From: "Geo." 

"Rich"  wrote in message news:406d0393{at}w3.nls.net...
>> Don't you remember the rants from some folks when Microsoft introduced
blocking of EXEs in Outlook.  You probably were one of them.<<

I love that feature in OE because for the knowledgeble user there is an
on/off switch. In Outlook 200 it sucks because it requires an exchange
server to turn the stupid thing off. (or chilton preview extension)

>>   As for digital signatures, the different behavior for signed and
unsigned email has nothing to do with the small volume of signed mail.  It
has everything to do with the meaning of a digital signature.  Maybe you
would be surprised but there are people that make serious claims that when
a signed email fails verification that the recipient should not be allowed
to view the unverified content.  It's a serious business.  If someone sends
you a signed message, whether HTML, RTF, plain text, or anything else, the
expectation is that you see what you are sent not something extracted from
it.  If I knew you enabled such behavior I could send you a message that
looked very different to you than it would so someone that viewed the
content actually signed.<<

That's all well and good, then they can turn off view as text. But you have
completely missed what I was saying. I wasn't saying nobody should do
signed email, I was saying that by not viewing signed email as text when
the view as text option is enabled you have left a HUGE loophole to be
exploited by virus writers.

>>   As I mentioned, if you are willing to disregard the meaning and
significance of digital signatures, go ahead and use the Outlook 2003
option to display such messages as text instead of as signed.<<

Isn't that exactly what this article was about, the fact that setting
display as text has no effect on how signed emails are displayed?

Geo.

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