Maybe it would have been better if they made it block by default and there was an option to turn it off deep in the advanced settings. M$ can't win cause they make themselves lose. They go from one extreme to the other. Assuming everyone is a newbie and forcing them to edit the registry (which if you goto m$ site goes through the whole speech of we wont support this, yadda, yadda, back up be safe), etc.
This is not directed at you Eric it is directed at everyone who thinks this is a good idea (just my 2 cents, probably worth less then 1 cent at the going rate.) Cheers, Leon Oh and no flames welcome I have heard more then enough. -----Original Message----- From: Eric Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 1:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: outlook 2002 is a security freak Hmm... Renaming the files before and after transfer worked fine for me. Microsoft just can't win... They get so much flak from people for having an "insecure" product that lets users choose to run trojaned .EXE files, so they grudgingly make the change, and they are suddenly big brother. Oy! -= Eric =- -----Original Message----- From: Tom Geldner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 11:31 AM To: 'leon'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: outlook 2002 is a control freak >-----Original Message----- >From: leon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Also " There are two levels of attachment security. Access to >level 1 files is blocked and can't be changed." You need a 3rd party add-in that modifies this. Attachment Security Options is the one I use and it's free. You'll need to hunt around http://www.slipstick.com for it. >Now lets say I need that file and I don't have access to the >same network or web share? Is there away around this? Maybe >like filename.exe.blah or would that corrupt the attachment >when I rename it back to .exe later? Won't work. Outlook still sees the file as having an exe footprint and blocks it. Tom Geldner http://blarp.com <- answers to your questions
