MS-DOS doesn't care whether the extension on an executable file is .COM or .EXE. It looks at the beginning of the file and does the right thing according to what it finds (i.e. MZ or ZM). Other identifiers will not work however.
Inasmuch as Win 9x series OS's are houses that MS-DOS built, the GUI part will follow the convention as well. 2¢ input! Eric Lawrence's e-mail of 27 September 2001 10:56 stated: >Hmm... Renaming the files before and after transfer worked fine for me. > >Microsoft just can't win... They get so much flak from people for having >an "insecure" product that lets users choose to run trojaned .EXE files, >so they grudgingly make the change, and they are suddenly big brother. >Oy! > >-= Eric =- > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Tom Geldner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 11:31 AM >To: 'leon'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: outlook 2002 is a control freak > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: leon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >>Also " There are two levels of attachment security. Access to >>level 1 files is blocked and can't be changed." > >You need a 3rd party add-in that modifies this. Attachment Security >Options is the one I use and it's free. You'll need to hunt around >http://www.slipstick.com for it. > >>Now lets say I need that file and I don't have access to the >>same network or web share? Is there away around this? Maybe >>like filename.exe.blah or would that corrupt the attachment >>when I rename it back to .exe later? > >Won't work. Outlook still sees the file as having an exe footprint and >blocks it. > >Tom Geldner >http://blarp.com <- answers to your questions > > -- Richard H. Cotterell <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :: A quotation for your reading pleasure :: Whenever you're in conflict with someone, there is one factor that can make the difference between damaging your relationship and deepening it. That factor is attitude. -Timothy Bentley
