Slashdot Mirror

Wonder if the aforementioned, longstanding issue is fixed in Office 15 or not...?

Just happened to have to deal with it a few days earlier, and was reminded that it's still there (in Office 14). It's been reported for, >10-year I think...?

Ref: http://www.slipstick.com/outlook/calendar/changing-date-recurring-appointments/

Outlook has a cute little bug associated with IMAP folders and using more than one mail client..... Outlook will send a "The email was not read" read receipt if the email is deleted from the imap folder before you've read it in Outlook... even if you tell Outlook not to send read receipts. This is rather annoying if you routinely use an alternative email to delete your spam. The next time you load Outlook it sends out a load of read receipts to the spam merchants, therefore confirming you (my!) email address.

P.S. Check out:
here,
here,
and
here. It's not just me!

...with the solution being: Use the "My Briefcase" feature in Windows. I had this set up for a client that wanted his email accessible on multiple stations.

Take the .PST, copy to server. Set your sync to overwrite, both ways. The client jus' has to remember to sync it before/after Outlook.

AFAIK, Doc is STILL using this setup.

Pretty? No. It works though, and has been used by many a geek over the years..

thegnu, you got owned, just admit it and then STFU.
I don't know, Anonymous Coward, I seem to see you get owned all the time

Right from the horse's mouth, scroll to the bottom and read:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/296088

APPLIES TO
        Microsoft Outlook 2000 Standard Edition
        Microsoft Outlook 2002 Standard Edition
        Microsoft Outlook 98 Standard Edition
        Microsoft Outlook 97 Standard Edition

And check this out, asshole:
http://www.slipstick.com/problems/repair2gbpst.asp

I had Office XP SP1, and now I know why she got cut off at 1.82GB, except her computer exhibited the same behaviour as if I had just hit 2gb. And, I may add, you'll notice that it's an issue in Office 2000. Also, the fact that they changed it to a lockdown at 1.82 GB, rather than just throwing up a message that let you save your ass, is still kind of fucking weird.

See here, http://www.brienposey.com/kb/pst_maintenance.asp, that Microsoft is getting better, because at least you don't have to call them for the repair tool anymore. Hrm.

And, to further address the "providing support for all their 10 year old software" troll, here's a reference to product support lifecycle for Office 2003, which states that they will support it "until users start adopting" 2007. The actual number is Jan 18th, 2009. 2 years after the successor is quite reasonable, given the nature of the application.
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/HA10229 4401033.aspx#3

Now, given that one can infer from MS's own actions (in addition to regular old logic) that it would be reasonable to support Outlook for 2 years past the subsequent release, it's odd that sometime between 2003 and 2005, MS didn't port back some patch that made 2002 less broken. But that's obviously not something they're interested in.

again, AC, fuck you and your family.

Microsoft has done this with their products before.

Outlook was plagued by viruses and Microsoft responded by releasing a patch that simply refused to allow the user to open certain types of attachments. There was no override in the original version of the patch.

http://www.slipstick.com/outlook/esecup.htm

When Exchange 5.5 was targeted by reverse-NDR spam attacks Microsoft shipped a patch that allowed the user to simply turn off non-delivery reports. Unfortunately the patch didn't work as described on many systems. A more correct fix would have allowed the administrator to simply suppress delivering the complete text of the failed message which makes the system much less likely to be used for reverse-NDR spam.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb; en-us;837794

When the Windows messenger service was targeted by messenger spam. Microsoft elected to simply turn it off. Kudos to Microsoft - this was the correct choice on this one.

http://www.theregister.com/2003/10/29/microsoft_sh oots_the_windows_messenger/

>> That said, I do believe that some crazy person made a FireFox extension to embed IE or something and run the wretched things.

I believe you're talking about IEView, which is useful for those of us who run Firefox on XP and want to visit sites that just don't work (or don't work as well) in Firefox..

Who modded this funny? It is painfully accurate. People that keep every email they ever received, including ones with large attachments, will run afoul of Outlook's 2GB limit on .pst files. When you hit that limit, Outlook starts doing strange things but doesn't let on that you've just done something horrible. Then you are left to pick up the pieces and try to figure out what you have lost.

This blocks 99% of foreign spam. Sue Mosher wrote about other effective methods for killing spam in Outlook.

They're mostly patched now, but there were several cases where vbscripting and the like would automatically execute in Outlook.

But Outlook and OE can't filter on meta-data, ~.

If you're still using OE, then may god have mercy upon your soul.

Evolution will (shortly) be a very capable PIM. With an OS backend of somekind for scheduling, will cover 95% of the "outlook" users needs. But, Outlook does something that no GNU/Linux PIM does yet these form things.
Now, Im not trying to say "outlook r0x0r2 and evolution 6r00l2" or somesuch, so please ease up on the "M$ shill" retorts (and the 'outlook is insecure' w/ vb" stuff as well.

What you can do is send forms, with send a form to a user like an email -- the 'form' appears in their inbox). This form, can do whatever you'd like. You can build work-chain dependant systems with them.

Now, I imagine you can do similar via HTML forms and a Apache backend, but ive used these outlook forms before to enable some 'officialdom' instead of attached emails and forms.... and they worked pretty nice. (i built a simple form that made 'offical' communication between two departments and tracked the sending/recieving and reaction -- pretty simple) its pretty interesting.

> Therefore, the changes that Microsoft will
> make the the XML schema have a high liklihood
> of being advantageous to Microsoft.

Right... that certainly makes sense. However, those changes are necessarily detrimental to anyone else. I mean, Microsoft keeps improving DirectX, and if I write a game, I benefit from their improvements. I guess I'm still not sure why this would be a bad thing.

> We're going to be plowing a field that
> we don't own,

Right, we don't own the field, but at least we'll be able to look at it and add things to it via an public specification. Or something to that effect.

I guess one reason why I like this open spec is that I've been through the pain of reverse engineering extended MAPI symbols, and this public spec seems like a step away from that.

People like you are the reason that pages like this exist.

I'm not stupid. I'm fully aware of the risks involved in opening and running an executable file from an untrusted source. I'm also a professional software developer, and I send and receive executable files on a routine basis, as does everyone else I work with. Who are you, or Microsoft's Outlook development team for that matter, to tell me whether or not this is acceptable behaviour?

Here are the programs you need to have a k-133t windows system.

1. AOL- DUH, they are the greatest ISP ever.

2. Webshots - Impress your friends with your changing wallpaper!

3. Hotbar - Skin Internet Explorer and Impress your friends!

4. AOHell This program will make you l33t!

5. Incredimail This makes your e-mail look k00lah then everyone elses.

6. Microsoft Outlook because all the anti-virus tools work with it. You don't want to use another e-mail client, you might get a virus!

7. Comet Cursor. Makes your cursor R0x0r.

8. Intruder Alert 99 You need a firewall, the internet isn't a safe place!

9. Gator Gator is an awesome program that helps u remember ur passwords. This way u don't have to fill out stupid forms!

10. BO Server The guys in my gaming clan sent me this, they said it would improve my FPS, and make windows run faster. I think it did!

My friend and I have a rivalry going on.. reguarding Linux vs Windows. I sent him the link, he sent me a retort.. My point-by-point response to this article.

Jack Clarke, European product manager at McAfee, said, So we will be seeing more Linux viruses as the OS becomes more common and popular.

Mr. Clarke is wrong.

.... let's compare the numbers. ...

There are about 60,000 viruses known for Windows, 40 or so for the Macintosh, about 5 for commercial Unix versions, and perhaps 40 for Linux. Most of the Windows viruses are not important, but many hundreds have caused widespread damage. Two or three of the Macintosh viruses were widespread enough to be of importance. None of the Unix or Linux viruses became widespread - most were confined to the laboratory. >>Editor's note: unfortunately we have been made aware that this quote by Dr. Peeling and Dr. Satchell is incorrect; the independent WildList organization produces a monthly in the wild list of viruses. While the vast majority of viruses in their report are Windows-based, there are still some Linux-based viruses (listed as Other) found in the wild as well.>>

So, the very basis for stating that Mr. Clark (a high ranking official with a well-known anti-virus company) is wrong is flagged by the editor as being invalid. Am I the only one who thinks this is not a small deal? It's also worth nothing that this is the first of two such statements that the editor had to mark as being factually unsound or misleading.

First, look at the two factors that cause email viruses and worms to propagate: social engineering, and poorly designed software. ... Virus writers use social engineering to convince people to do stupid things, .... Poorly designed software makes it easier for social engineering to take place, but such software can also subvert the efforts of a knowledgeable, security-minded individual or organization.

Can anybody explain the use of the word but in the previous sentence? (Look at the sentence again if you're wondering what I mean.)

... It's easy to run executables in the Windows world, and users who get an email with a subject line like Check out this wicked screensaver! and an attachment, too often click on it without thinking first, and bang! we're off to the races and a new worm has taken over their systems.

Even worse, Microsoft's email software is able to infect a user's computer when they do something as innocuous as read an email! Don't believe me? Take a look at Microsoft Security Bulletins MS99-032, MS00-043, MS01-015, MS01-020, MS02-068, or MS03-023, for instance. Notice that's at least one for the last five years.

There is an upcoming editor's note about this along with the following sentence.

And though Microsoft's latest versions of Outlook blocks most executable attachments by default, it's still possible to override those protections.

So, the complaint here is that it is possible for somebody to manually override the security settings put in place by Outlook? Does the autho

I rtfa and it was pretty light - more questions for anyone who's used Star Office in a professional environment - hows the automation (does it have anything equivelant, or, hopefully, better, than useful-but-bugriddled VBA?) How's the interoperability with MSWord documents? Can you go from Word to OOo/StarOffice and back a hundred times in a large document that 20 people have edited in 70 different ways, with embedded graphics, tables, etc. U know, does it WORK?

I'm as close to an expert in MS Office as anyone (outside Woody of WOPR and the lovely lady behind slipstick), I write VBA (when I have to) and have taught classes in the thing. And I hate it. It's truely a horrible product, MS tried to do too much and failed to get the important things right (like, say, making sure that if you have 1,000 large documents on a network storage device, none of them experience format-wrenching corruption at any point over thier lifespan. With Word, anywhere from 1 - 10 (yea, that's .1 - 1%, which is a lot if you have a half million documents) of them will).

Have any large, document-oriented shops (like, say a law firm, or pharmeceutical company, or something) ever done a real, hard test, both on the suite and its interoperablity with MS stuff?

so if you could tell me how to secure my(bosses) server i would greatly appreciate it... (and yes, i understand linux would not have this problem but that is not an option right now)

Take a look at the material on this page.

Slipstick is probably one the best collections of Exchange Server info out there. Paul Robichaux's Managing Microsoft Exchange Server is also a good reference to have on hand.

The scariest part is that you're a large enough company to need 5 Exchange Servers, but the person in charge of them doesn't have the most basic understanding of what he's dealing with.

I *think* Outlook 2000 has a service pack that installs the attachment blocking

I *think* Outlook 2000 has a service pack that installs the attachment blocking

Actually, if you want the group collaboration features you don't necessarily need Microsoft products. There are quite a few alternatives to using Windows/Exchange. This webpage has a lot of resources: Sharing MS Outlook

This looks like one of the best options: 4team for Outlook

As I see it there are a two obvious solutions:

• Use a central locked-down PAB everyone has read-access to. Updates & additions are created by users as standard address book entries and sent to a designated in-house address. Every so often in the off hours all of those files are collected and dropped into the master file (can be scripted.) Benefits are the address-book entries contain all of the Outlook set of details, will work with 3rd-party add-ins.

• Or instead of using a "kludgy PHP front-end" use a better-quality one like Twiki or Horde. If with this you move your mailboxes over to IMAP you'll have also gotten a great remote-client solution. On their desktops they can use Outlook, away from them log into the webmail client, and also use it for those shared address-book updates.

As I see it there are a two obvious solutions:

• Use a central locked-down PAB everyone has read-access to. Updates & additions are created by users as standard address book entries and sent to a designated in-house address. Every so often in the off hours all of those files are collected and dropped into the master file (can be scripted.) Benefits are the address-book entries contain all of the Outlook set of details, will work with 3rd-party add-ins.

• Or instead of using a "kludgy PHP front-end" use a better-quality one like Twiki or Horde. If with this you move your mailboxes over to IMAP you'll have also gotten a great remote-client solution. On their desktops they can use Outlook, away from them log into the webmail client, and also use it for those shared address-book updates.

As I see it there are a two obvious solutions:

• Use a central locked-down PAB everyone has read-access to. Updates & additions are created by users as standard address book entries and sent to a designated in-house address. Every so often in the off hours all of those files are collected and dropped into the master file (can be scripted.) Benefits are the address-book entries contain all of the Outlook set of details, will work with 3rd-party add-ins.

• Or instead of using a "kludgy PHP front-end" use a better-quality one like Twiki or Horde. If with this you move your mailboxes over to IMAP you'll have also gotten a great remote-client solution. On their desktops they can use Outlook, away from them log into the webmail client, and also use it for those shared address-book updates.

Yeah, I admit that this is somewhat of a flamebait, (but so was the original /. question) but that's the problem with closed source and a abusive monopoly. If MS had been forced to open all API's and file formats like some of us were hoping, you wouldn't be having this problem.

For some strange reason, people think that Outlook is a stand-alone product. This is somewhat true, but you (like the poster found out) lose most of the compelling features if you fail to use Exchange. Look mom! I have a shirt with no pants!

Some people will probably point out that you may be able to use OpenMail or Insight Server (Insight Connector?), but these are also expensive products that don't fully integrate with Outlook either. If you are going to go high-end commercial, you might as well go with exchange (but put the damn thing behind a firewall / UNIX mail relay server fer christs sakes.)

Of course typing "shared outlook contact lists" in google comes up with a page with lots of info on the subject, but I didn't see anything that exactly matched the poster's requirements. Lot's of kludgy stuff, mostly commercial, all trying to make the closed source pile of crap a little more usable.

Care to back that up with references?

It is possible to activate the virus by viewing an infected email message within the Microsoft Outlook Preview Pane.

We used to think that you had to open or, in some case, preview a message for it to infect your system with a virus. It's now been proven that malicious code can enter your system via an Outlook mail message from the Internet -- even if you do not open or preview it. The flaw is in an Internet Explorer component that Outlook shares with Outlook Express. See Microsoft Security Bulletin (MS00-043) for more details and remedies.

Microsoft has released a patch that eliminates a security vulnerability in Microsoft® Outlook® and Outlook Express. Under certain conditions, the vulnerability could allow a malicious user to cause code of his choice to execute on another user's computer.
The patch eliminates this vulnerability as well as those discussed in Microsoft Security Bulletins MS00-045 and MS00-046. Customers who already have taken the corrective action discussed in either of these bulletins do not need to take any additional action.

Affected Software:
# Microsoft Outlook Express 4.x
# Microsoft Outlook Express 5.x
# Microsoft Outlook 98
# Microsoft Outlook 2000

Win32/Bugbear.A@mm exploits a MIME vulnerability in Microsoft Outlook, Internet Explorer and Outlook Express, allowing an executable attachment to run automatically, even if you do not double-click on the attachment.

Since this site seems /.'ed already, here are another ones that have some screenshots too -

http://www.wininsider.com/news/comments.aspx?mid=3 069.
http://users.pandora.be/AMDtje/Office11_2.htm
http://www.slipstick.com/outlook/ol11.htm

Suhit

Service Pack 1 of Office XP (which contains Outlook 2002) adds a feature for disabling HTML mail which is described in Microsoft KB Article # 307594 . Users of previous versions of Outlook can use the macros provided here

I use Outlook 2000 (no, not express, so spare me the virus bs.)

I'm afraid it is you that is spreading FUD and b.s. - Outlook is at least as prone to viruses as is Outlook Express. Here is a list of viruses that you thought you were immune from.

Even if you are forced to use Outlook and IE at work or something, there is NO NEED to tolerate this. Despite all the anti-Outlook sentiment in these pages, it is easy to configure it to avoid problems.

Simply go into the security settings in Outlook and tell it to treat all incoming HTML mail as if it were in the "Restricted Sites" zone. And make sure that EVERYTHING (especially all scripting and java) is turned off in Restricted Sites. Boom, no more email popups (or cookies tracking when you read it, etc, etc).

It is also recommended that you install the latest security patches of course. You can go to the Windows Update site and it will automatically tell you what you need.

You don't even need to be running the latest Outlook or IE to do this, and you don't need to install the "Outlook Security Update" that cripples your ability to use certain attachments. It works back to Outlook 98 and IE 4.x.

Here is a good page on configuring Outlook to avoid malware.

P.S. While you are tweaking Outlook, take a look at SpamNet by CloudMark. It was written up here at Slashdot a few weeks back. I've been using it since then and it does a great job of culling annoying emails for you.

just thought i'd throw this in. I'm an exchange 5.5 admin and my users all use outlook2k (not express). I've been using this solution for awhile and it works nicely (it's an outlook security patch)

The new version of outlook has this built in and it's a little more functional (allows you to easily edit the list of blocked attachments and view the attachment if you really really want to and your the admin).

Yeah, MS should write better software, but in the end, if the admin isn't paying attention then it won't matter who wrote the software.

Au contraire, mon frere! Just go to http://www.slipstick.com/outlook/esecup/getexe.htm #ol2002 and get the registry-editing instructions or downloadable tools to let you determine the Outlook 2000/2002 (XP) security settings on any type of file you want. I recommend the "Attachment Security Options" tool, myself.

Nope. With Outlook 2002 (XP), Outlook 2000 with SP2, or Outlook 98 or 2000 with the Email Security Update, you can't even save the attachment elsewhere, or open it or forward it to someone else. See http://www.slipstick.com/outlook/esecup.htm#attsec .

For the many /.ers who:

a. Use Outlook secretly
b. Receive loads of foreign spam
c. Don't know any foreign languages
d. Don't have any foreign friends
e. Don't have any friends

This Outlook rule is for you!

Apply this rule after the message arrives
with
Ô or ¾ or Ç or or É or ½ or Í or ò or Ë or ® or Ä or ã or Ï or Ö or Ô in the subject or body
delete it
and stop processing more rules.

This blocks 99% of foreign spam. Sue Mosher wrote about other effective methods for killing spam in Outlook. Finally, before you reply saying "You dummy, that filter works in any client!" -- You're right.

Check out Slipstick for more material on Net Folders but trust me now, they're not worth using.

I have had good luck porting data from Outlook PST files (mostly pre-2k, but I don't think the format/API has changed enough to break things) using:

ArchivER ("Archive Outlook data as individual files, preserving the Outlook folder structure.")

...and...

Message Vault ("Archive Outlook/Exchange messages to a separate encrypted, compressed, searchable archive store. The store can also export messages to standard RFC 822 format.")

...both of which I found here.

I use both because there are minor annoyances with each of them and I want to be sure I get everything.

-- MarkusQ

P.S. The "Export to Comma Delimited Text" from within Outlook looses lots of data.

Exchange database is a mess. It's nearly impossible to restore a single user's mailbox unless you have a duplicate exchange server to work with - each of our 10 offices has not one but 2 $50,000 exchange servers, one as a hot backup because the thing crashes so often (and to restore mailboxes) - when the entire mail system goes down you're likely to find that at least 1/2 of your backups are unusable (you discover this about 2/3rds of the way through the restore I've found). Our last failure knocked us out for 3 days, that's working 24/7 to restore. Microsoft, of course, was of little help. On the client side the DB (.ost file) also is subjec to frequent corruption and is utterly unrecoverable (this usually happens one hour into your 16 hour flight to Tokyo). On the plus side you have slipstick which is an amaizing exchange and outlook resource, and you have 'groupware' features. Kind of. For example, if you want to share contacts between people you can, but not if you want to do it through the API (i.e. make your neat Word letter template see someone else's contacts for addresses). Here's one I just had to deal with - exchange automatically resolves email addresses entered in contacts to the GAL (Global Address List) - and resolves them with an x400 format REGARDLESS of how you have the user's mail configured in the GAL. Even if you don't *have* an x400 mail entry (because Exchange 5.5 uses x400 as the default protocol, I think). Try to send a contact to someone and all they see is O=[Org]/OU=[unit]/CN=[user]. Try to access the GAL through the API and you get the same thing. Beautiful. I could continue but it's depressing me. I hear Exchange 2000 is *much* better but I'll have to see it to believe it.