From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0ABC_01C50C68.44AB0D40
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   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_0ABC_01C50C68.44AB0D40
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   I
disagree.  This is =
what matters=20
and in fact the reason the feature 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 have=20
any such way?  If not, where would you draw the line between safe = and=20
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...OK,=20
  I'll buy that, although it's putting a very fine point on =
it.On Sun, 6=20
  Feb 2005 00:17:50 -0800, "Rich" <{at}> wrote in
message<4205d288$1{at}w3.nls.net>:<=">mailto:4205d288$1{at}w3.nls.net">4205d288$1{at}w3.nls.net>:<=
BR>>  =20
  No.  Something is unsafe if it has the potential to be =
harmful. =20
  Mike is trying to make the claim that unsafe is synonymous with =
harmful. =20
  The content determines if something is harmful.  The extension =
determines=20
  if something is
unsafe.>>Rich>> 
=
"Ellen K."=20
  <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".>>  On=20
  Fri, 04 Feb 2005 17:01:13 -0500, Mike '/m' <mike{at}barkto.com>">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>
wrote =
in> =20
  message <k3s70153e3tkvs=">mailto:k3s70153e3tkvs6prmst408kh53p5bo5j7{at}4ax.com">k3s70153e3tkvs=
6prmst408kh53p5bo5j7{at}4ax.com>:>> =20
  >>  >It is the content, not the
extension, that =
determines=20
  whether or not a file is> 
>safe.> =20
  >>  > 
/m>  >>  =
>On Thu,=20
  3 Feb 2005 17:34:44 -0800, "Rich" <{at}>
wrote:> =20
  >>  >>  
What everyone I know does if =
they need=20
  to send unsafe files by email is to rename them to have a "safe" =
extension and=20
  to send that.  The recipient saves it and renames it =
back.> =20
  >>> 
>>   There are administrator =
controls=20
  but this comes up so rarely I can't remember when the last person=20
  asked.> 
>>> 
>>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:a8n4015isr1=
b71cf9vemdkp9t6eh5pbtd2{at}4ax.com...> =20
  >>  Which brings us back to the nasty question of, to what =
extent=20
  should>  >>  users be
protected against their =
own=20
  stupidity?  If Microsoft let these> 
>>  =
through,=20
  people would say they are impairing security.   In fact=20
  users>  >>  clicking on
attachments has been =
one of the=20
  biggest ways viruses spread.> 
>>> =20
  >>  I'm wondering whether the Help File posted
below has an =

  alternative,>  >>  since
the behavior described =
is=20
  labelled the "default"... i.e. this
name>  >>  =
implies=20
  that some other possibility also exists. 
Rich?> =20
  >>>  >> 
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 22:10:58 =
-0500, Mike=20
  '/m' <mike{at}barkto.com>">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>
=
wrote=20
  in>  >>  message <3f5301d75mapmv=">mailto:3f5301d75mapmv5dppc0nvnnvkjdj3snmr{at}4ax.com">3f5301d75mapmv=
5dppc0nvnnvkjdj3snmr{at}4ax.com>:> =20
  >>>  >> 
>>  =
>> =20
  >That feature has converted some friends away from Outlook to =
another,=20
  any>  >>  >other,
email client.  They =
cannot=20
  understand why the email client does not> 
>> =20
  >allow them access to what is sent to them.>  =
>> =20
  >>  >>  >
/m>  >>  =

  >>  >> 
>>  >>  =
>On=20
  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
  >>>  >> 
>>From the Help File=20
  <g>>  >> 
>>>  =
>> =20
  >>a.. By default, Microsoft Outlook blocks attachment files ( =
such as=20
  .bat, >  >> 
>>.exe, .vbs, and .js) that =
can=20
  contain viruses. You cannot see or access the >  =
>> =20
  >>attachments. Your Inbox will display the paperclip icon in the =

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

------=_NextPart_000_0ABC_01C50C68.44AB0D40--

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