I'm a closet hippie, too - but when it comes to E-mail I'm a militant fascist. I was referring to E-mail hippies. I hate em. Real hippies are groovy man.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Hunter, Lori" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 7:05 AM Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe > Hey, I resemble THAT remark! > > I'm a full-fledged, card carrying hippie witch here, Eric. I would have > voted for that policy and as an added bonus put pictures of the offenders > (wearing cap and shirt) on a bulletin board by the coffee machine. Probably > posted on the intranet as well. > > Damn conservatives. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 6:12 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe > > > At my last job we proposed a security policy whereby any user who executed a > virus and infected the system would have to wear a dunce cap and a T-Shirt > that says "I'm the idiot who opened the virus" for a week. It was almost > made policy. Damn hippies shot it down... > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mike Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 4:00 PM > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe > > > Exactly why MS has to create patches like this particular one. > > Morons. > > What would be cool is if you could put a lock on their mail box so that > when they open up Outlook there is an administrative message staring > them in the face. Before they could open any email they would have to > click OK and then retype what the administrative message was in a box > exactly as it was. If they don't get it right, they are prompted again. > If a new virus goes around the admin could put a lock on all mailboxes > until they perform those steps. > > Kind like yelling at your kids. You tell them something and then you > make them repeat it back to you so that you realize they heard what you > said. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 5:49 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe > > > Users will open anything regardless of what you say. > I remember ILOVEYOU, and a user. I had sent out emails all day long > warning about this virus that had penetrated to a few machines before we > had the DAT file for it. Anyhow, after an email an hour all day, I was > talking to this guy about it at his desk. As I am talking, he is looking > at mail and opens it right then! He had a laptop, and I ripped the > PCCard NIC out, but too late. He just stood there and stared at me, as I > turned and ran for my servers. Too late. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mike Carlson > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 3:45 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe > > > Yes you should and you do. Edit the registry. > > No reason to blame MS for stupid people that open every > "clickmetof*ckupyourcomputer.exe" they get in an email. > > When are people going to take responsibility for stupid stuff they do > and their own incompetence. > > If you don't know how to drive are you going to blame the person that > runs into you? If you don't know how to use a shotgun are going to blame > the person who sold you the gun when you blow your arm off? > > I am amazed all the time when we get new hires, that cant barely survive > without a sign on their desk reminding them to inhale and exhale > otherwise they will die, and throw them in front of a computer and they > have no clue. We had to send a tech down to help a person log into their > computer. They didn't know how to press CTRL+ALT+DEL. The keyboard had > CTL instead of CTRL on the key. > > Or the other fabulous ones that reboot their computer and call us saying > their hard drive crashed when all they did was leave a non-bootable > floppy disk in the drive. > > People need to take responsibility and face up to the fact that they are > computer illiterate or just plain dense when it comes to some of this > stuff. > > Because people think they are computer geniuses even though they > couldn't tell the difference between \ and / companies like Microsoft > have to put in their application things like this patch. > > My wife is a prime example. She will be the first to admint she doesn't > know anything about computers ecept for the applications that she uses > all the time. If I am logged into my computer and she needs it, she logs > into her own account because I have setup her account so that she cant > do any damage to the computer. > > Don't blame MS. They are just responding to all the crap they got about > not being secure. If people wouldn't click on every stupid theng they > get via email, MS would ahev NEVER released that patch. > > There is no one to blame but morons. > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wynkoop, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 2:11 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe > > > I should have the option to block attachments or not! > > Explanation: > Some of us (those who work for universities with stupid staff members > and arrogant professors) don't have the option of blocking attachments > (Gosh forbid we infringe on anyone's "academic freedom"). That is > unless we wish to endure a never ending reign of sh*t from above. > Instead we have to work around the vunerabilities found in things such > as VBS, EXE, and COM files (which we have successfully done I might > add). We managed to succesfully ward off NIMDA, Code Red, and a rash of > other recent viruses without changing what users can and can't do (see, > it can be done). Now outlook just gives my users one more reason to > jump down my throat when something doesn't work. Thanks MicroShaft. > > John > > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 2:45 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe > > > Even allowing your mail system to pass .EXE and .COM files is a mistake. > You should thank MS for making OL block those types of files since you > don't. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andy David > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 11:41 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe > > > >>>>For such a typically minor patch? > Where did you get that idea? > > The Patch didnt break Outlook, your lack of preparation did. > > Over and Out. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Shawn Connelly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 2:30 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe > > > You know, it astounds me that so many IT people are blind to Microsoft's > incompetence! > > BTW Mike, your 'car head light' analogy is not even relevant. A more > apt analogy would refer to the Ford Pinto's with the exploding gas > tanks. Sure the user could be mindful of driving only on roads with no > other vehicles, thereby preventing a back-end collision. The 'solution' > in service patch 2 could be likened to Microsoft removing the gas tank > altogether. > > First, I read about 70% of the material related to this service patch. > There are about 20 pages of material relating to this patch and since I > run a dept. with over 50 systems and 6 servers ON MY OWN (no help, not > even support contracts), I really don't have the time (nor is it humanly > possible) to read every patch/update/security document produced by > Microsoft alone (to say nothing about the 50+ other products I look > after). No, I'm not whining!! > > Simply put, this patch broke Outlook!! An email program that cannot > accept > .com and .exe's is damaged! Yes, yes, I know there are other methods > of > receiving files (such as zip'ed) but the point is that no other email > program such as Eudora, Groupwise, Netscape block these attachments. All > Microsoft had to do was to either disable the dangerous capabilities of > .asp,.vbs, (et al) code OR entirely block access to this code. IT WAS > AS SIMPLE AS THAT!! > > Geezz, what's with some of you in this (supposed to be?) friendly > discussions group? > > I sent a message asking about this (yes, I admit it was confrontational) > and I read return responses basically calling me an idiot based on inane > assumptions! > > Of course, I had to risk installing this patch because the risk of an > Outlook-based virus outbreak out weighted the potential annoyance of > breaking Outlook. BTW, I have never experienced a virus outbreak in the > 6 years I've been with this company because of my pro-active stance on > these issues. > > Message to Lori: > "Project Plan and Test Plan Results"??? For such a typically minor > patch? How many IT people do you have in your organization? The last > time I had the time to do anything like that was in 98/99 for Y2K. I'm > beginning to feel very small; am I the only IT person in this discussion > group with an IT budget less than my wage? > > Message to Andy David: > See note about inane assumptions. > > Over and out, > Shawn > > -----Original Message----- > From: Exchange Discussions digest [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: November 6, 2001 1:00 AM > To: exchange digest recipients > Subject: exchange digest: November 05, 2001 > > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe > at tach ments > From: "Mike Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 09:38:28 -0600 > X-Message-Number: 38 > > It amazes me when people complain about this patch. First developers > wanted the ability to autmoate/script everything to customize it for > their environment. "Give us the tools! Give us the ability!" Well > Microsoft did. Now that users and administrators are too stupid, yes I > mean stupid, to be mindful of attachments and security issues, they now > blame Microsoft for releasing a buggy product. Its like blaming a car > company, when you get rear-ended, for your brake lights being out. > > Similarily, the current crap about IIS being insecure is the same > situation. If the system administrators would apply patches when they > come out, and properly configure the machines, they would have no > problems. > > When a company like Microsoft has to write into their application a > security process that the administrators should do themselves, you have > no one to blame but moron users and incompetant administrators. > > No one in our company had the ability, except admins, to open .exe, > .vbs, wsh files from Outlook before they released the patch. We have a > policy that everything must be in .zip or other compressed archive > format like .sit or .tar. This way we can limit the vulnerabilites we > have. > > People want it easy to use and administer. With that comes > responsibility. If you cant take responsibility, you do not deserve your > job. > > BTW: A company I do development for, fired 2 administrators because they > got hacked by Code Red and Nimda. They were too stupid and incompetent > to install patches that had been out for quite a long time. > > So again, blame stupid users and lazy administrators, not Microsoft. > > Also, if you blindly install patches and fixes without reading the > documentation first and then testing the patches, your job should be on > shakey ground. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]=20 > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 8:50 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe > at tach ments > > > Sue Mosher and I (and so many many others) made it a personal goal to > speak ill of this patch whenever possible. In fact, we only refer to it > as the Hell Patch. Not sure who coined that one but it does fit. > > So Shawn, can you show me your Project Plan and Test Plan Results for > the application of this patch in a production environment? Or did you > just blindly apply it and are now here to get your money back? > > No soup for you. NEXT!! > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 8:16 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe > at tach ments > > > Ahhh, I love it.. > If you had bothered to do even a little research before applying the SP > you would have known this... But of course, it's Microsoft's fault. > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
