funsec mailing list archives
RE: Outlook 2007: one step forward, two steps back?
From: "Richard M. Smith" <rms () computerbytesman com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 21:28:12 -0400
Actually, as email readers go, Outlook has been relatively secure since about 2000 when JavaScript was turned off by default and executable attachments were blocked. Outlook 2003 added an image blocker and spam filter. Outlook 2007 was also immune to the recent ANI problem. Richard PS. Does PINE automatically block executable attachments in incoming email messages? -----Original Message----- From: funsec-bounces () linuxbox org [mailto:funsec-bounces () linuxbox org] On Behalf Of Nick FitzGerald Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 8:04 PM To: 'FunSec [List]' Subject: Re: [funsec] Outlook 2007: one step forward, two steps back? Of course, your question suggests you care, so that begs the question of why _ANYONE_ with half a concern for security and usability issues would ever choose to use OL for their MUA in the first place. Regards, Nick FitzGerald _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
Current thread:
- Outlook 2007: one step forward, two steps back? rms (Apr 09)
- RE: Outlook 2007: one step forward, two steps back? Larry Seltzer (Apr 09)
- Re: Outlook 2007: one step forward, two steps back? Nick FitzGerald (Apr 09)
- RE: Outlook 2007: one step forward, two steps back? Richard M. Smith (Apr 09)
- RE: Outlook 2007: one step forward, two steps back? Nick FitzGerald (Apr 09)
- RE: Outlook 2007: one step forward, two steps back? Richard M. Smith (Apr 10)
- RE: Outlook 2007: one step forward, two steps back? David Harley (Apr 10)
- RE: Outlook 2007: one step forward, two steps back? Nick FitzGerald (Apr 10)
- RE: Outlook 2007: one step forward, two steps back? Richard M. Smith (Apr 09)
- Message not available
- Re: Outlook 2007: one step forward, two steps back? Nick FitzGerald (Apr 10)