>>I think they're taking a reasonable approach here, and I too hope it works. For myself, if I ever got an email, either here or at home, with an attachment that had a scripting extension, I sure wouldn't run the thing without looking at the file (code) beforehand. What happened with the ILOVEYOU virus was that people were unaware of what the files were. My philosophy is that if I don't know, I'm not taking any chances. Unfortunately, the folks that didn't share this are responsible for spreading it.
>
>Of course you & I know better, but...
>
>Most of the users infected with Life Stages were in a new crop of recent-graduate hires, that had not been warned at all, and really couldn't be blamed much - that was LAN's fault for no warning or training. Not that LS was extremely deadly, it was merely a nuisance virus - but it COULD have been deadly, that's the key point I've been hammering my LAN Security with.
>
>Don't know how successful the new attachment-filtering will be (first, it has to technically work :) - but I like it, it has a good logic to it, at least.

Did you see Guy's post? Of course, here (at Shaw) it doesn't matter. We use (ugh) Notes. I may be the only person in the entire company that uses Outlook.< g >

Guy,

Thanks for the heads up.