Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use

[David Schwartz]

> Don't be foolish.  Microsoft would have lost the case if they
> had admitted the real reasons for what they did.  It isn't to
> MS's benefit to reveal anything about the real reasons they
> do a thing.

That's true, but that completely undercuts your argument. Giving IE away to get revenue for listing root certificates would have been a perfectly legitimate tactic. It would have had *NOTHING* to do with leveraging their Windows monopoly. If Microsoft had been motivated as you claim, saying so would have been a brilliant trial strategy.

It was the other side that claimed that Microsoft's IE push was to protect Windows. Microsoft had no counter argument.
 
> MS had a large campaign going to misdirect to world.  Initially
> it was to their advantage to get the world to believe that they
> didn't understand the Internet.  In that way, the young Internet
> startup companies would spend their money fighting each other
> rather than uniting against Microsoft.
> 
> It's obvious MS knew from the beginning the importance of the
> Internet.  How quickly you forget TCP/IP and Window for Workgroups.
> How quickly you forget the addition of the TCP/IP protocol to the
> DOS/Lanmanager MS client.  Even then, MS was working to deny
> funding to the likes of Trumpet Winsock and suchlike by giving
> away the Shiva TCP/IP client in the IE for Windows 3.1

That is *my* claim. How do you think this disagrees with what I'm saying?
 
> Later on it became obvious to even a monkey that the Internet
> was important, so it wouldn't have been believable to maintain
> that campaign.  So they changed gears and started using Internet
> as a red herring.
> 
> MS did NOT want the attention focused on how they managed to
> engineer the Offie Applications market to become a monopoly.  Nor
> did they want attention focused on how they managed to arm-twist all
> PC manufacturers into selling PC's with Windows preloaded.  As
> a result, the court didn't really address those issues.

Maybe true, but that has nothing to do with *this* issue.
 
> Even today look at what goes on in the PC market.  It is almost
> impossible to buy a low-end PC WITHOUT windows on it.  Your paying
> for that copy of Windows even if you immediately take the machine
> home and wipe it.
 
> The anti-trust court should have banned the practice of forcing
> the consumer to pay for Windows, they should have mandated that
> ALL pc sales listed Windows as an optional line item the customer
> could choose to not pay for.  It would have been simple to do.
> You walk into the computer store, and when you buy the PC if you
> say you want Windows an extra $50 or whatever is slapped onto the
> purchase price, and you get a serial number you key into the PC
> when you start it up.  If you say no, you don't get the serial number
> and when you start the PC if you don't install the number, the
> system deletes Windows.

Lose one argument, start another one? What do you think this has to do with *anything* I said? To recap:

The position I dispute: Microsoft pushed IE to get revenue from root keys who pay millions to be listed. This is perfectly legal and legitimate.

My position: Microsoft pushed IE because they saw Java and Netscape as a threat to their Windows monopoly.
 
> Microsoft was very worried that the trial would focus on this and
> they would end up with this as a ruling.  So, they engineered
> the focus on their destruction of Netscape.  Everyone followed
> along and forgot about the preload situation.

Which has zero to do with anything I said.

DS