From: Ellen K. 

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,
>  >  >>  >>.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