🚀 go-pugleaf

I agree with the advertising issue with some POP services (actually, my
Yahoo! account receives about 1 piece of spam per quarter - not bad!).
LImited functionality is not really the case though - I can POP and SMTP
into it just as well as my Road Runner/Cox accounts.  In fact, it is much
quicker.  Probably because they are using Qmail and FreeBSD :-)

The 99% reliability is about right - much better than the @Home Email
service by far.  I've never had to use customer support for anything (except
calling to @Home to see what the devil is wrong now with their Email).

Just my 2 cents here - in any case, I would take a small text ad in my Email
(only get this if it is sent from the website in Yahoo's case, if you send
directlyto another SMTP server from your own Email client, no ads or text at
all) rather than very limited functionality.


"Mike Blackford" <mblackford@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:3A76695F.82D329FB@spamcop.net...
> Brian wrote:
> >
> > Easy solution - use another POP/SMTP provider.  Even though I don't use
> > @Home (Road Runner), I use Yahoo! and a few other free POP accounts
> > (mailandnews.com) that work flawlessly every time I pop into them or
send
> > mail out via SMTP to them.
> >
> > Friends of mine who have @Home hate the Email service also, and most
have
> > gone the route I have.  Broadband into Yahoo! mail for instance - works
> > great.
> >
> > Just an idea.
>
> Yes, and this is a rational alternative to some extent. There *are* some
> things to consider, however.  Free email services have some downsides:
> many embed ads in the email, their reliability isn't 99%, they have
> limited functionality, there's no pretense of a customer 'support'
> function that can be expected to respond to outages or failures, and there
> is absolutely no consumer leverage where a fee isn't being paid.  Not all
> have every downside, or even most, of course. YMMV.  (I've examined and
> monitored about a dozen of these services for the past 6-12 months.)
>
> Thus, for reasonably reliable, ad-free, full featured email, I pay
> $35/year to an email ISP for each account.  AT&T@Home promises seven email
> accounts in their advertising.  $35 x 7 = $245/year.  Thus, @Home's
> failure to provide what they promise (and what other businesses
> consistently demonstrate *can* be delivered) can be thought of as an
> overcharge of $15-$20/month based on market prices.  When you multiply
> that by about 3,000,000 subscribers, it's a hefty chunk of change ... "Up
> to" $735,000,000 per year.
>
> Since when is it a legitimate business practice to keep fees for services
> not delivered? The last time I checked, the Uniform Commercial Code
> "frowned" upon such practices.
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~ "Fish will be the last to discover water."  (Einstein) ~~~~~~~~
> Zvxr Oynpxsbeq       Fvyvpba Inyyrl, Pnyvsbeavn       zvxr@oynpxsbeq.pbz