Please excuse if this is a repeat. . . I have not yet received my copy of the
original of this message via TIPS, and uncertain of its fate. BTW - an
unusually prompt reply came from AOL tech support in response to my quiry, and
my observations have been confirmed. I feel much better now. . .
snip from AOL:
4) If you have a document longer than 25K that you receive or wish to send,
only the first 2K can be read as mail. Any additional text will be converted
to a file attachment.
If anyone is interested in the full story behind AOL's insidious treatment of
email attachments, let me know.
Sandra Nagel Randall
In a message dated 3/30/99 1:04:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, SNRandall writes:
> Subj: Was: Virus Alert, Now: handling of attachments
> Date: 3/30/99 1:04:52 PM Eastern Standard Time
> From: <A HREF="mailto:SNRandall">SNRandall</A>
> To: <A HREF="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>,
<A HREF="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
>
> In a message dated 3/30/99 12:18:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
adamsr@voyager.
> net writes:
>
> > Subj: RE: Virus Alert. Really.
> > Date: 3/30/99 12:18:53 PM Eastern Standard Time
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rick Adams)
> > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
(Rick Adams)
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tips)
> >
> > Sandra wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Rick, Pat, et al.
> > >
> > > The information I received from Michael Hulsizer was embedded in
> > > the message
> > > itself and not attached in a separate file. Some servers and ISP's,
> > > apparently, convert messages of certain, 'excessive' size to the
> > > attached file
> > > format automatically. This has happened to me using AOL.
> >
> > Actually, the opposite is probably true. AOL tends to include
> attachments
> > in the body of a message when they are below a certain size while most
> email
> > programs (i.e., Outlook 98--which I use--Eudora Pro, etc.) leave them as
> > attachments instead.
> >
> > For the record, the author of the message sent a personal note that
> stated
> > he had accidently sent it as an attachment instead of including it in
the
> > message as he had intended, so in at least this case it was AOL that
made
> > the conversion--something that could offer potential harm to AOL users,
> btw,
> > if a macro virus is included in a message sent in that manner.
> >
> > Rick
> >
> Rick,
>
> Thanks for the additional information. I agree the default you describe
> poses some risk, and have written AOL tech support for clarification on this
> ISP's handling of email attachments.
>
> "Actually, the opposite is probably true." . . . did you mean to say, "The
> opposite may be true as well" or were you indeed calling into question the
> veracity of my observations ? . . . Geez, so hard to get respect around
> here ! =)
>
> If anyone is interested in the response I get from AOL representatives on
> this issue, let me know and I will send it along upon receipt.
>
> Sandra
>
>
>
*****************************************************************************
> **
> Sandra Nagel Randall, Ph.D.
> Wayne County Community College District, MI
> Department of Human and Community Development
>
>
> Athabasca University, Alberta, Canada
> Biopsychology Consultant
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Off: 248-948-8162
> Fax: 248-948-5090
> <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/snrandall">http://members.aol.com/snrandall
</A>
>
*****************************************************************************
> ******
