For instance I only use live.com over hotmail.com as I snagged my name (a common one) without numbers after it when live.com first went public. The live.com domain used to only be used for paid MSN subscribers back in 2006/2007.
Live and Hotmail are the thing though. You get the same webmail interface, the same instant messenger, etc. MS just really has a problem with branding the same thing under multiple names.
bubbles: Welcome ! I have nothing of substance to offer except an observation. I've read (on message boards, internet articles, etc.) that it can be unwise to use the Hotmail domain if you're using the email address for business purposes. Apparently, some feel that that domain name is a bit 'unprofessional' sounding. They suggest live.com or even msn.com (all three use the same hotmail web service and interface). I have no personal opinion on that one way or the other. Just passing it along as food for thought.
Also, just because your friends might have Hotmail that doesn't mean you need to go with that service too.
That brings up a question I've had occasionally: If I have two accounts (say, one with Yahoo and one with Hotmail), and I have a friend with a Hotmail account, is there any advantage in using my Hotmail account to send to him ? Perhaps more reliable delivery and/or formatting since it's using the same service ?
Also, are emails sent Hotmail-to-Hotmail vulnerable to interception by 'outsiders' the same way as if it were sent Yahoo-to-Hotmail ? That is, do such 'in house' email transmissions "enter cyberspace" before arriving at their destination or are they somehow more secure by never leaving the one provider's server system ? (I hope I'm asking this clearly and not confusing things with my inaccurate terminology...)
Reason I ask: I recall a service a few years ago called Woomail. It didn't last, so don't bother checking for it, but here you can find a thread at the EMD forums discussing it when it first came out. Scroll down to post #15 in that thread to see the Woomail founder's first post. The first item he mentions about his service is the following:
In a nutshell, Woomail.com gives you 5 ways to safely control online communications.
1. From your inbox, choose the Compose Woomail link. This allows you to send a instant mail to another woomailer on the same server so your message never enters cyberspace and is read in 256 bit encryption. This Woomail message arrives in the other woomailers inbox instantly. It never goes outside the Woomail system, thus “The worlds Safest Mail™.
IOW, one feature this service touted is that it (as opposed to other email services, apparently) could send email messages from one account to another without entering cyberspace, and, therefore, not being as vulnerable as other services.
Are messages sent Yahoo-to-Yahoo or Hotmail-to-Hotmail any safer/more secure than ones sent to accounts at other providers ? Or was it only Woomail's system which 'delivered' on that ? (FWIW, I think PrivacyHarbor may do something similar, as well as having its 'link to message' method.)
Big Dan: Have you found that having your "common" name (w/o numbers) at Live has resulted in a ton of spam for you ? Hotmail is notorious for having poor spam filtering, no ? Just curious.
I'd have to agree with that statement. It a little easier to get away with a Gmail account, but for business purposes you really should get a custom domain name that you own for your business email communications.
That brings up a question I've had occasionally: If I have two accounts (say, one with Yahoo and one with Hotmail), and I have a friend with a Hotmail account, is there any advantage in using my Hotmail account to send to him ?
Thanks for your reply but I apologize for misunderstanding the part above...
You're saying the email between providers (Yahoo-to-Hotmail) is vulnerable. (Agreed.) Are you also saying that emails sent hotmail-to-hotmail are just as vulnerable ? Or are they less so because they are "just between a couple of Hotmail servers" ?
I was saying that technically email between providers would be a bit more vulnerable. It depends on the communication between the servers. I'm assuming vanilla SMTP in all of the above smtp conversations with no encryption.
That leaves us with the expectation that :
ISP server <-> local network <-> ISP server
is likely to be more secure than :
ISP server <-> internet <-> Some other ISP's server