail.com) I get lots of spam with a return addresses such as "me123@msn.com." Sometimes they're from forged addresses, sometimes not.


      OK, this was a useless post. All I really said was "Hotmail has problems with Spammers." and we all already knew that.


      I never really needed that karma anyway...

      --
      To email, do the obvious.
    15. Re:if they really wanted to stop spam by Segfault+11 · · Score: 1

      Click this to see results 1-10 of ~128 results for a search on "elmegil".

      --

      I registered my hate for Jon Katz

    16. Re:if they really wanted to stop spam by elmegil · · Score: 1

      And guess what! Those are all me. With no reason to assume that they are in any way linked to a hotmail email account....

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    17. Re:if they really wanted to stop spam by elmegil · · Score: 1

      (for those who may be suspicious of how "I" can be a machine "elmegil.bradley.edu" in one of those links, that machine was my personal workstation when I worked at Bradley University).

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    18. Re:if they really wanted to stop spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah -- there's obviously *something* going on over at hotmail. For example, I have a Yahoo account that could be dictionary guessed (not super obvious, tho), and no spam.

      My guess is that an employee is selling UIDs under the table, although it could be that they have a legitimate security hole that nobody knows about. (they seem to get routinely burned by querystring tricks).

      Either that or spammers run dictionary attacks 24x7 without anyone trying to stop them.

    19. Re:if they really wanted to stop spam by ZxCv · · Score: 2

      Simple. Spammers know that not every email address out there is going to be or at least have a real (dictionary) word in it. Therefore, spammers looking to harvest addresses create lists of millions of generated names that are generated in such a way as to be pronouncable (ie, enough vowels in the right places) but that don't necessarily mean anything. Sometimes, mail is blindly sent to these lists and sometimes the lists are validated somehow first. But either way, it didn't take someone selling the name or the name appearing on a web page somewhere for it to end up on a spammers list.

      --

      Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
    20. Re:if they really wanted to stop spam by spruce · · Score: 1

      Your experience was completely different than mine. Several months ago I set up an account, even used it limited places on the net, and I've gotten maybe 5 spams total. Even the ones I did receive have been placed directly into the Junk Mail folder (browser) or Bulk Mail (Outlook Express). I'd say their anti-spam initiative has done pretty well, I watch friends with netscape mail fill up with over 60 spams a day.

    21. Re:if they really wanted to stop spam by AME · · Score: 2

      Maybe they just gather slashdot user names into their dictionary. Seems to me like a pretty good strategy if they are trying to get hotmail account names.

      --
      "I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
    22. Re:if they really wanted to stop spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "With no reason to assume that they are in any way linked to a hotmail email account...."

      If I was a spammer, I would try sucking handles off Slashdot and other popular boards and just try them @hotmail.com, @yahoo.com and so on. It's a good bet you're going to hit some targets that might be difficult to get with the classic dictionary attacks.

    23. Re:if they really wanted to stop spam by jlharris_50010 · · Score: 1

      I signed up for a hotmail account over a year ago... just to use Messenger, and have never recieved a spam email... I think over the year I recieved about 4 emails... All from Hotmail Customer service anouncing service changes and the like. So I suppose I will agree with the guessing the email theory...

    24. Re:if they really wanted to stop spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Look at the headers of some spam to find an open relay in .kr or wherever. Set this as your SMTP server.

      2. Set your e-mail address in your client to "hornysluts5184846581418546@msn.com".

      3. Send some ENLARGE YOUR PEINS! mail to your friends and family.

      4. Congratulations! You now understand that the SMTP From address is not reliable information and can be faked by any halfwit in the world.

      5. Go forth and spread the word to all the other ignoramouses that think this spam is actually coming from hotmail and msn.

    25. Re:if they really wanted to stop spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better than goatse.cx any day, and twice on Sunday!

      The juxtaposition between this link above and goatse.cx is simply...gaping!

    26. Re:if they really wanted to stop spam by alexburke · · Score: 1

      The juxtaposition between this link above and goatse.cx is simply...gaping!

      Isn't it just? Unfortunately, conhugeco.org hasn't updated that page since July, and I haven't bothered to change my sig. I assure you, pre-July, it was gaping indeed.

    27. Re:if they really wanted to stop spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I've had the same thing. My hotmail account (created less than a year ago) is by no means guessable (my last name is quite rare), but I still get spam on it all the time. I have never used that email address to sign up for anything -- I only had it because Microsoft made me sign up for Hotmail in order to access one of their other services. I always uncheck the "don't sell my address, don't send me newsletters, don't list me in the directory" boxes. And I get spam with my address among 20 others starting with the same 3-4 characters, all of which look like valid names. I don't see any other explaination than either Microsoft is selling addresses, or someone found a hole in their system which makes the list of email accouts visible.

      I've heard people set up fake Hotmail accounts to test the theory that spam will automatically come to any Hotmail account even if unpublished, and found that not to be true. (usually they only waited a month or so.) Well, it happened to me, so it does happen.

    28. Re:if they really wanted to stop spam by suedey · · Score: 1

      Give it a real test yourself! Create a new hotmail account with a really un-guessable address. I just generated a GUID and used that to create a new account. Time will tell whether MS is selling addresses, or spammers are just good at guessing.

    29. Re:if they really wanted to stop spam by evilviper · · Score: 2

      Ain't it nice how slashdot lays out the usernames in such a great format for harvesting?

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    30. Re:if they really wanted to stop spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could always drop any @(hotmail|msn).com mail that doesn't come from the relevant netblocks (same with all the other webmail providers).

  28. The answer to this one is easy... by hazehead · · Score: 1

    Find another local ISP (something you should have done in the first place! ;)

    If possible, one that isn't owned by Earthlink, AOL or MSN. Maybe there's a small, locally owned provider that would love to provide you with static IP service and lots of other goodies for about the same price.

    1. Re:The answer to this one is easy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DNS Says the MX is smtp-gw-4.msn.com

    2. Re:The answer to this one is easy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My local ISP (www.tns.net) gives me everything AOL, MSN, etc. have to offer in a dial-up account for less than $9.00 a month paid anually. No hang-ups, I get to use what software I want (Eudora, Netscape, Agent, WS_FTP32, etc.), personal WEB pages, 2 e-mail addresses, access numbers from the US/Mexican border to north of LA. Why would anyone pay more for less.

      Redman
      San Diego, CA

  29. One way to find out... by Xibby · · Score: 5, Interesting

    telnet popserver.msn.com 110
    user user
    pass password
    list

    Replace popserver.msn.com with the actual pop3 server. I have no clue what it actually is.

    --
    I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
    1. Re:One way to find out... by jshep · · Score: 1

      Note that the FAQ mentions that this "service" is not available in all areas just yet. Mine must not be one of them because I can still grab my POP mail via Netscape Messenger.

      --


      "Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." - E.W. Dijkstra
    2. Re:One way to find out... by alyandon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      *sigh*

      This will not work (and hasn't for years probably) since MSN's POP3 servers require the connecting client to support the SPA authentication protocol.

      Is there any open information on the specifics of SPA?

  30. Third Party smtp by CodeMonky · · Score: 5, Informative

    They don't allow third party smtp server either. This has caused us aa bit of a hassle as we have a lot of faculty that want to use our mail server to send mail (with authentication of course) but MSN blocks all connections to a third party smtp server and if you don't use a @msn.com type address as the From it doesn't allow it either.

    --
    --"Karma is justice without the satisfaction"
    1. Re:Third Party smtp by Mark+Bainter · · Score: 2, Informative

      Setup port forwarding your mail server from a higher port (like say 2025) and have your faculty set that as the SMTP port in their client. (Outlook express at least can do this, I think outlook can too)

      --
      "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
      --James Madison
    2. Re:Third Party smtp by CodeMonky · · Score: 2

      heh heh
      I guess I should have stated that the hassle was setting up a port forwarder. While a workaround it doesn't change the fact that it is a pain to write a new set of docs for MSN users

      --
      --"Karma is justice without the satisfaction"
    3. Re:Third Party smtp by 13013dobbs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      These blocks are based on port numbers. Set your mail server to listen to any other port (as long as it is not port 25) and the mail can go thru. It is a pain, but if you are stuck w/MSN and need to use your companies server, it will work.

      --

      No replies made to AC posts. Please log in.

    4. Re:Third Party smtp by kedge · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I had to deal with this back when I had an Earthlink dialup account. The simplest and most effective solution we found was to port forward another port on the mail server to port 25. (We used 333) Then I just had setup my outgoing smtp port to 333 in my mail client.

    5. Re:Third Party smtp by Rain · · Score: 1
      Earthlink does this as well (or maybe it's just uu.net, I understand both MSN and Earthlink use uunet for several of their POPs.) It's a major inconvenience, but it's easily hacked around:

      8025 stream tcp nowait nobody /usr/bin/nc nc localhost 25

      and,
      access-list 100 permit tcp <src> <src wildcard bits> host <mailserver> eq 8025
      access-list 100 deny tcp any host <mailserver> eq 8025 log

      (I do this mostly because a friend of mine refuses to use Earthlink's mail service, but he can't use any other smtp accounts because of the firewalling of outbound port 25 connects, which I suspect don't do much to actually curb spam.)

      Oh well. It's a pain in the ass, but what can you do? Earthlink is something like the third largest conglomeration of ISPs, so actually getting them to change something like this isn't likely to happen.

    6. Re:Third Party smtp by thrig · · Score: 2

      You may not need a port forwarder, your mail server may be able to listen on another port via a configuration option.

      Example is for Sendmail, though you probably want a different Addr specification.

    7. Re:Third Party smtp by ktambascio · · Score: 2, Informative

      I use Yahoo for just about all my email now. Free POP3 access to retrieve (I use Eudora), but I can't seem to send mail through Eudora, but I can live. I never get spam in my yahoo account, very rarly. I have a hotmail account, but it gets 20-30 spam messages a day, and its useless.

    8. Re:Third Party smtp by Ian+Bicking · · Score: 2

      I've been hit with this. So what do I use to do port forwarding? Is there a daemon that will forward things from one port to another? A quick pointer would help me a ton.

    9. Re:Third Party smtp by Mark+Bainter · · Score: 1

      Sure. Look here. It's handy, and not difficult to setup. As someone else has said in this thread, you might look into using an sslwrapper and then just use ssl smtp instead, or as well. (Wrapping isn't officially supported anymore, but you can still do it, and it's not hard to setup)

      --
      "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
      --James Madison
    10. Re:Third Party smtp by funky+womble · · Score: 1
      Make sure you don't skip setting the access-list as tightly as possible, otherwise you're providing an anonymising open relay for anyone who port scans you and sees the SMTP response.

      It's *much* better to use authenticated SMTP if at all possible.

  31. SPA by oni · · Score: 5, Informative

    Outlook uses Secure Password Authentication (SPA). Some weird protocol that only microsoft knows. No other programs that I am aware of support it.

    1. Re:SPA by AssFace · · Score: 5, Informative

      only microsoft knows

      hmm, that is likely what they *want* - but I doubt that is the case. somebody knows it, and plenty of people could reverse engineer it - there likely just wasn't the need or desire - until now. I have a feeling it won't be long at all until there is an easy way around this.

      my easy way around it is not allowing anything msn on my system. (I installed winXP on my computer and even though I disabled msn in all the menus, it ignored all that and still took over and came up all the time - I finally just killed it by deleting its files and all references to it in the registry... amazing how quiet it got after that) - I hate real player for the exact same reason (it asks what you want to do in the menu system, you tell it, and then it goes and ignores that and does what it wants anyway, which is usually to assume command of all file associations regardless of what you asked it to do)

      --

      There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
    2. Re:SPA by Mahonrimoriancumer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      hmm, that is likely what they *want* - but I doubt that is the case. somebody knows it, and plenty of people could reverse engineer it - there likely just wasn't the need or desire - until now. I have a feeling it won't be long at all until there is an easy way around this.

      Microsoft know this and I don't think that they really care. Only a small amount of people will do this, the vast majority will use Outlook.

      By having the average joe do this, Microsoft now has a larger command of the market. Of course, when Billy Boy changes all of his products to lease, he will make a killing.

      --
      So climate's changing. So what? It has always changed. The big news would be if it wasn't changing. - Dr. Philip Stone
    3. Re:SPA by mccalli · · Score: 1

      Outlook uses Secure Password Authentication (SPA)....No other programs that I am aware of support it.

      No other clients, but server software can be configured to accept it. I have a sendmail compiled to accept the LOGIN protocol - Outlook's SPA works with that.

    4. Re:SPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Secure Password Authentication (SPA) is the reason why MSN users are limited in accessing their POP3 email with Outlook, Outlook Express or MSN Explorer.

      Forte Agent supports SPA and I believe that Eudora is working to add SPA support.

      The APIs for using SPA are located on MSDN.

    5. Re:SPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      APIs are all fine and dandy if you don't mind depending on MS platform. What would be interesting is the protocol.

    6. Re: SPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Rid yourself of messenger:

      1. Open c:\Windows\inf\sysoc.inf in Notepad.
      2. Type Ctrl-H
      3. Enter ",hide," in the Find What edit window.
      4. Enter ",," in the Replace With edit window.
      5. Click Replace All
      6. Open Add/Remove Programs from the Control Panel
      7. Select Add/Remove Windows Components
      8. Uninstall Windows Messenger

      And no, she'll never come back.

    7. Re:SPA by Delrin · · Score: 1

      Let me take a guess. It's a pre-existing technology that MS subsequently bastardised and made proprietary. Didn't they do the same with kerberos?

    8. Re:SPA by Sabalon · · Score: 2

      No it does not. the LOGIN protocol works with the SMTP AUTH crap that outlook has built in. The SPA has nothing to do with it. You are thinking of the "My server requires me to login to send e-mail"

    9. Re:SPA by eggfellow · · Score: 1

      I had the same experience installing Netscape 6.1 last week. I ended up with "Sign up for AOL" icons everywhere - desktop, system tray, even IE favorites. It also installed RealPlayer and something else (I forget) and sprinkled their detritus everywhere as well. And, of course, uninstalling the damned thing doesn't get rid of all the rabbit poops it has sprinkled on my desktop.

    10. Re:SPA by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      Outlook uses Secure Password Authentication (SPA). Some weird protocol that only microsoft knows.


      Maybe it converts the userid/pwd to Word document format.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    11. Re:SPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quickmail Pro can use SPA, on both Windows and Macintosh

    12. Re:SPA by Surak · · Score: 2

      Isn't SPA just some form of NTLM? Fetchmail supports NTLM for Exchange servers. It doesn't work with Exchange 2000, though, because of an annoying problem where the POP3 server in exchange puts the trailing . right after the last character of the message, rather than adding a terminating newline prior to the . -- very annoying.

    13. Re:SPA by UnrefinedLayman · · Score: 1

      Forte Agent supports Secure Password Authentication. It's not a Microsoft only standard, and has nothing to do with Microsoft specifically, just clients that support secure authentication.

    14. Re:SPA by abumarie · · Score: 1

      yeah, like you need that on dsl. last time i looked, it was easier to spoof spa than it was to hook into the copper to attach to the network. you talk about a lot of closed architecture total garbage. m$ is becoming an aol wannabe...

      --


      Sex is heriditary, if your parents didn't have it chances are good you won't either.
    15. Re:SPA by Organic_Info · · Score: 1

      There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight

      It has been some time since I visited the Villa Straylight. I have fond memories and a desire to return.

      --
      "Things that you own end up owning you" - Tyler Durden (via Diogenes of Sinope).
    16. Re:SPA by Belgand · · Score: 2

      Just how did Microsoft manage to corner the market with OE so quickly? I'd think that bundling was the primary method, but I simply recall one day everyone of earth was using Eudora and then a few months later most people hadn't even heard of it or any non-OE mail reader.

    17. Re:SPA by frost22 · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily true. Forte could use some APIs that oare only available on Windows. BOOM - no Mac, no Unix.

      May they rot in hell.

      f.

      --
      ...and here I stand, with all my lore, poor fool, no wiser than before.
    18. Re:SPA by zmooc · · Score: 1
      Disclaimer: I don't know shit about SPA

      The one major problem with POP3 in my opinion, is that it requires sending a cleartext password. MS seems to have solved this (?) so if they're forcing people to use it, people will most certainly manage to recreate it and we might have SPA available everywere. Not exactly the right way for a "standard", but it's better than nothing. But then again...all the email is probably still sent unencrypted (which is why I don't use POP). Why is POP still used at all anyway...:(

      --
      0x or or snor perron?!
    19. Re:SPA by orlinius · · Score: 0

      We use Stalker's excellent Communigate Pro as our corporate e-mail server and in a recent version they added support for Microsoft's SPA.

      It is true that SPA is a pure Microsoft authentication protocol used for avoiding to send the password in the clear. I think the specs are not published. The only e-mail server that officially supports it is Microsoft Exchange and on the client side you have Microsoft Outlook, Outlook Express on the Windows side and Outlook Express and Entourage on the Mac side...

      Of course we also use 128bit SSL so the need for SPA is irrelevant.

      --

      A hungry bear does not dance!
  32. hmm. by Alcimedes · · Score: 1

    as just one more user decides they hate MS more than anything, and begins writing the latest virus to take them out.

    so do people hate MS 'cause their assholes, or are they assholes 'cause people hate them?

    1. Re:hmm. by The_Unforgiven · · Score: 1

      I think that's actually a good question.

      --
      http://wsulug.org
    2. Re:hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bottom line is: They are assholes. It really doesn't matter how they got that way.

    3. Re:hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, good question.
      s/MS/the USA/g

    4. Re:hmm. by Znork · · Score: 1

      Well, if you consider that their anti-trust judge Jackson was a mildly warm pro-buisness conservative judge to begin with, and ended up spewing obscenities over MS, comparing them with common thugs, I'd say that goes a long way towards pointing to them ending up being hated because they actually are, as you put it, assholes.

    5. Re:hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but while the viruses are giving them a black eye or two, the 2,000-ton Beast drones on swallowing ISP's. Sun and IBM need to rise up with their Solaris and Red Hat and get MS running scared. Businesses are getting sick of Windows, but a lot of consultants I know don't even attempt to learn Linux/BSD/Solaris. Consultants! They're playing around with iMacs and Airports and think that they may be able to break out with Apple...

  33. to those who say switch by edoug · · Score: 1

    Switching away from MSN is a real pain though, I experimented with it once when I was young and foolish, but don't remember there being an uninstall once the msn client was on your machine.

    --
    meh.
    1. Re:to those who say switch by operagost · · Score: 1

      Which was hilarious, because ever since Windows 95, for an application to get a "Designed for Windows" certification, it must be uninstallable from the Add/remove programs, and may not have a shortcut to uninstall in the start menu. So, they just don't follow their own rules.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:to those who say switch by UNIX_Meister · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that Qwest is a DSL provider. That means that in areas that Qwest controls, and has put Rhythms and Northpoint out of business, it's your only choice for DSL. So if you want DSL, you have to have MSN.

      Getting angrier and angrier with MS every day...

  34. good things about consumer choice by onepoint · · Score: 1

    Now is your chance to move to another service. I hope you have another service. But send out a complaint to your local congress person.

    good luck finding the right ISP

    -onepoint

    --
    if you see me, smile and say hello.
  35. You do have a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Up here in Seattle Quest sold out to Bill and his cronies too. In response I dropped MSN as my provider and went with a local ISP who was very friendly (whos tech support department also has a couple of Linux users I found (after a bear of a time getting the connection set up). Quest still handles the physical connection. Sure I pay $5 more/month for my service but at least I have the peace of mind that I'm not contributing to that cancer in Redmond.

  36. Marketing Ploy? by Alien54 · · Score: 1, Redundant
    Obviously all Microsoft security measures are viewed as another marketing tool.

    Microsoft obviously is defining security in terms of the availability of non-Microsoft product. The availability of non-Microsoft product is a threat to the security of the Microsoft Market, and must be stopped at all costs.

    See how simple things are when you put customers last?

    I do not see how any anti-spam technology could be enforced by specifying a Microsoft email Client. I would need a lot more detailed, unbiased technical data before I trust MS on this one.

    None of this "simply trsut me" junque.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:Marketing Ploy? by Mahonrimoriancumer · · Score: 1

      Come on! Microsoft does a great job stopping spam. Just look at my hotmail account...umm nevermind

      --
      So climate's changing. So what? It has always changed. The big news would be if it wasn't changing. - Dr. Philip Stone
  37. Can somebody explain... by sterno · · Score: 1

    Why is Microsoft interfering with my right to innovate in the realm of e-mail?

    --
    This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
  38. Just a guess by zerofoo · · Score: 3, Informative

    I setup outlook express for a friend of mine who uses MSN. It seems microsoft's way of authenticating users is some sort of "secure" authentication. It's a feature called "SPA" or secure password authentication. My guess is that they encrypt the account name and password in a similar way to NT login authentication so the actual name and password never go across the wire.

    -ted

    1. Re:Just a guess by cheezedawg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I always thought that SPA was Microsoft's implementation of POP AUTHorize extension (rfc 2195). Is that not the case???

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    2. Re:Just a guess by zerofoo · · Score: 1

      Honestly I don't know if it's rfc 2195 compliant. It's this closed source thing that MS uses....
      It would be interesting to see if another mail client would work though.

      -ted

  39. Far Canal! by lewko · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Could it be possible that this is much fuss about nothing? It seems likely that what the page is 'trying to say' is that POP style access to Hotmail and web based mail services is restricted to the MS products as a 'counterspam initiative' and this doesn't neccessarily apply to general mail usage. That is, so bulkmail software cannot use MS servers to relay spam, and the damage is limited to the ten or so users a person could CC from a MS mail client.

    Typical over-reaction that gives /. a reputation for being one-eyed. I suggest someone actually clarify the position before we launch into the inevitable MS bashing (as fun as that may be :-)

    -----
    Miracle cures for snoring don't exist! See www.snoring.com.au

    --
    Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
    1. Re:Far Canal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Could it be possible that this is much fuss about nothing? It seems likely that what the page is 'trying to say' is that POP style access to Hotmail and web based mail services is restricted to the MS products as a 'counterspam initiative' and this doesn't neccessarily apply to general mail usage."

      WTF? What the page says is that you can only use an MS mail client; this is because the MS mail system uses SPA as a user authentication layer prior to the client being allowed access to the mail server. You don't authenticate, you don't get to the server with your perfectly POP3-compliant client.

      How can this NOT apply to 'general mail usage'?

  40. WTF? by Lxy · · Score: 2

    Browsing through my spam filter, I see a lot of message from Hotmail. Microsoft contends, for whatever reason, that spam originates from everyone else. How long until users realizes that the amount of spam INCREASES once they enforce this stupid policy? How long until they realize that Microsoft's software is responsible for worms and this policy actually slows down their connection? This is absolutely rediculous.

    --

    There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
    :wq
    1. Re:WTF? by Maserati · · Score: 1
      Line 1 of my spam filters (in Eudora)



      FROM="*@msn.com


      I guess I'll have to put hotmail.com in there too.

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    2. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, we all know that spammers always use accurate From addresses...

      (I have never recieved a spam that actually originated from hotmail.com ... a web interface is probably a little too limiting for massmailers.)

  41. Re:Why is it OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this isn't flamebait, it's informative. you just have to do a little thinking for yourself (i know, it's hard, just try) and realize that this article is letting you know that it's not a good idea to use qwest.

  42. Re:holy shit by Dethboy · · Score: 1

    Never happen.

    They'd have to use MSN approved bombs, and of course have to be signed up to Passport before even thinking about sending anything over...

  43. Ok, where's Outlook for Linux? by MadCow42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So, what do they do for customers who aren't using an OS that Outlook is available for?

    Not only are they forcing you to use Outlook, they're forcing you to use Windows. (I believe it's available for Mac too, yeah...).

    MadCow.

    --
    I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
    1. Re:Ok, where's Outlook for Linux? by m0rten · · Score: 1

      There is a Outlook Express (and Internet Explorer) version available for Solaris (SPARC) and HP-UX.

  44. badly worded by CodeMonky · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That sentence could be read
    "When using Outlook express, Outlook or MSN explorer you will only be able to use pop3"

    I think they need to clarify that (and I have a feeling they will if I know slashdotians).

    --
    --"Karma is justice without the satisfaction"
    1. Re:badly worded by gotan · · Score: 5, Informative

      ... POP3 service is only available when using MSN Explorer, Microsoft Outlook, or Microsoft Outlook Express

      No it couldn't. "A is only available when doing B" means: "Do B, only then A is available" and not "If you do B only A is available". Since "A" equals to POP3 here, and i see no alternative mailhandling to POP3 in the FAQ it translates to:

      Use MSN Explorer, Microsoft Outlook, or Microsoft Outlook Express to be able to send and get e-mail.

      --
      "By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
    2. Re:badly worded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does not clarify if you can use any IMAP client to access your account. It may only be POP3 that is blocked.

      Sending mail has nothing to do with POP. POP is a protocol that allows you to retrieve mail from a server. To send mail you need a SMTP client that talks to an SMTP server.

      So basicly it translate to exacly what was said, namely: To retrieve your mail with the POP3 protocol you must use MSN Explorer, Microsoft Outlook, or Microsoft Outlook Express.

      You can still use another client to send your mail, even if it is not very practical.

    3. Re:badly worded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can still use another client to send your mail, even if it is not very practical.

      From what i read in some other postings here you probably can't, since the default port (25) to do that is blocked, so using smtp will only work if someone set up a mailserver listening on another port first. Sending mail via the providers mailserver requires authentification of the client first and that's where POP3 comes into play even when sending mail (as far as i understand).

  45. fkn microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fkn microsoft

    this news just makes me hate microsoft even more. (very hard, because my respect for them is already at negative infinity).

    Why cant micro$oft do what USERS want, not what the almighty dollar (or maybe bill) wants?

  46. Nothing New Here by BurritoWarrior · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I believe they are talking about accessing your HOTMAIL mail account via POP3. As far as I know, as long as this service has been available, you have had to use a MS mail client, as they actually send you ads in a pane at the bottom of Outlook/OE.

    I believe there is also a workaround to block the ads, but I can't remember where I saw it.

    1. Re:Nothing New Here by Lxy · · Score: 2

      I no longer have it set up, but despite MS's claims you can POP into your hotmail account with any client, no pop-ups. I can't remember the SMTP and POP3 server names though. It was pretty simple. There was a specific server name that you use, and then your UID/password. Wish I could remember that setting....

      --

      There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
      :wq
  47. Embrace and Extend again by mmacdona86 · · Score: 1

    Yes-- a previous thread mentioned that Secure Password Authentication is a Microsoft-specific POP3 extension.

  48. MOD DOWN!!! by jrwillis · · Score: 0, Troll

    Please mod this down due to the fact that it's a goat sex link. Damn trolls.

    --
    Keep Austin Weird!
    1. Re:MOD DOWN!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shoulda looked at the link. Damn slashcode - all the [urls] do is make it harder to read.

  49. Just use 3rd party mail,news service by Baki · · Score: 2

    I've been doing it for years, to have an independant und uninterrupted news and email service when I switch ISP.

    It is hard to find a good ISP that offers a decent newsfeed these days, and email service in general is also deteriorating. IMO it is better to subscribe to mail and news at a specialized provider, and use the ISP only for access.

    1. Re:Just use 3rd party mail,news service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is *exactly* why most ISPs block access
      to smtp ports outside their network!
      They want to deny your ability
      to use a third-party email service. Verio,
      for example, blocks this port, so any Verisign/Network Solutions email has to be
      sent to/through Verio servers, and cannot be sent
      to/through Verisign servers.
      If Verisign doesn't wake up and support
      alternate (non-blocked) port number real soon,
      they may see a lot of customers letting their
      Verisign service expire (like me, for one).
      Port blocking is an ingenious/insidious way
      to kill a competitors service...

      BTW, I plan to punt Verio, for that exact reason.
      (they told me they have no plans to change this
      smtp port blocking policy)

  50. Portland, OR? DSL from Qwest and Hevanet. by Futurepower(tm) · · Score: 2


    Reading stories like this makes me happy to have good DSL service here in Portland, Oregon: Qwest wiring and Hevanet.com as ISP. Hevanet also has excellent tech support.

    (Contact me for help programming your Cisco 675.)

    --
    Bush's education improvements were
    1. Re:Portland, OR? DSL from Qwest and Hevanet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NE Portland here. I have Qwest DSL and the ISP formerly known as Teleport (meaning EarthLink). Even have a fixed IP and roaming dialup. All's well, although the transition from Teleport to OneMain to EarthLink was hell.

  51. Crying wolf by junkpunch · · Score: 1

    How is this "leveraging their monopoly power" exactly?

    How is this different than say, if Qwest had turned over their ISP business to AOL and AOL required using the AOL client?

    1. Re:Crying wolf by pivo · · Score: 1

      It's no different. Forcing customers to use AOL would be equally bad, don't you think?

    2. Re:Crying wolf by junkpunch · · Score: 1

      I think it would suck for the users, yes. My point was that the has nothing to do with MS having an OS monopoly. Perhaps a bad business decision by Qwest, but nothing more.

    3. Re:Crying wolf by rifter · · Score: 1

      The difference, as I see it, is that at least the aol client runs on other operating systems beside Windows, and in fact recently the protocol was opened. Nevertheless, AOL has almost always run on Macintoshes as well, whereas the switch to MSN in this case requires one use Microsoft Windows and no other operating system



      From the article:



      Eligible Customers:
      Currently, the plan is to transition those customers who:

      Have Qwest.net Internet Access using an analog dial-up line, Qwest DSL 256, Qwest DSL Select, or Qwest DSL Deluxe connection and,
      Use the Windows operating system.
      MAC Customers: MSN is working on a MAC solution for your Internet access needs. Until that time, there will not be any changes to your Qwest.net Internet Access service.

      Note: After the transition period, eligible Qwest.net Internet Access Customers who have not transitioned their account will automatically be transitioned to MSN Internet Access.
      ...

      Q: When will MSN® Internet Access be available to me as a Macintosh® customer?

      A: Qwest® and MSN are working hard to deliver great narrowband and Qwest DSLTM services to all customers. A Macintosh optimized upgrade solution will be available in the coming months. In the meantime, your current Qwest.net service will remain the same.



      Of course, the most amusing bit, in light of their "anti-spam initiatives" is the following:



      Q: Why should I transition my service to MSN®?

      A: There are many reasons why you should transition your service:

      With more than 230 million visitors per month, MSN is available in 33 markets and in 17 languages.
      (Source: Jupiter MediaMetrixTM Digital Media Report, April 01 for US, UK, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Japan, Spain, Brazil, Italy, Switzerland. Data are an aggregation of above listed countries.)
      When you upgrade your service, special promotions are available to you.
      Quality, reliability and speed.
      Technical support, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, at no charge!
      Continue to enjoy POP3 e-mail service, with an option to switch to the world's largest Web-based e-mail service, MSN Hotmail®, via MSN Internet Explorer and get up to nine e-mail screen names for you and the rest of your family. (Due to the Microsoft anti-spam initiative, customers are restricted to use their mail services. Therefore, POP3 service is only available when using MSN Explorer, Microsoft Outlook, or Microsoft Outlook Express.)
      Instant messaging from MSN Messenger Service, the fast growing instant messaging service.
      You get more space for your personal Web site from 5 MB to 30 MB.
      Easy access to great resources from MSN that help make your life better.
      Catch up on the latest news from MSNBC
      Listen to your favorite music
      Play games
      Send instant messages
      Create an online photo album for your family
      Personalize your home page with weather, sports, news or local events
      Shop from the convenience of your home
      Invest your money wisely
      Search for information
      Send online greeting cards
      Plan your vacation
      Take care of your family's health
      And, so much more



      So for all their anti-spam initiatives, one of the best things about going to msn is you get more spam??? And what about the rest? All the feature reasons to go to msn are things which are available to you on the general internet. In fact, all of msn's services are available to ANYONE on the internet, regardless of provider.


      This is in fact anotehr example of Microsoft trying to force people to buy more copies of their software. Even Linux users will end up keeping a copy around to do the stuff you still can't do with other os's.

  52. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  53. How about #6 ...Micropatch by bubbha · · Score: 1

    There's gold in them thar bugs...and somebody's gotta stomp 'em...

    --
    I want to be alone with the sandwich
  54. They ARE anti-competitive (Re:what?!) by parc · · Score: 1

    The US courts have agreed that they ARE behaving in an anti-competitive manner. They just disagreed that breaking up the company was an appropriate remedy.

    1. Re:They ARE anti-competitive (Re:what?!) by Flower · · Score: 1
      No, they disagreed with having Judge Jackson issue a breakup order without spending an adequate amount of time on the remedy phase and then doing some questionable interviews which showed possible bias against MS. If he had just kept his mouth shut instead of being a media slut the results would have probably been the same but MS would have had a much rougher time of it.

      There's nothing saying Judge Kollar-Kotelly can't also issue a breakup order and have it stick. She just needs to be professional before during and after the trial.

      --
      I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
    2. Re:They ARE anti-competitive (Re:what?!) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that the DOJ isn't even asking for a breakup anymore, it's highly unlikely that the new judge would order one.

    3. Re:They ARE anti-competitive (Re:what?!) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The judge is under no obligation to follow the sentencing recommendations from the prosecutor.

  55. the more you tighten you grip by rutledjw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The more star systems will slip through your fingers...

    - some girl with sticky buns on the sides of her head, Star Wars


    This has been rumored for some time. One can escape assimilation by paying an extra $10/month and going to OfficeWorks, although rumor ALSO has it that even OfficeWorks won't be safe from the Evil Empire.

    Someone mentioned getting around this. The problem is the DMCA. As I understand it, it's now illegal to do that kind of reverse engineering, i.e. the type that allowed *nix users to connect to SMB via Samba. So basically, through emrbrace and extend, MS can technically and legally exclude non-conformists.

    To switch ISPs requires a 3-week downtime. This is done to eliminate the "slamming" phenonemon that plagued Long Distace carriers. I being one of the "renegades" running an alternative OS, have been looking into alternatives.

    The problem is that I work from home (so I have between 3-5 machines networked into a DSL line) and it would create no small problem if I were to have to connect via modem for 3 weeks. Although given the alternative, I may be purchasing a modem...

    --

    Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
    1. Re:the more you tighten you grip by shanek · · Score: 2
      The problem is the DMCA. As I understand it, it's now illegal to do that kind of reverse engineering, i.e. the type that allowed *nix users to connect to SMB via Samba. So basically, through emrbrace and extend, MS can technically and legally exclude non-conformists.

      You misunderstand. The DMCA rules only apply to reverse engineering methods that protect copyrighted materials. IANAL, but I don't think this situation applies.

    2. Re:the more you tighten you grip by PhilHibbs · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The DMCA rules only apply to reverse engineering methods that protect copyrighted materials
      And it specifically allows RE for interoperability.
    3. Re:the more you tighten you grip by Flower · · Score: 2

      Yeah and nobody is getting sued for distributing DeCSS.

      --
      I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
    4. Re:the more you tighten you grip by rutledjw · · Score: 1

      But then I think MS is COPYRIGHTING the technique used. So for older versions of SMB, MS can't do anything,. But if they come with something NEW, like a modified POP3, they can copyright that software and you're back to square one...

      TO QWEST CUSTOMERS

      Be advised, I just contacted a local ISP (EStreet, although there are quite a few in Denver) and an excerpt from their response is as follows


      If you are currently with Qwest as your ISP, you "should" just be able to
      call them and request an ISP change to E Street (or whatever ISP you like) ...

      The trouble may come if they have already switched you over to MSN. If they
      have done this, you may have to totally cancel your MSN service and then
      re-order service with us. It looks like MSN actually "owns" the DSL service
      and they won't allow any transfers to other ISP's.


      The implication being that you would have to disconnect your _DSL_ and go through reconnecting, back to the 3-week process. This may not be right, it's from another ISP, but it doesn't seem like anyone inside Qwest knows the answer either...

      --

      Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
    5. Re:the more you tighten you grip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as i am aware, the DMCA states that it is *legal* to break copyright protection encryption for the purposes of interopability or backups, but *illegal* to create tools which break copyright protection encryption, even for the purposes of interopability.

      A well-written law, or one which was actually given any sort of the public scrutiny which laws must receive before passage for the system of law in question to remain what can be called a "democracy", would not contain this kind of ambiguity.

      The DMCA does.

      Note I am, however, basing the information in this post off of nothing but slashdot posts i have read, and i have found slashdot posts to be a very unreliable resource.

    6. Re:the more you tighten you grip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Customers migrate their service through the MSN Migration Web Page (URL = www.qwest.com/msnnb for Narrowband and www.qwest.com/msnbb for Broadband). Customers simply access the web page and enter their Qwest.net userid, password, and BTN (Billing Telephone Number) to verify that their account is eligible for migration.
      Services eligible for migration include only Qwest.net consumer customers with the internet access package using PC Windows operating systems in conjunction with either:
      Analog
      Select DSL
      DSL 256 (bi-directional) and
      Deluxe DSL services
      Macintosh users will migrate in the near future.
      Qwest.net services excluded from migrating include:
      BrowseNow users
      Qwest.net OfficeWorks users
      Qwest.net OfficeWorks LAN users and
      Qwest DSL Pro users
      Following account verification with Qwest databases, the customer completes the remaining transition screens to establish their new MSN account. Fields required for input include:
      New MSN e-mail name
      Option to select e-mail forwarding and auto-reply (if desired)
      Acceptance of MSN Internet Access Subscription Agreement
      Etc.
      Upon successful completion of the various migration screens, the customer will receive a confirmation web page with their account information. Customers will also be given the option to immediately download the latest MSN Internet Access software or elect to receive the software CD via the mail within 5 to 10 days. Once that software is installed, the customer can begin using their new MSN account. In the meantime, the customer's Qwest.net account is still operational for 10 business days. The customer will begin receiving charges for their new MSN service on their local phone bill just as they have previously for their Qwest.net account.

      (Note: Customer's with personal web pages associated with their Qwest.net service should be encouraged to use these first 10 days following voluntary

    7. Re:the more you tighten you grip by PhilHibbs · · Score: 2

      So read the DMCA, the EFF have a copy. Look for 1201(a). As I read it, the interoperaility exception does allow the creation of tools.

  56. We've seen this behavior before by Ghengis · · Score: 1
    This is the same type of behavior that got MS in trouble with the DOJ. They were using a monopoly (windows) to leverage another (attempt to get IE to take over the market). Now they're at it again, but the issue of monopoly isn't as clear cut. They obviously don't have a monopoly in the ISP area, but they are using what they do have to leverage their other products, specifically email clients. While this is legal, it's kinda scary how much it resembles their previous illegal actions.

    --

    "The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft agley..." - ROBERT BURNS

  57. This is so wrong by Uttles · · Score: 1

    I really am speechless. My only thoughts are: How can MS continue to have policies like this and not be sued into bankrupcy?

    ... oh yeah, they already tried that, it's amazing the lawyers you can get when you're the richest company out there...

    --

    ~ now you know
  58. Just choose another ISP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can choose any ISP that has DSL services even though the DSL line is through Qwest. While I was waiting for the service to start I believe I saw the announcement about MSN and Qwest on slashdot. So, not wanting anything to do with MSN, I quickly found a local provider for the ISP part of DSL. No problems so far. And they officially support Linux, unlike Qwest.

  59. MSN requires Secure Password Authentication by argel · · Score: 5, Informative

    In theory any e-mail client that supports SPA could be used. Right now that would be MSN Explorer, Outlook Express, and Outlook.

    --

    -- Argel
    1. Re:MSN requires Secure Password Authentication by Yosho · · Score: 1

      Actually, no, there are other clients that support SPA. I'm rather fond of Calypso, myself. (At least, there's an option for SPA in the server settings; I've never found a server that used it, myself)

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    2. Re:MSN requires Secure Password Authentication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is SPA a stable public standard that anyone can implement?

      ..even if so, who's to say that Microsoft's SPA is compatible with the (assumed) standard? If Kerebos could be 'extended', what's so special about SPA?

  60. we'll never stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *giggle*

  61. Sorry to reply on my own comment... by trilucid · · Score: 2

    Just felt compelled to point out web-based email also. ISP givin' you a hard time? Screw 'em as follows, and make sure to send an email to their PR department letting them know what you think of their support of this sort of idiotic policy.



    There it be. Have fun!

  62. You have no rights... by knick · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is clearly NOT a violations of anybodys rights.. This ISP is private business, and they are out-sourcing thier email hosting to another private business. And THEY have the right to impose ANY DAMN RULES THEY WANT!!.

    Just is just as much of a rights violation as:
    - Not allowing broadband users to host home servers
    - Not imposing limits on the amount of bandwidth you can use
    - Not supporting all OS's
    - Blocking ports

    It's a private business, and it's thier damn business how you use THIER network, THEIR servers, and THEIR routers.

    And, it's YOUR damn right to go elsewhere.

    Now excuse me. I have to go sue McDonalds becuase they insist on serving me Coke, and it's my right to want and get Pepsi.

    --knick

    1. Re:You have no rights... by stuccoguy · · Score: 2
      Forgive me if I am falling for a flaim-bait trap here.


      There is no comparison between a Private Company imposing a restriction on the services or products they provide or support and the Anti-Competative behavior of a company which prohibits the use of a competitors product when the use of such product has no conceivable relationship to or affect on the services they do provide.

    2. Re:You have no rights... by knick · · Score: 1

      They say they are doing this to limit spamming software. So, tell me, which is easier:

      - Stoping the servers from being accessed by SPAM software, but allowing every legit email program in the world to work, or
      - Limiting the servers that you wrote to work to work only with the clients you wrote.

      It's the simplest solution to what they are trying to achive. They control both the server and the client, and that makes it VERY hard to get spam software to work when they are doing some sort of end-to-end client/server verification.

      Open this up to other clients, and you lose that control, and the Spam software can get in.

      --knick

    3. Re:You have no rights... by knick · · Score: 1

      Forgive me if I am falling for a flaim-bait trap here.

      ..and BTW, there is a big difference between being flame-bait (saying this just to rile people up) and stated on opinion that you know will be unpopular. Forgive me if I just don't happen to agree with the MS-lynching crowd here. I tend to think for myself.

      ..And, I really don't give a rat-ass if anybody replies to anything I say.

      --knick

    4. Re:You have no rights... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is the rapid consolidation and the concomitant decrease in broadband ISP choices in many parts of the country.

      Your analogy would be much more precise if you were to go to McDonalds where they insisted that you must buy Coke with their meals even though there is a vendor on every corner giving away free Pepsi which you may not bring in the store.

      Furthermore, the hypothetical Coke plant is notoriously lax in quality control while the Pepsi plant is not and the alleged reason for the policy is quality control!

      Finally, McDonald's is the only place in town to buy food.

      So while it is certainly not a constitutional issue, it is definitely a matter of some concern.

    5. Re:You have no rights... by stuccoguy · · Score: 1
      I'm afraid I have to disagree. SPAM, by its very nature can be controlled on the server end without regard for what client is being used. If the ISP restricted SMTP traffic to their server then they would have the ability to filter 100% of the outgoing mail no matter what email client is being used. This is obviously a less restrictive practice and will get the same results.


      All email clients use the same SMTP protocol, although there may be small differences in the number and method of extensions allowed. From the server end email looks identical no matter what client sent the email. The only way for an SMTP server to tell which client sent the email is to read an X-Header which simply identifies the client and makes no difference in the way the message is processed.


      This demonstrates that there is no realistic difference between the use of different clients in terms of SPAM.


      How do spammers abuse the system? They write email clients that do two things:

      1. Falsify headers

      2. Send massive amounts of traffic rapidly


      As mentioned above, both of these issues can be addressed at the server and do not require a limitation on clients. If all SMTP traffic is blocked except for the MS server, MS has the ability to do two things:

      1. Verify the headers of all SMTP traffic before forwarding the messages

      2. Limit the number of messages processed per day or hour

      I would never use an ISP that used these restrictions simply because I want a great level of freedom, but at least these actions could be justified by the need to curb SPAM on the network. Disallowing competing email clients cannot be justified that way.

    6. Re:You have no rights... by shepd · · Score: 1

      >Now excuse me. I have to go sue McDonalds becuase they insist on serving me Coke, and it's my right to want and get Pepsi.

      Sure. But does McDonald's add extra ingredients to their food to ensure that when you get take out you puke if you drink Pepsi with it?

      If they did (aside from the medical aspects) would the government allow them to? Probably not.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    7. Re:You have no rights... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, dip, but Qwest owns the DSL lines, which make them a public utility, which restricts their ability to limit their customer's choices because they have a monopolistic market.

    8. Re:You have no rights... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's not so much that i have a problem with ms or isp's only supporting one platform, but it's the fact that they are making it so that it is illegal for me to not make their service compatable with what i use or to figure out how to make it work. i mean, what about some guy who runs a lan on his dsl with a bunch of sparcs? and unfortunately i don't think that much will be done right now with a more big business-friendly administration.

  63. SPA and a guess as to how it works by zerofoo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Further down this post I explained that. I think SPA uses an authentication mechanism similar to NT authentication. Basically it's a token exchange process to encrypt the name and password so the plain text name and password never go across the wire.

    -ted

  64. Even funnier... by Green+Aardvark+House · · Score: 4, Informative

    From the website:

    Q: What does the MSN® and Qwest® alliance mean to me?

    A: Under the agreement, MSN will become the preferred Internet Service Provider (ISP) for some Qwest.net Consumer Internet Access customers. Qwest and Microsoft® are working together to provide consumers with best-of-breed MSN content and services via Qwest's Internet infrastructure. Customers will benefit from this joint offering in many ways including...
    (emphasis added)

    Ummm...according to the Consumer Reports Sept. 2001 issue, MSN was rated as the worst Internet provider.

    Nice to see that Microsoft not only squeezes the consumer, limits choice, but also engages in bald-faced lying!!

    1. Re:Even funnier... by FleshWound · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm not defending MS here, but if you'll notice, it says "...with best-of-breed MSN content," not "...service." There's a big difference.

    2. Re:Even funnier... by kiwaiti · · Score: 1
      Well, they don't say they're any good as an ISP - they just say you get the best MSN content available, which is probably true.

      Kiwaiti

      --
      Member of the Legion Of Microsoft Haters
    3. Re:Even funnier... by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      Note the phrasing though: "best-of-breed MSN content". Legally it's covered because they don't claim to be giving the best content, just the best MSN content.
      In other words, you're getting the best content that the worst provider has to offer.

    4. Re:Even funnier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it may in fact be 'best-of-breed', but unfortunately it's turned to a life of street-walking and crack dealing to make ends meet.

    5. Re:Even funnier... by Noer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, they just said "best-of-breed" - they didn't say just what that breed was. (halfbred? inbred?)

      --
      -- "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -Joseph Stalin
    6. Re:Even funnier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you fucking blind? It DOES says "services" right after the words 'content and'!

      Dumbass illiterate.

    7. Re:Even funnier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he's not blind, but unlike you, he can comprehend what he reads:

      Qwest and Microsoft® are working together to provide consumers with best-of-breed MSN content and services via Qwest's Internet infrastructure .

      There.. clear enough for you now?

    8. Re:Even funnier... by yesthatguy · · Score: 1

      Qwest and Microsoft® are working together to provide consumers with best-of-breed MSN content and services via Qwest's Internet infrastructure.

      I think it goes more like that...makes more grammatical sense, anyway.

      --
      Yes! That guy!
    9. Re:Even funnier... by DickBreath · · Score: 2

      Best is a subjective term. Best in whose eyes.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    10. Re:Even funnier... by Kanasta · · Score: 2

      They said best-of-breed MSN content. That means the best that MSN has to offer. It has nothing to do with comparisons to outside entities.

      Every company talks about best-of-breed nowadays, I guess it does trick some people then...

    11. Re:Even funnier... by athmanb · · Score: 1

      I think they are referring to the MSN Community backdoor a few months ago which allowed everyone to access random files on other computers, mostly kiddie porn and similar content...

    12. Re:Even funnier... by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      Well, they do have the best breed of worms. The *nix varieties just don't seem to do very much. Even the honor virus doesn't seem to proliferate.

  65. With DSL it's different by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative


    Qwest has a stranglehold on DSL in their areas - you have
    to give them at least 50% of the DSL charges, even if you
    use another ISP. It is similar to per-processor charges that
    Microsoft used to use.

    Qwest even goes so low as to "slam" customers away from
    other ISP's. It happened to me several times during the
    summer. I'm not sure if they targeted me due to Linux or
    what.

  66. Does anyone know what they are actually doing? by bfree · · Score: 2

    Is anyone out there actually using this service and can they tell how the network is attempting to enforce this? Are they simply saying if you want them to provide you with an email service you must use one of their clients for the account? Or are they saying if you want to use email you must use one of their accounts (i.e. you can't use any other pop/smtp/imap email provider to collect or receive mail). Are they blocking ports? Finally if this is an anti-spam measure, why are they talking about POP? POP is for collecting mail not sending it! If they were talking about SMTP then it would make sense. Are they simply looking for a way to ensure they are filtering all email?

    --

    Never underestimate the dark side of the Source

  67. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  68. Get another ISP... by AlgUSF · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The solution is simple enough, get another ISP. I don't even use the POP3 mail accounts my ISP provides. I use netscape webmail, and can check my e-mail everywhere. I used to use hotmail, until MSFT bought it, but I am sure I am one of the millions of people microsoft says are potential Passport members...... (Yeah Right!)

    --


    I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
  69. I have this service.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But only until I can afford a cisco 675 and get the free time to deal with the problem. I noticed when I first got DSL that SMTP is blocked...not from running a server but outgoing! I asked their internet based tech support and they where MORONS!

    "Are you using MSN Messenger, Outlook, or Outlook Express?"

    "No, I use Netscape"

    "Yes, but I need to know what you use to get your email. Are you using MSN Messenger, Outlook, or Outlook Express?"

    After an hour of repetedly asking if I was using Messenger, Outlook, or Outlook Express, he blamed it on Netscape and told me to call tech support...he also said they are NOT blocking 25. So I called and yes they are, but he had no idea why. At one point he sent me a text file that had directions for setting up Outlook Express with hotmail (MSN only has hotmail, they don't have a real mailbox.) I just said "You just can't immagine that I would not want to use Outlook can you?"

    I am pretty dissapointed in Quest for setting me up with these assholes. I specificaly asked if MSN was a *real* ISP with all the *standard* features and that I did NOT want some AOL wannabe bullshit. I was assured that it was just like any other ISP with all the standard features and protocols. I think part of the problem is that these people have no idea what a real ISP is anymore...it has become a thing of the past with these "Access providers" like AOL and MSN taking over.

    The fact that they don't provide standard services would be ok if they where not blocking my access to getting those services elsewhere. The modem you get is also all fucked up - you have to have windows to talk to it because they modified it to only talk to their setup application. After setting that up in windows I can leave it and run my linux masq fw just fine though....the only problem is port 25 and it makes them utterly useless. What is really funny is that your allowed to keep the modem after leaving, I asked where I send it back to and they don't want it....but then I don't want it either :P

    jik-

  70. Good point, microsoft loves open standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    such as chap, kerberos etc.. Anyone notice a trend?

  71. Stop spam? by albat0r · · Score: 1

    Maybe I don't understand how spam and POP3 client works, but how can Outlook protect more against spam then, let say, Eudora, or any other POP3 client that have a filter option in it?

    I mean, I know only two way that someone can stop having spam... you don't put your e-mail at everyplace that they ask for your e-mail and you install some basic filter rules. I don't see anything specific at Outlook in this...

    But maybe someone can show me the light, an explain me why Outlook is so much better (hope you see the irony here) than any other POP3 client at preventing from spam?

    1. Re:Stop spam? by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > how can Outlook protect more against spam then, let say, Eudora, or any other POP3 client that have a filter option in it?

      ...through the clever use of security holes, Outleak allows others to periodically nuke the contents of your hard drive. During the day or two you spend restoring from backups or reconfiguring from scratch, you'll receive no spam ;)

      (Serious answer: They're trying to reduce outgoing spam, not incoming spam, in order to cut down on the number of abuse complaints they have to deal with. It's got nothing to do with protecting their users from inbound spam, and everything to do with cutting the costs of running the MSN portion of the ISP business and further-entrenching the Microsoft monopoly.)

    2. Re:Stop spam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You cannot send more then 2 e-mails before your system crashes. Therefore the throughput of spam is decreased.

  72. SMTP over SSL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    You could also use SMTP over SSL, which uses a different port. Most ISPs that filter SMTP don't block the secure SMTP port.

  73. And when I want to use my American Express card... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I take it to a place that takes American Express. When I find myself somewhere that takes Mastercard but not American Express, I shrug my shoulders and yank out my Mastercard instead.
    I guess I could scream bloody murder about how it's anticompetitive of the store to not take my card and how everything should interoperate perfectly, but that's life I suppose.

  74. Get a third party ISP by kneeo · · Score: 1

    I have dsl in Minneapolis, MN. I wanted a static IP and Qwest MSN does not offer that, so I just looked for a third party ISP. I pay for the dsl line(31.95 or something) and a measly $19.95 for my third party ISP. I get a static IP, I can use Linux or whatever OS I want, and I can use any email program I want.

    Yeah its 20 bucks more, but you if want quality you pay for it.

  75. He *doesn't* allow it. by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 2

    He can't put a new email client to the market, if the leading ISP's doesn't allow their users to use new clients. If he can't market it, he will not be able to fund the development. If he can't fund the development, inovation will die.

    1. Re:He *doesn't* allow it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right.

      So have you been picketing outside the AOL main office and boycotting Netscape for the last few years?

  76. Get around it the easy way by sportal · · Score: 2

    If you run the mail server (POP, SMTP or IMAP, etc), or you know the person who does run the mail server. Tell them to put the services on an additional port that MSN won't be blocking.

    If your using an ISP for your mail services. Ask them to put the mail server on an additional port. www.mailbank.com does this.

    If MSN is blocking low number ports, use high numbered ports.

  77. Slashdot getting pretty useless also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slow down cowboy....

    That the message you now get when trying to reply to posts on slashdot. Apperently you have to wait 2 minutes between posts, in a bulletin board message system that is just idiotic!

    Slashdot gets worse by the day it seems, pretty soon I will simply stop trying to work around it.

    jik-

    1. Re:Slashdot getting pretty useless also by F452 · · Score: 1

      Can you say, exaggeration?

    2. Re:Slashdot getting pretty useless also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "exageration"

      But my post was not. I actually never posted that message that I was going to because slashdot did that to me. I had planned on waiting but something came up....it was rather pertinant also.

      So, well whatever...it's a loss....

      jik-

  78. Microsoft Anti-Spam initiative? by TZA14a · · Score: 5, Insightful
    What kind of anti-spam initiative is it that causes all the trouble? Searching for Microsoft and Anti-Spam only yields another case where it got them in trouble, Microsoft's Anti-Spam Filter Targets Competitors. Though the article is old and kind of unrelated, I find it funny that Google doesn't have a single high-ranking link to a Microsoft-owned page that describes their so-called initiative. Given how they're yapping for every piece of positive PR, how come they're not advocating their exceedingly consumer-friendly initiative a bit more publicly?
    Now, if this weren't Microsoft, who brought us everything that is good, I'd say the whole thing is just an outright lie.

  79. Re:Portland, OR? DSL from EASYSTREET by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    My PDX dsl choice is Easystreet.

    Excellent support, and they're server-friendly.

    Their policies are friendly to the local wireless group.

  80. next up is... by Hooya · · Score: 1

    IIS won't even talk to clients that are not IE.

    1. Re:next up is... by jchristopher · · Score: 2

      laugh now.

    2. Re:next up is... by COAngler · · Score: 1
      IIS won't even talk to clients that are not IE.



      If that means that I don't have six million port-80 connect attempts per hour, I'll take it at a black market price right now.

  81. Change your ISP... by chuckw · · Score: 2, Informative


    The solution is very very simple. When you sign up for QWest DSL, tell 'em you want to use a different ISP. You don't *have* to use MSN. Already have MSN? Call QWest and ask 'em to change your ISP. It's just that simple. All QWest provides is a high speed route to the ISP of your choice.

    --
    *Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
    1. Re:Change your ISP... by VulgarBoatman · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's funny how, when I call Qwest (the RBOC), the recording tells me about how they, QWEST, are switching to MSN. It's virtually (but not entirely) impossible to find someone at Qwest (the phone company) who knows that Qwest (the phone company) is DIFFERENT from Qwest.net (the ISP).

      When I called and asked them to change the ISP on my DSL line, the a-hole I talked to put in an order to disconnect my DSL and phone service. He had no idea that you could have Qwest DSL with another ISP. Arrrrrghhhhh.

      You don't know the shit we've had to deal with with Qwest!

      --
      "Because I love Pat Benatar." -- Britney Spears, when asked why she covered Joan Jett's "I Love Rock 'n' Roll"
  82. Um... by big_groo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Call 1-800-244-1111

    I called, and the rep told me you have to be using Microsoft's OS if you want to subscribe to their new MSN service. You can still have a regular Qwest account.

    So what's all the hooplah about?

  83. Re:already slashdotted? Well how can they tell by 13013dobbs · · Score: 5, Informative

    MSN's anti-spam filters force you to use their SMTP servers and blocks any outbound port 25 traffic. This does not 'stop spam' but it forces spammers to use MSN's mail servers and not the anonymous open relays that they prefer. Since spammers need to be as anonymous as possible, they have (for the most part) left MSN's dial-ups.

    --

    No replies made to AC posts. Please log in.

  84. Port Blocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suspect that Microsoft is blocking port 25/tcp access from inside their network to outside internet hosts. This would effectively block SPAM and restrict users to Microsoft's mail servers.

    It sounds to me that MS is trying to protect the internet from their users - rather than protect their users from the internet. I say we should give MS a wide round of applause!

    1. Re:Port Blocking by 13013dobbs · · Score: 1

      You are correct in the fact aht MSN is port blocking. But it does not stop spam. Spammers can still sent their spam via MSN's mail servers. But, since spammers perfer to be anonymous they will use a different ISP's dial-ups so they can use anonymous open relays.

      --

      No replies made to AC posts. Please log in.

    2. Re:Port Blocking by mpe · · Score: 2

      I suspect that Microsoft is blocking port 25/tcp access from inside their network to outside internet hosts. This would effectively block SPAM and restrict users to Microsoft's mail servers.

      Only if they verify their customers' identity, before letting them in. Otherwise they are running a semi open relay in the first place.

    3. Re:Port Blocking by funky+womble · · Score: 1

      If users are forced through MSN's mail servers, those servers can rate-limit the mail. If that's done, it's quite effective at stopping spam (and people running their own mailing lists... oh look, MS provide a commercial mailing list service! oh, what a surprise!).

  85. New virus for Outlook...? by tenzig_112 · · Score: 4, Funny
    I found this interesting and more than a little amusing:


    http://www.ridiculopathy.com/news_detail.php?displ ay=20011016


    Computer science researchers at Carnegie Mellon University announced that they have discovered a security hole in Microsoft Outlook that allows a specific strain of Anthrax to be sent via e-mail.


    Even with the "preview attachments" feature disabled, the tainted message creates a physical manifestation of the disease and infects the user.


    1. Re:New virus for Outlook...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, nothing like a little scare-mongering to brighten everyone's day.

    2. Re:New virus for Outlook...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um. It's a parody. Satire.

  86. How limiting access to POP is 'anti-spam': by montybar · · Score: 2, Funny

    MS wants access to all of the email that you receive, so that it can read... er, filter out all of the anti-MS propog... er, spam before you even get to... er, have to look at it.

  87. My letter to Qwest by lcypher · · Score: 1

    This is disturbing -

    "Continue to enjoy POP3 e-mail service, with an option to switch to the world's largest Web-based e-mail service, MSN Hotmail®, via MSN Internet Explorer and get up to nine e-mail screen names for you and the rest of your family. (Due to the Microsoft anti-spam initiative, customers are restricted to use their mail services. Therefore, POP3 service is only available when using MSN Explorer, Microsoft Outlook, or Microsoft Outlook Express.)"

    You do know that Micro$oft products are the main cause of the many worms and viruses that plague the Internet. I absolutely REFUSE to use Micro$oft products to retrieve or send mail. This applies to everybody in my organization. Outlook is BANNED.

    Please tell me how POP3 service, which is a standard that is not controlled by Micro$oft, can be controlled by Micro$oft? Are you saying that my Unix box cannot speak POP3 to your servers? My Unix box knows how to speak POP3!

    Another thing...My company is not going to spend any time or money installing Outlook or any other Micro$oft product to use your service. If that is required, we will need to be released from our contract with no penalties.

    Thanks in advance for your timely response.

    P.S. Anti-spam? Micro$oft, Hotmail, MSN, etc, are the largest distributors of SPAM on the Net! Talk about an oxymoron!

    1. Re:My letter to Qwest by jon787 · · Score: 1

      My Dad's office has a similar idea. They used old versions of the IE/Outlook software that don't runn .vbs stuff on their own. It seems to be a good solution for them.

      --
      X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
    2. Re:My letter to Qwest by S.Lemmon · · Score: 1

      VBS isn't the only danger - older versions are still vunerable to several buffer overflow expoilts and lack even the minor restrictions on reading the address book the current version have.

    3. Re:My letter to Qwest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think your Dad's office is confused -- the older stuff is laden with buffer-exploits and auto-launch bugs. No patches because support has been dropped.

      Well, the newer stuff probably has it's share of problems, but at least several 100 known exploits have been patched.

      And every version of Outhouse has a COM interface that can be accessed by VBS (or VB or C++ or any other language).

      If you want to be safe with MS stuff, the only way is
      + Patched, and
      + Policy -- 'restricted zone' set and filter executables

    4. Re:My letter to Qwest by japhmi · · Score: 1

      You know, it's fine to call Micro$oft Micro$oft on places like /. that are meant to be for 'nerds.' But when sending letters to companies, and when you want to be taken seriously, you should call them Microsoft.

      --
      "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
  88. Just another reason to be SSH tunneling by Fez · · Score: 3, Informative

    Seems like having an SSH tunnel to your favorite mail server would be ideal. At least my main mail server I can SSH to, and others I could forward there.

    And of course if you are tunneling to your mail server directly, pop3 being in plaintext isn't such a problem. If it'd work with other authentication means, I don't know. However, it seems to me like a good alternative.

    1. Re:Just another reason to be SSH tunneling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Got any links, faqs or suggestions on how to do this? Thanks!

    2. Re:Just another reason to be SSH tunneling by Fez · · Score: 5, Informative

      Got any links, faqs or suggestions on how to do this? Thanks!

      Try here, here, or here for information and links on SSH tunneling. The second one (on uoregon.edu) actually covers doing it for e-mail.

    3. Re:Just another reason to be SSH tunneling by gorgon · · Score: 1

      Or better yet just read your email from a shell account that you login into via ssh. Mutt rocks!

      --

      And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners.
      Berke Breathed
    4. Re:Just another reason to be SSH tunneling by jtra · · Score: 1
      It easy I have done few days ago already.

      from your unix box issue (make a script for frequent use; target box have to be some kind of unix with shell access over ssh):

      $ ssh name@server -L A:B:C

      where A is local port (number, bigger than 1024 for non root), B is computer you want to read from (with POP3 or IMAP server running), C is 110 for POP3 or 143 for IMAP.

      Now set your email agent to get mail from 127.0.0.1 at port A with desired protocol. For non-unix users, use some ssh client, most can do this too (RTFM).

      --
      -- Wanna textmode user interface for ruby? http://freshmeat.net/projects/jttui/
    5. Re:Just another reason to be SSH tunneling by J.+Random+Software · · Score: 1

      Or even better, use fetchmail with that SSH port forward as your "preconnect" option.

    6. Re:Just another reason to be SSH tunneling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is that better? I want a personal computer, not a VT100.

  89. The best way to read these things..... by bahtama · · Score: 1
    I know this is a little offtopic, but I have found that the best way to deal with Microsoft press releases and/or statements, licenses or whatever is to run it through the redneck filter at the dialectizer. It really cracks me up and I feel it gives a greater insight into their mentality. :) For example, a sample from the Qwest faq linked to in the above story turns into:

    Qwess an' Microsof'® is wawkin' togither t'provide cornsoomrs wif best-of-breed MSN corntent an' services via Qwest's Internet infrastruckure. Cestomers will benefit fum this hyar joint offerin' in menny ways includin':

    Now isn't that much better than reading the plain old vanilla statements! ;) I mean, Microsoft is wawkin' t'provide cornsoomers sums up what kind of service I would expect from them!

    --

    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    Oh bother.

  90. Anti-Spam Initiative? by StressGuy · · Score: 1

    For the time being, I have an MSN account (provided free with my Dell computer). Anyway, two days ago I checked my e-mail to find 34 messages. Only four of these were *NOT* spam. I have repeatedly complained to MSN and have even send detailed header information. The consistent reply I get is that "it's not our problem".

    Perhaps Microsoft is getting serious about spam. It's too late for me though as I'm switching to Earthlink.

    --
    A goal is a dream with a deadline
  91. Re:Third Party smtp -- is BAD by oneiros27 · · Score: 4, Informative

    As both someone who's worked at an ISP, and who has worked at a University, what they're doing by disallowing outbound port 25 connections is a GOOD thing, as it keeps spammers from using a throwaway account to originate and inject to open relays.

    Odds are, it's not based on the from address, but based on the originating IP address. [as to just allow 'from: *@msn.com' is setting themselves up as a third party relay for messages with forged headers.] It may also not be MSN, but it may be UUNet, who I believe MSN rents POPs from.

    Now, for the solution -- tell the faculty to follow the instructions from their ISP for their home machines, not the instructions from the university, which is for local machines. If they have to have a from address with MSN in it to use the SMTP servers, just tag on a reply-to address.

    The only whining that might take a little bit of a work arround is for those folks who use a laptop from both home and from work. You need to use an ISP that can push DNS server information to you in the PPP negotiation, or a broadband connection with DNS defined by the DHCP server, so that they're getting dynamic DNS at home, and using DHCP sending DNS at work, so they have dynamic DNS there. Then, they need to put in a non-FQDN for the SMTP server.

    For example, you have someone at isp.net, and work for lame.edu. The isp has a host named smtp.isp.net which they can deliver their mail to, and you have a machine named smtp.lame.edu which the faculty [why do the faculty always complain the most?] can use when they're on campus.

    When off campus, they're using the dns servers at isp.net, and so, when sending to 'smtp', it looks up 'smtp.isp.net'. When on campus, they're using the dns servers at lame.edu, and so, 'smtp' would be 'smtp.lame.edu'.

    If you have enough users on their system, you can normally get issues pushed through to someone more signficant at the ISP, so that you can find some working solution before having the users try it. [Our university's been in talks with AOL for a week or two, as it seems that when we set up a Trend virus firewall, we opened ourselves up for third party relaying, and AOL started sporaticly dropping our e-mail when their spam traps were triggered]

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
  92. How to avoid this crap: by pipeb0mb · · Score: 5, Informative

    Simple Solution:

    For the SMTP server, use:
    "macsmtp.email.msn.com"
    and your normal user/pass .

    They don't have it working right for Mac clients; tada.

    I've been using this for about 2 months now on my Windows and Linux machines and it works great.

    Personally, I am more concerned with why I can't send mail to anyone using AOL/Walmarts ISP: wmconnect.com .

    1. Re:How to avoid this crap: by pipeb0mb · · Score: 1

      I said:

      "Personally, I am more concerned with why I can't send mail to anyone using AOL/Walmarts ISP: wmconnect.com . "

      let me clarify this sentence; When I send mail, using MSN SMTP servers, I get the following:

      ----

      Reporting-MTA: dns;cpimssmtpd03.email.msn.com

      Received-From-MTA: dns;smlaptop

      Arrival-Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 17:38:25 -0700

      Final-Recipient: rfc822;user@wmconnect.com

      Action: failed

      Status: 4.4.7

      Final-Recipient: rfc822;user@wmconnect.com

      Action: failed

      Status: 4.4.7

      ---

      Now, when I use sendmail it works fine; messages get through. When I use my work smtp, it also works fine. ONLY MSN blocks it. Conspiracy? I think so...

    2. Re:How to avoid this crap: by aechols · · Score: 1

      well if you can use that macsmtp server to send mail, doesn't that completely defeat any "anti-spam" measures they've taken?

      --
      Are you pondering what I'm pondering?
  93. POP3 & SPA by tino_sup · · Score: 1

    I have used OL Express to retrieve my MSN email. Yes, with the POP specific clients, "Use Secure Password Authentication" must be check or receive 0X800CCCOD error.

    A solution to this, with no need to use the Outlook family o' mail clients is to use the Hotmail pop checking feature located under the options tab of Hotmail. I am unaware logistically how the SPA is circumvented, but using it is not a selectable option. Hotmail will check MSN POP mail, with no type of error.

    Additionally the server names are:
    pop3.email.msn.com & smtp.email.msn.com

    --
    I am me...I think
  94. E-Mail worms by jonathan_atkinson · · Score: 1

    "Microsoft's Anti-Spam initiative forces POP users to use the primary sender of mail worms."

    Uh, no. Consider the phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". Got that? Now, repeat after me: "Microsoft doesn't propogate email worms, shitty system admins propogate email worms".

    No matter what client you use, with good aministration email worms will not spread. Email scripting can be turned off in Outlook, and if you're in a position to bash MS for their evil spreading of worms, surely you have the intellegence to turn scripting off.

    --jon

    --
    Cleanstick.org: Dumb weblog about nothing
    1. Re:E-Mail worms by Jason+Earl · · Score: 2

      Yeah, well this good sysadmin sees all of the work that must go into securing Outlook on each and every box and I can't help but think that the obvious solution is to use a different email client.

      Sure, Outlook probably can be secured, but what's the point. It's much simpler to use an email client that wasn't specifically designed as a virus breeding ground. There are plenty of perfectly acceptable email clients that have a much better security history than Outlook.

      In following with your gun analogy Outlook is a Saturday night special holdout pistol that is nearly as likely to blow your hand off as to work correctly. It's cheap, it's got some neat features, but it's dangerous. Using some other email client accomplishes the same thing without the the added risk and work of securing Outlook.

    2. Re:E-Mail worms by unitron · · Score: 2

      Guns don't kill people, they just make it quick and easy. Microsoft doesn't propagate email worms,...

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  95. Re:Why is it OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Awesome. Microsoft's Anti-Spam initiative forces
    POP users to use the primary sender of mail worms."

    I know, it's hard, just try to see it with a hint of objectivity, but statements like that are flamebait.

  96. Seems like you can get out of it ! by URSpider · · Score: 1
    From the FAQ linked to in the post:

    Eligible Customers:

    Currently, the plan is to transition those customers who:

    • Have Qwest.net Internet Access using an analog dial-up line, Qwest DSL 256, Qwest DSL Select, or Qwest DSL Deluxe connection
      and,
    • Use the Windows operating system.

    So, tell 'em you use Linux. Problem solved.

    1. Re:Seems like you can get out of it ! by devjoe · · Score: 1

      If you read on, it says that after the transition period ends, all remaining customers who have not transitioned to the new service will be transitioned. And the only reference to a transition period says it is from August to October -- so it looks like these people have 2 weeks to find a real ISP after their former one sold out on them.

  97. The irony. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The irony is delicious and obvious. It would be just as appropriate for them to ban Microsoft mail products as part of a security initative.

  98. What the POP line really means by Erore · · Score: 1

    It means that you will only be able to retrieve HOTMAIL email with POP3 if you use MSN Explorer. Outlook, or Outlook Express. This is because those are the only clients that support it right now.

  99. Re:SPA(M) by eldurbarn · · Score: 5, Funny
    Secure Password Authentication (Microsoft)


    Cute acronym :-)


    (Or should that be: Oxymoron)

    --
    -Eldurbarn
  100. Arrggghhh!!! by shippo · · Score: 1

    Even more top-posted, non-snipped, HTML email!

  101. It's not really about POP access by jermz · · Score: 1

    Come on folks. We are all pretty smart. In the eyes of Joe-average-computer-user, POP email is both ways. For those of us that know, POP is incoming, and SMTP is outgoing. It's much easier, and less confusing, to just say that "POP access is limited to MSN Explorer, Outlook, and Outlook Express". In essence, more people can identify POP than SMTP. Let's try debating the actual issue. Arguing semantics is just silly.

    For my $.02, I think this is just another shot at people who want to use something Different. Once we figure out what MSN is looking for, it's easy enough to change our email clients to emulate the MS tools. This is not a widespread problem (yet), so to those who are affected - break out a sniffer, do some manual SMTP, play with it. Then, find a workaround. I know that if I was in this situation, I would do the same.

    --
    Hi-Technical Excellent Taste and Flavor!
  102. Sounds like it's time to get a new ISP by TheLinuxWarrior · · Score: 1

    I'd personally recommend Speakeasy.net. They seem to be much more flexible than most. I've been 95% pleased with the service, and that's more than I can say for any of the previous ISPs I've been with.

  103. What OS choices are there in the OS Input Form? by sdowney · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Reading the FAQ at qwest, they refer to an Operating System Input form. You need to be a qwest subscriber to see it, of course.

    I'm not.

    They do mention Mac's in the FAQ, but no other OS's (there are other OS's?). What choices are provided in the form? Could you prevent the change from occuring if you choose something like Linux?

  104. wtf?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look at the bottom, i can't believe it:

    MSN Broadband Internet Access is available only to users of the Windows® 98 or later operating systems.

    No joke.
    I couldn't imagine it would happen someday...

  105. Now that I think about it... by trilucid · · Score: 2


    This doesn't makes sense from Qwest's biz perspective.

    They're probably being paid an ungodly amount of money by MS to push this policy. However, they won't end up saving on bandwidth in this, especially if customers switch to MSN web-based mail (pulling down bloated HTML pages instead of just text messages).

    Plus, here's another way of looking at it: Does Qwest stand any risk of getting burned by folks choosing MSN for an ISP over their service? Yes, there are differences in speed involved, but this initiative does stand to give MSN a LOT of extra market exposure. Qwest may want to consider whether they're taking aim squarely at their left foot in this regard.

  106. Anticompetitive? by ldopa1 · · Score: 1

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this anticompetitive? Compared to a lot of the other stuff that's been flinging through the courts, I believe this takes the cake.

    This would be like saying to all Saturn car owners that even though you used to be able to use Shell, Exxon, Mobil and other gasolines, now you can only use Saturn brand gasoline, and explaining that the reason is to prevent pollution.

    I do agree with the point that they are the biggest spam and virus generators on the planet.

    --
    The Dopester
    "Yes, I'm a Karma Whore, but I'm doing it to pay my way through school."
  107. What are you smoking?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Its really difficult to spam when you must be logging onto their (MS's) server and provide user authentication to get at the POP3 mailboxes.

    Huh?!?!?! Can you attempt to explain to me how collecting your email has anything to do with sending email

    IIRC, spammers like to get on POP3 servers

    You don't RC.

    Spam has NOTHING to do with the POP3 protocol. You can't get a list of "valid mailboxes" by using POP3 - unless the server is broken and sends a different error for "user unknown" instead of "bad password" (for security reasons, both errors should return the same message.) - but why you think a spammer would use such a method (which is technically "cracking", and could land them BIG-TIME in trouble with the FBI) instead of using an SMTP Rumplestiltskin attack is beyond me...

    In short, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, and should shut the hell up.

  108. hotmail - gotmail by Laplace · · Score: 2
    I was using hotmail to correspond with someone I met online. After sending hundreds of messages to each other we finally met and started to date. I wanted to abandon hotmail, but I couldn't figure out a way to download all of her messages. I came across a solution called gotmail.

    It's a little slow, but it works like a charm. Who gives a damn about pop3?

    --
    The middle mind speaks!
  109. Why SAP? by sarkeizen · · Score: 1

    Ok as I read the posts further down this article I see lots of people reasoning that the idea here is that when using Outlook Express and SAP you can control spam.

    Personally I use POP/Authenticated SMTP over SSL. All of these are standards driven technologies and furthermore all are supported by MS Outlook. Why would the bother with SAP? Aside from deliberately excluding non MS mail clients?

  110. Addresses are just being scanned for existence by N3P1u5U17r4 · · Score: 0

    I don't think Microsoft is selling the address... I think that there are spammers out there with software to randomly scan which address are there. If you ever look at the header, many times the message was sent to all and any addresses that are similiar to your own account.
    Since hotmail has so many users, it is an easy target for this scanning activity.

    --
    You're Just Jealous Because The Voices Are Talking To Me.
    1. Re:Addresses are just being scanned for existence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Then MS shouldn't be letting them scan every address like that. It would be hard for an admin not to notice someone scanning millions of non-existant addresses.

      You could try signing up for a long random address to check it out. Use something like qqb747tjns5sghf@hotmail.com, and see if you still get spam (don't use that exact address of course, now that it appears on a web page).

    2. Re:Addresses are just being scanned for existence by N3P1u5U17r4 · · Score: 0

      I have actually done this experiment before. I signed up with an account that was only 4 characters long and got tons of spam already the next day practically... then I made 3 other accounts with 12 characters each in them and those ones have yet to recieve any. I am still using them.

      --
      You're Just Jealous Because The Voices Are Talking To Me.
  111. Send Pseuo-Anthrax Microsoftward by aminorex · · Score: 1

    My interpretation of the meanin of the term
    S.P.A.M.

    --
    -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  112. MSN using Brightmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have seen recent reports that MSN is using Brightmail's anti-spam service. I work at earthlink, where we use it too. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in Brightmail which would create any sort of limitation on the client side. Brightmail operates entirely inside the MTA, before mail is dropped into inboxes.

  113. Not anti-competative at all!! by TheLoneCabbage · · Score: 1

    If your a Mac user, you must be really screwed.
    The only program on that list available to Mac users is MSOutlook which retails at over $100.

    How nice!! I gues I won't be able to get email with a Linux box either...

    But all in all I'm happy, now I don't have to spend 2 seconds aday deleting anyone elses SPAM other than Microsoft (or x10).

    My MSN account (yeah I just got it to use there SMTP for a day, I keep it as a joke) Gets more SPAM than my other 15 combined!!!(I use filters) And most of it's from MS!!

    1. Re:Not anti-competative at all!! by yomegaman · · Score: 1

      You can download Outlook Express for free. It's only for Classic though, it won't be updated for OS X.

      --
      ...wearing a skin-tight topless leather jumpsuit, with cutaway buttocks and transparent crotch panel.
  114. Re:SPA(M) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An oxymoron is a two word contradiction, like Microsoft Security.

  115. What they mean by GraZZ · · Score: 1

    I think what Qwest is trying to say is this:

    MSN is taking over.
    MSN uses Hotmail for email.
    Qwest's email is going away.
    You used POP3 to get email from Qwest.
    Hotmail is a web-based email system.
    You use a web browser to access Hotmail.
    You can access Hotmail without a web browser, but not with POP3.

    You can only use Outlook Express or MSN Explorer to play with your Hotmail without actually being online. This is because Hotmail doesn't actually support POP3, but a proprietary transport. This proprietary transport is only implemented in Microsoft products (surprised?)

    Booo Microsoft!

  116. Smooth sailin' in Seattle by mali_kurac · · Score: 1

    Hrmm, totally different experience here in Seattle. I was one of the very first to get Qwest DSL installed (it was still USWest then, August of 1998). I've been using a local ISP the whole time, I have a static IP and my own domain with my own email/ftp/web server. My circuit has gone down maybe 2 or 3 times and never for more than an hour or so. (that doesn't count the half dozen times my ISP has been smurfed :)

    While US/Q/west has never made it easy to use another ISP, it's always been possible. I've never had them try to 'slam' me away from my ISP. Oh, yeah, my aunt has the same ISP as me, she's had DSL for about a year and a half, same story, no troubles.

  117. This is what you get for using your ISP's email by Malc · · Score: 1

    What with constantly changing ISPs and being with ISPs with crap email services, I long ago started using a solution that is independent of them (Yahoo, and later, my own domain and server). If you don't want to use MSN, don't! It's not like QWest is filtering POP3 connections and only allowing them to MSN. Yes, I know, it sucks paying for a service that you don't use. But, MSFT have the right to do what they like with Hotmail - that's business for you. It's your fault for using a MSFT mail solution in the first place. This whole article is just flamebait... who cares what MSN or QWest do with email - take your business elsewhere. You can still use email with QWest without using MSN!

  118. How can it stop SPAM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    POP3 is for READING email -- not sending it! How can forcing M$ POP3 clients stop SPAM?!

    1. Re:How can it stop SPAM? by mozkill · · Score: 1

      everyone knows that if you check your email with a certain program, you are more than 90% likely to use the same program to send a reply to the message you received. silly. :-) i support the author of the article.

      --

      -- Betting on the survival of the media industry is a serious risk. I advise investing elsewhere.
  119. POP IMAP something better needed by mab · · Score: 1

    For remote mail POP is stuffed IMAP is a little better but still I think there could be something even better IMAPvx ?
    Many times I have received mail at work with big attachments and then have got home to read another mail that would like me to forward that mail
    I use IMAP but if I forward that mail it is sucked down my slow link and then resent down my slow link

    I think that we need protocol that can send mail from the server IMAPvx
    Lotus notes and express can do this but it would be much better to have an open standard to do it

  120. Re:SPA(M) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and Microsoft Works

  121. This just makes me sick. by RaBiDFLY · · Score: 1

    I can't believe Microsooft even has an anti-spam initiative! Here's a test, go signup for a hotmail account and create a login that is so insane no one would ever guess it, make sure you go through the signup carefully so your not signing up for any other junk they offer, then don't tell anyone about the account. Wait about 4 hours and go check your email. If I were a beting man, I'd say there will be at least 3 spam messages waiting for you.

    --Here's one guy regretting ever getting a hotmail account...too bad it's such a pain to change email addresses.

  122. Re:Third Party smtp -- is BAD by RollingThunder · · Score: 3, Interesting

    MSN is already breaking things by insisting on a @msn.com From line. Everyone else is just trying to work around it.

    Yes, you should always just use your "local" SMTP gateway, but when the people running it are being draconian morons, you don't have many choices... and no, having official correspondence go out under @msn.com isn't an option.

    If MSN was serious about this, they'd just use several of the possible authentication methods that exist for SMTP service (IP range, SMTP-after-POP, SASL, ). It sounds like they've picked one, and only one, instead of implementing several and allowing mail to go if any of the above are met.

    Some SMTP auth links:
    http://www.thecabal.org/~devin/postfix/smtp-auth .t xt
    http://www.qmail.org/top.html (look for "authenticate")
    http://www.sendmail.org/~ca/email/auth.html

  123. 99 Trial Baloons by RickMuller · · Score: 3, Interesting
    MS has a history of presenting patently ridiculous restrictions as trial baloons that they retract when hit with opposition. I don't think the way to respond to this is to figure out a hack that will convince MSN you're running Outlook, etc., but to contact Qwest (or MSN?) customer support and tell them that if they want to continue receiving $$ from you they have to support something other than Outlook, etc. Enough broadband companies have gone out of business recently that they'll think twice before alienating customers.


    What we need is an electronic version of the Amnesty International letter writing tables. People could log in, get presented with a list of the most eggregious offenses against free and open software, and have the links to send polite emails to those companies asking them to change their practices. Maybe this type of approach would have kept Congress from passing DMCA...

  124. Use end-to-end encryption through IPSec by YKnot · · Score: 2

    More and more providers seem to like being a nanny. Port blockades, proxies, on-server mailviruscheckers, etc. wouldn't be so annoying if providers offered an easy and reliable way to turn these features off. There is a chance to circumvent the restrictions though: Make your traffic opaque, encrypt it with IPSec. After that, all that is left of your connections are target IP addresses and seemingly random data. No more ports and no more chances to interfere with your data through proxies. The provider can only allow all your connections or none.

  125. There isn't a big choice in broadband! by Yam-Koo · · Score: 1

    And there aren't even that many dial up providers anymore.

  126. fuck msn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    You can pick whatever provider you want in phoenix, just call qwest and tell them to switch your ISP to inficad. Its cheaper, lots of webspace and shit, reverse DNS, static ips, hell they even have a shell box.

    1. Re:fuck msn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, I use Inficad they're pretty cool.

      www.inficad.com

  127. Wine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does Outlook run under Wine? Taking a look at the Wine site, it seems the best I can find is a maybe. This crap should spur work on Outlook under Wine.

    VMware should run it, anyway.

    Cpt_Kirks

  128. Glad I went with Speakeasy by Reid · · Score: 1

    I could've chosen Qwest for my DSL, but I went with Speakeasy (and Covad), which is a Linux-friendly company. Of course, in six months I'll be the goat when Covad goes belly-up, but hey....
    The local internet provider is actually running an ad in the paper stating that "Qwest customers are about to be assimilated by Microsoft... join is!" Kind of funny.

  129. Why didn't MS just use APOP ? by DVega · · Score: 1

    There is no need to create a new propietary protocol . There is a standard way to validate a user using POP3 whitout sending the password in clear text. See RFC 1939 - APOP command

    Normally, each POP3 session starts with a USER/PASS exchange. This results in a server/user-id specific password being sent in the clear on the network. For intermittent use of POP3, this may not introduce a sizable risk. However, many POP3 client implementations connect to the POP3 server on a regular basis -- to check for new mail. Further the interval of session initiation may be on the order of five minutes. Hence, the risk of password capture is greatly enhanced.

    An alternate method of authentication is required which provides for both origin authentication and replay protection, but which does not involve sending a password in the clear over the network. The APOP command provides this functionality.

    --
    MOD THE CHILD UP!
    1. Re:Why didn't MS just use APOP ? by einhverfr · · Score: 2

      Cool.

      I will look more into this.

      I still am looking into POP3 over SSL because it protects the content of all email as well, though.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    2. Re:Why didn't MS just use APOP ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you say "offline dictionary attack?"

      I thought you could.

  130. One way to cause trouble ... by bryanp · · Score: 1

    1. Get yourself a for-pay separate email account (I use runbox for my primary account and it's well worth the $ - @home's mail servers go down more than a well-known Presidential Intern).

    2. Complain that their new rule is keeping you from using a service for which you are paying.

    3. When they say "too bad", Call a lawyer.

    --
    "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
  131. Interesting legal precedent ... by jc42 · · Score: 1

    If MSN gets away with this, we can see it used as
    a legal precedent in interesting ways.

    For example, you know those highway signs saying
    that X miles are supported by company Y? We'll
    soon find that, say, General Motors has purchased
    the support rights for all the major highways in
    the metro area, and all non-GM cars will be stopped
    and not allowed on the road.

    You'd think that the anti-trust laws would prevent
    this sort of vertical-market monopoly. But that's
    not likely with the current gang in power.

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  132. KMAIL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Funny enough, KDE's KMAIL supports SPA!

    1. Re:KMAIL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My ass

  133. Qwest.net is POP3 only by staplin · · Score: 2

    I've been a Qwest.net user for a long time. I'm finally moving my accounts elsewhere because I refuse to use MSN.

    This requirement is probably derived from the fact that the Qwest.net infrastructure is POP3 only. Thus, since you're going to be using MSN via the Qwest.net infrastructure, you're stuck with POP3 until Qwest upgrades.

  134. Alternatives to MSN by Baloo+Ursidae · · Score: 1
    Well, cable's a start. Higher bandwidth and uptime for about the same price is a start (well, except in RoadRunner markets, but RoadRunner sucks that way).

    But if we're talking just DSL, you have a line provider and an ISP. If your line provider (telco) can drop a line in there for you, you have your choice of ISP for IP transit. You can choose to tell your ISP to blow it out thier ass and pick an ISP that doesn't pull stupid software tricks.

    I was thinking satellite was out of the picture because it's just like having DSL's crappy low bandwidth and noise problems, but the added bonus of having at least 1500ms pings!

    --
    Help us build a better map!
  135. Fortne Agent Supports SPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.forteinc.com/agent/index.htm

    I couldn't find it on their site but when you download the PDF manual, it will say the 32bit client supports it.

  136. Surprising... More Anti-MS Propganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gee,

    what would I rather have?

    A hundred emails a day from l33t porno spammers, or an occasional email worm, which isn't an issue because I don't open unknown attachments regardles...

    hmmm... sometimes you /.ers pick the needles out of haystacks...

    1. Re:Surprising... More Anti-MS Propganda by Buzzwang · · Score: 1

      Very true. Or might I suggest an alternative for the those needlers? Set up your own mail server. Doamin names are cheap to get now, and any type of broadband connection is relatively cheap now as well. I've also found that most DSL providers at least use a static address on the line, including Covad and DirecTV at least they did when I asked about it). So, setup your own server on your own domain and it won't matter anymore.

      You can check hotfiles and Download.com and Shareware.com for free software (it does exist). Just look for 'SMTP server' and/or 'POP server'.

      --
      Things you can say to your dog that you can't say to a girl: "How about a nice bone?"
    2. Re:Surprising... More Anti-MS Propganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And sometimes you morons using Microsoft products can be a blight on the rest of the Internet. I don't even use MS products.. and I still get 3 SirCam attachments a day:

      "Hi! How are You? I send you this file in order to have your advice.."

      You figure these infected MS Outlook-using idiots would have figured it out that they are infected by now! But, they trust that Microsoft will tell them what to do.. and fix all their problems with the release of Windows XP.

      Jesus! Get a clue.

    3. Re:Surprising... More Anti-MS Propganda by night_flyer · · Score: 1

      here's a hint... don't open the attachment...

      --


      Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
      Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
    4. Re:Surprising... More Anti-MS Propganda by 90XDoubleSide · · Score: 1
      >Gee, what would I rather have? A hundred emails a day from l33t porno spammers, or an occasional email worm, which isn't an issue because I don't open unknown attachments regardles... hmmm... sometimes you /.ers pick the needles out of haystacks...
      Don't worry, there are exploits in the most widely used versions of IE and Outlook which allow code to be executed without you opening any attachment.

      But that isn't what the story is about, the story is about MS requiring users of Qwest DSL to use their software and under the pretense of preventing spam. I'm sorry that you didn't have time to read it.

      --
      "Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
  137. Outbound 25 is still outbound 25 by oneiros27 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    MSN has no clue if you're sending spam through a third party relay, or if you're connecting to a legitimate authenticating mail relay, or if you're handing your own SMTP, and connecting to the proper MX.

    MSN allowing outbound port 25 connections from a dialup customer is a step backwards for spam prevention. As someone who's being affected en mass by their changing policies, your university should contact them, and inform them that they either need to make provisions for your case, or that your group will have to make sure that your users take their business elsewhere, and find an ISP that you can work with.

    If the faculty members were using their university e-mail addresses, and not their MSN one, they will have no issue in moving to a new ISP, save for the initial time in re-configuration. If they were using their local MSN e-mail address, and they're not willing to give it up, then they have to weigh the costs & benefits in switching. The only ones who are really screwed in this situation are not those that are concerned with third party relay, but wished to use some other non-MS client to read their mail from.

    Realisticly, you should be using authenticated SMTP to see if there's some prick in the dorms starting up his own little spamming business. You should not expect outside ISPs however, to allow your users to connect to the server from a dialup connection. [Hell, we don't even allow allow relaying for connections from off-campus, although, that was a recent change [this morning] due to the lack of being able to authenticate with the trend micro virus scanner in front of the SIMS mail cloud, and we're just waiting to see how many users start complaining as they didn't get the messages regarding the policy changes]

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
    1. Re:Outbound 25 is still outbound 25 by RollingThunder · · Score: 2

      Oh, I agree that it can be better to block outbound 25 (although, I personally run my own mailserver on @home, even for outbound, because theirs choke and die too often). It's blocking that -and- requiring @msn.com that's BS, IMO.

    2. Re:Outbound 25 is still outbound 25 by oneiros27 · · Score: 2

      Yeah, the problem probably comes from using rent-a-pops like UUNet.

      They can't just restrict down to IPs that outgoing mail might come from, as the IP ranges may change, and the people in those IP ranges may not be their customers, so they don't have a way to shut them down should they start spamming through them.

      Blocking by requiring an '@msn.com' e-mail address is flat out lame, and the wrong way to do things. They'd be better served by using some sort of authenticated SMTP for outgoing messages in the ip ranges that are considered local to them, and rejecting mail from outside IP addresses that don't have a to address from @msn.com.

      Hmmm....as I haven't had to deal with these issues with MSN [most of our faculty seem to be on Erols/RCN, AOL, or just forwarding everything to Hotmail], it would be interesting to see if they're doing the 'from' checks on the From: header, or the envelope from. [Unfortunately, I don't know of any mail clients that let you set the envelope from independantly, other than using 'bounce' from within Pine]

      If it's the envelope from, however, it might be possible to cook up a program which would work with MSN, but still send with a From: header from something other than MSN. [Getting people to switch to it, and MSN not being pricks and shutting it down like users of Netscape/Mailsmith/Eudora, are other matters, however]

      --
      Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
    3. Re:Outbound 25 is still outbound 25 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This problem is easy enough to work around if you just implement a VPM or other secure channel to your mail relay. Then your local users can really be local and not dependant on any ISP policy -- which is a support nightmare unto itself (for MSN do blah, for Earthlink do foo, for ...).

      (As someone pointed out, MSN and others rent their dialups. Therefore IP address restrictions won't help.)

      Thousands of corporations do this without troubles, so I have no idea why this university doesn't get it.

    4. Re:Outbound 25 is still outbound 25 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh -- I realize that you are the one that pointed out the dialup IPs, btw... Replied to the wrong message.

    5. Re:Outbound 25 is still outbound 25 by mpe · · Score: 2

      Oh, I agree that it can be better to block outbound 25 (although, I personally run my own mailserver on @home, even for outbound, because theirs choke and die too often).

      The problem with this is that it encourages the use of third party relaying. (As well as creating bottlenecks, which is probably why certain ISP provided third party relays "choke and die".)
      Actually following the RFC would make little or no difference to ordinary email, but would cause grief for spammers. Since instead of just making a connection to one third party relay they'd have to do all the relevent DNS lookups and TCP connections.
      Anyway the traffic analysis should be able to spot spammers anyway.

  138. Solution... by meckardt · · Score: 2

    If you have to use MSN as an ISP, use something else as your mail server.

    If you must have a hotmail account (for access to IM or whatever), just put in two filters: (1) If subject contains Free Pizza, send to Trash, and (2)If subject does not contain Free Pizza, send to Trash. This will keep those annoying mail notifications from popping up on your IM.

  139. Not when they are an anti-competitive monopoly. by Flower · · Score: 5, Interesting
    They are leveraging a subsidiary to force users onto their products exclusively. People would have to dump or not even consider other products like Netscape, Opera, Evolution, Eudora, etc to access a basic service. If you read the FAQ you'd notice that they currently have to delay migrating the Mac users because they can't provide all the services Windows users will be getting on MSN.

    While I agree that this isn't exactly a rights issue, I complete disagree that MSN or MS can do whatever they want. The FOF has survived appeal and it is now a brave new world for MS. Every move they make is fair game for legal scurtiny. You can cry about the supposed free market all you want but that ain't the real world and in this case I'd rather nip this in the bud before MSN gets a stranglehold share in the marketplace.

    --
    I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
    1. Re:Not when they are an anti-competitive monopoly. by tomaasz · · Score: 1

      All this happening is also a big opportunity to start providing the same services without the limitations. Or maybe limited to a different group of users.

      I'm not an american, so I don't know how much control over everything the ISPs in USA have, but here in Europe, it's not a big deal for me.

      What do I need? Dialup connection, email.
      Dialup is for free, I can even avoid spam. Or I can pay for it and get better reliability.
      Email? For free everywhere or for little money without most of the spam (so far, knock on wood).

      After all, if you don't like it, don't use it. If MS thinks it's better not to let you use it's services until you pay for their OS, it's one less spam target for them.

  140. Ha ha ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was wondering when the trolls were going to work around the slashcode. Good job fellas!

  141. antitrust by Nick · · Score: 1

    ... and when is Mr. Ashcroft going to initiate an investigation on this?

    --
    Fuck Ajit Pai
  142. Re:SPA(M) by KiviPall · · Score: 1

    Secure Password Authentication (Microsoft)

    you must write
    SPAM'icrosoft ;)

  143. the truth of the matter by rambot · · Score: 0

    They don't want competition..pure and simple. Nothing new there. Whether it be in spamming or client software.

    Due to the Microsoft anti-spam initiative, customers are restricted to use their mail services. Therefore, POP3 service is only available when using MSN Explorer, Microsoft Outlook, or Microsoft Outlook Express.

    in other words... "ONLY WE CAN DO THE SPAMMING AROUND HERE! and.... (in an almost inaudible voice) youmustuseoursoftware.

  144. Um, not reading clearly guys... by SilentChris · · Score: 1
    "Continue to enjoy POP3 e-mail service, with an option to switch to the world's largest Web-based e-mail service, MSN"

    As in, "We're going to continue to allow you to use the POP3 services already available through quest. If you'd like to switch to MSN, you need to use one of the Microsoft clients.

    I don't see this as a negative at all. (And besides, aren't most Slashdotters running their own Sendmail facilities on their boxen at this point anyway?)

    1. Re:Um, not reading clearly guys... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, we use SMTP servers that don't suck. (postfix and qmail come to mind)

  145. For what its worth... by GuNgA-DiN · · Score: 2, Interesting
    You can report this to the DOJ: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm

    Maybe they will start an investigation into Quest.net?

  146. Ford??? by Mahonrimoriancumer · · Score: 1

    This sounds like Henry Ford's famous quote: You can have any color you want, as long as it is black.

    Bill Gates: "You can have any e-mail client as long as it is Microsoft."

    --
    So climate's changing. So what? It has always changed. The big news would be if it wasn't changing. - Dr. Philip Stone
  147. Re:SPA(M) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn, that's original.

  148. Not the anti-spam initiative by daveking · · Score: 1
    Due to the Microsoft anti-spam initiative...

    No, this policy is part of the Microsoft anti-competition initiative.

    The anti-spam initiative is responsible for the frequent Outlook crashes, so no one can send mass email.

    --
    ------DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE------
  149. Blame MSN? Maybe it's AOL by Liquor · · Score: 1

    ONLY MSN blocks it.
    Just as likely, wmconnect.com refuses incoming mail from any server that identifies itself as msn.com or hotmail.com (or at least without a valid reverse lookup) as an 'anti-spam' measure. And for certain, AOL is not going to cooperate with MSN to make sure that they are using an inter-operable standard.

    --

    Liquor
    Sanity is a highly overrated commodity.
    1. Re:Blame MSN? Maybe it's AOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could be right...but it's more fun to blame MS.

    2. Re:Blame MSN? Maybe it's AOL by funky+womble · · Score: 1

      It's definitely more fun to blame MSN than it is to troubleshoot problems with inbound mail into AOL. Though, I guess it's more likely to be MSN, if it was AOL I doubt if there would be any report of failure, the mail would just be dropped on the floor.

  150. What do you expect them to say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you expect them to say? that they are the worst? Hmmm Good business thinking.

  151. good, fuck em by BenLutgens · · Score: 1

    now we can justify blocking ALL mail from msn.com

    --
    "If you love someone, set them free. If they come home, set them on fire." - George Carlin
  152. VM [offtopic] by brer_rabbit · · Score: 1
    Press D to mark for deletion, # to expunge

    I was being facetious, but really for expunging a a single message (under my keybindings) that would be: d M M M N # # #

    that is: delete, mark message, next command uses marks, expunge. VM rocks.

    1. Re:VM [offtopic] by Bobo+the+Space+Chimp · · Score: 1

      That's much faster and more intuitive than clicking it and pushing DEL or selecting Delete from a menu.

      With auto-empty trash on exit, you don't even have to right click the trash and select Empty Trash.

      --
      I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
  153. Opportunity for local ISPs by f_g_goss · · Score: 1

    This looks like an opportunity for local ISPs to increase there business.

  154. They forgot to add... by allism · · Score: 1

    Because we're forcing you to!

    from the faq:

    Note: After the transition period, eligible Qwest.net Internet Access Customers who have not transitioned their account will automatically be transitioned to MSN Internet Access.

    I usually don't have too much problem with most of what Microsoft does, but this is going too far...if I remember correctly, Qwest.net requires a contract, and it looks like customers will be forced to incur the extra expense (hidden charges?) of buying Microsoft software to get use out of their contract.

    1. Re:They forgot to add... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, because outlook express costs so much money, right?

      oh, wait... it's free...

      hmm....

    2. Re:They forgot to add... by allism · · Score: 1

      Sure, Outlook Express is free...IF you're running Windows...

    3. Re:They forgot to add... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Free, only if you shell out bucks for MSWare in the first place... so no, it isn't free.

    4. Re:They forgot to add... by seann · · Score: 0

      with the purchuse of a microsoft operating system?

      --
      I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
    5. Re:They forgot to add... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seann,

      Have you ever authored a post that was longer than eight (8) words?

      -a secret admirer

    6. Re:They forgot to add... by seann · · Score: 0

      I don't think I have..
      (Theres always a first)
      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=22404&cid=24 10 209

      --
      I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
  155. Re:SPA(M) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So is your reply...

  156. POP can mimic IMAP features by CaptDeuce · · Score: 1

    POP3is a lovely protocol but it has one terrible disadvantage: It's a download only process. Oh sure email can be left on the server but there's no flagging, folders, etc. possible.

    Sure it's possible, it's just not done on the server. Those features can be mimicked with Rules (or Actions or whatever they're called on a particular client).

    The only difficult part is that the client has to be configured on each machine with the same (or similar) folders and Rules.

    How do I know it works? I've been doing it for over five years with my POP client, Claris Emailer.

    --
    "Where's my other sock?" - A. Einstein
  157. Re:And when I want to use my American Express card by Flakeloaf · · Score: 0

    The only difference being that you have the good sense to use Mastercard.

    The average computer user is, let's face it, either lazy, stupid or both. They'll use the most convenient option available, and right now that means MS's anticompetitive "software".

    --

    Am I the only one who heard Roxette to sing "I'm gonna get blitzed for some sex"?

  158. You on crack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why the HELL would you want to run Outlook on Linux??

    Go find some moderators to share that crack of yours' with.

  159. MSN is a DIVISION of a Monopoly... by Svartalf · · Score: 2

    So, by definition, they are commiting potential anti-trust violations by requiring Microsoft only applications to allow people to get their e-mail.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  160. For the NRA minded folks... by Clowning · · Score: 1

    Email clients don't send spam...people send spam.

    1. Re:For the NRA minded folks... by althalus · · Score: 1

      unless you use outlook, and are dumb enough to open those attachements..

  161. Three words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Change your ISP.

  162. Who is really using Linux&Qwest? by blitzrage · · Score: 1

    How many people out there are REALLY using Linux & Qwest? :)

    Is this such a big deal, as most people are probably using Windows anywase (and using Qwest)? Or am I out of the loop?

    --

    I have no signature
    1. Re:Who is really using Linux&Qwest? by Olliver+J. · · Score: 1

      I use Netscape for getting POP3 mail. This means I can't even use QWEST from Windows!

    2. Re:Who is really using Linux&Qwest? by Arcanix · · Score: 1

      Quite a few people here in Phoenix, I don't know about other areas... Qwest bought US West and so is by far the dominant phone company (read "monopoly") so they run most of the DSL service here in a metro area of over 3 million people.

    3. Re:Who is really using Linux&Qwest? by benbean · · Score: 1

      It's called "stopping the rot before it starts"

      --
      It's a Unix system - I know this.
    4. Re:Who is really using Linux&Qwest? by iguana · · Score: 1

      Qwest runs the available DSL in the Boise, ID area. Eventually MSN will tell me I can't use Linux as my DSL gateway because I have to use Microsoft-PPPOE or some dumba** thing.

      When you have 98% market share, you don't have to care.

    5. Re:Who is really using Linux&Qwest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am, and I use Mandrake 8.0, Solaris 8, OpenStep 4.2 for M68K and 'Doze 2000 as POP clients.

      Of course, I have also been using the e-mail side of the account for free since I requested QWorst to close the account three years ago.

      I'll use the 10 Earthlink POP addresses I have when QWorst shuts me down. Stupid crackwhores.

    6. Re:Who is really using Linux&Qwest? by ichimunki · · Score: 2

      I used Linux & Qwest for quite some time as a dialup solution. I got a great package deal on a cell phone, feature-laden home phone, and ISP account. Not bad service on any of them either.

      Thankfully their DSL support to my house was non-existent and I have a cable modem. I can ditch the cell phone (which covered as a second line, since the landline was always on the modem) and all the calling features, and just in time to avoid being Borged.

      Besides, aren't there plenty of nice email clients for Windows that aren't made by MS? I would think those users are the ones most likely to find this a surprising upset. Linux users are used to getting the shaft on this sort of thing.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    7. Re:Who is really using Linux&Qwest? by muonman · · Score: 1

      I used Qwest DSL in Boise. When I heard of this I asked a droid why they were switching to msn for their home users, and he said it was because there was so much demand for it... ??? Who would demand to have his ISP switched to msn? I told him that I, for one, would be switching to another ISP.

      Anyway I found that in the Boise area, there are several mom & pop type ISP's offering DSL connections on your Qwest hardware setup, interestingly enough they are based in Pocatello.

      I signed up with one a couple of weeks ago and am
      surely glad I did (so far).

      I also understand that you can get an entirely different hw setup through McCleod(sp?), but I
      haven't pursued it.

      --
      Anything NOT worth doing is NOT worth doing well...
    8. Re:Who is really using Linux&Qwest? by BlueTT · · Score: 1

      I have Qwest as my DSL provider and use Linux.

      If I have to change to a Microsoft Product to use MSN/email with my DSL account, I unfortunately will likely have to drop back to a 44K or so dialup and go back to eskimo.com as my ISP...

  163. Contact the state's public utility commission. by Svartalf · · Score: 2

    That's definitely bogus. Even if they own the DSL lines, they're obligated to provide any ISP access to the DSL drop at your house. ILEC or CLEC, it doesn't matter. All that MS can do is reconnect you or be prepared to be told that they can't do business in your state.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    1. Re:Contact the state's public utility commission. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recently switched DSL ISPs, and it unfortunately doesn't work that way (in CA). You have to go through an entire disconnect procedure, wait until it's complete, and then sign up somewhere else as a new customer and wait for them to physically reconnect you. (This process is apparently mandated to prevent 'slamming'.) Took about 4 weeks in total. Plus you get to pay installation fees for something that's already installed.

  164. Microsoft Anti-Spam Initiative by trilucid · · Score: 5, Funny

    As part of our ongoing effort to reduce junk emails to our loyal customers, the Microsoft abuse management team has created a new "real-time black hole" domain block list. This list is used to check all mail routed through our servers (increased in volume thanks to our new deal with Qwest) for known spammer domain names.

    You may be interested to note that leading this list are the following notorious domains. These sites should be avoided for the protection of our revenue stream... errr... customers:

    • Netscape.com
    • Redhat.com
    • Linux.org
    • Sun.com
    • Apple.com
    • Slashdot.org


    Additionally, our upcoming Microsoft World Browser will include protection against websites hosted at these domains. Thank you for your cooperation as we work to improve your user experience on the web.

    Sincerely,

    Microsoft Support

    1. Re:Microsoft Anti-Spam Initiative by VB · · Score: 1

      You forgot:
      • AOL.COM
      • DOJ.GOV
      --
      www.dedserius.com
      VB != VisualBasic
  165. Don't! You'll catch something from 'em! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More than enough said...

  166. More reason to get a domain or forwarding service by Fencepost · · Score: 3, Insightful
    If you have friends, family, etc. that are using just an ISP-based email address, this is one more way to point out to them the advantages of either a personal domain or a mail forwarding service for permanent non-ISP email addresses.

    Neither one really requires technical knowledge to use, both are cheap (avoid the free mail forwarding services - if they're not making money, they're not going to be "permanent"), and they're generally simple to set up particularly if all you need is to have mail forwarded to your current ISP. ISP gets bought out? New terms are something you don't like? Switch ISPs. Once you're set up with your own address, the ISP just becomes a bandwidth provider.

    --
    fencepost
    just a little off
  167. the day my isp tries this... by Rai · · Score: 1

    ...i find a new isp.

  168. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  169. Re:Third Party smtp -- is BAD by kindbud · · Score: 2

    As both someone who's worked at an ISP, and who has worked at a University, what they're doing by disallowing outbound port 25 connections is a GOOD thing, as it keeps spammers from using a throwaway account to originate and inject to open relays.

    It also keeps customers from using an outside email service, and anti-spam reasoning can be used to justify anti-competitive practices, exactly as has been done in this case. I think this is cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Stopping spam does not have to take priority over every other consideration. Shuting down all email servers would stop the spam problem, but it would make email quite a bit less useful (sarcasm). The same thing goes for blocking port egress to port 25. Exercising prior restraint by blocking traffic like this is going to far. Controlling spam is not so important that the ability to choose your email provider should be sacrificed to the cause.

    --
    Edith Keeler Must Die
  170. Re:already slashdotted? Well how can they tell by GlassUser · · Score: 2
    Okay, so they made a smart move. Well, I would do it too if I'm an ISP. I'll give you access to port 25 outside my core if you want, but you put down a deposit and promise not to spam.


    Now what does this have to do with blocking non-MS POP3? I thought we just solved the spam problem.

  171. For once... by ruiner13 · · Score: 1

    ...they actually made Verizon's e-mail service look good.

    --

    today is spelling optional day.

  172. Until recently.... by davey23sol · · Score: 2

    outlook.microsoft.com was an open SMTP server!!

    I used it when I was out of town because our university doesn't allow SMTP outside of their own IP addresses.

    These are the guys that are going to give you the best service? Come on...

    As usual, it's all about money..

    --


    "Yes.. no matter what the culture, folk dancing is stupid." -MST3K
  173. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  174. Eyes deceived me by Fastball · · Score: 2, Funny

    At first when I read the article title, I thought it said, "MSN Forces Outlook POOP." Hmm...

  175. What FORCE do IETF "trademarks" have? by dpilot · · Score: 2

    You hit the nail on the head, with they're being wrong to call this "POP3". But then again, the things named by IETF kind of look like trademarks, but I don't believe that they are.

    So what's to stop Microsoft from re-defining POP3, SMTP, and all those other T and F LAs to suit their own needs. Has IETF registered them as trademarks? Who can care with enough $$$ to stop Microsoft from pulling this mess, even if it were illegal, and is it?

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  176. POP this. by VulgarBoatman · · Score: 1

    How (HTF) is POP3 going to verify (and require) that your email client is Outlook/ish?! Poor little protocol - it doesn't know what it's in for!

    Of course, when they say "POP3" I guess they mean "MSPOP" or "POP-sharp-dot-net" or somesuch proprietary nonsense.

    Think Java/JScript ... then call you state's Attorney General.

    --
    "Because I love Pat Benatar." -- Britney Spears, when asked why she covered Joan Jett's "I Love Rock 'n' Roll"
  177. Bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what the fuck happens when there is no one else to go to?

  178. Re:SPA(M) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You all need to get laid.

  179. great .sig!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    great .sig! daft punk r0x0rs!!!

  180. Work Around by althalus · · Score: 1

    Well, here is what my friend who use windows did to get around that. They run sendmail on port 26 and changed the port setting in the eudora.ini (or the the services file in windows to say smtp goes on port 26). pretty simple, but still annoying.

  181. Be careful....Re:Wine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rember there was a /. post a while back pointing out that SirCam is in the WINE compatibility list. There's no registry to mess with, obviously, but it still functions.

    1. Re:Be careful....Re:Wine? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2

      The real measure of the success of an emulator is virus level compatibility.

    2. Re:Be careful....Re:Wine? by Bobo+the+Space+Chimp · · Score: 1

      SoftPC, running entirely inside a Mac, had that down pat. They even emulated the tinny floppy churning on startup with a .snd file.

      --
      I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
  182. Qwest - you are screwed anyway by no-body · · Score: 1

    Well, if you use qwest under Linux you may be screwed even more as you are anyway ( see below) unless you use one of their business account offerings which won't change as Qwest stated today and repeatedly before.

    Look at Qwests migration paper, it states clearly:

    Please note that your Qwest.net Internet access service will be unavailable starting November 5th, 2001.

    <RANT MODE>

    Qwest sucks major when it comes to Linux or anything out of the mainstream M$oft world.
    What it boils down to that I have to know more than the support person in order to guide
    them through to what needs to be fixed since they go by a computer interface solving problems in a standardized way.

    The choices in their support telephone menu are:
    - W95,98,3.1
    -NT
    -Mac


    Here is my strategy:

    I select NT in order to get in to a support person. If they ask me, which OS I am using, I sidestep the issue by asking them back what they want - I have many W2000, NT, W98 and the OS is not the issue - then I state the problem. If I would mention Linux, Netscape or Eurdora, I get the "not supported - we cannot help you" on their forehead display.

    DSL router issues:

    Qwest requires M$oft OS software in order to talk to the router.
    Solution for me: I have the router accessed over the serial line and have the root access window open to be able to debunk anything via command line.
    The initial support person is confronted with me being able to ping from the router in and out. This is over their head and they need to expedite the call. The results are poor, however.

    POP issues:

    I talk to the support person and ask them to help me to debunk the problem by using telnet in accessing their mail server.
    Qwests web interface to add/change email accounts and passwords does not seem to be functional since I need to call support in order to make a change work.

    DNS issues:

    Their web interface apparently does not work since I need to call tech support several times in order to get changes implemented.
    </RANT MODE>

  183. the solution is easy. by agentk · · Score: 1

    Um, it's easy. Don't use their mail service.
    Send mail directly from your workstation (or through firewall), and either have your mail relayed from somwhere else, or just accept mail for your domain. (but make damn sure you haven't got an open relay running!)

    Or hack fetchmail to pretend it's one of those MS agents.

    --

    VOS/Interreality project: www.interreality.org

  184. Uh.... by Scoria · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How is it advantageous to force users to use Outlook for mail retrieval in order to prevent spam?

    There may be some decent reason to do it with SMTP, but not with POP. That's simply an excuse to restrict their users to their product...

    --
    Do you like German cars?
  185. +1 insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mod parent up.

  186. Boeing Airlines. by cgleba · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ever hear of Boeing Airlines? Of course not.

    As soon as Boeing started offerening products and services (airplanes and flight service) the government slapped them on the ass and they split off Boeing Airlines and named it United Airlines.

    Sure, one could argue that it wasn't a monopoly (there were manufacturers like McDonell Douglas and services like TWA), however it was highly ANTI-COMPETITIVE.

    There are many other examples in [relatively] recent history of disallowing a company that has a large market share in a product from offering services [and thus forcing their product to use the service].

    Under those precedents, I have NO IDEA why the government allows MSN to continue to be a part of the software giant MS. That is a blatant mix of inter-dependant products and services that was not that way before.

  187. Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I seem to remember about a year ago when they took away pop access and made it all web access if you upgraded your browser to the MSN Explorer... Why I did it, I don't know, but I wasn't able to access POP mail, could only get it by going to hotmail.com. Then, using the web-based mail, I am (was and still am) unable to download attachments... though their tech support won't recognize it as a problem.

    Got a new ISP, but am still locked in to MSN for 2 more years (will never send the wife to bestbuy again... )

    Mike

  188. Extortion, corruption, and folly by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2


    Where is Tim McVeigh when we really need him?

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  189. Rumours... OfficeWorks is not Part of it by VB · · Score: 1



    Qwest will continue to provide Business customers with Internet Service Provider (ISP) services, such as:

    * Qwest.net OfficeWorksSM
    * Qwest.net OfficeWorksSM LAN



    This is a business customer service. In the agreement you are entitled to run any service you wish. If you have facts that indicate MSN's got it's eyes on that offering, please substantiate.

    Upgrade to OfficeWorks and run your own mail server. Problem solved. How long does it take anyone around here to set up a simple mail/name server so they can manage their own mail. Think about it.... you want your mail based at an ISP anyway?

    --
    www.dedserius.com
    VB != VisualBasic
  190. Old News by mrsteele · · Score: 1

    MSN instituted this requirement in July. I was using Eudora and talked to their tech support several times, and every person told me you have to use Outlook or OE. I've had no luck using Eudora or Netscape.

    I wish half the people who commented read previous posts.

  191. POP? by J'raxis · · Score: 2

    USER jraxis
    PASS foobar
    STAT
    LIST
    RETR 1
    DELE 1
    RETR 2
    DELE 2
    QUIT


    ...Was that output by a Microsoft email client or another one? I certainly cannot tell, can you? If Outlook uses some special User-agent like line to verify itself, whats to stop me from including that in a POP session by hand (or by script)?

  192. More to it than SPA by ihadalittledog · · Score: 1

    My Dad has MSN (he doesn't like it, but got roped into a contract through a rebate). Up until recently, he was able to use an alternate mail program that supported SPA (Calypso). Microsoft recently BROKE this such that he was forced to use Outlook or Outlook Express. They even warned everyone in advance that they would soon need to use a "supported" client. I was skeptical until he told me they actually did it.

    Maybe there's an "SPA2" or something? I wouldn't put it past Microsoft to change the protocol just to be rude.

    1. Re:More to it than SPA by Bobo+the+Space+Chimp · · Score: 1

      I know how he feels. The bear p00ping primes doesn't work under Netscape, even 6.1.

      --
      I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
  193. Other ISP stupidity by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

    Take mine, Wanadoo. Their answer to spam relaying? They made mail.wanadoo.fr and news.wanadoo.fr resolve differently if queried from their internal DNS, or from an outside DNS. You can't access their DNS from outside the network.

    Why is it silly? Both servers are still accessible from outside the network (at least, the SMTP server still is, and is listed on dorkslayers.com, haven't checked the news server lately), and they do accept external connections and relaying. The publicized addresses though don't accept relaying.

    Fucked up, heh.

  194. Re:Smashing Pumpkins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Retards like you are why I turn the lights out and put marbles on the front steps after the kiddies have finished for the night. My brother shoves razor blades through his pumpkins with the nasty side exposed on the outside... might try this myself this year.

  195. Not analogous... by Svartalf · · Score: 2

    1) MacOS X isn't a monopoly- yet (if ever).
    2) MS has been found to be a monopoly.
    3) The rules change for someone in that position.
    4) The only way Apple could be in that position (Thereby making your argument analogous) would be if they had some 80+ percent of the desktop market like MS does.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    1. Re:Not analogous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid.

      God, you are so stupid. It is not illegal to bundle products if the product you are bundling with is NOT a monopoly. MSN is not a monopoly. You can bundle any shit you want to with it. Microsoft has a monopoly on x86 based OSes. That does not mean that Microsoft is a monopoly, it means it owns a monopoly in an area. There's a big difference but you're too stupid to understand it, apparently.

    2. Re:Not analogous... by goldmeer · · Score: 2

      I thought that for the sake of defining Microsoft as a monoply, Mac computers were left out out of the equation. If that was indeed the case, then Apple would indeed qualify to be defined as a "monopoly" the same way that Microsoft is.

      Of course, this entire supposition is dependant on my memory recalling that the Mac computers were excluded from the defination of computers for the purpose of defining MS as a monopoly. If that isn't the case, then "never mind"

      -Joe

  196. Re:SPA(M) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yourself included!

    ... and me, too!

    -
    Slow Down Cowboy!
    Slashdot requires you to wait 20 seconds between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
    It's been 17 seconds since you hit 'reply'!

  197. Re:SPA(M) by painkillr · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Your mom has been taking care of that for us.

  198. Very Simple Solution by tweakt · · Score: 1

    Find a new ISP. Vote with your wallet. If they are screwing around and limiting the usefullness of their server for you, then find a new ISP which is more accomadating.

  199. Re:already slashdotted? Well how can they tell by 13013dobbs · · Score: 2
    Okay, so they made a smart move. Well, I would do it too if I'm an ISP. I'll give you access to port 25 outside my core if you want, but you put down a deposit and promise not to spam.

    Some ISPs will allow you to use third party SMTP servers after you have been with them for a few months.


    Now what does this have to do with blocking non-MS POP3? I thought we just solved the spam problem.

    It has nothing to do with the non-MS POP3. I have no idea as to why the /. editors added that in there.

    --

    No replies made to AC posts. Please log in.

  200. English grammar by vrt3 · · Score: 1
    Thank you. I'll try to remember that now.

    OTOH, I'd be surprised to see if you made less errors when writing Dutch than I do when writing English :)
    (Is there a grammatical error in that sentence? It doesn't feel right, but I don't know how to correct)

    --
    This sig under construction. Please check back later.
    1. Re:English grammar by yesthatguy · · Score: 1

      Not to be a jerk, but it's a similar error to the previous sentence. less should be fewer.

      I doubt this is the best explanation, but generally few and many are used for items that can be counted, like cars, or errors. "I have many cars. I make few errors." Much and less are used for parts of a whole, or things that are measured. I'm not sure what you know gramatically in English, but you can also usually look at it as, as modifiers, many and few are (always?) adjectives, while much and less are either adjectives or adverbs.

      --
      Yes! That guy!
  201. And this matters...why? by jhoffoss · · Score: 2

    How many people out there actually use the provided e-mail accounts from their ISP for their regular e-mail? I know I did while I was on dial-up (ah, how I miss the handshake of the 14.4...) but that was the last ISP-based e-mail account I ever used, because my ISP has changed so much since then. I can see a normal mom/pop home user using nothing but that ISP email account, but they won't be using anything but a mac or windows anyway.

    --
    Linux: The world's best text-adventure game.
  202. It's not JUST M$- it's anyone you give it to. by solios · · Score: 2

    Your statement describes the obvious, yet you seem to have missed the point: you'll notice that whenever you give your email address to ANY website that's even remotely disreputable (Yahoo, AOL, Pr0n sites, etc), your mailbox will be overloaded. It's not JUST M$ that's selling out your address. Places that you leave it at will sell it wholesale- this is why I publicize my hotmail account and don't leave my real account lying around anywhere.

    I use that hotmail address EVERY time I need to submit my email in order to get whatever I'm looking for - as a consequence, I average between 20 and 30 unsolicited emails a day in that account. My real account remains clean- at least until ebay starts selling addresses to the highest bidder.

  203. POP3Proxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All someone needs to do is run a POP3 proxy outside the MSN network on a port other than 110. The POP3 proxy will act as the liason between the user inside the MSN network and the remotely hosted mail service. I used to use mailandnews.com because it was free and allowed full POP3 access (althought it was a little slow).

    I do believe that the number of customers that Microsoft keeps in this process will never justify the number that get upset, want to take action against MSN or simply leave.

    Sincerely,
    doug@simflex.com

  204. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  205. Rules, I'll bet. by twitter · · Score: 2

    They will probably tell their vict^H^H^H^Hcustomers that Outlooks rule sets will protect them from spam. That's what our company's "Exchange group" told me when I complained about the porn spam/potential virus trojan God knows what that sprung out of my "preview pane" on selection. They told me to set up a rule to send dirty word messages to the trash. Great. Oh yes, that clueless moron had remote access to my computers and considered autoexecuting mail "normal advertising". I'd like to laugh but I know how easy it's going to be for malicious third parties to screw our mindless and weak M$ network.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  206. Umm.. do you know what you're talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    All three programs listed are MAPI based. MAPI is a messaging API, not a protocol like POP3 or IMAP. Anyway I don't see what the big deal is. THere are lots of other ISPs if you don't like MSN. It is ridiculous to accuse MS of monopolistic behavior on this since they are WAY behind AOL on ISP market share.

    1. Re:Umm.. do you know what you're talking about? by zerofoo · · Score: 1

      Umm, yes I do

      I was refering to Outlook functioning in MAPI mode, ya know...

      Connect to the server on port 135.

      The server (usually exchange server). Randomizes two ports and tells the client to transfer data on those two ports.

      POP3 uses port 110 and IMAP uses port 143 (i think).

      The reason(s) this would suck is:
      1. That it ties you to an MS mail client.
      2. Very hard to connect to if you are behind a firewall and the mail admin has not statically fixed those two random ports I wrote about earlier. Even if the mail admin did that, you have to figure out what ports to open on your firewall.

      I wasn't arguing about the monopolistic aspects of this. I was merely suggesting that limiting choices for your customer is always a bad business decision.

      -ted

  207. MS licensed Roxio's Easy CD Creator... by corky6921 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Once again, because this bears repeating, Microsoft licensed Roxio's Easy CD Creator for Windows XP. Roxio is NOT going to go out of business because people aren't buying Easy CD Creator. Furthermore, 99% of people already get the CD burning software of choice with their burner, and relatively few buy it at the store, so your point doesn't hold much water anyway.

    1. Re:MS licensed Roxio's Easy CD Creator... by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      I bought nero. Nero rocks. You, too, should buy Nero. :)

    2. Re:MS licensed Roxio's Easy CD Creator... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use Nero, too, because it came with my CD burner (thus proving the point I made in my above post -- people use what came with their CD burner/OS more often than they use something they bought at a store.)

      --corky6921

    3. Re:MS licensed Roxio's Easy CD Creator... by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      Adaptec spun off Roxio because they saw the writing on the wall with OS support for CD burning.

      Microsoft would only licence Easy CD under one circumstance -- the price was cheaper than developing it inhouse. That means Roxio is moving from getting $$ from virtually every burner sold to getting pennies from MS. (See also the Scandisk/Defrag software and other bits MS has licenced on the cheap over the years.)

      Roxio might have a future selling higher end "Platinum" software for DVD mastering, etc. But MS has basically ate their bread and butter. (Not that I care -- EasyCD sucks, and device support *should* be built into the OS.)

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    4. Re:MS licensed Roxio's Easy CD Creator... by overshoot · · Score: 2

      Once again, because this bears repeating, Microsoft licensed Roxio's Easy CD Creator for Windows XP. Roxio is NOT going to go out of business because people aren't buying Easy CD Creator.

      Microsoft also licensed Lattice C.

      --
      Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    5. Re:MS licensed Roxio's Easy CD Creator... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what burner comes bundled with useful software (as opposed to Adaptec EZ0CD Creator, for example)?

  208. You folks are sheep by frost22 · · Score: 1

    Well, after reading about 2/3 of the messages, I'm utterly frustrated. You folks babble about every nonsens imagineable and engage in pointless debates if that stuff can be broken. As if that mattererd at all !

    If you guys over there don't start doing something they will own you. Huhuuh ? Anybody awake there ? Sue them, kill them, vote their friends out of office, whatever. But godamned, do something! Don't squabble on slashdot.

    Appaled,

    f.

    --
    ...and here I stand, with all my lore, poor fool, no wiser than before.
  209. I am a Qwest customer and have more info. by narfbot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here is my report on Qwest/MSN-you know what they are doing in my area, Phoenix. It is all truthfull, please read. Be sure to check the end of this post for an article on more information.

    I am currently a Qwest customer in Phoenix, and have more details on the current situation.

    Back in March, I signed up for Qwest DSL Select, which is a $20 per month DSL line at 640 Kbps, 272 Kbps guarenteed. Once connected, you are "always on". You are not guarenteed to connect but once your on you can remain on no matter how long it is. I also pay $20 for the Qwest DSL ISP which is now owned by MSN.

    Over the summer I was charged for the DSL modem which was supposed to be free as a promotional gift. Additional charges were also added for services I did not pay for. It took two months to get the charges off and many long phone calls with people saying like "I don't know how to do this," or "I don't think my supervisor will allow."

    A week and a half ago, Qwest started disconnecting my "always on" connection after each two hours of connectivity. Then there was a five minute (I call it a penalty) to wait until I could connect again. I downloaded a connection manager, and set it up to disconnect me automatically after every 1 hr 50 mins, and then immediately reconnect. It cuts out the stupid 5 minute wait. I do this for two reasons, downloading and gaming, those are very sensitive to 5 minute lags of course. 10 second reconnects are a miniscule problem in comparison. However I found that I am still getting disconnected every half-hour (with out the 5 minute penalty) and its still annoyed the heck outta me

    After the first 5 days of this, I call in asking whats going on, this is not the service I originally agreed to. They say it is part of the plan, but if I didn't like it, I could switch to MSN ($20 a month, which I know still disconnects my uncle tells by the way) and the "regular" DSL for 32.50 a month. HUH? Its the same 640 Kbps line an MSN? what kind of switch is that?

    So as you can see they're trying to harrass us into paying more. This was not happening a week ago. To fix this problem I was very smart. I ordered on the day after I called the COX INTERNET and DIGITAL TELEPHONE for $40 dollars a month (you have to buy your own cable modem). In comparison you pay $72 a month with qwest for broadband DSL and phone. They were advertising that on the radio today like it was something great and I know it isn't YOU'RE PAYING about $15 dollars a month more than I have been. IT'S A SCAM. THANKFULLY, I'm getting COX in exactly one week, yes I'm counting those days. I urge every switch to COX now to show them how bad they are.

    Now that I told you that, check out the Arizona Republic article. It tells about the scams Qwest is involved in here and Microsoft is also to blame now seeing the new information on SlashDot. They're like about the worst companies around. I know six other people have switched in the the phoenix area to COX because of the same reasons! Share this information because it's true.

    1. Re:I am a Qwest customer and have more info. by Kagato · · Score: 3, Informative

      Although you have some interesting points you have factual errors on several.

      First, the select plan is not an always on plan. Only Delux is. It's always been that way, even when DSL first came out. The differences between Select and Delux and clearly indicated on the web page. What the sales weasel might have told you on the other hand isn't as clear.

      How the DSL circuit works has nothing to do with your ISP. The ISP has no contol over the DSLAM, which is what is disconnecting you. So if you don't like MSN, get a local ISP with DSL, most markets have AT LEAST 40+ choices for your ISP.

      I have Qwest DSL, I don't use Qwest as my ISP. My connection has been flawless over the last year.

    2. Re:I am a Qwest customer and have more info. by narfbot · · Score: 1

      ---First, the select plan is not an always on plan. Only Delux is. It's always been that way, even when DSL first came out. The differences between Select and Delux and clearly indicated on the web page. What the sales weasel might have told you on the other hand isn't as clear. ---

      I would love to show you how they originally described the services...
      The web page originally said for Select: downstream up to 640 Kbps, guarenteed 272 Kbps both up and down. Always on, although connection not guarenteed--meaning you might not be able to connect. They never said my connection was session was limited to two hours at a time! I've had quest for 8 months. In the past I was able to stay online for days! These disconnections started just _________more than a week ago___________. They are changing my service, I wasn't fooled to begin with, its starting now. MSN also knowingly disconnects people. So it may be coming from them.

      You think that they are clear? Their advertisement are deceptive, and you can't get the specs on my connection anymore. Try looking on the website, you can't find it, I did look today. Hidden charges and all! Try calling them to get things straightened out? They say huh? I don't know anything about that. Did you see that article? There's more proof about deception. I know someone that had DSL for a month and is already switching because of their DSL service deceptions about disconnections. They never said they will disconnect people. never. Look for it you can't find it. They're lying. I'm not making any mistake.

      In addition, I've been noticing that my up/down speeds are being limited to less than 128kbps according to speed test site that normally reported about 550 kbps. I had a cox buddy check it out and he was getting a full 3mbps, so it wasn't a bogged down site. It was my connection. So much for DSL speeds.

      Also, Qwest has raised rates on almost all their services. My bill is like $150/month now!

      ----How the DSL circuit works has nothing to do with your ISP. The ISP has no contol over the DSLAM, which is what is disconnecting you. So if you don't like MSN, get a local ISP with DSL, most markets have AT LEAST 40+ choices for your ISP.
      ----

      Again, I had no disconnection problems until last week, so its not this. It has happened to up to every half hour. My connection manager records the session length, and it has been exact. I have had this confirmed by another person I know. Sometimes it gives me a code on the reason for disconnect. Some say just plain disconnected, other say, disconnected by request of host. I don't get why you say the ISP's and DSLAM and then talk about MSN.

      ----I have Qwest DSL, I don't use Qwest as my ISP. My connection has been flawless over the last year.----

      Good option, but I'd rather not. For less than what you pay (unless its DSL 256) I will get 3 Mbit/s cable internet which is better. I have seen it many places.

      They didn't have to start being this way...Understand, qwest is their own problem just like microsoft. They will lose customers because of greedy business practices.

  210. MSN POP Falsifies 4th Quarter Outlook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MSN POP Falsifies 4th Quarter Outlook

  211. Funny.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got tired of reading all of the anti-ms "commentary" so I don't know if anyone else has bothered to READ THE WORDS IN THE AGREEMENT. but they clearly say that you "MUST USE THE MSN EMAIL SERVERS" in case any of you have forgotten this did not say "MSN/OUTLOOK CLIENT" We run an exchange 2000 server at work and guess what, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO USE A MS CLIENT TO ACCESS THE POP3 SERVICE. damnit this is stupid. why on earth is it so much of a bother to send your mail through their servers?? COX cable pulls this same crap, and you don't yell about that. Funny how when they DONT do this and a thousand mail spamming freaks use the cheap bandwidth to soak your mailbox you bitch about that too. You CANNOT have it both ways. All they have done is said that you have to route through their servers. big damn deal.

  212. Whatever... by Danse · · Score: 2

    It doesn't have to amount to an absolute monopoly in order to be deemed anti-competitive. Do some reading before making stupid comments.

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  213. MSN does NOT use POP3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    With POP3 compliant servers, a rudimentary check of your email looks pretty much like this (what you type is in bold):

    +OK serverMumboJumbo
    user anonCoward
    +OK
    pass myDogsName
    +OK anonCoward has 0 messages (0 octets).
    quit
    +OK

    With an MSN server, it goes wrong from the get go:

    +OK serverMumboJumbo
    user anonCoward
    -ERR Permission denied

    Now I may be a little wrong in the head, but when a POP3 server doesn't accept the standard first command of a POP3 session, then it cannot rightfully call itself a POP3 server.


    Grudgingly yours for a buck,
    anonCoward

  214. You forget the anti-spam nazi's have blocked this. by Convergence · · Score: 2

    Because they'll restrict outgoing SMTP to any other mail server, and their own mail server will enforce a From: address to be their own domain.

    Now, you could use Reply-To: as a workaround for this annoying pettiness, except that:

    1. Many mailing lists munge and/or remove/replace reply-to headers.

    2. Not all email software makes it clear what the purpose for Reply-To: is.

    IE, all outgoing email must be marked as being from their domain, so if you switch ISP's, anyone who replys to any past message will still send their response to your old email address.

    Sorry dude, the anti-spam nazi's have made sure that your workaround is nonfunctional. (Which is why I despise their vigilante group.)

  215. Ack: English is not associative by slashdot2.2sucks · · Score: 1

    English is not associative.

    Without parentheses there is ambiguity.

    Only nonsensical possibilities rule out ambiguity.

    These ambiguities don't exist so much in spoken English because inflection implies grouping.

    But oddly enough the negation of a negative is a positive much like with First Order Logic and Arithmetic. This is not true in Spanish, where double negatives can be negative.

    1. Re:Ack: English is not associative by yesthatguy · · Score: 1

      Yes, but parallel structures are commonly used to indicate meaning. For this example, it could be something like "MSN's content and Qwest Internet's services". The non-parallel structure grammatically (and logically) hides that meaning.

      --
      Yes! That guy!
    2. Re:Ack: English is not associative by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      --examine parsings
      what is the scope of and

      to provide consumers with best-of-breed MSN content and services via Qwest's Internet infrastructure.

      to provide consumers with
      ( (best-of-breed MSN content)
      and
      (services via Qwest's Internet infrastructure) ).
      looks and sounds ugly

      to provide consumers with
      (best-of-breed
      (MSN (content and services) ) )
      via Qwest's Internet infrastructure.
      most plausible parsing

      Is there some rule about shortest plausible match to determine the scope of and?

  216. possible explanation by Spud+the+Ninja · · Score: 1

    Appologies if it's been mentioned before, there's heaps of messages to scan through, but:

    It is possible that this is just a mistake in the FAQ. Perhaps they're referring to the fact that the three programs mentioned can access a hotmail account and display messages much in the same way they display POP3 mail. There's an HTML mail plugin for them.

    --
    You can never put too much water in a nuclear reactor.
  217. Re:already slashdotted? Well how can they tell by mpe · · Score: 2

    Some ISPs will allow you to use third party SMTP servers after you have been with them for a few months.

    Or rather not use their third party proxies. A "third party" in this context is anything which isn't either the sending machine or something which has an MX record pointing at it.

  218. Recommend ISPs Please by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

    URL, geography, & commentary:

  219. Just change providers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Duh! I used to use quest until they screwed me. Now I came to my senses and I use EasyStreet here in Portland, OR. They even have a "geek" package for linux users. I was in Maine doing some training, and I wanted to know my IP address so I could get some stuff off my box here at home. I called EasyStreet and not only did a human answer the phone, but she also answered my question in about two seconds, and she sounded cute too!!! I should have asked her if she used Emacs; it could have been love.

    1. Re:Just change providers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could love someone that uses Emacs? How sad.

  220. Hmm.. by Patrick+Cable+II · · Score: 1

    Think they'll hire the guy who says "you've got mail" for AOL, to say "you've got virii" for MSN?
    -
    Patrick Cable II

  221. In Minnesota by thilmony · · Score: 1

    Qwest allows you to pick an ISP other than MSN. Gee, would I really pick VISI.com over MSN?

    F-ing A RIGHT, I WOULD!

    If Qwest would offer me DSL at my house, that is.

    --
    YES, there is a McDonald's in Hanoi Square.
  222. Redundant Story by Dedtired · · Score: 1

    This story was posted in August.
    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/08/03/023224 3&mode=thread
    Wish we could mod the article down.

    --
    I have no friends. Will you be my friend?
  223. MS anti-span initiative explained by geekinexile · · Score: 2, Funny

    I can provide empirical proof that Microsoft is directing all span received to my Hotmail inbox, thus sparing the rest of their users.

  224. Same BS in Seattle by vulg4r_m0nk · · Score: 1

    I recently moved and had to reestablish DSL in Seattle. Qwest is the only line provider, and the deal with MSN of course applies here as elsewhere. I'm paying an extra $70 connection fee for not going with MS, but with another ISP. So far, not only has service been faster with the ISP, but every problem I've had so far has been with Qwest. Six months ago I didn't really pay attention to the DSL providers and ISPs dropping like flies, but now I'm feelin' the burn. BTW, I typed this entire message while on hold at Qwest with some genius who has to check to see if my ISP supports DSL. Fuckers.

  225. Re:Third Party smtp -- is BAD by mpe · · Score: 2

    Shuting down all email servers would stop the spam problem, but it would make email quite a bit less useful (sarcasm).

    Getting rid of third party relays (including ISP provided ones) would also make spamming a lot harder. Though only something this drastic would address software which must use a third party relay (though it could be running on 127.0.0.1)

  226. It's late, but I'll clarify some stuff. by loraksus · · Score: 2

    This is not just in his area. The entire qwest region (i.e. minesota to oregon) is "affected" by this.

    If you were on peasant dsl (i.e. $20/mth, dial up to connect, max time on 2 hrs) - > MSN

    If you are a new customer, and do not ask for a specific isp (i.e. you are a sheep) you get msn.

    If you want to switch isps, you can.

    MSN sends out a special modem to their customers. Areiscom or some garbage. It's hooked up through usb and it uses some kind of weird protocol. A cisco 678 can be used in its place, with quite a bit of coaxing.

    If you are a MSN dsl customer, you do not have access to Qwest's third party support (i.e. if you have another isp, you can call qwest for third party support, w/msn, you can't)

    --
    1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
  227. Re:Third Party smtp -- is BAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uhm.. Anyone permitting inbound SMTP AUTH service, to persons who might have to connect from a 'big' ISP such as MSN (or Juno), should read RFC 2476.

    Basically, set up your MTA to listen on port 587 in addition to port 25, and then REQUIRE smtp auth to transmit ANY mail on that port.

  228. My rights?! by writermike · · Score: 1

    Hey, guys, this is Microsoft's online service.

    It's been this way for years. Log on to a BBS and you use the SysOps preferred BBS software and e-mail client. I don't see anyone complaining about AOL's forcing folks to use their e-mail client.

    We're not talking about rights. And I see nothing wrong with Microsoft forcing me to use Microsoft e-mail clients on their ISP. If Microsoft wants to let me use Eudora or TheBat!, that's their privilege, not my right.

    --
    If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.
    1. Re:My rights?! by rdean400 · · Score: 1

      Umm....that's not true. AOL lets you use any IMAP-enabled mail client (e.g., I got hooked into one of those sign up for 3 years and we'll give you $400 to spend deals, and I haven't logged into the AOL client in over a year). I use mozilla for my AOL mail.

  229. Fortunately by overshoot · · Score: 2

    ... despite the massive advertising, you're not required to go with MSN. I'm in Phoenix, have Qworst DSL, and use CyberTrails, who are quite reasonable and actually Linux-knowledgable. There's quite a list of other ISPs who can take care of you, too.

    Keep in mind that the Qworst/MSN deal actually requires that you use Windows -- even Mac users are No Longer Welcome.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  230. Where are the howls.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because I can't access the AOL Instant Messenger service using anything other than the AIM client....oh wait, I forgot - only Microsoft is evil.

  231. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  232. Qwest seems to be correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check Tech TV's article on access MSN using Eudora and other clients. Check the info on SSPI (may only work in IE), which is what MSN is using for POP3 verification. I'd guess that it would need to be added by Eudora or other mail clients for it to work on MSN, support is a whole different issue.

    Also, complain to Microsoft for forcing this non-standard requirement, instead of your "previous" ISP. Qwest has no control over what MSN supports/requires for their customers.

  233. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  234. Not to get needlessly complex, but... by Chasing+Amy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you're forced to use Outlook to get your e-mail, there are ways to make it as "pleasant" and "secure" as possible.

    Want to use Linux, but need to use Outlook to get your mail? Fine, it's called a Virtual Machine. Run VMWare, load it with Win9x/NT/2k/XP, and either Outlook or the OE that comes with the OS. Put a shortcut to Outlook in the StartUp folder so that launches with Windows, and all you have to deal with is the extra overhead of the Virtual Machine's booting of Windows. Inconvenient but workable and not too difficult to set up.

    Maybe WINE supports Outlook/Express? I don't know because I don't follow WINE, but I'm sure someone can tell us. In any event, VMWare with Windows installed would handle it for sure, andf pretty easily. And there's no security threat to your *real* OS, just the one in the VM. And turning off all of Outlook's bells and whistles would even eliminate that security problem. Like I said, inconvenient, but workable.

    Even if you're running Windows and don't want the bloat of Outlook/Express cluttering up your OS all the time even when not in use, running a VMWare VM with a light version of Windows installed and Outlook running in that VM would be an option. You can pare down Windows using 98lite from http://www.98lite.net, BTW, making a fully functional install take up as little as 50MB--perfect if you want to run it from a VM for a limited purpose of interoperability. And if your system is that of a hardware enthusiast--hey, this is /. afterall--it shouldn't be too painfull.

    Complicated? Yep. It would be much better just to be able to use any POP client. But if you can't, you can still run Outlook through Linux, one way or another, or even keep Outlook off your primary Windows install if that's the OS you use.

    BTW, if you run Windows and are "upgrading" to WinXP, I'd wait for 98lite.net to finish work on their WinXP installer. It will allow you to *really* keep all the little bits of OE, MSN, etc., that usually get installed, from ever touching your PC. I currently use their version for Win98SE and am very happy with it--without all the extra junk installed, it's surprisingly stable and fast. Perfect for gaming and all else...

    --

    Chasing Amy
    (We all chase Amy...)
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
  235. A Simple Solution by whizzird · · Score: 1

    Switch to Cox Cable Modem. I live in Phoenix and have one. It's faster, about the same price, and (now don't tell anyone...) "allows" me to run my own web, mail, ssh, ftp, etc. servers.
    But I don't know if they're signing up new customers, because @Home is kaput.

  236. Question to MSNers by germanbirdman · · Score: 1

    Coming from Germany and basically using 3 different dialup providers a day (my linux router logs on to the one that is currently the cheapest) - reconfiguring your SMTP server everytime you switch internet providers is a pain in the neck - so I like to use SMTP Servers that require SMTP-Auth.

    I have not yet seen an internet provider here in Germany that blocks port 25.

    The first one I came accross was when I was in New Jersey for 5 months and took my laptop with me. I used NetZero for a while and OK - I was only allowed to use their SMTP Server but it was free and they added a line or two of advertisements.

    But at least they allowed me to put in a different from address and allowed me to continue to use my normal e-mail account.

    Does MSN Service in the US allow you to do at least that?

  237. You don't understand, DO YOU? by ackthpt · · Score: 2
    This isn't just about securing email or making it better! This is about someone else laying the copper and then Microsoft just walking and and making them an offer they can't turn down.

    e.g.

    Microsoft will provide all MSN services, etc, etc, etc, for a nearly free cost to you and your customers, just sign here. Oh, by the way, it's an exclusive contract, which means you can't offer any other ISP's, such as AOL and all your customers are belong to us.

    This isn't the first time I've heard of MSN moving in like this, it won't be the last. This is a diabolical way to lock people into IE, Outlook, etc, and the Microsoft way, for EVERYTHING! Hell, it's like buying cable TV but only being able to watch one channel, which you have to BUY the decoder for your end as well as pay for the service.

    Monopoly? You bet! Chances are Qwest had a monopoly on your DSL service already and you didn't care, probably because they didn't require you to use some proprietary software. Now you care. Gosh!

    I'd simply write in that I plan to discontinue their service since being forced to support a monopoly offends me. Because, like your, I'm a little fish, they won't care, but I'd write letters to all your local papers, too. Make sure you outline how this is the bad thing that it is.

    Who needs Invasion of the Body Snatchers when we have this usurping going on. Best of luck.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:You don't understand, DO YOU? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THere is an option with qwest DSL
      All Qwest.net users will be moved to MSN, but YOU HAVE THE OPTION of other ISP's. I know of 3 ISP's here in town that will allow me to use Qwest's DSL with them as an ISP, with nothing to do with MSN.

      It is an option, but just on principle I have switched to a local cable provider

    2. Re:You don't understand, DO YOU? by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Well, heck, that ain't so bad then, so long as MSN and Qwest don't collude to keep you from getting service from other ISPs, so long as they're solvent (quite the trick, lately.) But, I'd still watch them. Make sure that they don't move to lock you into Service Provided by Microsoft only.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  238. Qwest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do tech support for Qwest dial and DSL. i completely agree and understand. I have never had any problems with Qwest on linux. If you do go throught the transitition it does allow you to use pop on MSN.

    What they do not say is that if you dont use Windows, you can escape from the migration, like I am doing. I talked to my manager about where linux stands and according to him, we will stay with Qwest until MSN makes a program.

    ~myuu@qwest.net

  239. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  240. Solution by FenixDTX · · Score: 1

    If you don't like a company's services, then don't give them your business.

    Otherwise, don't bitch about it.

  241. How to set up mail with MSN by Jimithing+DMB · · Score: 5, Informative

    I recently got laid off at a leading teleservices corporation that did technical support for MSN. This is because they completely dropped the contract with MSN (for what reasons I have only heard speculation and will not repeat here). I can assure you though that it was not because our standards were not good. Although it sounds like I am tooting my own horn we had probably the best call-center for all MSN service judging by the number of people calling back with ticket numbers started by people in other centers. I also judge this by the way the people wrote up their tickets without specifying what in the hell they did forcing me to go back through all the troubleshootings steps. (end rant)

    First of all, MSN has two types of mail. They have the "legacy" POP3 system and the new web-based e-mail. You can find this information at MSN Support Services.

    Web-based mail is kind of like what it sounds. It uses the same mechanism (XML over HTTP) that Outlook Express >=5 uses to access hotmail. However the server for @msn.com accounts is different from the server for @hotmail.com accounts. If you have an @msn.com web-based account you can go to http://supportsevices.msn.com/us/oeconfig/ to configure OE and then go to tools accounts and read the server name out of there. Note, this is also true for free @msn.com accounts. Note that only Outlook Express 5 or greater or Outlook XP can use this mail. Obviously MSN Explorer and the hotmail.com website itself are compatible with this.

    Anyway, it seems the real issue is that these people would like to use their new MSN POP3 accounts with e.g. fetchmail. To correctly configure Outlook Express for MSN POP3 e-mail you must use the outgoing (POP3) server of pop3.email.msn.com (go figure) or the incoming (SMTP) server of smtp.email.msn.com. Furthermore you must select the "Log on using Secure Password Authentication" option as well as select the option under Outgoing Mail server that "My server requires authentication". You then must press the settings button and be sure it is using the same settings as the outgoing mail server. That is it logs on using SPA with the same U/P as the POP3 server.

    Because of this MSN states that you MUST use Outlook to get your MSN POP3 mail. This is not entirely correct. What you must have is a client that supports SPA. Why is MSN doing this? MSN's reason: to reduce SPAM. However they tell customers simply this because most of their customers are rather computer illeterate (especially the former AOL lusers). The real reason is that since they contract out Dial-up Points of Presences (Pops, not to be confused with POP3 e-mail) that either A) they must use the POP3 before SMTP hack, or B) You must login to the SMTP server to send mail. If they didn't do this then any jackass dialing into one of those POPs even with another ISP would be able to send tons of SPAM through MSN servers. There have been plenty of /. articles about this before and anyone familiar with how contracted out POPs interfere with the ability to allow SMTP access to only your subscribers should know what I am talking about.

    Now, MSN /could/ have simply kept the plaintext login POP3 and only required you to use a plaintext login for SMTP. However they decided that not only should they require a login for SMTP but at the same time they should require secure password authentication for both POP3 and SMTP. In other words, if they were going to have to have people change their Outlook mail settings they might as well knock out the ability of people to sniff the packets and retrive their users passwords while they are at it.

    Problem is that apparently SPA in Outlook is an MS specific thing. Well, what do you want them to do. The only way for outlook to support not sending the login in cleartext is to use SPA. So therefore they enabled SPA on their mailservers and disabled clear-text logins. Of course theoretically they could include some other more open method of secure password authentication for use with other clients, or they could open up the MS SPA protocol. Or they could just say the hell with it because they only officially support MSN using MS software on Windows OSes (which actually does NOT include WinCE, you must contact your OEM for WinCE support with MSN).

    Basically all that needs to be done is for other mail clients to support MS SPA. How to do this I am not really sure as I have not put much thought into it as I don't use MSN myself except for free accounts. All the free accounts use hotmail based e-mail.

    There is of course another option. You could always "upgrade" your account to web-based from POP3 and then either go to the hotmail website to get your e-mail or use Outlook Express >=5 or Outlook XP to get your email in a real mail client (if you can call Outlook a real mail client, but hey, at least's it better than www.hotmail.com). There does exist a script (PERL I think) for retrieving mail from hotmail but I have looked at that code and it is really really crappy (apologies to the guy who wrote it, but I am sure he also knows that it is nothing more than a quick hack). Theoretically there is no reason that Evolution should not support the MS HTTPmail protocol. Turn on HTTP logging in the Advanced tab of OE properties and then open up the log in notepad. You will notice that the schema is relatively easy to figure out even though to the best of my knowledge it is not published anywhere. Evolution already uses XML extensively and has all of the framework necessary for parsing XML. I assume it also has the framework necessary for accessing an HTTP server in general. Therefore it should be rather trivial to write an MS HTTPmail backend for Evolution. In fact, I am surprised that no one has done so (I guess none of the developers use hotmail). I have toyed with the idea of doing one myself but 1) I use balsa, and 2) I have not done any programming with XML. However now that evolution is fairly stable I may go ahead and write this. Hell, I don't have anything pressing to do until Monday except clean the garage so we'll see. There's never a bad time to learn more programming techniques, and XML is one of the most popular things today so not only would I personally benefit from learning XML but also benefit with being able to access hotmail from evolution. And note well... if I do write this I do intend to support the advertisement properties as best as possible (i.e. opening up a small frame at the bottom and displaying a webpage in it). I know it seems stupid, but hey, they deserve to get paid even if they are MSN. And if anyone really wants to they can just change the code later to take out the ads.

    Anyway, I hope this clears up a lot of the confusion people are having with this. I see at this point over 600 comments have been posted, a few reasonable, most along the lines of fsck Microsoft. People, I hate MS as much as everyone here. They are theives and crooks and must be beaten. However, as the cliche says: You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. The only way MS will be beaten is when people stop bitching about them and just go do better than them. Every time I bitch about MS to my mother she reminds me: Then go write something better. While everyone has argued this point to death the bottom line is that in some respects MS software is "better" than open-source/free software. Even if only in the marketing sense of better.

    -Dave

    1. Re:How to set up mail with MSN by twiin · · Score: 1

      Problem is that apparently SPA in Outlook is an MS specific thing. Well, what do you want them to do. The only way for outlook to support not sending the login in cleartext is to use SPA.

      What about RFC 1734 and 2095?

      Basically all that needs to be done is for other mail clients to support MS SPA

      This is where the problem is. There are existing protocols to deal with secure POP/IMAP authenticaion, but MS goes ahead and writes their own, and then people say "why doesn't everyone just support the Microsoft format" -- it is this line of reasoning that has led to nearly every proprietary closed format/protocol.

      If MS doesn't want to pass passwords in cleartext, they should be using one of the existing and open methods of encryption, not forcing other people to use their software.

      --

      Any event, once it has occurred, can be made to appear inevitable by a competent historian.
    2. Re:How to set up mail with MSN by Jimithing+DMB · · Score: 1

      Problem is that apparently SPA in Outlook is an MS specific thing. Well, what do you want them to do. The only way for outlook to support not sending the login in cleartext is to use SPA.

      What about RFC 1734 [faqs.org] and 2095 [faqs.org]?

      Sorry, I should have been more clear, what I meant is that Outlook (Express) already had support for MS SPA and not the other standards, and therefore MSN's only choice was to implement SPA or upgrade everyone to a different client. They did exactly this.

      Basically all that needs to be done is for other mail clients to support MS SPA

      This is where the problem is. There are existing protocols to deal with secure POP/IMAP authenticaion, but MS goes ahead and writes their own, and then people say "why doesn't everyone just support the Microsoft format" -- it is this line of reasoning that has led to nearly every proprietary closed format/protocol.

      If MS doesn't want to pass passwords in cleartext, they should be using one of the existing and open methods of encryption, not forcing other people to use their software.

      You are so right, they should have chosen an open standard for Outlook in the first place. Although I am not sure how many were widely accepted when OE 4 (first version named OE and not MSIMN) was released. Fast forward to modern times and MS still has no incentive to implement another SPA protocol.

      And really, how many mail clients do you know of that support secure password authentication? I know that Netscape and Mozilla do not. Fetchmail does support quite a lot of authentication protocols. Interestingly, it does suport NTLM authentication for use with Exchange. Maybe this is a similar method. Knowing Microsoft they wouldn't reinvent anything but just use some crappy system they already have (i.e. NTLM).

      HOWEVER: MS could VERY SIMPLY allow SSL connections which most mail clients do support and which would encrypt everything including the mail from the server to you. And furthermore OE does support SSL connections without MS SPA. However, this would be a lot of load on the mail servers doing all of that encryption.

      So I suppose note well anyone who wants to give MSN a valid option, that is it. However, believe me I am well aware of the fact that MSN does not give a flying fsck about their customers, so YMMV.

  242. I can't wait that long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Imagine if everyone stopped buying anything ms tomorrow. Microsoft has so much cash, they could be assholes for another 10 years before they would fall. Pure capitalism will in the end.

    I don't want to wait that long.

  243. Qwest by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

    I've heard that Qwest services was pretty horrible to start with.

    Jaysyn

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  244. Blocking is censorship by benb · · Score: 1

    If an "ISP" blocks *any* traffic, it is not an ISP (Internet Service Provider) anymore. The core business of an ISP is to allow me to participate on the whole Internet and communicate using IP, otherwise it's just a better AOL. If it fails to provide free IP communication to the Internet, it fails to do its job.

    If you argue that blocking direct SMTP is a good idea, good luck arguing when the RIAA wants Freenet traffic to be blocked.

  245. What does this mean for the backbone? by benb · · Score: 1

    Qwest also runs backbones, i.e. even if you are not a Qwest customer (maybe even in a different country), your traffic might pass through Qwest.

    Does that mean that MS may have a chance to peek on that traffic?

  246. Quest owned by Bill? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't Quest.net owned by Bill? This could explain
    some of this.

  247. Re:Who is really using Linux&Qwest? I am. by narfbot · · Score: 1

    I must tell you however, you must run windows or mac os to get connected with the Intel modem the give you. It uses an oddball PPPoA which doesn't work in linux.

    If you get lucky and can pay for the business plan, they give you a cisco modem which should work in linux.

    I'm switching over to cox in a week which will work faster, less expensive, and better in Linux. I have to use Win98SE with ICS, then connect my linux box up to it! Beware! If you use quest now, you're doomed to be using Windows some how or another! Email included :(

  248. The answer is simple ... by AngusSF · · Score: 1

    Find another ISP. Refuse to use Lookout or MSN Exploder. In Tucson Qwest DSL customers have the same options, and there are several local ISPs that will be happy to take your business. AZStarnet.com is one.

    I use QWest DSL for all my business clients, but we're not being forced to MSN ...

    --
    "A gun is a tool, Marian. No better, no worse than any other tool. An axe, a shovel, or anything." Shane (1953)
  249. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  250. There are alternatives. by cornice · · Score: 1

    As much as this sucks keep in mind that there are alternatives. I have a Qwest DSL line but it goes to a different Internet provider. I have a reliable DSL line from Qwest and a great Internet connection from XMission. Most locations have _many_ alternatives to MSN for the Internet portion of the service.

    1. Re:There are alternatives. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAL, but I know in my area, cable service is provided as a "utility". In other words the local law states that as long as an individual is able to pay for the services, they can't be denied the service. I'm sure this is the case in other areas.

      Isn't this, in a way, denying individuals not using MS software their right to service (depending on local laws of course)? I know telephone services is a utility, but does DSL service through a telco fall in this catagort? Could be some local laws broken somewhere down the line by MS in this new stretch into un-monopolized territory.

    2. Re:There are alternatives. by J.+Random+Software · · Score: 1

      It's perfectly legitimate for a utility to impose technical requirements on your equipment. I'm not sure about electricity or water, but I know you can't hook your phone line into any device that wasn't approved by the FCC.

      All you can argue is that, rather than a proprietary standard like SPA (has anyone ever seen a spec for this?), MSN should have chosen different requirements (APOP, SSL...) that don't extend Microsoft's monopoly power. But how much interoperability the government can legitimately mandate is an open question.

  251. You have a choice of ISP with Qwest DSL by Kagato · · Score: 2

    You don't have to use Qwest or MSN as your ISP with DSL. I have Qwest DSL, I have an Indie ISP, most markets have at least 40 ISP to choice from. You can actually save money doing this. How?

    Well, here's a dirty little secret that right on your DSL bill each month. When Qwest did it's semi-hostile take over of U S West everyone was looking to make sure the letter of the law was being followed. One of the things that came out is upstream traffic would have to be carried by an outside company. Now some would think the cost of this would be rolled into the $19 ISP fee on your bill. No. They threw a $5 charge into the tax and fee section where no one would be able to find it.

    So, really you get to pay 24.99 for your ISP charges.

    It should be noted that before Qwest took over U S West was one of the few National ISP's that uses tons of GNU and Opensource. In fact Qwest Internet is one of the largest FreeBSD installations in the US.

  252. Legal Implications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsux could get dinged again for anti-trust violations, if State and Federal prosecutors look at it.

    If Microsoft continues to push out competitive solutions, not only on the operating system market(re: Linux), but also in the software solution market, Microsoft may find themselves being filled against not only by governmental bodies, but also by other software companies... Now THERE'S something I'd like to see, microsoft being sued for punative damages in a class action suit involving 1000 SOFTARE COMPANIES FROM AROUND THE WORLD. HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

    In case any of you hadn't noticed, WINXP doesn't recognize Linux systems or Files shares on a network (effectively forcing any office wishing to use WINXP to use ONLY WINXP ).

    No, joke. Don't believe me? Find a pirated version and check it out yourself. (Activation codes? Yeah Right. You didn't really we were gonna have pay for that SHIT did'ja Bill?)

    Are you getting the feeling that perhaps MicroFUX is a little more intimidated by *nix users than they're letting on?

    Anyway, just my 10 cents, you can keep the change :)

  253. This is one of those times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you feel like screaming explitives with all you got. Because you know there is only one reason they can get away with this... And just what the #@*% are you going to do about it?!?

    Damn! I feel like I am dealing with the Mafia. Pretty soon, if I am not using the proper MS software, somebody with a baseball bat is going to come and bash my head in.

  254. switch to speakeasy and f*ck m$n bastards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you have the isp speakeasy in your area, sign up right now and drop the spineless bastards as soon as you can. if you read your tos (and you *do* read every word, right?) you cannot beat speakeasy. as long as you're a "good netizen" (e.g. don't run p*rn servers) they let you run any service you want. as it should be. have had them over one year and have had excellent connectivity and customer service. i'd pay twice what i currently pay for speakeasy, a isp that respects you, treats you like an adult, and provides good value. and no i don't work for them. i just hope covad says afloat :(

  255. Accessibility by kimihia · · Score: 1

    I know this may seem strange, but can I just say: full credit to the web designers at Qwest for their work on that page. It was the most accessible web page I have seen as well. I couldn't find a single fault.

    They had clear URLs that reveal site structure, all images have relevant ALT tags, proper use of HTML entities (not extended characters), abbreviation expansions.

    Top marks.

    Now we return you to your regularly scheduled anti-MSN flaming ...

  256. Their plan is to keep track of you thru passports by fractaltiger · · Score: 1

    when your account gets too large to be active or maintainable. If you have noticed, they cancel your hotmail account (and PASSPORT) if it hasn't been used for 3 months. I had a close call returning from summer vacation to find my account almost deleted.

    I know this is a plan to have me try to get a new passport when my old one "dies" / becomes non-current for MS info-hungry databases. Consider MS's plan to make every XP user get a passport. It makes sense they'd want everyone to update their personal info and therefore make passports easily expirable like the XP non-registration issue.

    Now that I think about it, what happens when you have never had a passport, get one to make XP shut up, and then you never use it? Will XP notice and start reminding you again? Will it threaten us to shut down the OS if you don't keep it current by proving you have the latest?

    --
    "Wireless : LAN :: Laptop : Desktop"
  257. MS security holes and ISPs that are down 24/7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They will have problems, I smell .vbs files and javascript files and all those nice viruses that everyone else has to worry about. My ISP (telus.net) has shutdown port 80 way back from NIMDA. I have nothing to say about ISPs that choose to run only one product, especially with the track record of Outlook and Outlook Express. I am tired of being penalized for other peoples choice in insecure software. I think the doom of the ISP is near. I just laugh whenever a new outlook virus comes out. Then I cringe because everyone asks me about it. I should just give them the microsoft phone number.

  258. True story of the Pig by Myuu · · Score: 1

    The true story is that MSN rents bandwidth, but most of the companies MSN was in bed with went out of business. As previously stated, Qwest has a hell of a lot of bandwidth, so basically they were able to get MSN in a very profitable position and exploit the deal. All '.Net Internet Access' accounts supposedly are forcively transitioned by Nov 20 (?). How Mac users are gonna get out of I don't know. Customers will pay the same for a year and MSN will bill on the Qwest phone bill. If you call the Qwest tech support number you will probably be able to get more info than I am willing to type.

    I have to stay in the loop since I am a DSL tech for Qwest =)

    ~Myuu

    --

    forget it.
  259. Re:SPAMMER TOOLS by evilviper · · Score: 2

    I've been trying to submit (what I consider to be) a bug to CERT that allows spammers to KNOW if an account is alive, and being checked.

    All a spamer has to do is include a 1-pixel image in the email that has a URL such as:
    http://www.spammersite.com/image1.jpg?username@yah oo.com

    This way, they look at their webserver logs, and they have a pretty list of all the email addresses where people ARE DEFINATELY checking their email.

    What's the easy solution? For email clients and web sites not to display any images UNLESS they are inline (i.e. an attachment).

    So, SPAMMERs, SPAM away. It seems that (just like the 9-11 attacks) no-one cares enough to stop you. I suggest you exploit it as horrendously as possible, and flood our unsecured email system with loads of crap. Maybe then people will get off their ass and see the system needs to be improved (with SPAMFILTER being the best solution currently: http://www.munts.com/spamfilter/) or else it's just as dangerous as a fully-fueled airplane overhead.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  260. Just found this: by Chasing+Amy · · Score: 2

    A demonstration of my point, from the VMWare site itself:

    http://www.vmware.com/products/desktop/img/linux 5. jpg

    --

    Chasing Amy
    (We all chase Amy...)
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
  261. Are you ignoring MS-exchange on purpose or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are you just not very well informed about "corporate types" ?

  262. SPA Encryption. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seen the precedents, I am sure that SPA Encryption
    is something stupid like your username+email xored
    with "Linux Users Are Wheenies"

  263. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  264. Re:SPAMMER TOOLS by Erasmus+Darwin · · Score: 2
    "I've been trying to submit (what I consider to be) a bug to CERT that allows spammers to KNOW if an account is alive, and being checked. All a spamer has to do is include a 1-pixel image in the email"

    Sounds like a standard email web bug to me. CERT might be ignoring you, not because it isn't a problem, but because it's already a known issue. A quick google search on '"web bugs" email' gives several thousands hits. There's also been some web bug coverage on Slashdot -- I'm fairly sure that I first heard about them either on here or in comp.risks.

  265. Are you ignorant of threading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read the message the above was in response to.

  266. Re:SPAMMER TOOLS by evilviper · · Score: 2

    CERT seems to be the only place that exposed bugs get much attention. That was the whole reason I went off ranting about airline safety... It's simple, and anyone can see the problem, but nobody cares enough to fix it.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  267. While we're at it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it bald-faced lying or bold-faced lying? I always get those confused.

  268. ENLARGE YOUR PEINS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes! Bigger heads on hammers now!! Much better for destroying computers with.

  269. Try the TDK VeloCD. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bought the TDK VeloCD. It rocks.
    And it comes with Nero.
    --corky6921

  270. SE Portland, OR: DSL from Qwest and Hevanet. by Futurepower(tm) · · Score: 2


    SE Portland here. If you had Hevanet, there would have been no hell.
    Only good stuff.

    --
    Bush's education improvements were
  271. Re:Third Party smtp -- is BAD by iCEBaLM · · Score: 2

    and no, having official correspondence go out under @msn.com isn't an option.

    If the users are ashamed to be using MSN for email and/or dialup then why are they?

    -- iCEBaLM

  272. Re:You forget the anti-spam nazi's have blocked th by Fencepost · · Score: 2
    That depends on the ISP. Not all block outbound SMTP (in fact, it seems mostly to be the larger national ones that do) and not all enforce the From: address. For the second point, MSN is actually the first that I've seen doing this.



    Using Worldnet's consumer service as an example:

    • outbound SMTP is blocked, but after your account has been active for 30 days you can request that that be lifted
    • there's not a restriction on what return address you use, though there may be headers added with identification information - I've not sent much mail through Worldnet to find out
    • the mail server is generally not reachable from the rest of the Internet, but you can adjust your account settings to allow you to get mail from outside addresses via either browser or SSL tunneled POP3


    With smaller regional ISPs even these steps may not be necessary, but it'll vary by ISP. Some hosting providers may also start providing alternatives for connecting to send mail (SSL tunneling, redirected ports, etc.) if there's demand for them.
    --
    fencepost
    just a little off
  273. Qwest does not support Linux... by BlueTT · · Score: 1

    Qwest will only sell you DSL if you answer their "What OS are you running" question with Windows or MacOS.

    Thus, in the Qwest statement "eligible" means Windows customers, who already have the MSN-imposed mail programs for free on their systems.

    As far as Qwest is concerned, the only other customers are Mac owners, and a solution for them will be imposed shortly.

    So, for Linux folks like me, the option may be to use my Mac for email access or to spend twice as much per month for Qwest's Business DSL service, which will stay qwest.net (Qwest only sold their "home accounts" to MSN...)

  274. But you have to disconnect to change ISPs... by BlueTT · · Score: 1

    Here's the dirty little secret, though.

    If you want to change ISPs, you have to cancel your DSL service and re-order it, because they have to reprovision things at the CO.

    So, you lose DSL service for at least a few weeks, get put to the back of the provisioning line (so if your CO is short on DSLAM connections, you lose), and of course they have far fewer connections available for third party ISPs, so the wait may be even longer.

    In short it's "sure, you can change ISPs, but don't expect to have service back for six months or more..."

    1. Re:But you have to disconnect to change ISPs... by Kagato · · Score: 2

      Wrong on all accounts. Not to say a sales person might take a short cut and tell you that's how things have to go. It's a change order. All they do is change where the ATM config to redirect your traffic. If an ISP change was a cancel and a new order then old DSL users would get switched from CAP to DMT. Meaning they would have to buy a new modem. (675 to 678). They don't.

      As far as connections on the DSLAM there should be no preferential treatment to MSN/Qwest over a third party ISP. If you have evidence of that I'd love to see it since it violates at least one settlement agreement U S West signed with a State PUC/Attorny General.

  275. Re:Third Party smtp -- is BAD by J.+Random+Software · · Score: 1

    Because they have their own domain? I can imagine how painful it'd be if I had to ssh to my web host every time I wanted to send mail (and I'm lucky enough to have a shell account that isn't trapped behind my cable modem with the evil ToS, and know how to use it).

  276. Re:Routing problems. by cornice · · Score: 1

    I didn't have troubles with _my_ router (Cisco 675). Qwest seemed to have problems on their network all the time. I would have troubles reaching Slashdot and I would call Qwest support telling them that I was logged into my router and I could trace route up to xxx.xxx.xxx and they would usually tell me to click my Start Button...

  277. dude, what a load of nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The concept of "double negative" as applied to natural language is nonsense. You are talking about negative concord, which is a system of constraints requiring certain grammatical items (e.g. determiners, pronouns) to be expressed with a special form under the scope of negation. All varieties of English show negative concord; the difference between the ones with "double negation" and the standard ones is the choice of words used under the scope of negation. The grammatical rules are essentially the same in both kinds of dialect.