Microsoft's abusive monopoly re. changing protocols

My understanding is that:
no one owns the internet;
the various protocols are 'governed' by various 'RCFs'
[request for comments]. And this matter, being queried
here, being email service is eg. 'controlled' by RFCs
1334, 2556...etc.

I've just now, viewed some RFCs and noted that they are:
"Copyright (C) The Internet Society".

Some years back my ISP had notified me before they were
to introduce a 'Transmission authentication protocol';
and I spent some effort, per relevant RFC making my
system compliant accordingly.

As an extra checking facility, I always Cced myself.
Now after a period of confusing non-reply to important
emails 'sent', I've come to realise that a further change
in the protocol seems to have been made. So that
although I receive the Cc-copies, the intended recipient
receives none.

Over recent years I've been analysing how Microsoft
abuses their monopolistic position to eg.' introduce
a new model, which still works per common RFC, but
will select the new RFC by default, so that all victims
who buy the new Microsoft product will be OK. Then
some years later, the 'new product' become not
available, and a NEW-new product can only handle
the new protocol -- which may or may not be per a
valid RFC.

Since via their similar manipulation of the hardware
suppliers, Microsoft is able to sweep most non-conformists
out of the way. Which is especially easy in todays herd
mentality, where a majority of the population were
easily convinced that they could live from their credit
cards, and borrow more money that their assets were
worth.

So, I suspect, that the ISP/s are unlikely to get complaints,
since Microsoft's manipulative scheme makes for few
users being 'behind the curve' and any victims that find
themselves behind the curve are conditioned by society
blame themselves for not upgrading -- paying Microsoft
more money.

Of course you know that the EU-authorities have already
ruled against Microsoft's abusive monopoly?
----------
So much for the real-politics: what's the theoretical legal
position to prevent such damage-causeing sharp practices?

== TIA.

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:if5nq0$nmq$(E-Mail Removed)...
> My understanding is that:
> no one owns the internet;

True.

> the various protocols are 'governed' by various 'RCFs'
> [request for comments]. And this matter, being queried
> here, being email service is eg. 'controlled' by RFCs
> 1334, 2556...etc.

FALSE. RFCs are PROPOSED changes to the standards of the Internet, not the
standards themselves.

> ...
> Over recent years I've been analysing how Microsoft
> abuses their monopolistic position to eg.' introduce
> a new model, which still works ....

Micro$oft thinks it can do whatever it wants, when it wants. It certainly
CAN'T while expecting to play with the rest of us on the Internet.

"Thor Kottelin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:LLERo.39144$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "D. Stussy" <spam+(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:if63fp$ire$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:if5nq0$nmq$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> My understanding is that
> >> the various protocols are 'governed' by various 'RCFs'
> >> [request for comments]. And this matter, being queried
> >> here, being email service is eg. 'controlled' by RFCs
> >> 1334, 2556...etc.
> >
> > FALSE. RFCs are PROPOSED changes to the standards of the Internet, not
> > the standards themselves.
>
> A few RFCs are also standards though. The most relevant ones in relation
> to email are RFCs 821, 822 and 1869.

Not in their RFC form they aren't. However, it is quite possible to accept
a proposal without modification.

If they were actual changes, not proposals, they wouldn't be requesting
comments.

In article <if63fp$ire$(E-Mail Removed)>, spam+(E-Mail Removed)
(D. Stussy) writes:

> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:if5nq0$nmq$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>> My understanding is that:
>> no one owns the internet;
>
> True.
>
>> the various protocols are 'governed' by various 'RCFs'
>> [request for comments]. And this matter, being queried
>> here, being email service is eg. 'controlled' by RFCs
>> 1334, 2556...etc.
>
> FALSE. RFCs are PROPOSED changes to the standards of the Internet,
> not the standards themselves.
>> ...
>> Over recent years I've been analysing how Microsoft
>> abuses their monopolistic position to eg.' introduce
>> a new model, which still works ....
>
> Micro$oft thinks it can do whatever it wants, when it wants.
> It certainly CAN'T while expecting to play with the rest of us
> on the Internet.

It can if it manages to get enough non-compliant packages out there
before people figure out what's going on. Case in point: their
Exchange server refused to accept RCPT TO commands containing
addresses enclosed in the angle brackets required by RFC 2821.
I had to add an option to my mail send routine to drop the
angle brackets in order to work in customer shops using Exchange.
People using mail clients without such configurability were
up the creek.

--
/~\ (E-Mail Removed)d (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!