From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0B9E_01C50E91.767B8360
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   Ah.  Sorry.

Rich

  "Ellen K."  wrote in message =
news:6shk01paurpi56mqo072dcil94q48c980u{at}4ax.com...
  What I meant was, I agree with your position, but most people do not =
use
  language precisely enough for your original language to convey your
  position so that it would be understood.

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

  >   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,=20
  >  >  >>  >>.exe, .vbs, and .js) that can contain
viruses. You cannot =
see or access the=20
  >  >  >>  >>attachments. Your Inbox will display the
paperclip icon in =
the Attachment=20
  >  >  >>  >>column to let you know that the message has
an attachment, =
and you will see=20
  >  >  >>  >>a list of the blocked attachment files in
the InfoBar at =
the top of your=20
  >  >  >>  >>message. If you try to open the attachment by =
right-clicking the item, View=20
  >  >  >>  >>Attachments will not appear on the shortcut
menu. If you =
need to use files,=20
  >  >  >>  >>such as .exe files, from others, have them
post the files =
to a network share=20
  >  >  >>  >>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=20
  >  >  >>  >>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.
  >  >  >>  >>>
  >  >  >>  >>>=20
  >  >  >>  >>

------=_NextPart_000_0B9E_01C50E91.767B8360
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   Ah.  =
Sorry.
 
Rich
 

  "Ellen K." <72322.1016{at}compuserve.com&g=">mailto:72322.1016{at}compuserve.com">72322.1016{at}compuserve.com&g=
t;=20
  wrote in message news:6shk01paurp=
i56mqo072dcil94q48c980u{at}4ax.com...What=20
  I meant was, I agree with your position, but most people do not=20
  uselanguage precisely enough for your original language to convey=20
  yourposition so that it would be
understood.On Sun, 6 Feb =
2005=20
  16:24:01 -0800, "Rich" <{at}> wrote in
message<4206b4ca{at}w3.nls.net>:&=">mailto:4206b4ca{at}w3.nls.net">4206b4ca{at}w3.nls.net>:&=
gt;  =20
  I disagree.  This is what matters and in fact the reason the =
feature=20
  exists.>>   If you
have a way to determine =
with=20
  precision what is or is not harmful then you could rely on that.  =
As=20
  demonstrated in the real world, too many people will open and run =
harmful=20
  attachments infecting themselves with viruses and trojans.  =
Anti-virus=20
  programs aren't sufficient and not everyone uses them anyway.  Do =
you=20
  have any such way?  If not, where would you draw the line between =
safe=20
  and
unsafe?>>Rich>> 
"Ellen K." =
<72322.1016{at}compuserve.com&g=">mailto:72322.1016{at}compuserve.com">72322.1016{at}compuserve.com&g=
t;=20
  wrote in message news:vg7d01plsg7=
3u50dgij0buq0q1vde778qt{at}4ax.com...> =20
  OK, I'll buy that, although it's putting a very fine point on=20
  it.>>  On Sun, 6 Feb 2005
00:17:50 -0800, "Rich" =
<{at}>=20
  wrote in message>  <4205d288$1{at}w3.nls.net>:&=">mailto:4205d288$1{at}w3.nls.net">4205d288$1{at}w3.nls.net>:&=
gt;> =20
  >   No.  Something is unsafe if it has
the potential =
to be=20
  harmful.  Mike is trying to make the claim that unsafe is =
synonymous with=20
  harmful.  The content determines if something is harmful.  =
The=20
  extension determines if something is unsafe.>  =
>> =20
  >Rich> 
>>  >  "Ellen
K." <72322.1016{at}compuserve.com&g=">mailto:72322.1016{at}compuserve.com">72322.1016{at}compuserve.com&g=
t;=20
  wrote in message news:k9hb011rtr0=
siv8c7h75cq20inh11d7gkc{at}4ax.com...> =20
  >  I think Rich was just making a verbal shortcut, meaning =
"files=20
  with>  >  extensions predefined as =
unsafe".> =20
  >>  >  On Fri, 04 Feb
2005 17:01:13 -0500, Mike =
'/m'=20
  <mike{at}barkto.com>">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>
wrote=20
  in>  >  message <k3s70153e3tkvs=">mailto:k3s70153e3tkvs6prmst408kh53p5bo5j7{at}4ax.com">k3s70153e3tkvs=
6prmst408kh53p5bo5j7{at}4ax.com>:> =20
  >>  > 
>>  >  >It is =
the=20
  content, not the extension, that determines whether or not a file=20
  is>  > 
>safe.>  > =20
  >>  > 
>  /m>  > =20
  >>  >  >On Thu, 3
Feb 2005 17:34:44 -0800, =
"Rich"=20
  <{at}> wrote:>  > 
>>  =
> =20
  >>   What everyone I know does if they
need to send =
unsafe=20
  files by email is to rename them to have a "safe" extension and to =
send=20
  that.  The recipient saves it and renames it
back.> =20
  >  >>> 
>  >>   =
There are=20
  administrator controls but this comes up so rarely I can't remember =
when the=20
  last person asked.>  > 
>>>  =
> =20
  >>Rich>  > 
>>>  =
> =20
  >>  "Ellen K." <72322.1016{at}compuserve.com&g=">mailto:72322.1016{at}compuserve.com">72322.1016{at}compuserve.com&g=
t;=20
  wrote in message news:a8n4015isr1=
b71cf9vemdkp9t6eh5pbtd2{at}4ax.com...> =20
  >  >>  Which brings us back to the
nasty question =
of, to=20
  what extent should>  > 
>>  users be =
protected=20
  against their own stupidity?  If Microsoft let =
these> =20
  >  >>  through, people would say
they are impairing =

  security.   In fact users> 
>  =
>> =20
  clicking on attachments has been one of the biggest ways viruses=20
  spread.>  > 
>>>  > =20
  >>  I'm wondering whether the Help File posted
below has an =

  alternative,>  > 
>>  since the =
behavior=20
  described is labelled the "default"... i.e. this
name>  =
> =20
  >>  implies that some other possibility also
exists. =20
  Rich?>  > 
>>>  > =20
  >>  On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 22:10:58 -0500, Mike '/m'
<mike{at}barkto.com>">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>
wrote =
in> =20
  >  >>  message <3f5301d75mapmv=">mailto:3f5301d75mapmv5dppc0nvnnvkjdj3snmr{at}4ax.com">3f5301d75mapmv=
5dppc0nvnnvkjdj3snmr{at}4ax.com>:> =20
  >  >>> 
>  >>  =
>> =20
  >  >>  >That feature has
converted some friends =
away=20
  from Outlook to another, any> 
>  >> =20
  >other, email client.  They cannot understand why the email =
client=20
  does not>  > 
>>  >allow them access =
to what=20
  is sent to them.>  > 
>>  =
>> =20
  >  >>  >
/m>  >  =
>> =20
  >>  > 
>>  >>  =
> =20
  >>  >On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 20:08:20 -0600,
"Robert G Lewis" =
<r.g.lewis{at}comcast.net>&g=">mailto:r.g.lewis{at}comcast.net">r.g.lewis{at}comcast.net>&g=
t; =20
  >  >> 
>wrote:>  >  =
>> =20
  >>  > 
>>  >>Ah =
HA> =20
  >  >> 
>>>  >  =
>> =20
  >>From the Help File
<g>>  >  =
>> =20
  >>>  > 
>>  >>a.. By =
default,=20
  Microsoft Outlook blocks attachment files ( such as .bat, =
> =20
  >  >>  >>.exe, .vbs,
and .js) that can =
contain=20
  viruses. You cannot see or access the > 
>  =
>> =20
  >>attachments. Your Inbox will display the paperclip icon in the =

  Attachment >  > 
>>  >>column to =
let you=20
  know that the message has an attachment, and you will see =
> =20
  >  >>  >>a list of
the blocked attachment =
files in=20
  the InfoBar at the top of your >  >  =
>> =20
  >>message. If you try to open the attachment by right-clicking =
the item,=20
  View >  > 
>>  >>Attachments will =
not=20
  appear on the shortcut menu. If you need to use files,
> =20
  >  >>  >>such as
.exe files, from others, =
have them=20
  post the files to a network share >  >  =
>> =20
  >>or to a Web share that you can
access.>  =
> =20
  >>  >>> 
>  >>  =
>>Except=20
  it doesn't show in the inforbar and .MSO is not listed as a blocked=20
  >  > 
>>  >>file in Outlook 2002 =
so=20
  ......>  > 
>>  >>> =20
  >  >> 
>>>  >  =
>> =20
  >>>  > 
>>  =
>>> =20
  >  >> 
>>"Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote in =
message news:42017edd$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
> =20
  >  >>  >>>
"Robert G Lewis" <r.g.lewis{at}comcast.net>">mailto:r.g.lewis{at}comcast.net">r.g.lewis{at}comcast.net>
=
wrote in=20
  message>  > 
>>  >>> news:42016ab0$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
> =20
  >  >> 
>>>>  >  =
>> =20
  >>>> I'm right clicking on the Inbox message
list for that =
email=20
  and can view>  > 
>>  >>>=20
  or>  > 
>>  >>>> open the=20
  attachment, I don't see the attachment in either preview =
or> =20
  >  >>  >>>
opened>  >  =

  >>  >>>>
email.>  >  =
>> =20
  >>>>  > 
>>  >>> =
Excellent,=20
  just what I was looking for, thanks.> 
>  =
>> =20
  >>>>  > 
>>  >>>=20
  Geo.>  >  >>  =
>>>> =20
  >  >>  >>>
>  > =20
  >> 
>>

------=_NextPart_000_0B9E_01C50E91.767B8360--

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