courtesy of slashdot...
short version: this is interesting—a columnist ran a test to verify something long alleged about microsoft’s paid hotmail service. the allegation? that hotmail simply nukes e-mails that have attachments. the test results: based upon 100 e-mails sent at various times through various ISPs and using only the web-based interface rather than any e-mail clients such as outlook or thunderbird, 81 were lost. long version here.
commentary: while the linked article alleges mail fraud (i’m not at all clear on whether the same laws that govern snail mail also govern e-mail), i think that’s way overstating the case here. but i think there are 2 key questions that do remain:
1) for paid accounts, is it fair to say you offer mail service if e-mails with attachments fail to be delivered or sent by you? fraud or deceptive advertising laws would certainly apply in this case.
2) why use hotmail when better alternatives exist, such as gmail? does anybody use hotmail? even with a paid hotmail account you get 2 gigabytes of storage vs the 25+ gigabytes you would get with gmail. for free.
does anybody have any more information about hotmail accounts, either free or paid?
ed



