[oclug] Hotmail Fiasco

[Rod Giffin]

This is a problem for any consultants or temporary government employees.  
They are not always given e-mail accounts where they work.  Fortunatly my 
service offers both  web and  pop3 account access, but it's also quite 
expensive.  A lot of others ended up with hotmail accounts because it was 
easy and free.

I vote, by the way, for doing nothing here on OCLUG, at least for now, as a 
matter of principle.   Besides which we don't generally get bogged down in 
issues encumbered by intellectual property laws anyway.

Rod.
 
On Wednesday 04 April 2001 19:13, Dave Edwards wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2001 18:02:17 -0500  Chris Herrnberger wrote:
> > Followup article form the Register. This is getting good...:)
> >
> > see http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/18106.html
> >
> > As they put it, brief summary:
> >
> > Passport to hell
> >
> > "We've had letters from Hotmail users ranging from IT consultants to
> > Hollywood
> > screenwriters vowing never to use the service again. (We'll post a
> > selection
> > shortly). And some websites are reciprocating Microsoft's Passport
> > terms, by
> > beginning to block Hotmail email too. Steve Litt of Troubleshooters.com
> > revised his own terms to block Passport services. Moongroup simply
> > blocks
> > incoming postings from Hotmail, MSN, or Microsoft itself. "
> >
> > heheh ah this is gonna be fun.
>
> It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.  In the meantime, what do
> we do here on OCLUG?  When I posted my suggestion of a rejection of
> MSN/Passport packets from OCLUG servers, I received a (very civil) note
> off-list from an active member which  explained how that action would
> probably lead to his un-subscription, owing to the networking arrangement
> at his workplace.  That's probably true in more than one case, and
> therefore I think our response to this issue should resemble Dan York's
> suggestion:   that  messages be automatically sent to those who interact
> with
> OCLUG via MSN/Passport services, at least in the short term.  Maybe a
> special header, if that's possible.