On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 11:27:40 -0400, "Ground Cover"
<ground@cover.internet> wrote:

>jonah wrote:

>>> On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 20:19:31 -0500, "Frank Saunders, MS-MVP OE/WM"
>>> <franksaunders@mvps.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> snip
>>>>
>>>> I have been using OE for years. Set to display HTML and set for the
>>>> Internet Zone. Never got infected. Of course, I know I didn't win
>>>> a million dollars and that Microsoft didn't send me a patch. No
>>>> one in a foreign country needs my help to transfer money, either.
>>>
>>> LOL
>>>
>>> I never got infected via OE either cos I never used it, fixed plenty
>>> of peoples machines that do use OE. You are either dead lucky, got a
>>> good spam filter, Johnny no mates, or very knowlegable, I suspect the
>>> latter.
>>>
>>> The "Lookout Express" tag was not earned for nothing was it?
>>>
>>> 8-)
>>>
>>> Jonah

>
>If one regularly opens attachments using a non-OE email client instead of
>OE, will somehow lower the risk of a malware attack? No.
>
>Do you think that Thunderbird will somehow magically protect someone who
>will open every attachment sent to him or her?
>
>I just don't get the point you are trying to make. I've never succumbed to a
>malware attack through Outlook nor through Outlook Express. But them I don't
>open those screensavers. I don't think it takes *that* much computer savy
>here. And if a person is so clueless as to open those .scr and .exe and .com
>files attached to SPAM, well, how is Thunderbird (or whatever) supposed to
>protect them?
>
>Currently, OE installs set to the Restricted Zone. You can set it to read
>everything in plain text. Free software like AVG can screen everything
>coming in.
>

You are correct in what you say, no E Mail client can protet from
opening attachments. My main problem with OE is the vast amount of
attacks that then use OEs' address book to propagate themselves. Other
E Mail clients - Courier for eg are not vunerable to these sort of
attacks, one PC may be infected but it will not re-transmit infected e
mails to all others in the address book because the address book is
encrypted.

Thats my beef with OE, due to its popularity (through being installed
as default and deeply embeded in the OS) plus its close association
with that other devils spawn Windows Messenger it is highly
susceptible to attack and the most likely target.

Jonah

"Jonah" <lucie67136REMOVE@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fiu2b2dokl9thki6fupj1f3lvv6pv70tpl@4ax.com...

> You are correct in what you say, no E Mail client can protet from
> opening attachments. My main problem with OE is the vast amount of
> attacks that then use OEs' address book to propagate themselves. Other
> E Mail clients - Courier for eg are not vunerable to these sort of
> attacks, one PC may be infected but it will not re-transmit infected e
> mails to all others in the address book because the address book is
> encrypted.
>
> Thats my beef with OE, due to its popularity (through being installed
> as default and deeply embeded in the OS) plus its close association
> with that other devils spawn Windows Messenger it is highly
> susceptible to attack and the most likely target.
>
> Jonah

The majority of the malware today searches the whole hard drive for email
addresses, not just the WAB.

--
Frank Saunders, MS-MVP OE/WM
Reply in newsgroup
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve
neither liberty or security"

.... which then makes only the Ted Stevens' of the world truly safe... an
irony of epic proportion!

--
Mark

Keeping the fun in dysfunctional!

"Frank Saunders, MS-MVP OE" <franksaunders@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:%23Al%23Td6oGHA.4960@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>
> The majority of the malware today searches the whole hard drive for email
> addresses, not just the WAB.
>
> --
> Frank Saunders, MS-MVP OE/WM
> Reply in newsgroup
> "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security,
> deserve neither liberty or security"
>
>

On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 17:32:46 -0500, "Frank Saunders, MS-MVP OE"
<franksaunders@mvps.org> wrote:

>"Jonah" <lucie67136REMOVE@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:fiu2b2dokl9thki6fupj1f3lvv6pv70tpl@4ax.com.. .
>

>> You are correct in what you say, no E Mail client can protet from
>> opening attachments. My main problem with OE is the vast amount of
>> attacks that then use OEs' address book to propagate themselves. Other
>> E Mail clients - Courier for eg are not vunerable to these sort of
>> attacks, one PC may be infected but it will not re-transmit infected e
>> mails to all others in the address book because the address book is
>> encrypted.
>>
>> Thats my beef with OE, due to its popularity (through being installed
>> as default and deeply embeded in the OS) plus its close association
>> with that other devils spawn Windows Messenger it is highly
>> susceptible to attack and the most likely target.
>>
>> Jonah

>
>The majority of the malware today searches the whole hard drive for email
>addresses, not just the WAB.

It can search all it likes if the e mail address book is encrypted it
won't be able to send anything, my courier mail on WinXP has its
actual mail box sitting on a Linux box, its not even on the HDD, just
the front end sits on windows. Incidentaly restoring, moving a mailbox
to another PC is dead easy, unlike the rigmarole you have to wade
through with OE.

If you like OE then fine, if you know what you are doing thats even
better, IMHO there are many far better e mail clients out there.

8-)

Jonah

--
Dennis
Asus A7V880/Epox 8KRAIPRO
AthonXP3200+/Sempron3300+
Crucial 2x512MB
ATI Radeon x850PRO/Gigabyte Nvidia 6600GT
Audigy 2 ZS Platinum Pro/Audigy 2 ZS Platinum


"Ground Cover" wrote:

> William R. Mosher wrote:

> > Which is the better email client, Windows Mail or Mozilla
> > Thunderbird? I know Windows Mail is still beta, but I find that they
> > are so close that I switch between the two and it does not seem very
> > different.
> >
> > William

>
> Windows Mail is better, much better. I don't let Firefox/Thunderbird on my
> system and strongly recommend against them. Firefox is a steamy pile of
> holes and vulnerabilites - a "fool's gold" of security. My brother wanted to
> try it once - no sooner had we put it on his system the Java VM that came
> with it got compromised - junk. The only reason it is popular is because
> people mindlessly knee-jerk enjoy bashing things Microsoft, not because of
> its technical merit (of which it has little).
>
>
> Firefox does not come with any Java. One must install a JavaVM seperately. On Vista, that would be the latest version 6 beta if you want Aero to remain active when using a Java applet. It's up to Sun to close security holes in Java as they are found, not Microsoft or Mozilla Corp.

I've used Firefox and Thunderbird for several years. I wanted to test out
IE7 in Vista but the Favorites section doesn't expand any of my folders so
it's useless. I installed Firefox and Thunderbird and I'm happy again.

Actually it did. Now it doesn't - wonder why?

Eck wrote:

>> --
>> Dennis
>> Asus A7V880/Epox 8KRAIPRO
>> AthonXP3200+/Sempron3300+
>> Crucial 2x512MB
>> ATI Radeon x850PRO/Gigabyte Nvidia 6600GT
>> Audigy 2 ZS Platinum Pro/Audigy 2 ZS Platinum
>>
>>
>> "Ground Cover" wrote:
>>

>>> William R. Mosher wrote:
>>>> Which is the better email client, Windows Mail or Mozilla
>>>> Thunderbird? I know Windows Mail is still beta, but I find that
>>>> they are so close that I switch between the two and it does not
>>>> seem very different.
>>>>
>>>> William
>>>
>>> Windows Mail is better, much better. I don't let
>>> Firefox/Thunderbird on my
>>> system and strongly recommend against them. Firefox is a steamy
>>> pile of
>>> holes and vulnerabilites - a "fool's gold" of security. My brother
>>> wanted to
>>> try it once - no sooner had we put it on his system the Java VM
>>> that came
>>> with it got compromised - junk. The only reason it is popular is
>>> because
>>> people mindlessly knee-jerk enjoy bashing things Microsoft, not
>>> because of
>>> its technical merit (of which it has little).
>>>
>>>
>>> Firefox does not come with any Java. One must install a JavaVM
>>> seperately. On Vista, that would be the latest version 6 beta if
>>> you want Aero to remain active when using a Java applet. It's up
>>> to Sun to close security holes in Java as they are found, not
>>> Microsoft or Mozilla Corp.

>>
>> I've used Firefox and Thunderbird for several years. I wanted to
>> test out IE7 in Vista but the Favorites section doesn't expand any
>> of my folders so it's useless. I installed Firefox and Thunderbird
>> and I'm happy again.

I never saw any need to move to Firefox or Thunderbird until about a
year ago when I discovered how cool Firefox was with extensions. I also
switched to Thunderbird for no real good reason other than I liked Firefox.

Using Vista I started with IE 7 and Windows Mail because they were there
and I need to know them for professional reasons but I also installed
Firefox and Thunderbird to see if they worked with Vista.

I think there have been some good improvements to IE but it still has a
way to go. Windows Mail looks like it will be better than Thunderbird.
Just a small thing but I like that I can "watch" a newsgroup thread with
a single click in WM but can't find a way to do the same in Thunderbird.

I don't have any axe to grind either way here. I still feel betrayed by
MS over the destruction of Visual Basic so have no loyalty reason to
support them. And I think most of the hype surrounding Firefox regarding
security is just MS bashing. Firefox has had quite a few security
updates too.



William R. Mosher wrote:

> Which is the better email client, Windows Mail or Mozilla Thunderbird? I
> know Windows Mail is still beta, but I find that they are so close that
> I switch between the two and it does not seem very different.
>
> William