From: Mike '/m' 

On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 18:41:39 -0400, "Geo"  wrote:

>"Mike '/m'"  wrote in message
>news:aa4bk11lt4qrth99rluv1cvabjejoo2blp{at}4ax.com...
>
>> OK, but keep in mind the message disappeared on the outbound.
>
>Then that makes it unlikely it was a spam filter.
>
>> While Norton may be in the room with Outlook, I'm unconvinced that it
>> was Norton that lost the message.
>
>I'm still convinced it's Norton, I've seen that thing cause so many
>different problems, stuff that never happens with my outlook that I just
>know that's what's doing it.

I'm not a fan of Norton at all.  Remember me?  I was the one who first
posted about AtGuard here [what seems to be] a long, long time ago, and I
was shouted down at the time.  Then after a while, people came around. I
hate Symantec for what they did to AtGuard.  I fear that they will do the
same to Sygate...

Having said that, I also am finding lots of quirks and bugs in the current
version of Outlook.  It looks more like code that has happened by accident,
and less like code that has happened by design.

So I am not willing to place the onus on Symantec at this point.


Competition breeds innovation.  Monopolies eliminate competition.  Look at
IE.  It has stagnated for *how*long* until FireFox came along and showed
just a little amount of competition for IE.  Now it looks like Microsoft
may actually be doing something good with IE7 because of that 9-12% market
share that FireFox has acquired.

Hold that thought.

Now think of the innovation that Microsoft would *really* have to do if
they were faced with competition with 40% or 50% or 60%  market share.
Microsoft would more than likely abandon the market (think music
downloads...)

Outlook (and I may even extend that to all of MS Office) has all the
hallmarks of software that is not being challenged by competition.


 /m

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5