Dan wrote:
So let's see he I purchase and use a product from Microsoft, and
it is NOT their responsibility to provide me with proper instructions
on how to use it??!

So you buy a car from Ford, and then crash it and trash it because Ford
didn't show you how to use it and provide the driving lessons? So you blame
Ford? Get real.

--
Kath Adams
MS MVP - Windows (Outlook Express)

That analogy doesn't even make sense. Have you ever heard of comparing
apples to apples?

But lets see if we can modify your example so it does make sense. Let's say
I have only driven older cars with regular brakes and I buy a brand new Ford
with anti-lock brakes. The salesman never mentions the ABS, because I'm too
interested in the engine and the radio. I crash it and trash it because I
don't know how anti-lock brakes work. Do I blame Ford? NO, because every new
car comes with an owner's manual. Inside that manual are the instructions on
how to SAFELY use the anti-lock brakes, so if I didn't read the manual
first, then it is absolutely my fault. Do those instructions just say "step
on the brake pedal until you stop"?? No, they WARN you NOT to pump the brake
pedal, or the system will not function properly with possibly disasterous
results. Why does Ford include those instructions? Because they are
RESPONSIBLE rather than NEGLIGENT! If those instructions were not in there,
a crash results, and a court case is launched, the judge is going to find
for the accident victim, because Ford knew that those brakes operated
differently, and being a critical safety system on the vehicle, the customer
should have been warned. Ford does NOT say to the victim, "oh, that's too
bad, but we don't make the system in-house, so we didn't include it in the
manual. You should have known that we buy all our brakes from XXXXCompany
and you should have contacted them, as well as every other part manufacturer
we buy from, and gotten instruction manuals from each and every one of them
after you bought this car, BUT before you drove it off the lot!" Ridiculous,
Right?! Ford doesn't require it's salesman to explicitly point out that
every car has anti-lock brakes, they cover themselves by putting it in the
manual, because they know function of the ABS is a safety risk if not used
properly. If you don't read the manual, then it is your fault.

How does the apple above compare to this newsgroup apple? OE comes with a
newsreader, and provides a list of MS newsgroups, which are hosted at
msnews.microsoft.com, and maybe I am wrong, but I assume that means they own
these servers. The safety risk of using your real email address here seems
to be a well known issue to those who already have experience. (If you know
how ABS works, you don't have to go looking for the instructions, but
they're in the manual anyway) OE comes with an owners manual (ie. the 'help'
files) I read the entire help file before setting up OE for this newsgroup.
No where did it warn me of this known risk. No where did it tell me I should
check various web pages for addition information BEFORE using newsgroups. No
where did it tell me that in addition to the included instructions, I should
also search for additional instructions first. It didn't warn me about the
known risk of using a real email address, nor tell me of the option of using
a false address. If you check here at MS's own site:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/...ups/howto.mspx it says,
"enter YOUR email address", no warning or option offered, even though they
know the spam will hit you hard and fast.

So back to your original example which I said didn't make sense: Ford does
indeed "show you how to use it and provide the driving lessons" in the
instruction manual, along with warnings about known risks. Check it out if
you like. The manual even contains driving lessons for driving in various
conditions. And in fact, the manufacturers of just about any product include
an instruction manual with full disclosure about any known safety risks (you
know, the yellow triangle). If they do not include a warning for a KNOWN
risk, they are held liable.

So really Kath, are you telling me its just too much to ask that MS send out
a patch that adds text to the OE help files thats at least warns users to
the known risk of spam harvesters and suggests that users investigate first
whether a newsgroup will display a real email address and expose them to
this risk? And to suggest to users that should they subscribe to newsgroups
on MS servers, that a phony address be used to protect themselves (since MS
already knows what will happen otherwise)? I just don't think thats too much
to ask considering the problem that spam has grown to be. Have some people
just been here so long that they have forgotten that humans aren't born with
perfect knowledge? That's the reason we are given instructions, to follow
and learn. So I don't see why I should be expected to blame myself for
reading and diligently following the instructions, with the resulting grief,
when I now know that the same providers of those instructions I followed
could have included a warning of this known problem with an option to avoid
it.

I'm sure you have been around long enough to see that almost all
applications now have user names and keep real email addresses private
specifically because of this spam problem, and it is then up to the user to
choose if they want make that address public AFTER the fact, in which case,
I would have no sympathy for them.

Don't you agree that this small measure has huge potential in the combat
against spam? It's just an issue of disclosure, that's all, and I hope you
can better understand my position now.

Respectfully,
D.


"Kath Adams" wrote in message
...
Dan wrote:
So let's see he I purchase and use a product from Microsoft, and
it is NOT their responsibility to provide me with proper instructions
on how to use it??!

So you buy a car from Ford, and then crash it and trash it because Ford
didn't show you how to use it and provide the driving lessons? So you
blame Ford? Get real.

--
Kath Adams
MS MVP - Windows (Outlook Express)