RE: Mail failure

[Chuck Swiger <cswiger@widomaker.com>]

  ----------
  From: 	/dd.MSMail=DEPFS1$/DEPMAIL$/POSTMASTER/@msmail.state.me.us[SMTP:/dd.MSMail=DEPFS1$/DEPMAIL$/POSTMASTER/@msmail.state.me.us]
  Sent: 	Wednesday, December 03, 1997 11:17 AM
  To: 	Chuck Swiger
  Subject: 	Mail failure
  
  FROM: DEPFS1/DEPMAIL/POSTMASTER
  TO: Chuck Swiger                                               DATE: 12-03-97
                                                                 TIME: 11:23
  SUBJECT: Mail failure
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  [002] Mail was received that was addressed to unknown addresses.
  Mail item was not delivered to:
    Johnson, Stan L
  
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Microsoft Mail v3.0 IPM.Microsoft Mail.Note
  From: Chuck Swiger
  To:  am-info@essential.org
  Subject:  A-M$: Recent Microsoft Behavior
  Date: 1997-12-03 10:34
  Priority: 3
  
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  	From: 	MachCU@aol.com[SMTP:MachCU@aol.com]
  >spoken of (Microsoft being the only browser which
  >              consistently had problems downloading Netscape products from
  >the Web when cookies or specific Javascripts were
  >              involved, yet not at any other site), or had evidence to relate
  >regarding previous rumors of Microsoft's IIS server giving
  >              clear preference to its own MSIE browser over all others.
  
  Now this, I first thought, was just another case of people w/ lousy modems or
  bad
  phone lines blaming the most visible scapegoat for their frustrations.  So,
  instead of
  emotionally charged accusations (i.e., a 'witchhunt') I decided to try some
  experiments, to collect some facts. I really beleive that the Holy Grail "Head
  of Gates on a
  stick" award goes to the first person who can get evidence to actually prove
  to a judge and jury that
  actual non-competitive practice is going on (like trying to kick your opponent
  in a foot
  race).  So I'm trying to be 'scientific' and objective and so far have two
  results:
  1) Running MSIE 3.02 (msie302mnt.exe) on NT4SP3, on a LAN, connecting to
  Internet
  thru 'WinGate' (wg2ntr.exe) also running on another NT4SP3, attempted D/L of
  Netscape
  Navigator 4.04, stand alone, English, for Win95/NT - got about 1.2Mb and
  abruptly
  lost the d/l box, file corrput.
  2) Ok, that proves nothing, I regularly have problems running a dos ftp
  getting FreeBSD
  files from ftp.cdrom.com [connection closed]. So went home and installed the
  same
  msie302mnt.exe on Win95, this time directly dialed into the same ISP w/ a
  local modem,
  and it was worse: appears to have completely d/l the same Netscape 4.04 file,
  but at
  the end got something like "unable to copy program xxxxxx", d/l failed.
  
  Now if someone can come up with a reverse engineered code fragment that can be
  described like:
  
  	if ( website = "netscape" )
  	   and if ( user != "ms_employee" )
  	        then call random_error();
  
  which can be independantly verified by recognized computer scientists, then
  we've got
  something. Of course, it's not outside the bounds of conjecture to speculate
  that it's
  the other partner, Netscape, that's casting aspersions and throwing the dance
  with their CGI scrip:
  
  	if ( browser = "msie" )
  	   then call random_error();
  
   --------------------------
  "A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltair
  
  Chuck
  cswiger@widomaker.com