Warning when Emailing

[Mark A. Sam]

I donlt know if this is an Access, Outlook or Windows issue, so I am posting
to all three groups.

When using the SendObject method with the edit message argument set to
false, I get a warning,

"A progrm is automatically trying to send email on your behalf. Do you want
to allow this?".

I would like to turn that feature off. Is that possible?

Thank you and God Bless,


Mark A. Sam

[Saverio Mercurio]

"Mark A. Sam" > wrote in message
...
> I donlt know if this is an Access, Outlook or Windows issue, so I am
posting
> to all three groups.
>
> When using the SendObject method with the edit message argument set to
> false, I get a warning,
>
> "A progrm is automatically trying to send email on your behalf. Do you
want
> to allow this?".
>
> I would like to turn that feature off. Is that possible?
>
> Thank you and God Bless,
>
>
> Mark A. Sam
>

This is part of the Outlook Security Update:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=%2fservicedesks%2fbin%2fkbsearch .asp%3fArticle%3d262997

See here:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=%2fservicedesks%2fbin%2fkbsearch .asp%3fArticle%3d262997
for more information about this.
--
Saverio Mercurio

NOTE: My email address has been purposefully altered to thwart mailing list
harvesters.

[Conrad Pfleging]

Basically, no. If you're on an exchange server there are a few work-arounds
as in SM's post.

"Mark A. Sam" > wrote in message
...
> I donlt know if this is an Access, Outlook or Windows issue, so I am
posting
> to all three groups.
>
> When using the SendObject method with the edit message argument set to
> false, I get a warning,
>
> "A progrm is automatically trying to send email on your behalf. Do you
want
> to allow this?".
>
> I would like to turn that feature off. Is that possible?
>
> Thank you and God Bless,
>
>
> Mark A. Sam
>
>

[Albert D. Kallal]

Unfortunately, too many email viruses were written.

About 90% of corporate America threatened to dump Microsoft Outlook if
something was not done. So, either they continued to have companies
threatening to dump Outlook, or they put in a plug as they did.

MS could have offered an option to disable the message, but then that just
gets us back to square one. When companies dump Outlook, it costs MS money.

It is a shame that the virus writers took advantage of the fact that Outlook
made email to so easy to do via a program. I really do miss having a nice
com object like Outlook. Outlook express is of course an option, as it will
not give you that message (and you can use sendbject). However, you need
Outlook to be able to send attachments etc. Even right now, I get a good
email every day as a result of someone running a Outlook based virus.

It is really too bad, but I can't see how Microsoft can turn this option off
as it is just too dangerous. This is certainly one example of loosing
freedoms as result of malicious activity by a small number of people.


--
Albert D. Kallal (MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada

http://www.attcanada.net/~kallal.msn

[Dan Artuso]

Albert,
There is a com object called Redemtion http://www.dimastr.com/redemption/
that you can use that will bypass the Outlook security.
I've used it an 'attachment stripper' vb app I wrote.
It was quite easy to use, and no more annoying prompts!

--
HTH
Dan Artuso, MVP

"a problem well stated is a problem half solved"


"Albert D. Kallal" > wrote in message
...
> Unfortunately, too many email viruses were written.
>
> About 90% of corporate America threatened to dump Microsoft Outlook if
> something was not done. So, either they continued to have companies
> threatening to dump Outlook, or they put in a plug as they did.
>
> MS could have offered an option to disable the message, but then that just
> gets us back to square one. When companies dump Outlook, it costs MS
money.
>
> It is a shame that the virus writers took advantage of the fact that
Outlook
> made email to so easy to do via a program. I really do miss having a nice
> com object like Outlook. Outlook express is of course an option, as it
will
> not give you that message (and you can use sendbject). However, you need
> Outlook to be able to send attachments etc. Even right now, I get a good
> email every day as a result of someone running a Outlook based virus.
>
> It is really too bad, but I can't see how Microsoft can turn this option
off
> as it is just too dangerous. This is certainly one example of loosing
> freedoms as result of malicious activity by a small number of people.
>
>
> --
> Albert D. Kallal (MVP)
> Edmonton, Alberta Canada
>
> http://www.attcanada.net/~kallal.msn
>
>

[Mark A. Sam]

Albert,

> It is really too bad, but I can't see how Microsoft can turn this option
off

I do. How about an argument on SendObject that allow you to disable the
message. Then it would be selective and controlled.

God Bless,

Mark A. Sam
"Albert D. Kallal" > wrote in message
...
> Unfortunately, too many email viruses were written.
>
> About 90% of corporate America threatened to dump Microsoft Outlook if
> something was not done. So, either they continued to have companies
> threatening to dump Outlook, or they put in a plug as they did.
>
> MS could have offered an option to disable the message, but then that just
> gets us back to square one. When companies dump Outlook, it costs MS
money.
>
> It is a shame that the virus writers took advantage of the fact that
Outlook
> made email to so easy to do via a program. I really do miss having a nice
> com object like Outlook. Outlook express is of course an option, as it
will
> not give you that message (and you can use sendbject). However, you need
> Outlook to be able to send attachments etc. Even right now, I get a good
> email every day as a result of someone running a Outlook based virus.
>
> It is really too bad, but I can't see how Microsoft can turn this option
off
> as it is just too dangerous. This is certainly one example of loosing
> freedoms as result of malicious activity by a small number of people.
>
>
> --
> Albert D. Kallal (MVP)
> Edmonton, Alberta Canada
>
> http://www.attcanada.net/~kallal.msn
>
>

[Albert D. Kallal]

SendOjject is part of ms-access, and not Outlook. It is outlook that is tied
here, not ms-access.

We need a option in Outlook that lets us turn off the warning. If we can
turn off the option from a external program like ms-access, then the there
is zero protection, as other programs will just do the same thing, and turn
off the warning!

In fact, even having a option in Outlook that can be changed by the users is
also not good. Users start turning the message off, and next thing you know,
the Melissa virus version 12 it out again on a rampage. Next stop: the
company says who turned off this warning, and the employees who did so will
be fired. The guilty employees just bring in a bunch of magazines with
articles to boss saying that Outlook is a high security risk. It is Outlooks
fault they claim. The poor boss then has to decree no more Outlook, because
the last virus send out 100's of confidential documents by accident. Of
course the real guilty party is the employees who toggle the message option.
However, in the real world, those employees just have to complain that it is
Outlook's fault (result is lost sales, and outlook again being banned from
corporate use). Companies can NOT accept the risk.

So, sorry, you can't have a toggle option, and if you even add one of those,
you really get back to square one, and the whole process starts over again.
At the end of the day, it is outlook that is getting blamed, and not the
users.

I am not really sure of what the solution is. I kind of think that a toggle
option may be the way to go, at least then the users can hold the blame, and
not outlook, but the above shows what happens, and employees blame Outlook
and Microsoft. Who do you think is easer to blame these days?
..
--
Albert D. Kallal (MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada

http://www.attcanada.net/~kallal.msn

[Rick Brandt]

"Albert D. Kallal" > wrote in message
...
> SendOjject is part of ms-access, and not Outlook. It is outlook that is tied
> here, not ms-access.
>
> We need a option in Outlook that lets us turn off the warning. If we can
> turn off the option from a external program like ms-access, then the there
> is zero protection, as other programs will just do the same thing, and turn
> off the warning!
>
> In fact, even having a option in Outlook that can be changed by the users is
> also not good. Users start turning the message off, and next thing you know,
> the Melissa virus version 12 it out again on a rampage. Next stop: the
> company says who turned off this warning, and the employees who did so will
> be fired. The guilty employees just bring in a bunch of magazines with
> articles to boss saying that Outlook is a high security risk. It is Outlooks
> fault they claim. The poor boss then has to decree no more Outlook, because
> the last virus send out 100's of confidential documents by accident. Of
> course the real guilty party is the employees who toggle the message option.
> However, in the real world, those employees just have to complain that it is
> Outlook's fault (result is lost sales, and outlook again being banned from
> corporate use). Companies can NOT accept the risk.
>
> So, sorry, you can't have a toggle option, and if you even add one of those,
> you really get back to square one, and the whole process starts over again.
> At the end of the day, it is outlook that is getting blamed, and not the
> users.
>
> I am not really sure of what the solution is. I kind of think that a toggle
> option may be the way to go, at least then the users can hold the blame, and
> not outlook, but the above shows what happens, and employees blame Outlook
> and Microsoft. Who do you think is easer to blame these days?
> .
> --
> Albert D. Kallal (MVP)
> Edmonton, Alberta Canada
>
> http://www.attcanada.net/~kallal.msn

IMO this should work just like ad-blocking, firewall, and browser pop-up
stopper software. There should be a way to create "exceptions" to the rules.
In corporate environments this should be something that requires admin authority
to set. I think the bigger problem is too many companies don't lock down the PC
at all so users are free to muck things up.

[Synergy]

Albert,

It seems as though putting the warning is senseless. Virus's like SoBig
have their own SMTP programs and don't go through Outlook. The only thing
this does is annoy Access developers. Couldn't the Microsoft programmers
figure out that there were other routes to email other than Outlook?

God Bless,

Mark




"Albert D. Kallal" > wrote in message
...
> SendOjject is part of ms-access, and not Outlook. It is outlook that is
tied
> here, not ms-access.
>
> We need a option in Outlook that lets us turn off the warning. If we can
> turn off the option from a external program like ms-access, then the there
> is zero protection, as other programs will just do the same thing, and
turn
> off the warning!
>
> In fact, even having a option in Outlook that can be changed by the users
is
> also not good. Users start turning the message off, and next thing you
know,
> the Melissa virus version 12 it out again on a rampage. Next stop: the
> company says who turned off this warning, and the employees who did so
will
> be fired. The guilty employees just bring in a bunch of magazines with
> articles to boss saying that Outlook is a high security risk. It is
Outlooks
> fault they claim. The poor boss then has to decree no more Outlook,
because
> the last virus send out 100's of confidential documents by accident. Of
> course the real guilty party is the employees who toggle the message
option.
> However, in the real world, those employees just have to complain that it
is
> Outlook's fault (result is lost sales, and outlook again being banned from
> corporate use). Companies can NOT accept the risk.
>
> So, sorry, you can't have a toggle option, and if you even add one of
those,
> you really get back to square one, and the whole process starts over
again.
> At the end of the day, it is outlook that is getting blamed, and not the
> users.
>
> I am not really sure of what the solution is. I kind of think that a
toggle
> option may be the way to go, at least then the users can hold the blame,
and
> not outlook, but the above shows what happens, and employees blame Outlook
> and Microsoft. Who do you think is easer to blame these days?
> .
> --
> Albert D. Kallal (MVP)
> Edmonton, Alberta Canada
>
> http://www.attcanada.net/~kallal.msn
>
>