email from comcast
Tim
was sent by them. It started out with,
ACTION REQUIRED: Comcast has determined that your computer(s) have been used
to send unsolicited email ("spam"), which is generally an indicator of a
virus. For your own protection and that of other Comcast customers, we have
taken steps to prevent further transmission of spam from your computer(s).
I went to the web page they said to do because I would Outlook and I still
could not send emails. I called the support number and found that person to
be little help. I then when to live chat and this time the tech was NO help.
I called the support number and the girl said she would connect me to
Microsoft. I said NO this is a problem with Comcast blocking my outgoing
emails. A couple minutes later the problem was found and corrected. My sent
file shows an average of 4 emails a day for the past two weeks. Most have
been to Comcast missedspam.
FurPaw
> I received an email from Comcast that sent a flag up so I called them and it
> was sent by them. It started out with,
> ACTION REQUIRED: Comcast has determined that your computer(s) have been used
> to send unsolicited email ("spam"), which is generally an indicator of a
> virus. For your own protection and that of other Comcast customers, we have
> taken steps to prevent further transmission of spam from your computer(s).
> My sent
> file shows an average of 4 emails a day for the past two weeks. Most have
> been to Comcast missedspam.
Aha! Clearly, you were spamming Comcast!
FurPaw
--
The plural of anecdote is not proof.
To reply, unleash the dogs
Tom
> Tim wrote:
>> I received an email from Comcast that sent a flag up so I called
>> them and it was sent by them. It started out with,
>> ACTION REQUIRED: Comcast has determined that your computer(s) have
>> been used to send unsolicited email ("spam"), which is generally an
>> indicator of a virus. For your own protection and that of other
>> Comcast customers, we have taken steps to prevent further
>> transmission of spam from your computer(s).
>
>> My sent
>> file shows an average of 4 emails a day for the past two weeks. Most
>> have been to Comcast missedspam.
>
> Aha! Clearly, you were spamming Comcast!
I know you're joking, but I got the same message about a month ago. And it
is rather disconcerting for them to claim;
"Comcast has determined that your computer(s) have
been used to send unsolicited email ("spam"), which is generally an
indicator of a virus."
When you know (or at least I knew) nothing of the sort happened. If it had,
my firewalls would have stopped it. And even if the firewalls failed, my
logs would have shown an unusual amount outbound traffic from any/all of my
machines. Of which, there was none.
All Comcast really wants in that message is for people to change their SMTP
port from 25 to 587.
So why the scare tactics?
Probably to make people *think* they're infected, and get them to download
that invasive, bloated, McAfee Security Suite they've been pushing for a
while now.
Tim
"FurPaw" <furrea...@gmaildog.com> wrote in message
news:AKOdncDU284IQK_V...@comcast.com...
Barry Margolin
> All Comcast really wants in that message is for people to change their SMTP
> port from 25 to 587.
>
> So why the scare tactics?
>
> Probably to make people *think* they're infected, and get them to download
> that invasive, bloated, McAfee Security Suite they've been pushing for a
> while now.
Someone posted the same claim in the Comcast E-mail forum a few days
ago, and a Comcast mail engineer insists that the are NOT doing this.
My suspicion is that Comcast doesn't bother to investigate reports of
spamming. So if there's a complaint, no matter how valid it is, they'll
put a port 25 block on your modem. As far as they're concerned, forcing
you to switch to port 587 is not a big deal (this is the recommended
port for mail submission -- port 25 is just supposed to be for
server-to-server communication now), so it's easier than expending all
the resources necessary to investigate every spamming report.
Some ISPs do block port 25 across the board.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
NormanM
> I received an email from Comcast that sent a flag up so I called them and it
> was sent by them. It started out with,
> ACTION REQUIRED: Comcast has determined that your computer(s) have been used
> to send unsolicited email ("spam"), which is generally an indicator of a
> virus. For your own protection and that of other Comcast customers, we have
> taken steps to prevent further transmission of spam from your computer(s).
My recommended course of action:
1. Run a number of scans, just to satisfy yourself that nothing is amiss.
2. Change your client to use port 587 for message submission to
'smtp.comcast.net'. Regardless of the results of your scans. Most people
don't need access to port 25 for message submission any more.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
Tim
"Barry Margolin" <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:barmar-0F5AAE....@newsgroups.comcast.net...
Jim T.
A few days ago my email to a Hotmail address was rejected by Hotmail,
stating that there had been complaints about spam coming from my IP.
The address given was not mine, so I assumed that it was Comcast.
Called Comcast and just got stupid answers. Gave up, and the next day
mail went through just fine. Never got an explanation.
This was at the same time that my newsgroup access was denied. I spent
muctime with several Comcast reps without any satisfaction. Later I
found out about the authentication outage. They didn't bother to tell
the poor reps!!!!
catpandaddy
"Jim T." <suenjim4....@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:c0h834h2v5bcpb7a3...@4ax.com...
>>
> A few days ago my email to a Hotmail address was rejected by Hotmail,
> stating that there had been complaints about spam coming from my IP.
> The address given was not mine, so I assumed that it was Comcast.
> Called Comcast and just got stupid answers. Gave up, and the next day
> mail went through just fine. Never got an explanation.
> This was at the same time that my newsgroup access was denied. I spent
> muctime with several Comcast reps without any satisfaction. Later I
> found out about the authentication outage. They didn't bother to tell
> the poor reps!!!!
You couldn't pay me enough to be a customer support rep at Comcast, if they
aren't being kept in the loop as it seems they aren't. Sounds just
thankless!
R. Lynn Rardin
Jim T. <suenjim4....@comcast.net> wrote:
> A few days ago my email to a Hotmail address was rejected by Hotmail,
> stating that there had been complaints about spam coming from my IP.
> Called Comcast and just got stupid answers. Gave up, and the next day
> mail went through just fine. Never got an explanation.
Same thing happened to my sister a couple days ago.
--
R. Lynn Rardin
Rolf R
"Tim" <T&L...@askme.net> wrote:
I had a similar problem. Comcast is using a stupid automatic Window Live
Hot program that is causing these problems.
Users get irritated because right or wrong they accused them and
sentenced them at the same time. This seems to me is totally illegal.
Sometimes they try to force the user to get a MacAfee virus detector for
free, yet it is only for Windows users, everyone else is irrelevant for
Comcast.
This Windows Live Hot application has vague indication that this monster
company is setting its eyes besides yahoo, on the control of the
Internet, which they can do if they succeed.
Rolf R
imposed by Microsoft, Windows Hot Live or Live Hot, I don't remember,
this is causing a lot of false accusation and false sentences from which
you have no way to reinvidicate.
daytripper
>All fingers point to one culprit, an automatic stupid application being
>imposed by Microsoft, Windows Hot Live or Live Hot, I don't remember,
>this is causing a lot of false accusation and false sentences from which
>you have no way to reinvidicate.
"reinvidicate"?
So, Mac's come with a broken spell checker now? ;-)
catpandaddy
"daytripper" <day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:60493495o8eoq9dvl...@4ax.com...
Yeah, I had to pah-u-say my recordification device a couple times when I saw
that word. ;-)
Anthony Marsh
I still have some kook trying to use one of my e-mail addresses and
Comcast doesn't care to fix the problem.
Anthony Marsh
Which is why all the newsgroup software automatically uses port 25!
Anthony Marsh
> In article <g0upr6$c6o$1...@aioe.org>, "Tom" <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
>> All Comcast really wants in that message is for people to change their SMTP
>> port from 25 to 587.
>>
>> So why the scare tactics?
>>
>> Probably to make people *think* they're infected, and get them to download
>> that invasive, bloated, McAfee Security Suite they've been pushing for a
>> while now.
>
> Someone posted the same claim in the Comcast E-mail forum a few days
> ago, and a Comcast mail engineer insists that the are NOT doing this.
>
> My suspicion is that Comcast doesn't bother to investigate reports of
> spamming. So if there's a complaint, no matter how valid it is, they'll
> put a port 25 block on your modem. As far as they're concerned, forcing
> you to switch to port 587 is not a big deal (this is the recommended
> port for mail submission -- port 25 is just supposed to be for
> server-to-server communication now), so it's easier than expending all
> the resources necessary to investigate every spamming report.
>
Except that nowhere does Comcast tell its users to use port 587 and
almost all software automatically puts in port 25.
> Some ISPs do block port 25 across the board.
>
Real ISPs have real customer support.
catpandaddy
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Me2dnRSZgMzpPqnV...@comcast.com...
Newsgroups are port 119.
NormanM
> Which is why all the newsgroup software automatically uses port 25!
None of my newsgroup software automatically uses port 25. If I want to
access NNTP service, I need port 119.
NormanM
> I still have some kook trying to use one of my e-mail addresses and
> Comcast doesn't care to fix the problem.
If you mean some spammer is forging your email address, causing misdirected
bounce to come back to you, there is nothing that Comcast can do about that.
NormanM
> I had a similar problem. Comcast is using a stupid automatic Window Live
> Hot program that is causing these problems.
What is a "Windows Live Hot" program? And how does this affect what Comcast
is doing to generate those letters?
> Users get irritated because right or wrong they accused them and
> sentenced them at the same time. This seems to me is totally illegal.
Cite which laws are being violated. And what problem is caused by imposing a
port 25 block, when you are given an alternative port to use for message
submission?
> Sometimes they try to force the user to get a MacAfee virus detector for
> free, yet it is only for Windows users, everyone else is irrelevant for
> Comcast.
Windows is the only OS for which a security suite is available.
> This Windows Live Hot application has vague indication that this monster
> company is setting its eyes besides yahoo, on the control of the
> Internet, which they can do if they succeed.
This "Windows Live Hot" application doesn't exist.
NormanM
> Except that nowhere does Comcast tell its users to use port 587...
http://help.comcast.net/#e72bebb6-8e08-4377-8211-73c55eb45872
Drill down through the "High-Speed Internet" help menus and look for,
"Email". They even have a section on how to configure Thunderbird for
Comcast email; including a section titled, "How to configure Thunderbird to
use port 587 for sending e-mail".
> ...and almost all software automatically puts in port 25.
Which is wholly irrelevant because every ISP/ESP which offers message
submission access on port 587 has an online help page describing how to
configure your favorite email client to use port 25.
>> Some ISPs do block port 25 across the board.
> Real ISPs have real customer support.
I have no trouble fining my way around the Comcast online help pages. The
only problem is that Comcast online help is now all Flash, so I can't just
grab a URL as I used to do. And my ISP NNTP servers pitches graphical
attachments, so showing you a picture is out of the question.
Rolf R
NormanM <they...@spam.this.invalid> wrote:
Windows Live Hotmail
Rolf R
NormanM <they...@spam.this.invalid> wrote:
> > Users get irritated because right or wrong they accused them and
> > sentenced them at the same time. This seems to me is totally illegal.
>
> Cite which laws are being violated. And what problem is caused by imposing a
> port 25 block, when you are given an alternative port to use for message
> submission?
You think it is legal to accuse someone without proof and then give him
a sentence? Where do you live? In Cuba?
Rolf R
Bob <ps...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Windows Live Hotmail?
Good somebody who thinks!
Yes, Mail rejected by Windows Live Hotmail
Those who have the time and the interest should look into this deeply
instead of asking wise ass questions.
Rolf R
"catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
You are absolutely right, the macintosh spell checker did not catch the
typo because the word "reinvindicate" is not in their checker, neither
in their dictionary.
Rolf R
daytripper <day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
You are absolutely right. Mac's spell checker does not include the word
reinvindicate, neither their dictionary, that was why it did not catch
the typo. Any macuser can attest to that.
daytripper
Well, that doesn't make any sense at all - if a nonsensical word isn't in a
spell checker's library, it should flag the nonsensical word, not let it
through. If that's the way "spell checking" actually works on a Mac, be
*really* careful next time you type up a resume ;-)
I've searched many on-line dictionaries and have yet to find any authoritative
recognition of "reinvindicate". I can certainly find citations using that
"word", but none of them are authoritative - so they all must be Mac users ;-)
fwiw, the closest real word I can find that is somewhat close to what I think
you meant to say is "revindicate" - but that wouldn't be proper, if one puts
any stock in Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. "Vindicate" is certainly better.
All in fun...
Barry Margolin
Rolf R <R1...@none.net> wrote:
Comcast is not a government, and denying service to a customer is not
sentencing them to jail.
Private businesses are not required to observe due process in their
customer interactions. As long as they aren't violating
anti-discrimination laws, they can provide and refuse service to whoever
they want.
Anthony Marsh
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 18:22:04 -0400, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>> I still have some kook trying to use one of my e-mail addresses and
>> Comcast doesn't care to fix the problem.
>
> If you mean some spammer is forging your email address, causing misdirected
> bounce to come back to you, there is nothing that Comcast can do about that.
>
Yes, I know. That one user name is a very common word that some jerk
used to placate some online store which required an e-mail address.
Anthony Marsh
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 18:34:23 -0400, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>> Which is why all the newsgroup software automatically uses port 25!
>
> None of my newsgroup software automatically uses port 25. If I want to
> access NNTP service, I need port 119.
>
Courier, Thunderbird, etc. defaulted to port 25.
Anthony Marsh
We meant sending out mail, replies to newsgroups.
Steve Baker
The fact that you're not making sense kinda leads to asking
questions. It turns out that you've conflated two separate issues. The
fact that Hotmail has been refusing email from the Comcast servers has
nothing at all to do with port 25 blocking.
--
Steve Baker
Rolf R
daytripper <day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> fwiw, the closest real word I can find that is somewhat close to what I think
> you meant to say is "revindicate" - but that wouldn't be proper, if one puts
> any stock in Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. "Vindicate" is certainly better.
I agree with this. However, these are just Byzantine discussions that
distract the reader from the real core of what is being posted.
Byzantine Christians (who else) when surrounded by the Durkos entertain
their brains trying to find answer to paramount questions such as, "how
many angels fit on the head of a pin..." That is why Byzantium is now
called Istanbul.
catpandaddy
"Bill" <no...@none.invalid> wrote in message
news:7l1a345mvu1tl3050...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 00:44:35 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>catpandaddy wrote:
>>>
>>> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Me2dnRSZgMzpPqnV...@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Newsgroups are port 119.
>>
>>We meant sending out mail, replies to newsgroups.
>
I'm sorry, I wasn't able to read this reply. Please forward to my personal
email. :-)
NormanM
> NormanM wrote:
Not Thunderbird. Not for newsgroups. Thunderbird, as MS Outlook Express,
SeaMonkey, Opera, Windows Live Mail, and 40tude Dialog, (and a raft of
older, obsolete "newsgroup software") all defaulted to port 119 for NNTP
access when I installed them (and most defaulted to port 563 for NNTPS
access).
NormanM
> In article <1ij437vy...@giganews.comcast.net>,
> NormanM <they...@spam.this.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
>> This "Windows Live Hot" application doesn't exist.
> Windows Live Hotmail
Windows Live Hotmail is a service, not an application.
NormanM
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 17:25:06 -0700, NormanM
> <they...@spam.this.invalid> wrote:
>>This "Windows Live Hot" application doesn't exist.
> Windows Live Hotmail?
Is Windows Live Hotail an "application"? From where I sit, it is a
"service", not an "application".
NormanM
> In article <tik934dlcc842f1jj...@4ax.com>,
> Bob <ps...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Windows Live Hotmail?
> Good somebody who thinks!
Maybe. But you called Windows Live Hotmail an application which it most
definitely is not. Windows Live Hotmail is a service.
> Yes, Mail rejected by Windows Live Hotmail
>
> Those who have the time and the interest should look into this deeply
> instead of asking wise ass questions.
People who are ignorant about the difference between "application" and
"service" are in serious need of an education.
Comcast is not "using a stupid automatic Window Live Hot program"; in fact,
Comcast is using a Unix mail host, which is as far from a Windows
application as you can get.
The Comcast letter was not automatically generated by "Windows" anything;
rather, it likely was generated in response to a complaint to Comcast abuse
from somebody like myself (who routinely uses SpamCop.net to report spam to
the operator of the offending IP address). It is not illegal for me to send
a report to "abuse at" about spam coming from
'c-24-18-69-12.hsd1.wa.comcast.net', either based on the spam item in my
mailbox, or in my MTA logs, thus:
| T 20080518 113203 482c43f9 Connection from 24.18.69.12
| T 20080518 113204 482c43f9 EHLO c-24-18-69-12.hsd1.wa.comcast.net
| T 20080518 113205 482c43f9 MAIL FROM:<dd...@boverman.com>
| E 20080518 113205 482c43f9 Host 24.18.69.12 blocked by Spamhaus - message rejected.
| T 20080518 113206 482c43f9 Connection closed with 24.18.69.12, 3 sec. elapsed.
Nor is it illegal for Comcast to check their logs, based on the date/time in
my report; and, on finding supporting evidence of that claim in their own
logs, notifying their customer of a potential problem.
And, if the evidence they see suggests some kind of malware infestation, why
shouldn't they promote some kind of security suite?
And none of this has anything to do with the aspirations of the Microsoft
Corporation. But it does point out how woefully inadequate is your
understanding of "the way things work".
NormanM
I think that it is perfectly reasonable for a corporation, upon inspection
of their logs, and finding a problem, to suggest to somebody that they have
a problem, and what steps to take to fix the problem. And cutting off your
access to outbound port 25 is in no way remotely comparable to putting you
in jail.
Anthony Marsh
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 00:43:14 -0400, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>> NormanM wrote:
>
>>> On Wed, 21 May 2008 18:34:23 -0400, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>>>> Which is why all the newsgroup software automatically uses port 25!
>
>>> None of my newsgroup software automatically uses port 25. If I want to
>>> access NNTP service, I need port 119.
>
>> Courier, Thunderbird, etc. defaulted to port 25.
>
> Not Thunderbird. Not for newsgroups. Thunderbird, as MS Outlook Express,
> SeaMonkey, Opera, Windows Live Mail, and 40tude Dialog, (and a raft of
> older, obsolete "newsgroup software") all defaulted to port 119 for NNTP
> access when I installed them (and most defaulted to port 563 for NNTPS
> access).
>
I tried SSL with port 563 for Comcast and get the authentication error
again.
Rolf R
NormanM <they...@spam.this.invalid> wrote:
> People who are ignorant about the difference between "application" and
> "service" are in serious need of an education.
Why don't you enlighten us all, you genius. Doesn't a "service" or
disservice need the use of an application?
If it is an application, it is a internet controlling gimmick.
If it is a "service" does not serve users.
Rolf R
NormanM <they...@spam.this.invalid> wrote:
> People who are ignorant about the difference between "application" and
> "service" are in serious need of an education.
You can be all the sycophant you want to without lashing out insults.
NormanM
> NormanM wrote:
>>> NormanM wrote:
I see that you have yet to grasp the situation. All of those clients are
"Mail" ***AND*** "News" clients. Mail is handled using two protocols. For
receiving, either IMAP, or POP3.
IMAP: Port 143
IMAPS: Port 993
POP3: Port 110
POP3S: Port 995
Outbound email is handled using the SMTP protocol.
SMTP: Port 25, or port 587 (server dependendent).
SMTPS: Port 465
Newsgroup access uses the NNTP protocol.
NNTP: Port 119
NNTPS: Port 563
The server administrators of the various types of servers decide which
protocols the servers will use. You, as the end user, are constrained to use
whatever protocols (and ports) the server administrators have decided to
implement. So you need to follow the directions given by your service
provider.
Comcast uses:
For news service, port 119
For email message submission, port 25 (unless blocked), port 587, or port
465 with SSL (you do get to choose; but, should Comcast put a port 25
blocking profile in place, you don't get to use port 25).
For downloading email, port 110, or port 995 with SSL.
There is ***NO*** writ which requires that you have to use port 25 for
message submission. The fact that mail clients default to port 25 is an
programmer's artifact. You are required to set up your server name, user
name, and password for account access anyway. It should not be a problem to
make appropriate changes to the various configuration fields; especially
when Comcast actually has web pages showing you what to put in each field.
Just visit their online help pages.
People who are too rigid to bend with the flow of the wind will snap.
NormanM
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 21:55:45 -0700, NormanM
> <they...@spam.this.invalid> wrote:
>>On Wed, 21 May 2008 21:55:38 -0400, Rolf R wrote:
>>> In article <1ij437vy...@giganews.comcast.net>,
>>> NormanM <they...@spam.this.invalid> wrote:
>><snip>
>>>> This "Windows Live Hot" application doesn't exist.
>>> Windows Live Hotmail
>>Windows Live Hotmail is a service, not an application.
> So big deal it is Windows Live that is used to access Windows Live
> Hotmail now.
BZZZZZZZZZZT. Wrong, again. "Windows Live" is a generic collective which
replaces "MSN". There are a number of "Windows Live" services, and two
specific applications:
Windows Live Messener (replaces MSN Messenger)
Windows Live Mail (replaces MS Outlook Express in Windodws XP, and Windows
Mail in Windows Vista).
I can't help it that Microsoft has continued their practice of implementing
confusing nomenclature for their products and their services. All that I can
do is try to provide the score so people can be "on the same sheet of
music".
NormanM
{Shakes head}.
You can't even use the right English terminology to criticize your critic.
Sad.
NormanM
> In article <11s20v9e...@giganews.comcast.net>,
> NormanM <they...@spam.this.invalid> wrote:
>> People who are ignorant about the difference between "application" and
>> "service" are in serious need of an education.
> Why don't you enlighten us all, you genius. Doesn't a "service" or
> disservice need the use of an application?
Well, yes; but you seem unable to grasp that Windows Live Hotmail is not an
application. It is a service which requires either the use of a web browser
(any will do), or an email client (MS Outlook Express will do, for the
foreseeable future, or MS Outlook, or Windows Live Mail).
> If it is an application, it is a internet controlling gimmick.
If it isn't running on your computer; if you can't invoke it from running a
.exe file on your HDD, it isn't an application.
> If it is a "service" does not serve users.
If you have to invoke an application to access it, then it is a service.
catpandaddy
"NormanM" <they...@spam.this.invalid> wrote in message
news:lzt11mxf...@giganews.comcast.net...
> On Fri, 23 May 2008 00:08:50 -0800, Bob wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 22 May 2008 21:55:45 -0700, NormanM
>> <they...@spam.this.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>On Wed, 21 May 2008 21:55:38 -0400, Rolf R wrote:
>
>>>> In article <1ij437vy...@giganews.comcast.net>,
>>>> NormanM <they...@spam.this.invalid> wrote:
>
>>><snip>
>
>>>>> This "Windows Live Hot" application doesn't exist.
>
>>>> Windows Live Hotmail
>
>>>Windows Live Hotmail is a service, not an application.
>
>> So big deal it is Windows Live that is used to access Windows Live
>> Hotmail now.
>
> BZZZZZZZZZZT. Wrong, again.
You're on a roll this week, just handing all these chumps their sorry asses!
catpandaddy
"Bob" <ps...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0uqg3417fel81cdb8...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 24 May 2008 09:25:38 -0700, NormanM
> <they...@spam.this.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 23 May 2008 18:28:08 -0400, Rolf R wrote:
>>
>>> In article <11s20v9e...@giganews.comcast.net>,
>>> NormanM <they...@spam.this.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> People who are ignorant about the difference between "application" and
>>>> "service" are in serious need of an education.
>>
>>> Why don't you enlighten us all, you genius. Doesn't a "service" or
>>> disservice need the use of an application?
>>
>>Well, yes; but you seem unable to grasp that Windows Live Hotmail is not
>>an
>>application. It is a service which requires either the use of a web
>>browser
>>(any will do), or an email client (MS Outlook Express will do, for the
>>foreseeable future,
>
> wants you to download Windows Live Mail instead. Come June 30th,
> Microsoft will be shutting off Hotmail support for Outlook Express
> because the company is switching the protocol used by Hotmail from DAV
> to a newer protocol called DeltaSynch."
You are now moving the goalposts. "Windows Live Mail" is NOT "Windows Live
Hotmail", and I don't even know what in the heck "Windows LiveHot" was
supposed to be.
Referring to things in a more consistent fashion will make it much easier
for others to know what you're talking about. I'm still not sure if these
are intentional or unintentional slipups here.
For the record, WLM is the client, WLHM is the service. "Windows LiveHot"
is just gibberish.
--
catpandaddy
> On Sat, 24 May 2008 09:20:27 -0700, NormanM
> <they...@spam.this.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>> So big deal it is Windows Live that is used to access Windows Live
>>> Hotmail now.
>>
>>BZZZZZZZZZZT. Wrong, again. "Windows Live" is a generic collective which
>>replaces "MSN". There are a number of "Windows Live" services, and two
>>specific applications:
>
> Windows Live
> Free and familiar ways to connect and share
>
> MSN still seems to be there and hasn't been replaced.
> http://www.msn.com/
1) www.msn.com is a WEBPAGE and DOMAIN SPACE.
2) MSN in captial letters with no "www" and no "com" is the MicroSoft
Network itself.
3) Windows Live, Windows Live Mail and Windows Live Hotmail are THREE (3)
separate items.
4) You are either a goalpost mover of the worst kind, or else you are just
in so far over your head that you don't know how to get back out again.
What Norman says below is the proper explanation.
Rolf R
NormanM <they...@spam.this.invalid> wrote:
> You can't even use the right English terminology to criticize your critic.
> Sad.
Using your own manners, you are a twerp.
twerp |tw?rp| (also twirp)
noun informal
a silly or annoying person.
Rolf R
NormanM <they...@spam.this.invalid> wrote:
>
> You can't even use the right English terminology to criticize your critic.
> Sad.
lash out ? figurative attack verbally : he used his thank-you speech to
lash out at critics.
Anthony Marsh
None of that was the problem. When they fixed the authentication error
last week I logged on with my user name sans @comcast.net. When I tried
the SSL I did not change my log-in name and figured out that I had to
then add the @comcast.net for the SSL. It works ok.
NormanM
> On Sat, 24 May 2008 09:25:38 -0700, NormanM
> <they...@spam.this.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 23 May 2008 18:28:08 -0400, Rolf R wrote:
>>> Why don't you enlighten us all, you genius. Doesn't a "service" or
>>> disservice need the use of an application?
>>Well, yes; but you seem unable to grasp that Windows Live Hotmail is not an
>>application. It is a service which requires either the use of a web browser
>>(any will do), or an email client (MS Outlook Express will do, for the
>>foreseeable future,
> "If you use Outlook Express to manage your Hotmail account, Microsoft
> wants you to download Windows Live Mail instead. Come June 30th,
> Microsoft will be shutting off Hotmail support for Outlook Express
> because the company is switching the protocol used by Hotmail from DAV
> to a newer protocol called DeltaSynch."
For those of you who slept with Rip van Winkle:
http://emailsupport.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!5D6F5A79A79B6708!5745.entry
For the foreseeable future (which means until Microsoft announces another
change) MS Outlook Express will continue to work with Windows Live Hotmail.
NormanM
Common usage of the word, "sycophant":
"a self-seeking, servile flatterer; fawning parasite."
NormanM
> In article <w6uer4viyrc7$.d...@giganews.comcast.net>,
> NormanM <they...@spam.this.invalid> wrote:
>> You can't even use the right English terminology to criticize your critic.
>> Sad.
> Using your own manners, you are a twerp.
Better a "twerp" than a "dolt".
Rolf R
NormanM <they...@spam.this.invalid> wrote:
> Better a "twerp" than a "dolt".
Enough of this childish behavior. Grow up.
Christopher Jahn
news:85vg34tjudj61gksh...@4ax.com:
>>3) Windows Live, Windows Live Mail and Windows Live Hotmail
>>are THREE (3) separate items.
>
> Windows Live consists of.....
You should really stop while you're behind.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
Little girls, like butterflies, need no excuse. (Robert A.
Heinlein)
NormanM
> Now that is really official....
Indeed. The 'live.com' domain is as official as it gets.
NormanM
Please look into the mirror when you write those words. You are not my
parent.