🚀 go-pugleaf

Mike Blackford wrote:

> I've updated my analysis of @Home email losses that I've been tracking
> since July 4, 2000. It can be seen at
> http://members.home.com/mblackford/eGroup-chart.htm
>
> The detailed log is at: http://members.home.com/mblackford/eGroup.htm
>
> For the last month, I've logged incoming email losses over 15%.  Needless
> to say, the abysmal performance of @Home's email 'service' has continued
> to deteriorate despite repeated assurances over the last six months or
> more that "we're working on it", "the problem is fixed", and a variety of
> other misrepresentations.
>
> --
> ~ "emails are NOT lost, just delayed." (Excite@Home, Tue, 03 Oct 2000) ~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Zvxr Oynpxsbeq       Fvyvpba Inyyrl, Pnyvsbeavn       zvxr@oynpxsbeq.pbz

I'm not an @Home customer but I'm so sick of hearing about this.  @Home needs
to fire whoever the hell is responsible, NOW!

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.



"Mark Cardwell" <cardwellm@NOSPAMmediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3A76171C.C57E59E7@NOSPAMmediaone.net...
> Mike Blackford wrote:
>
> > I've updated my analysis of @Home email losses that I've been tracking
> > since July 4, 2000. It can be seen at
> > http://members.home.com/mblackford/eGroup-chart.htm
> >
> > The detailed log is at: http://members.home.com/mblackford/eGroup.htm
> >
> > For the last month, I've logged incoming email losses over 15%.
Needless
> > to say, the abysmal performance of @Home's email 'service' has continued
> > to deteriorate despite repeated assurances over the last six months or
> > more that "we're working on it", "the problem is fixed", and a variety
of
> > other misrepresentations.
> >
> > --
> > ~ "emails are NOT lost, just delayed." (Excite@Home, Tue, 03 Oct 2000) ~
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Zvxr Oynpxsbeq       Fvyvpba Inyyrl, Pnyvsbeavn       zvxr@oynpxsbeq.pbz
>
> I'm not an @Home customer but I'm so sick of hearing about this.  @Home
needs
> to fire whoever the hell is responsible, NOW!
>
>

I'm curious as to how you determine email losses.  I'm new to @home and
other than some problems 2 weekends ago, my email seems to be OK.

Lee
Mike Blackford <mblackford@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:3A751633.202FC4A@spamcop.net...
> I've updated my analysis of @Home email losses that I've been tracking
> since July 4, 2000. It can be seen at
> http://members.home.com/mblackford/eGroup-chart.htm
>
> The detailed log is at: http://members.home.com/mblackford/eGroup.htm
>
> For the last month, I've logged incoming email losses over 15%.  Needless
> to say, the abysmal performance of @Home's email 'service' has continued
> to deteriorate despite repeated assurances over the last six months or
> more that "we're working on it", "the problem is fixed", and a variety of
> other misrepresentations.
>
> --
> ~ "emails are NOT lost, just delayed." (Excite@Home, Tue, 03 Oct 2000) ~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Zvxr Oynpxsbeq       Fvyvpba Inyyrl, Pnyvsbeavn       zvxr@oynpxsbeq.pbz

Lee MacMillan wrote:
> 
> I'm curious as to how you determine email losses.  I'm new to @home and
> other than some problems 2 weekends ago, my email seems to be OK.
> 
> Lee
> Mike Blackford <mblackford@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:3A751633.202FC4A@spamcop.net...
> > I've updated my analysis of @Home email losses that I've been tracking
> > since July 4, 2000. It can be seen at
> > http://members.home.com/mblackford/eGroup-chart.htm
> >
> > The detailed log is at: http://members.home.com/mblackford/eGroup.htm
> >
> > For the last month, I've logged incoming email losses over 15%.  Needless
> > to say, the abysmal performance of @Home's email 'service' has continued
> > to deteriorate despite repeated assurances over the last six months or
> > more that "we're working on it", "the problem is fixed", and a variety of
> > other misrepresentations.

See http://members.home.net/mblackford/eGroup-overview.htm and the notes
at the beginning of  http://members.home.com/mblackford/eGroup.htm

-- 
~~~~~~~~ "Fish will be the last to discover water."  (Einstein) ~~~~~~~~
Zvxr Oynpxsbeq       Fvyvpba Inyyrl, Pnyvsbeavn       zvxr@oynpxsbeq.pbz

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

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

    WOW your getting 85% of your email! My ATT@home email is not working at
all right now, wish I could access 85% of it. Wish I knew how long would be
down this time. I wonder if the announced layoffs will improve efficiency
and customer service.

Richard

"Mike Blackford" <mblackford@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:3A751633.202FC4A@spamcop.net...
> I've updated my analysis of @Home email losses that I've been tracking
> since July 4, 2000. It can be seen at
> http://members.home.com/mblackford/eGroup-chart.htm
>
> The detailed log is at: http://members.home.com/mblackford/eGroup.htm
>
> For the last month, I've logged incoming email losses over 15%.  Needless
> to say, the abysmal performance of @Home's email 'service' has continued
> to deteriorate despite repeated assurances over the last six months or
> more that "we're working on it", "the problem is fixed", and a variety of
> other misrepresentations.
>
> --
> ~ "emails are NOT lost, just delayed." (Excite@Home, Tue, 03 Oct 2000) ~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Zvxr Oynpxsbeq       Fvyvpba Inyyrl, Pnyvsbeavn       zvxr@oynpxsbeq.pbz

[POSTED TO ba.internet; PLEASE REPLY THERE]

In <3A76695F.82D329FB@spamcop.net>, Mike Blackford
<mblackford@spamcop.net> wrote:

>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.)

Try <http://www.myrealbox.com/>.

-- 
Best regards,
John Navas     <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
     CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE:  <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>

Man, we can sell you an email account if you like.
(the catch is it comes with 10MB webspace, so you might
not want it because of the unlimited bandwith).

Or get one with usa.net .

Mike


Mike Blackford wrote:
> 
> I've updated my analysis of @Home email losses that I've been tracking
> since July 4, 2000. It can be seen at
> http://members.home.com/mblackford/eGroup-chart.htm
> 
> The detailed log is at: http://members.home.com/mblackford/eGroup.htm
> 
> For the last month, I've logged incoming email losses over 15%.  Needless
> to say, the abysmal performance of @Home's email 'service' has continued
> to deteriorate despite repeated assurances over the last six months or
> more that "we're working on it", "the problem is fixed", and a variety of
> other misrepresentations.
> 
> --
> ~ "emails are NOT lost, just delayed." (Excite@Home, Tue, 03 Oct 2000) ~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Zvxr Oynpxsbeq       Fvyvpba Inyyrl, Pnyvsbeavn       zvxr@oynpxsbeq.pbz

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NCinc, Inc.                                             www.ncincwi.net
PO Box 466                   V90/ISDN nationwide roaming Internet
Eau Claire, WI 54702-0466    with 24/7 toll free support, newsgroups 
                             for $11.50/month, no contract.
All accounts with 1 unlimited POP3 Email Account, 10MB Personal Web
Space (unlimited bandwidth, no 'surprise' charges for more access than
expected!)
Multilink V90/ISDN, Static IP, Content Filtering, POP3, Web Hosting
Corporate RAS outsourcing.
                             We make Your NetWork