> Other auth standards do not support a challenge-response exchange And why is a challenge required? Shouldn't the decision on which level of protection to use

> Other auth standards do not support a challenge-response exchange And why is a challenge required? Shouldn't the decision on which level of protection to use be left to the client? The business should be able to say "thanks but no thanks I like my email server just the way it is". > MFA namely, it requires an interactive process Assuming that an interactive process is required (even if that's moving the goalpost), again, that's something that can totally be done in the plugin (show a prompt, and pass that to the server along with the rest of the information stored). It could even be automatized by saving the seed (often shown as a QR code) in the plugin. > MS is perfectly cable of doing the same but why? They don't even have to. All I ask is to not take steps to actively destroy software. With a profit motive (replacing Office 2010 by 365 with a yearly fee) "Negligence" is no longer an excuse. I see "Malice" as way more probable. > old software has a HUGE security risk A client should never cause a security risk to the server. So if you mean outlook.com, no: if Outlook 2010 can cause a security risk to outlook.com when it connects to outlook.com, then you've done the server part seriously wrong (like how SQL injections means a lack of input sanitation). If you mean on my own computer, I'm sorry but I run what the hell I want however I want - first sale doctrine and all that. So if I want to run Windows 7, I will. > personally I think it should be built into office that once EOL date is reached it simply bricks OMG what did I just read? If that's what you seriously believe 1) I'm so glad you're not in charge of the products I use, because 2) you have a great future in sales or as a manager to increase the revenue streams, users be damned. > People running old software are a risk to EVERYONE online I'm sorry my freedom is a negative externality to you? Actually, no: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither"