Prospective gold release date anyone? - Zophras
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.134.148.96 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 25 July 2006.
Not known yet - as soon as a release date is announced it will appear on the article. --Jskw 19:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that Vista's out, still no idea when Windows Live Mail is to replace MSN Hotmail.? Or maybe a date when the release date will be announced.? --LAUBO 10:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still no official release date, but it is implied here[1] that the next update to the beta version will be the final one, when all Hotmail accounts are upgraded. So it should be within a month or so. A Cornish Pasty 17:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
M10 is released today (see the blog above). Still no word on the final version.17:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
M10 is supposed to be the final version. And M10 has just been announced, not rolled out yet (released). --A Cornish Pasty 21:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it said on the blog page that they will slowly upgrade user's accounts to M10, so not everyone will get it at once. Probably will take a few weeks for everyone to get it. Also I think M10 is the final BETA version (if it wasn't mentioned already).Swanny 06:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will move the list of languages to the features section; it's getting a bit numerous for the overview. --Jskw 19:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weasel words and NPOV
This article is oozing with weasel words and NPOV, I presume by fans of Gmail or haters of Microsoft. I will take a look at the article soon and attempt to make it much more neutral. --Jskw 19:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the new section entitled "Customer Experience" which was seemingly written by someone who was in a bad mood. No citations or anything, just this big rant and probably stemming from personal experience. --Jvd897 19:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely about the Customer Experience section. Should the whole section just be erased?--Hukt own fonikz 18:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. Anyone want to counter that motion before I delete it? --Jvd897 19:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't read that section, but I thought the article read more like an advertisement instead of encyclopedia. 72.210.66.209 (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism
Nothing special, but someone has been vandalizing the page related to Windows Live Mail. I'm a new Wikipidian so I don't know how to report this but if anybody does please do so. Thank you.
No need to report it; just change it. — Supuhstar * —
Invitations?
It says in the article that you can use the beta if an existing beta tester sends you an invitation? I have never seen that option before. I only ask here because I thought that if it is an "old feature" then it can be removed from the article. Swanny92
I agree with this one ^^^ I have never been able to give out invitations. I received an official one from MSN Hotmail at the time, but that is about it --‹-cal-› 23:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Totally untrue. The beta version is extinct. — Supuhstar * —
Hotmail / MSN Hotmail / Windows Live Hotmail
Let's gain some perspective here, people...
Before every mention of the word "Hotmail" (referring to the new version) is edit-warred to Windows Live Hotmail, and the page is filled with not-exactly-rolling-off-the-tongue Windows Live Hotmail 1000 times over, let's remember that Hotmail is still Hotmail, and it can still be called Hotmail, especially when it's moved out of beta. Nobody calls it MSN Hotmail, and the MSN is just changing to Windows Live, so nobody is gonna call it Windows Live Hotmail. So when referring to the general Hotmail application, and once beta has been removed, the term "Hotmail" will still be acceptable as a colloquial, short hand version, instead of constantly calling it Windows Live Hotmail. My rant is over, before the problem has begun. -The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.147.175.80 (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I disagree. Just because it isn't "rolling-off-the-tongue" doesn't mean that it isn't the official name [2]. Applications such as Windows Live Spaces are rarely referred to as just "Spaces". You don't see the Windows Live OneCare article page being named "OneCare". Also, your "once it's out of beta" argument is flawed, because keep in mind that the current main Hotmail page isn't actually called Hotmail, it's MSN Hotmail. So what do you suppose we do once it's out of beta, rename it to just Hotmail? I think not. --Cumbiagermen 08:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I never said that, I just meant that every mention of Hotmail within the article doesn't have to say Windows Live Hotmail, that after the beta it will still be commonly known as Hotmail. The article will of course be titled Windows Live Hotmail, I never disputed that. Perhaps I was a bit hasty with my rant and should have waited until the problem I was referring to actually happened. 86.147.175.80 13:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It think it's referred to "Windows Live Hotmail" just so that it won't be confused with the original "Hotmail/MSN Hotmail". Sometimes it's necessary to make such distinguishments between the two. Before the name change from "Windows Live Mail", we can still refer to the old one as "Hotmail" and the new one as "Live Mail", but the name change just adds to the confusion. Pikablu0530 00:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Title
Why was it renamed to windows live Hotmail? I use it and i havn't seen anyone call it windows live Hotmail, and it says on the site windows live mail.
It is now officially named "Windows Live Hotmail" according to the Team Blog post. This name change should be shown in the actual site in the next milestone release or update. Pikablu0530 00:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
This talk section has been closed, let's keep the Merge proposal discussion at Talk:MSN Hotmail
As we now know that Hotmail is going to remain Hotmail, would it be an idea to merge Windows Live Hotmail into MSN Hotmail, with a paragraph describing the reason behind and new features of WL Hotmail, and in the intro a few lines saying MSN Hotmail will be turning into Windows Live Hotmail? This would be similar to what is done at Yahoo! Mail. The reason behind this is now that they are both called Hotmail, they are both technically the same program, about which we don't really need two articles. It's just a suggestion. --Niixdo 21:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thinks it's a good idea, but perhaps wait until everyone is upgraded and MSN Hotmail is no more. A Cornish Pasty 18:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to that. Except I'd like to just correct that fact that "Windows Live Hotmail", although it is meant to replace MSN Hotmail, is a completely different program to MSN Hotmail. According to the team blog, they built Windows Live Hotmail from scratch. And yes I agree we should wait for a little longer - perhaps after it's out of beta, until we merge. Pikablu0530 00:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leave them seperate. The live hotmail is totally different to the msn hotmail. If you do agree to merge them, at the very least, leave the merger until msn hotmail is rebranded - after beta
Beta is done. As of today, May 7, the old Hotmail is being superseded by Windows Live Hotmail, so I think it is about time that we merge these two articles together. Cumbiagermen 06:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the MSN Hotmail 'Merge?' section, and has also been mentioned here, despite that MSN Hotmail will eventually be phased out, MSN Hotmail is completely different to Windows Live Hotmail. MSN Messenger and Windows Live Messenger are kept as separate articles, and therefore I think that these two should be kept separate as well. Also, it would be very difficult to try and describe the two separate services in the same article. Swanny92 09:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think a merge would still be a good idea, with a paragraph describing the old MSN Hotmail. As most of the information about Hotmail would be transferred and now be relevant to WL Hotmail, I can't really see MSN Hotmail having much information in it, and would be at best a stub. Yahoo Mail and their new beta are kept under one article even though they are different.--A Cornish Pasty 10:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yahoo Mail didn't get a name change did it? I don't know how much different the two Yahoo mails are as I don't use them but MSN Hotmail and Live Hotmail are EXTREMELY different. I don't think the merge would be as supported as it would be if they hadn't kept the Hotmail name. If it was Windows Live Mail then I don't think anyone who doesn't know a thing about technology would realise that Live "Mail" would have been the replacement for MSN Hotmail. MSN and Live Messenger get their own articles, and personally I feel that's because MSN Messenger was made by MSN and Live Messenger is made by Windows Live, so they are two different products. They aren't forcing people to upgrade to Live Messenger or Live Hotmail (yet) either, and MSN and Windows Live aren't fully merged either. My argument is that if the Hotmail articles should be merged, MSN and Windows Live should be merged, the two Messengers should be merged, maybe even every Windows version should be combined into the Windows article, and they are all completely ridiculous options. If none of that can happen, then I think MSN Hotmail and Windows Live Hotmail are different enough to have their own articles. Swanny92 11:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we can keep both articles, but the default one where people go when they search "Hotmail" should be the Windows Live one, or perhaps a disambig page. Cumbiagermen 19:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think that was what was going to happen eventually. Disambig pages are only for three or more articles with similar or same names, so have the Hotmail page redirect to Windows Live Hotmail, and I already put in a link to MSN Hotmail at the top, so that should be settled then. Swanny92 21:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I use a 1.5Mb/s ADSL connection and it goes slow as hell. I've never waited long enough for it to finish, but I know it takes more than 10 seconds on my computer, which is lot's of time for a web page to load. TV chump 19:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a 1 Mb connection and it starts up fine, not lightning but quick enough. Although it isn't finished yet so we need to wait until it is. And who on earth uses dial-up any more? --A Cornish Pasty 20:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lol not many, but I know that plenty of people would still use dial-up, especially in rural areas where they don't offer you broadband. Swanny92 07:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it is slow, the program automatically asks you if you want to go to their quicker "Classic" version. — Supuhstar * —
Sources
The article is currently tagged as unreferenced, though there are no citation tags throughout the article. Could someone with a fair amount of knowledge on citing please tag parts of the article that need citing? It's either that or just remove the template. Swanny92 06:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Screenshot overkill
This article is suffering from screenshot overkill, only a couple or a few are needed within the article to illustrate key features. Read the licensing agreement: ""It is believed that the use of a limited number of such screenshots for identification and critical commentary relating to the website in question...". We are currently in breach of that statement. --A Cornish Pasty 21:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For some time, Microsoft "recruited" people to beta test this new version of hotmail. After this term of testing was over, on May 1st, 2007, they all recieved an email stating "Thanks for being a part of our Windows Live Hotmail Beta. Now that we're getting ready to launch, we want to give you a couple tokens of our appreciation:" and the images on the right were then given with instructions as to how to equip them onto emails automatically, as well as an offer for $100 USD off of a new Windows Vista-equipped PC. The offer website, once here, now redirects to a "learn more" site about Windows Live Hotmail.
I would like to know why this was deleted after posting.— Supuhstar * —
What about the BSD platform?
A famous point about hotmail was that it (used to?) use FreeBSD/OpenBSD(?) as the operating system and Microsoft worked hard to convert it to Windows NT. Last time I heard it wasn't successful at that.
Why isn't this mentioned in the article and does anyone know what's the current status?
Amos Shapira 08:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Logo
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was BOTH LOGO ARE USED per discussion below.
Pikablu can you please provide a source/reference where it states that the mail icon is the official Windows Live Hotmail logo. The flag/text logo is displayed on the MSN Hotmail start page, imagine-windowslive.com, NewHotmail.co.uk, Windows Live Hotmail adverts and pretty much any MS-owned Hotmail site, however the mail icon does not appear on any of the above, Windows Live Hotmail itself, Windows Live Hotmail's login page, get.live.com or Windows Live Betas. Unless you can provide sources/references for your statement that the mail icon is the official logo or a reasonable argument for keeping it other than irrelevant consistency then it will be reverted back. --Joowwww 10:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After reading your comment above, I quickly picked one of the sites mentioned above and had a look. Firstly, please go to http://get.live.com and click on "Windows Live Hotmail" on the left (even note the logo there next to the text). Now if you agree that the blue "1" logo is the official logo for OneCare, or the "magnifying glass" is the official logo for Live Search, or that the Spaces logo shown there is the official logo for WL Spaces, then similarly it can be argued that the "mail" logo being shown in the website is the official logo for Windows Live Hotmail.
And as a side note that a similar "mail" logo, but designed to be appearing at an angle, is used for Windows Live Mail (the desktop client).
The "mail" logo is being used at these official Microsoft websites for promoting and depicting "Windows Live Hotmail", and hence I would reasonably argue and it is sufficient to justify that this "mail" logo is the Windows Live Hotmail logo. This logo would give Windows Live Hotmail its identity, as Microsoft has definitely designed that logo specifically for Windows Live Hotmail. Pikablu0530 14:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call two instances of that icon being used "sufficient" reason to include it when the flag/text logo clearly has more use. If an average person was shown that icon I doubt they would know what it was for. Take a look at the Google More Services page, http://www.google.co.uk/intl/en/options/ - Would you say that this image [3] is the definite logo for Gmail? Or on a broader scale of things when describing the service would the full logo (see Gmail) do a better job of promotion, advertising and depiction of the service? I think so. --Joowwww 21:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for official sources and there I have listed several official sources (not to mention that even the Windows Live Hotmail Plus website or the Windows Vista start menu all features that same "mail" logo). In fact I would say that gmail image you provided is a definite logo for Gmail. Do you see it being used for any other purpose other than Gmail or Google Mail? I don't think so. The point is the "mail" logo is used officially as a sole purpose to demonstrate and depict Windows Live Hotmail (or Windows Live Mail previously), and nowhere else, and that is sufficient to justify it. Please see Windows Live Messenger or any other Windows Live articles that has a logo in it. According to your reasoning, would you say the "windows flag+the text Windows Live Messenger" is a better "logo" for WLMessenger rather than the two buddy icons? I don't think so.
And I hope you notice that in the infobox the whole point of having the title "Windows Live Hotmail" there is to tell them this entire article is about Windows Live Hotmail. The logo is directly placed below the title shows the direct relationship between the logo and the product's name. Readers are NOT only looking at the logo by itself, and hence there is no need to have the words "Windows Live Hotmail" contained within the logo.
If the official sources I have provided (both before and now) are insufficient, then please advise me what is. Thank you. Pikablu0530 10:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I still have to disagree. The envelope image on its own does not show the average user any link whatsoever to Windows Live Hotmail. Furthermore I am not talking about the Windows Live Messenger logo, when did I ever mention it. If the Messenger logo was on a blank piece of paper with no text, people would associate it with Windows live Messenger. Could you say the same about the mail icon? I don't think so. I'm not saying that the envelope icon does not exist because I doubt that Microsoft would try and fit the while flag/text logo into a 16x16 space so it would fit in the start menu. As you are such a keen advocate of consistency, perhaps you could look at the 3 major webmail articles Hotmail Gmail and Yahoo! Mail, and notice that the full logo including text is shown on the articles.
You said "the "mail" logo is used officially as a sole purpose to demonstrate and depict Windows Live Hotmail (or Windows Live Mail previously), and nowhere else" - Take a look at www.newhotmail.co.uk - is the mail icon used there? Also what logo is at the top of the page in large clear font, as if it were the logo of what they are describing? Or look anywhere on Windows Live Hotmail itself - is it used there either? If these are official Microsoft websites, made by Microsoft, gone through Microsoft's marketing department, and containing information by the creators of Hotmail - how can you say that the mail icon is the "sole purpose" when this other Windows Live Hotmail logo is used on a lot more sites and official advertisements and lots more places instead of "nowhere else"? --Joowwww 10:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I think you have misinterpreted what I meant by "sole purpose" and "nowhere else", and I apologize if what I said before was unclear. What I meant was that the "mail" logo is used to demonstrate Windows Live Hotmail only - it is not being used to demonstrate anything else other than Windows Live Hotmail. This is similar to the Gmail icon [4], where it is used to demonstrate Gmail only and nothing else. This in itself is enough to justify that the "mail" logo is directly assiciated with Windows Live Hotmail. It is not some "random" symbol that Microsoft created to show that it is an envelope. The purpose of the "mail" logo here is clear - it is the logo for Windows Live Hotmail.
Secondly why do you keep referring to that specific UK-promotional website. That website in itself is insufficient to say that the "mail" logo is not the official logo of Windows Live Hotmail. Take a look at http://ninemsn.com.au, the official Australian MSN website, and even see the hotmail logo on the top-right corner. The "mail" logo is being used at all these official websites as I have mentioned previously and you say that it is not used "enough"? I would like to point out that just because the "mail" logo isn't used on the actual Windows Live Hotmail service doesn't mean that it is not the official logo.
My reference to Windows Live Messenger is simply because it is also part of the Windows Live range of services by Microsoft. I listed it as an example because it is a Windows Live product and hence have a similar way of branding as Windows Live Hotmail. According to your argument for using the Windows Flag+Text as the "logo" for Windows Live services, then applying your argument to Windows Live Messenger (also a Windows Live service similar to Windows Live Hotmail), would you say this logo is better than what is currently shown on Windows Live Messenger article? (without the text "beta" of course)
And regarding your referral to Gmail and Yahoo! Mail. It is not appropriate to compare consistency of logos across products from different companies. Looking at the logo on Gmail article I would say that even in the word "Gmail" it incorporated the logo in the letter "M". For Yahoo! Mail, there was never another logo created for it anyway - so it is inappropriate to compare with Windows Live Hotmail.
The mail icon isn't just used for Hotmail, but for Windows Live Mail too. If there was a need to distunguish the two how would that be done without including the text? I keep referring to the UK site because it's one that sticks in my head without having to search for sites, as well as being an official Microsoft site. I understand that the mail icon appears on the Australian MSN site, it also does on the US MSN site and will probably soon appear on the UK one too. However I can only see this icon as something created to distinguish it from other Windows Live options when displayed in a list, and when advertised on its own and individually the flag/text logo is used. I am not talking about any other Windows live service, as I have already stated above, and I think the current logo used in the Messenger article is a suitable one, as I have also already stated above. I would like to make it clear here and now that my arguments on this talk page are only referring to the Hotmail article/infobox, not any other Windows Live services, of which I have no interest in.
As I cannot see any sort of an agreement coming up then a compromise is needed. On this page [5] there is a flag/text logo which also shows the mail icon, I propose this one to be used for the infobox logo with a suitable caption distinguishing the two. --Joowwww 16:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To distinguish between the two, a place you can find both and distinguish is in Windows Vista start menu (after Windows Live Mail has been installed of course). The "flatter" looking one is for Windows Live Hotmail (as shown at http://get.live.com as well), and the one "titled at angle" is for Windows Live Mail - as it is currently being used in the articles.
Okay, I'm fine having both logos in the infobox. I won't propose using [6] as it seems to have used a different logo as per above. The infobox allows both logos to be placed in that area - so why not just place both the flag/text logo with the "mail" logo? EDIT: I have placed both logos in the infobox already. --Pikablu0530 01:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Condensing work detailed
I removed separately named features from TOC list and listed them in bulleted lists.
reordered features in terms of priority of what a user is likely to see first in terms of actions s/he will do:
[login:] UI/localisation, search, color schemes
[various UI improvements to reading messages and taking actions:] Reading pane, keyboard shortcuts
With the new security features, could Hotmail be accessed by multiple users from different locations at the same time with both of them being logged on? --Atreusk 23:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see screenshot of Windows Live Hotmail
I don't know why I can't see it here, that's the reason why I replaced it with another screenshot I uploaded last month. I'm from Vietnam and I tried IE7 and Firefox2.0, but it stills don't show. I downloaded, clicked to go to Image page --> the same. Vinhtantran 09:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale for Image:HotmailLogoEvolution.png
Image:HotmailLogoEvolution.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Fair use rationale has been added --Joowwww 12:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Version
Is this really version 2.0?Geoffreynham 15:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Data Retention
I am aware that hotmail stores user information about people when they initially set up an account. Data such as IP address used to register etc. Does anyone know any details about microsoft/hotmail data retention? eg: period of time stored & what is stored?
Fair use rationale for Image:HotmailLogoEvolution.png
Image:HotmailLogoEvolution.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Image:HotmailPhishing.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
They have forced an "upgrade" from hotmail, to something that seems unusable on dialup. And they have deleted all my email. All ten years of saved email. The article is wrong; they do not keep free email for 120 days. What is the actual period of time? It is besides the point to say they let you have 2GB or 5GB free, when they won't even let you keep a few megabytes, and you don't know how often you have to check your email to keep them from deleting it all. -69.87.200.139 13:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a 120 day timeout (according to "Windows Weekly 25: Vista - Hot or Not?") -- Imperator3733 21:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accusation of Blatant advertising
As far as I can see, the information on this article is stating FACTS about Hotmail and not promoting it as such. I fail to see how much more neutral it can get, both unique features distinguishing it from other webmail services AND criticisms of Hotmail are included.
I think a comparison needs to be done between this article and the Gmail article, and see if the style of writing about facts differs in any way, which I cannot see it does. My instinct tells me that this article has been bombarded with Advertisement templates by a sad Gmail fan, intent on belittling any competitor of Google's services with his own biased views. --Joowwww 12:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above. Having read the article, all I can say is that the article may require some cleanups and move the "miscellaneous" section into relevant sections. However, it definitely does not contain "blatant advertising" and hence should not be even considered for speedy deletion. The article states facts about the service and also its criticisms. Also, is it really needed to have THREE tags for speedy deletion on one article? --Pikablu0530 12:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "Features" section definitely reeked of blatant advertising. I've reworded several parts of the section to remove advertising lingo. I've also removed the POV, Cleanup and Advert templates from the article. -/-Warren 00:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The "Features" section definitely reeked of blatant advertising" I just read it, and I thought the same thing. The criticism section seems to have many minor, seemingly personal gripes that really don't seem notable to mention. Many webmail services have their flaws, is it mandatory that we list a criticism section? I haven't read any of the other webmail articles but I'll check them out too.Cannedbeef (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Live.com addresses
Does anyone know if the live.com email addresses are available yet? == Imperator3733 20:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was move --Lox (t,c) 10:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with*'''Support'''or*'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
Support. The article covers Hotmail, MSN Hotmail, and Windows Live Hotmail. Article should not be renamed every time Hotmail is renamed, as it is still most commonly referred to by that name. –Pomte 15:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course. And the person who changed the name should be given the Casino Royale treatment. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 15:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Initially, the "Windows Live Hotmail" we have now was named "Windows Live Mail", and it was a completely seperate thing from the then "MSN Hotmail". If they retained that name and made it final, I don't think people would still call it "Hotmail" as often as now. When they renamed it from "Windows Live Mail" to "Windows Live Hotmail", the article name changed as well. At that time, I recall that "Windows Live Hotmail" was still in its beta testing stages, and "MSN Hotmail" was still the mainstream service and hence they existed as separate articles. After "Windows Live Hotmail" replaced "MSN Hotmail" when it was released, the two articles were merged into what we have now, but no one remembered to renamed the article. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now it's all the same thing there's no need for the pedanticism --Joowwww (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support no doubt everyone in the world still calls it Hotmail.--Pikablu0530 (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
PAGE MOVED per discussion; cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
verifying spam addresses
The article contains the following line:
"With virtually no exceptions, these addresses are used for the express purpose of verifying the recipient's address, thus opening the door for more spam."
This is what is generally assumed, but I have yet to see anyone substantiating that claim.
I even recall an article from years ago, where there was an experiment with fresh email addresses where the surprising outcome was that replying to opt-out links had no negative effect on the amount of spam received. Though considering that the benefits of having a few email addresses verified probably does not outweigh the work involved in setting up a system for that purpose, perhaps this shouldn't really come as such a surprise.
I don't recall the scale of that experiment, and whether things have changed since then, but I think the claim made in the article does warrant some reference to some external source. One which isn't just repeating "common knowledge".
— SvdB (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
missed DNS renewals
I cleaned up the section on missed renewals and combined the two paragraphs for brevity. The hotmail.co.uk section had the wrong year anyway (it happened in 2003 according to the reference), and it was passport.com that wasn't renewed in 1999. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belwig (talk • contribs) 02:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting
How on earth do you quote part of all of an e-mail when responding to it? I tried it on a Mac and also on a PC, and it doesn't seem to let me do it. What an incredible pain! If someone knows how to do it, (a) please tell me; and (b) let's definitely incorporate the answer in this article. Thanks, EverybodyLovesSomebody (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Caption1
![[3]](http://www.google.co.uk/options/icons/gmail.gif){kind=link}
