Wow, Evertjan., you've jumped to the top of my cool list. Do you know how
murderous I get when people say that Outlook sucks because it is so
susceptible to viruses? No one - now with the one exception of you -
understands cause and effect. No one seems to understand that Outlook is no
more vulnerable to viruses than any other mail client. No one seems to
understand that the reason that there are so many viruses that are designed
to proliferate via Outlook is exactly what you said. It's the number one
e-mail client. Who the hell would waste his time writing a virus for Eudora
or something? Obviously if you're going to write a virus for e-mail, it
will be targeted for Outlook. And then people say that Outlook sucks
because of it. Nobody gets it. Except you. Thanks! [:
Ray at work
"Evertjan." <ex**************@interxnl.net> wrote in message
news:Xn********************@194.109.133.29...
Ray at <%=sLocation%> wrote on 08 jul 2003 in
microsoft.public.inetserver.asp.general:
Answer 3.
Don't listen to Evertjan.'s suggestion of not using Outlook. Go get
Outlook 2003. There are solutions for all problems that can arise
from HTML e-mail.
I am not an Outlook expert, never having touched it, except to unload an
inadvertent loaded version.
Still the marked leader runs the highest risk of a novel attack. Because
it tis the market leader as such and because therefore most inexperienced
cyber nitwits [mis]use it. [I am not saying this NG's crowd are among the
last !]
A single automatic download of an image will confirm your reading the mail
to a spammer. Doesn't Outlook load src=http://.. images anymore ?
--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)