MSN Forces Outlook POP 729
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.
uh, isn't pop3 open? (Score:3, Interesting)
microsoft == spam central (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
already slashdotted? Well how can they tell (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Talk about anticompetitive... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:uh, isn't pop3 open? (Score:2, Interesting)
if they really wanted to stop spam (Score:5, 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. I basically just had it because. After MS took over it litterally filled the account with junk mail.
One way to find out... (Score:5, Interesting)
user user
pass password
list
Replace popserver.msn.com with the actual pop3 server. I have no clue what it actually is.
Ok, where's Outlook for Linux? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:are you sure? (Score:2, Interesting)
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..."
Re:uh, isn't pop3 open? (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.
Re:Third Party smtp (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:For all those who defend M$ here. (Score:3, Interesting)
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...
Re:Third Party smtp (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:if they really wanted to stop spam (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:microsoft == spam central (Score:2, Interesting)
What OS choices are there in the OS Input Form? (Score:2, Interesting)
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?
Re:Third Party smtp -- is BAD (Score:3, Interesting)
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-aut
http://www.qmail.org/top.html (look for "authenticate")
http://www.sendmail.org/~ca/email/auth.html
99 Trial Baloons (Score:3, Interesting)
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...
Re:SPA (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:what?! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:the more you tighten you grip (Score:3, Interesting)
Outbound 25 is still outbound 25 (Score:4, Interesting)
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]
Not when they are an anti-competitive monopoly. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
For what its worth... (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe they will start an investigation into Quest.net?
Re:what?! (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Uh.... (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
Boeing Airlines. (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Just a guess (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:One way to find out... (Score:2, Interesting)
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?
I am a Qwest customer and have more info. (Score:4, Interesting)
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 [arizonarepublic.com]. 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.
Not to get needlessly complex, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
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
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...