From: "Thees Peereboom" 

Rich,

This, of course, is not an easy question to answer. Especially since a user
is not a user, every user is and behaves different. So there's only one
real, workable answer to this problem: Close the gates. I think all
filtering, protection, etc. should be done at the entry - invest in a
firewall, proxy, DMZ, whatever. It's the only possibility. Of course users
can still import viruses by floppy (unlikely), CDROM (likely) or
USB-sticks. If the latter is the case, take away all CDROMdrives and
disable USB.

(try to) Educate your users - explain that they shouldn't bring floppies,
CDROM's or USBsticks from home without having them (technically) cleared by
IT.

Of course, it's almost impossible to defend yourself against users who
import viruses, trojans etc. on purpose - if you have a problem like that,
that this is not your real problem, but then something's seriously wrong in
your company or institution which askes for a different approach.

- Thees Peereboom

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 16:24:01 -0800, Rich  wrote:

>    I disagree.  This is what matters and in fact the reason the feature
> exists.
>
>    If you have a way to determine with precision what is or is not
> harmful then you could rely on that.  As demonstrated in the real world,
> too many people will open and run harmful attachments infecting
> themselves with viruses and trojans.  Anti-virus programs aren't
> sufficient and not everyone uses them anyway.  Do you have any such
> way?  If not, where would you draw the line between safe and unsafe?
>
> Rich
>
>   "Ellen K."  wrote in message
> news:vg7d01plsg73u50dgij0buq0q1vde778qt{at}4ax.com...
>   OK, I'll buy that, although it's putting a very fine point on it.
>
>   On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 00:17:50 -0800, "Rich"  wrote in message
>   :
>
>   >   No.  Something is unsafe if it has the potential to be harmful.
> Mike is trying to make the claim that unsafe is synonymous with
> harmful.  The content determines if something is harmful.  The extension
> determines if something is unsafe.
>   >
>   >Rich
>   >
>   >  "Ellen K."  wrote in message
> news:k9hb011rtr0siv8c7h75cq20inh11d7gkc{at}4ax.com...
>   >  I think Rich was just making a verbal shortcut, meaning "files with
>   >  extensions predefined as unsafe".
>   >
>   >  On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 17:01:13 -0500, Mike '/m' 
> wrote in
>   >  message :
>   >
>   >  >
>   >  >It is the content, not the extension, that determines whether or
> not a file is
>   >  >safe.
>   >  >
>   >  >  /m
>   >  >
>   >  >On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 17:34:44 -0800, "Rich"  wrote:
>   >  >
>   >  >>   What everyone I know does if they need to send
unsafe files by
> email is to rename them to have a "safe" extension and to send that.
> The recipient saves it and renames it back.
>   >  >>
>   >  >>   There are administrator controls but this comes up
so rarely I
> can't remember when the last person asked.
>   >  >>
>   >  >>Rich
>   >  >>
>   >  >>  "Ellen K."
 wrote in message
> news:a8n4015isr1b71cf9vemdkp9t6eh5pbtd2{at}4ax.com...
>   >  >>  Which brings us back to the nasty question of, to what extent
> should
>   >  >>  users be protected against their own stupidity?  If Microsoft
> let these
>   >  >>  through, people would say they are impairing security.   In
> fact users
>   >  >>  clicking on attachments has been one of the biggest ways
> viruses spread.
>   >  >>
>   >  >>  I'm wondering whether the Help File posted below has an
> alternative,
>   >  >>  since the behavior described is labelled the
"default"... i.e.
> this name
>   >  >>  implies that some other possibility also exists.  Rich?
>   >  >>
>   >  >>  On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 22:10:58 -0500, Mike '/m'

> wrote in
>   >  >>  message :
>   >  >>
>   >  >>  >
>   >  >>  >That feature has converted some friends away
from Outlook to
> another, any
>   >  >>  >other, email client.  They cannot understand why the email
> client does not
>   >  >>  >allow them access to what is sent to them.
>   >  >>  >
>   >  >>  > /m
>   >  >>  >
>   >  >>  >
>   >  >>  >On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 20:08:20 -0600, "Robert
G Lewis"
> 
>   >  >>  >wrote:
>   >  >>  >
>   >  >>  >>Ah HA
>   >  >>  >>
>   >  >>  >>From the Help File 
>   >  >>  >>
>   >  >>  >>a.. By default, Microsoft Outlook blocks
attachment files
> ( such as .bat,
>   >  >>  >>.exe, .vbs, and .js) that can contain
viruses. You cannot see
> or access the
>   >  >>  >>attachments. Your Inbox will display the
paperclip icon in
> the Attachment
>   >  >>  >>column to let you know that the message has
an attachment,
> and you will see
>   >  >>  >>a list of the blocked attachment files in
the InfoBar at the
> top of your
>   >  >>  >>message. If you try to open the attachment
by right-clicking
> the item, View
>   >  >>  >>Attachments will not appear on the shortcut
menu. If you need
> to use files,
>   >  >>  >>such as .exe files, from others, have them
post the files to
> a network share
>   >  >>  >>or to a Web share that you can access.
>   >  >>  >>
>   >  >>  >>Except it doesn't show in the inforbar and
.MSO is not listed
> as a blocked
>   >  >>  >>file in Outlook 2002 so ......
>   >  >>  >>
>   >  >>  >>
>   >  >>  >>
>   >  >>  >>
>   >  >>  >>"Geo" 
wrote in message
> news:42017edd$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>   >  >>  >>> "Robert G Lewis"
 wrote in message
>   >  >>  >>> news:42016ab0$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>   >  >>  >>>
>   >  >>  >>>> I'm right clicking on the Inbox
message list for that
> email and can view
>   >  >>  >>> or
>   >  >>  >>>> open the attachment, I don't see
the attachment in either
> preview or
>   >  >>  >>> opened
>   >  >>  >>>> email.
>   >  >>  >>>
>   >  >>  >>> Excellent, just what I was looking for, thanks.
>   >  >>  >>>
>   >  >>  >>> Geo.
>   >  >>  >>>
>   >  >>  >>>
>   >  >>  >>

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