Text 5462, 664 rader
Skriven 2005-06-28 09:55:02 av Rich (1:379/45)
Kommentar till en text av Geo (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: An Army of Soulless 1's and 0's
===========================================
From: "Rich" <@>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0295_01C57BC7.74EAA410
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
You are all over the map as I expected. You complain that you can =
open attachments even with a bold warning and at the same time complain = that
you can't. Why do you believe that users susceptible to social = tricks like
tempting pictures or better still those that as instructed = saved a password
protected ZIP file, opened it with a supplied password, = extracted a file, and
ran it are going to be stopped by a checkbox?
Rich
"Geo" <georger@nls.net> wrote in message news:42c0f02d@w3.nls.net...
Of course it's the users being exploited with tricks like tempting =
pictures.
What I'm saying is that the email programs allowing users to just =
click on an icon in an email to open an attachment, and then allowing = that
attachment to run (even with an annoying dialog box) and then = allowing it to
run with permissions great enough to change the system or = install software,
is where the problem is.
I thought outlook stopping the attachment from even showing up if it =
was executable was a GREAT solution, the only fault I had with it was = that it
didn't have a hard to find off switch but instead required an = exchange server
to disable it. And the disabled mode should allow only = saving to disk not
execution. (now if they would just do that for OE)
Geo.
"Rich" <@> wrote in message news:42c0d228@w3.nls.net...
So you are saying that infections are due to the users and this =
is why you or I do not become infected running the same software that = others
do when they get trashed. I could agree with this. You though = are all over
the map. Tomorrow you will claim it is because you are = unable to distinguish
between your computer and everything else or = remind us all that you have
never see a warning message and the yellow = icon that is standard.
As for what I do, I suggest that my friends and family create =
separate Windows XP accounts for their children that are limited user =
accounts not adminstrator accounts and that they avoid any software that =
doesn't work with this. I also suggest that they do the same for = themselves
and use a separate administrator account only when necessary. =
My suggestion to you is the same.
The kids of relevance to me are younger than fifteen. =
Attachments are not and have never been a problem. In fact all the = instances
I can remember where attachments were an issue have been with = adults
exercising poor judgement. The problem with children is that = they download
crap like kazaa or some slimey game they came across. = Either way, running as
a limited user allows a foolish user to trash his = own account without
trashing the machine.
Rich
"Geo" <georger@nls.net> wrote in message =
news:42c0920f$1@w3.nls.net...
My computer isn't infected because I don't allow a 15 year old to =
use it. So if you had a 15 year old there who shared your computer with = you,
how would you keep it safe? Obviously you can't trust a child to = read warning
boxes and assuming it's a male child the Jennifer Lopez = thing is going to be
pretty tempting once those hormones kick in... Also = a 15 year old is probably
going to know more about the family computer = than his parents so a setting to
"not allow potentially dangerous = attachments" isn't going to be worth squat.
Where is the parental lock?
Geo.
"Rich" <@> wrote in message news:42c015cd@w3.nls.net...
Disabled no. Ignore, yes. If it wasn't under your control =
your computers would all be infected, right? Are they? If not, why = not?
Rich
"Geo" <georger@nls.net> wrote in message =
news:42bfd08b$1@w3.nls.net...
Do you believe all the people or at least most of the people =
getting infected in this manner today have disabled the new safety = features
designed to protect them? Somehow I don't think you of all = people would think
that. So if not, then how are they getting infected?
Geo.
"Rich" <@> wrote in message news:42bef8bf@w3.nls.net...
Yes it does speak volumes about the real world. Most =
people do not think like you are care about the thinks you care about =
regardless of whether or not you think they should. Unfortunately, many = are
easily tricked into taking actions against their own interest. That = is what
is described in the lead in to the article that triggered this = thread.
Rich
"Geo" <georger@nls.net> wrote in message =
news:42bef565@w3.nls.net...
No I'm not giving up, just admitting that the latest =
versions don't suffer from the same UI flaws of previous versions. But = the
fact that so many people are still being fooled by this crap speaks = volumes
about the real world.
Geo.
"Rich" <@> wrote in message news:42bef4a3@w3.nls.net...
Now you give up on making false claims about safe and =
unsafe attachments. Are you incapable of admiting you are wrong?
Are you trying to suggest that someone that downloads =
a ZIP file, opens that file, opens something from that file, and then = still
ignores the warning about it being unsafe should blame any = unwanted
consequences on whom, you? How often do you infect yourself = this way?
Rich
"Geo" <georger@nls.net> wrote in message =
news:42beee3d@w3.nls.net...
not if it's in a zip file.
"Rich" <@> wrote in message =
news:42beebc0@w3.nls.net...
To try to fool the few people like you that =
ignore all the other signs. When OE is configured to allow unsafe file = types
it displays the .scr extension even for the long path. It also = displays the
appropriate icon which for the example you give is an = application icon not a
JPEG icon. Outlook and OE still block it or warn = about it depending on
settings. =20
Rich
"Geo" <georger@nls.net> wrote in message =
news:42bec43b$1@w3.nls.net...
You don't believe the current UI with the way it =
displays an icon has had an effect?
Why then do email virus use such long attachment =
names?
Sheep.jpg =
.scr
explain that.
Geo.
"Rich" <@> wrote in message =
news:42be1eb8@w3.nls.net...
The icons reflect the icons elsewhere in the =
UI. I believe this makes sense and do not believe that this UI = consistency
makes users more likely to make bad choices.
File extensions being hidden or not, and they =
are not on file attachments, is not the issue. I realize that this is a =
topic you like to whine about because you believe that your preference = is
right for everyone. Do you really believe the the clueless that = ignore
warnings would pay attention to this? This is all moot given = that unsafe
email attachments are blocked and the article was describing = people
downloading from the web not opening an attachment.
As for your claim to show a difference, this =
happens in a very obvious way. Users are warned about dangerous files = and
not warned about safe ones. The problem is that many ignore the = warnings.
This is the topic discussed in the email to which you replied = and one which
you completely ignored in your reply.
Rich
"Geo" <georger@nls.net> wrote in message =
news:42be194e$1@w3.nls.net...
The answer is very simple, instead of hiding =
dangerous attachments, show the users that these are somehow different = from
other attachments, something as simple as changing the icon to a = skull and
crossbones. To make it so that profession users can't open an = attachment
without an exchange server is just plain rude.
The problem is MS has spent recent history =
trying to hide file extensions from the users, so now we have a bunch of =
clueless users when it comes to telling which file types are safe and = which
are not.
Geo.
"Rich" <@> wrote in message =
news:42be015f@w3.nls.net...
I don't see an easy answer. The issue is =
not that users are warned when there is no reason too, it's that they = got
lucky. A better analogy than a combination lock is Russian = roulette. It's
always dangerous which is why there is a warning. What = would you do?
On a related note, how do you make a user =
that just wants things to "work" and clicks OK because it doesn't "work" = if
he makes another choice to care about such choices? You can remove = the
choice which is the position taken with Outlook and dangerous = attachments.
There were plenty that complained including folks here = when that happened.
Rich
------=_NextPart_000_0295_01C57BC7.74EAA410
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2668" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> You are all over the map =
as I=20
expected. You complain that you can open attachments even with a =
bold=20
warning and at the same time complain that you can't. Why do you =
believe=20
that users susceptible to social tricks like tempting pictures or better =
still=20
those that as instructed saved a password protected ZIP file, opened it = with
a=20
supplied password, extracted a file, and ran it are going to be stopped = by
a=20
checkbox?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Geo" <<A =
href=3D"mailto:georger@nls.net">georger@nls.net</A>> wrote=20
in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42c0f02d@w3.nls.net">news:42c0f02d@w3.nls.net</A>...</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Of course it's the users being =
exploited with=20
tricks like tempting pictures.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>What I'm saying is that the email =
programs=20
allowing users to just click on an icon in an email to open an =
attachment, and=20
then allowing that attachment to run (even with an annoying dialog =
box) and=20
then allowing it to run with permissions great enough to change the =
system or=20
install software, is where the problem is.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I thought outlook stopping the =
attachment from=20
even showing up if it was executable was a GREAT solution, the only =
fault I=20
had with it was that it didn't have a hard to find off switch but =
instead=20
required an exchange server to disable it. And the disabled mode =
should allow=20
only saving to disk not execution. (now if they would just do that for =
OE)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Geo.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Rich" <@> wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42c0d228@w3.nls.net">news:42c0d228@w3.nls.net</A>...</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> So you are saying that =
infections=20
are due to the users and this is why you or I do not become infected =
running=20
the same software that others do when they get trashed. I =
could agree=20
with this. You though are all over the map. Tomorrow you =
will=20
claim it is because you are unable to distinguish between your =
computer and=20
everything else or remind us all that you have never see a warning =
message=20
and the yellow icon that is standard.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> As for what I do, I =
suggest that=20
my friends and family create separate Windows XP accounts for their =
children=20
that are limited user accounts not adminstrator accounts and that =
they avoid=20
any software that doesn't work with this. I also suggest that =
they do=20
the same for themselves and use a separate administrator account =
only when=20
necessary. My suggestion to you is the same.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> The kids of relevance =
to me are=20
younger than fifteen. Attachments are not and have never been =
a=20
problem. In fact all the instances I can remember where =
attachments=20
were an issue have been with adults exercising poor judgement. =
The=20
problem with children is that they download crap like kazaa or some =
slimey=20
game they came across. Either way, running as a limited user =
allows a=20
foolish user to trash his own account without trashing the=20
machine.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Geo" <<A =
href=3D"mailto:georger@nls.net">georger@nls.net</A>>=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42c0920f$1@w3.nls.net">news:42c0920f$1@w3.nls.net</A>...</DI=
V>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>My computer isn't infected =
because I don't=20
allow a 15 year old to use it. So if you had a 15 year old there =
who=20
shared your computer with you, how would you keep it safe? =
Obviously you=20
can't trust a child to read warning boxes and assuming it's a male =
child=20
the Jennifer Lopez thing is going to be pretty tempting once those =
hormones kick in... Also a 15 year old is probably going to know =
more=20
about the family computer than his parents so a setting to "not =
allow=20
potentially dangerous attachments" isn't going to be worth=20
squat.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Where is the parental =
lock?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Geo.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Rich" <@> wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42c015cd@w3.nls.net">news:42c015cd@w3.nls.net</A>...</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Disabled no. =
Ignore,=20
yes. If it wasn't under your control your computers would =
all be=20
infected, right? Are they? If not, why =
not?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: =
5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Geo" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:georger@nls.net">georger@nls.net</A>> wrote =
in message=20
<A=20
=
href=3D"news:42bfd08b$1@w3.nls.net">news:42bfd08b$1@w3.nls.net</A>...</DI=
V>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Do you believe all the people =
or at least=20
most of the people getting infected in this manner today have =
disabled=20
the new safety features designed to protect them? Somehow I =
don't=20
think you of all people would think that. So if not, then how =
are they=20
getting infected?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Geo.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: =
5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Rich" <@> wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42bef8bf@w3.nls.net">news:42bef8bf@w3.nls.net</A>...</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Yes it does =
speak volumes=20
about the real world. Most people do not think like =
you are=20
care about the thinks you care about regardless of whether =
or not=20
you think they should. Unfortunately, many are easily =
tricked=20
into taking actions against their own interest. That =
is what=20
is described in the lead in to the article that triggered =
this=20
thread.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: =
5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Geo" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:georger@nls.net">georger@nls.net</A>> =
wrote in=20
message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42bef565@w3.nls.net">news:42bef565@w3.nls.net</A>...</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>No I'm not giving up, =
just admitting=20
that the latest versions don't suffer from the same UI =
flaws of=20
previous versions. But the fact that so many people are =
still=20
being fooled by this crap speaks volumes about the real=20
world.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Geo.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; =
MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Rich" <@> wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42bef4a3@w3.nls.net">news:42bef4a3@w3.nls.net</A>...</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Now you =
give up on=20
making false claims about safe and unsafe =
attachments. Are=20
you incapable of admiting you are wrong?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Are you =
trying to=20
suggest that someone that downloads a ZIP file, opens =
that file,=20
opens something from that file, and then still ignores =
the=20
warning about it being unsafe should blame any unwanted=20
consequences on whom, you? How often do you infect =
yourself this way?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; =
MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Geo" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:georger@nls.net">georger@nls.net</A>> wrote in=20
message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42beee3d@w3.nls.net">news:42beee3d@w3.nls.net</A>...</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>not if it's in a zip=20
file.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; =
MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Rich" <@> wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42beebc0@w3.nls.net">news:42beebc0@w3.nls.net</A>...</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> To try =
to fool the=20
few people like you that ignore all the other =
signs. =20
When OE is configured to allow unsafe file types it =
displays=20
the .scr extension even for the long =
path. =20
It also displays the appropriate icon which for the =
example=20
you give is an application icon not a JPEG =
icon. =20
Outlook and OE still block it or warn about it =
depending on=20
settings. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; =
MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Geo" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:georger@nls.net">georger@nls.net</A>>=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42bec43b$1@w3.nls.net">news:42bec43b$1@w3.nls.net</A>...</DI=
V>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>You don't believe =
the current=20
UI with the way it displays an icon has had an=20
effect?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Why then do email =
virus use=20
such long attachment names?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial=20
=
size=3D2>Sheep.jpg &=
nbsp; &n=
bsp; &nb=
sp; &nbs=
p;  =
; =
&=
nbsp; =20
.scr</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>explain =
that.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Geo.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; =
MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Rich" <@> wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42be1eb8@w3.nls.net">news:42be1eb8@w3.nls.net</A>...</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> =
The icons=20
reflect the icons elsewhere in the UI. I =
believe=20
this makes sense and do not believe that this UI =
consistency makes users more likely to make bad=20
choices.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> =
File=20
extensions being hidden or not, and they are not =
on file=20
attachments, is not the issue. I realize =
that this=20
is a topic you like to whine about because you =
believe=20
that your preference is right for =
everyone. Do you=20
really believe the the clueless that ignore =
warnings=20
would pay attention to this? This is all =
moot=20
given that unsafe email attachments are blocked =
and the=20
article was describing people downloading from =
the web=20
not opening an attachment.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> As =
for your=20
claim to show a difference, this happens in a =
very=20
obvious way. Users are warned about =
dangerous=20
files and not warned about safe ones. The =
problem=20
is that many ignore the warnings. This is =
the=20
topic discussed in the email to which you =
replied and=20
one which you completely ignored in your=20
reply.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; =
MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Geo" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:georger@nls.net">georger@nls.net</A>>=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42be194e$1@w3.nls.net">news:42be194e$1@w3.nls.net</A>...</DI=
V>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The answer is =
very=20
simple, instead of hiding dangerous =
attachments, show=20
the users that these are somehow different =
from other=20
attachments, something as simple as changing =
the icon=20
to a skull and crossbones. To make it so that=20
profession users can't open an attachment =
without an=20
exchange server is just plain =
rude.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The problem =
is MS has=20
spent recent history trying to hide=20
file extensions from the users, so now we =
have a=20
bunch of clueless users when it comes to =
telling which=20
file types are safe and which are =
not.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>Geo.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: =
5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px">
<DIV>"Rich" <@> wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42be015f@w3.nls.net">news:42be015f@w3.nls.net</A>...</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2> I don't=20
see an easy answer. The issue =
is not=20
that users are warned when there is no =
reason=20
too, it's that they got lucky. A =
better=20
analogy than a combination lock is Russian=20
roulette. It's always dangerous which =
is why=20
there is a warning. </FONT><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>What would you do?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2> On a=20
related note, how do you make a user that =
just wants=20
things to "work" and clicks OK because it =
doesn't=20
"work" if he makes another choice to care =
about such=20
choices? You can remove the choice =
which is=20
the position taken with Outlook and =
dangerous=20
attachments. There were plenty that =
complained=20
including folks here when that=20
happened.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial=20
=
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOC=
KQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><=
/BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></=
HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0295_01C57BC7.74EAA410--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
|