Steve,

I was concerned about .zip file because I get them all the time. I should have looked at the list of extensions Jim listed more attentively. So I guess, in this regard, Outlook 2003 is not much different from 2002.

I wonder if there is a feature list of Outlook 2003 that are useful that 2002 didn't have. As I said in my initial message, I am basically "forced" by Publisher to upgrade to 2003. But I would like to know if there are other benefits to having 2003

Thank you.

>Dmitry,
>
>This is not new to Outlook 2003; it has been in place since one of the service packs for Outlook 2000. If you do a google search, you'll find that you can modify the registry if you need to receive these type of files. Nobody sends me .exe files, so it is a non-issue to me...
>
>>Hi Jim,
>>
>>Thank you for your input.
>>
>>When you are saying "won't let you see attachments", do you mean that you don't even know if a message has an attachment? Or Outlook 2003 will reject an email with .exe, .chm, etc. attachment? But this is definitely a hindrance, in either case.
>>
>>>One thing that bothered me was that the damned thing won't even let you see attachments that have an extension of .exe, .chm, .scx and a whole bunch more.
>>>