Re: security with OE preview question
From: Ron Sommer (rsommer_at_nospam.ktis.net)
Date: 10/02/04
- Next message: Michael Santovec: "Re: Hyperlinks not working in OE after SP2"
- Previous message: Bruce Hagen: "Re: Congratulations new MVP."
- In reply to: Pop: "Re: security with OE preview question"
- Next in thread: PA Bear: "Re: security with OE preview question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 20:35:54 -0500
"Pop" <nobody@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:%23VLQn4AqEHA.868@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Tom, if you'll bear with me, I have a couple item about your
> post. You sound like you have the answers, but I would like to
> clarify/confirm and maybe ask a question:
>
> "Tom Koch" <spamtrap@insideoe.tomsterdam.com> wrote in message
> news:uIA2vJzpEHA.692@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> | "FireBrick" <w9ol.nospam@comcast.com> wrote in message
> | news:egp%23C9ypEHA.3868@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl
> | > You hear constantly NOT to open an email from an unknown
> source.
> | From whom do you hear that constantly? It is not true.
> ==> Isn't it really more like irrelevant?
>
> |
> | > Using OE, is viewing it in the Preview Pane the same as
> opening the
> | > email?
> | Yes.
> ==> If, symanticly, "opening" is "reading" or "displaying" the
> email. IFF the body of an email downloads onto your machine,
> even though you don't pyscially display it, then it has been
> "opened".
If you get a letter from you mailbox, does that mean it has been opened?
An email is not "opened" until the message body is viewed. This could be
the preview pane or opening the email in its' own window.
However, if all you bring down off the server is the
> Header Info, and NOT the body, then you have not "read" or
> "opened" the email.
OE cannot gets just the headers of email messages.
> Right?
> Also, I've found that a lot of people misunderstand what the
> "Preview Pane" is. Some think it's the (usually) top set of
> columns with the Subject, From, Size, Date/Time, et al in it. To
> others, it's the body of the email showing below the top list.
> I have a reason for all this doggerel; please be patient.
Actually, the preview pane can be below or beside the message list.
>
> |
> | > Now I use email virus detection, so I'm not extremely
> worried,
> | > just curious.
> |
> | I recommend you disable the email anti-virus scan.
> ==> I respectfully submit that (opinion, of course) the email
> scan is useful. It alerts me almost instantly that there is a
> virus present and tells me where it's at. I prefer to react
> immediately to a virus arrival, although they are far and few
> between these days, in my case at least. It doesn't slow
> anything down noticeably and doesn't hog resources, so ... what
> IS the reason for disabling it? Other than the possible
> speed/resource issues I mean.
> Just curious whether I'm missing something obvious.
Some people don't receive their email because the email scan causes the
download to timeout.
The big reason to turn off the email scan is that you run a risk off
corrupting the message store.
>
> | ...
> Leave your system AV
> | scan though. It is not opening an e-mail that infects your
> computer. It
> | is opening an *attachment* to an e-mail that can infect your
> computer,
> | if the *attachment* is in fact a virus, worm or Trojan Horse.
> If you
> | open an infected *attachment*, your system AV scan will stop it
> from
> | infecting your computer. If it fails to stop it at that point,
> it would
> | not have stopped it in the e-mail scan if you had that running.
> ==> Agreed, but by then you may easily have lost the source of
> the virus, which can be important, especially if it came from a
> friend's infected computer. That's happened to me a couple of
> times and I was glad to be able to help my friend/s out.
> Unfortunately though, in reality, it usually meant a trip to
> their house to "educate" them.
>
> |
> | There was a time a few years ago, when Outlook Express 5 was
> new, that a
> | virus was released that could run automatically as soon as you
> opened
> | the email itself. But even back then, Microsoft had already
> released a
> | patch to close that hole some time before the virus ever
> appeared.
> ==> Are you intimating that the patched OE5 could not allow an
> infection if it were patched?
> And that IE6 was/is/will be safe as far as reasonably
> known?
>
> Since
> | then, Outlook Express has become more and more secure. If you
> use the
> | default security settings in Outlook Express, there is no virus
> that can
> | run automatically.
> ==> Which default settings? I -think- the defaults from 5 to 6
> changed, and they definitely changed with SP2, along with a host
> of other things. I'm not asking you to go do any research, but
> can you name the defaults off the top of your head? Many OEM's
> also managed to change defaults in my experience, especially Dell
> at one time a couple years back.
>
> |
> | Do not open attachments from any source unless it passes the
> | safe-computing basics.
> | * You know the sender
> | and
> | * You were expecting the attachment and know what it is
> supposed to do
> | and
> | * Your computer is up-to-date with security updates
> | and
> | * You have an updated anti-virus program scanning your system
> ==> AGREED |
>
> | --
> | ----Please post questions and replies in the newsgroups----
> | Tom Koch - MVP for Internet Explorer and Outlook Express
> | Awareness is free.
> | Inside Outlook Express: http://insideOE.tomsterdam.com
> |
>
> Great website, Tom!!
> Thanks for sharing your knowledge. I use it often when I want to
> figure something out. Yous is one of my top five sites. KUDOS.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pop
>
>
- Next message: Michael Santovec: "Re: Hyperlinks not working in OE after SP2"
- Previous message: Bruce Hagen: "Re: Congratulations new MVP."
- In reply to: Pop: "Re: security with OE preview question"
- Next in thread: PA Bear: "Re: security with OE preview question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
