>No, they are not attachments, they are *seen* as attachments in some >mail programs. I don't know that there is one official, right answer as to whether the items in a digest are attachments or not. I have heard various E-mail experts disagree on this point. Some experts swear they are, and some swear they are not. But in my opinion, they really are attachments. I have looked at the raw ASCII text of a digest, and here is my take on the matter. All attachments have a type/subtype in their description. There are only five types defined. They are text, image, application, audio, and video. (I think "application" is a lousy name. I think it should be "binary"). A couple of subtypes that go with text are plain and rich, so for example you can have an attachment which is text/plain or text/rich. In the case of an image file, you might have image/jpg or image/gif etc. Generally speaking, you need a viewer for any attachment besides text/plain, and E-mail systems are usually designed to allow viewers to be integrated into the E-mail system. The most dangerous attachments are the ones of type application. For example, an attachment with a type/subtype of application/msword might be a Microsoft Word document that might contain a macro virus. The E-mail system itself would probably not execute the macro virus. Rather, the E-mail system would invoke Microsoft Word as the viewer, and Microsoft word would execute the macro virus. Most E-mail clients tend to sort of hide this type/subtype stuff from you, but if you can get at the raw ASCII text of the E-mail you can see it. What E-mail clients do instead is to commit "magic". You simply click on the attachment, the correct viewer is invoked, and there you go. Anyway, when I have looked at the raw ASCII text of an E-mail digest, each message within the digest is an attachment of type/subtype text/RFC822. The subtype of RFC822 simply means that the text was originally an E-mail. RFC822 is the name of the most fundamental of the various official documents which define Internet standards for E-mail. So in my opinion, when an E-mail expert and guru swears on a stack of bibles that digests do not contain attachments, they are simply wrong. Digests contain attachments of type/subtype text/RFC822. However, these are extremely safe attachments. I think this is an issue because rootsweb says that they don't send attachments. But to make such a statement, they have to declare attachments which are text/RFC822 as "not attachments", even though they manifestly are. Just to confuse things further, most E-mail clients present the text/RFC822 attachments as if they were not attachments. Back to the statement that digests are not attachments but they are *seen* as attachments by some E-mail clients. I think it's just the reverse. Digests *absolutely do* include attachments. Saying otherwise doesn't make it so. But digests definitely are not *seen* as attachments by most E-mail clients. Most E-mail clients hide that little detail from you. I said that text/RFC822 attachments are safe. Well, yes and no. The ones from rootsweb are safe. But here's the reason I said "yes and no". A text/RFC822 attachment can be (and usually is) an exact copy of a complete E-mail, including any attachments that the original E-mail might have included, and including any dangerous attachments that the original E-mail might have included. So if you are running an E-mail client that presents text/RFC822 attachments to you as if they were attachments, and if it lets you "drill down" to those text/RFC822 attachments and open them like original E-mails, then you can still be bitten by an included (lower level, if you will) attachment. Digests are one kind of E-mail which creates text/RFC822 attachments. In addiiton, some (probably not most) E-mail clients create text/RFC822 attachments when you forward an E-mail. The attachment is simply the complete text (including any attachments and therefore including any viruses) that the original E-mail included before it was forwarded. I hope this makes sense. It's a lot easier to see if you can study the full, raw ASCII text of an digest. And it's a lot easier to see if you have access to an E-mail client that lets you see explicitly and drill down to text/RFC822 attachments. If your E-mail client will let you do neither thing, then you may wonder what I have been smoking. But in summary, rootsweb digests are safe, no matter which E-mail client you might be using, and no matter how it displays text/RFC822 attachments. Jerry Bryan _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

I think what is important to note here is that rootsweb will not FORWARD any attachments - regardless of type. e.g. If you send an email with an attachment, rootsweb will strip off the attachment and only send the email itself. On the other hand, rootsweb might well send the digest as an attachment to an email but that is totally different than passing through what might well be a virus. -- Happy Hunting!! -- Paul Houston, TX, USA ICQ #73314929 Researching: VA - WHITE,LIPSCOMB,HILL,JOHNSON,SAUNDERS, TALBOT,TATE,EVANS NC - SMITH, BOSWELL, RHODES, CAPEHART,MORRIS, MARSHE, BRITT,SHAW View my American Ancestry at: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~paulrsmith **************** FREE Credit Card Referral Program. Quick money AND residual, lifetime income! CHECK IT OUT !! http://smithecomservices.tripod.com *************************************** ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Bryan" <c24m48@hotmail.com> To: <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 12:03 AM Subject: Re: [FO] Off Topic Reply - Virus Concerns > >No, they are not attachments, they are *seen* as attachments in some > >mail programs. > > I don't know that there is one official, right answer as to whether the > items in a digest are attachments or not. I have heard various E-mail > experts disagree on this point. Some experts swear they are, and some swear > they are not. But in my opinion, they really are attachments. > > I have looked at the raw ASCII text of a digest, and here is my take on the > matter. > > All attachments have a type/subtype in their description. There are only > five types defined. They are text, image, application, audio, and video. > (I think "application" is a lousy name. I think it should be "binary"). A > couple of subtypes that go with text are plain and rich, so for example you > can have an attachment which is text/plain or text/rich. In the case of an > image file, you might have image/jpg or image/gif etc. Generally speaking, > you need a viewer for any attachment besides text/plain, and E-mail systems > are usually designed to allow viewers to be integrated into the E-mail > system. > > The most dangerous attachments are the ones of type application. For > example, an attachment with a type/subtype of application/msword might be a > Microsoft Word document that might contain a macro virus. The E-mail system > itself would probably not execute the macro virus. Rather, the E-mail > system would invoke Microsoft Word as the viewer, and Microsoft word would > execute the macro virus. > > Most E-mail clients tend to sort of hide this type/subtype stuff from you, > but if you can get at the raw ASCII text of the E-mail you can see it. What > E-mail clients do instead is to commit "magic". You simply click on the > attachment, the correct viewer is invoked, and there you go. > > Anyway, when I have looked at the raw ASCII text of an E-mail digest, each > message within the digest is an attachment of type/subtype text/RFC822. The > subtype of RFC822 simply means that the text was originally an E-mail. > RFC822 is the name of the most fundamental of the various official documents > which define Internet standards for E-mail. > > So in my opinion, when an E-mail expert and guru swears on a stack of bibles > that digests do not contain attachments, they are simply wrong. Digests > contain attachments of type/subtype text/RFC822. However, these are > extremely safe attachments. > > I think this is an issue because rootsweb says that they don't send > attachments. But to make such a statement, they have to declare attachments > which are text/RFC822 as "not attachments", even though they manifestly are. > Just to confuse things further, most E-mail clients present the > text/RFC822 attachments as if they were not attachments. > > Back to the statement that digests are not attachments but they are *seen* > as attachments by some E-mail clients. I think it's just the reverse. > Digests *absolutely do* include attachments. Saying otherwise doesn't make > it so. But digests definitely are not *seen* as attachments by most E-mail > clients. Most E-mail clients hide that little detail from you. > > I said that text/RFC822 attachments are safe. Well, yes and no. The ones > from rootsweb are safe. But here's the reason I said "yes and no". A > text/RFC822 attachment can be (and usually is) an exact copy of a complete > E-mail, including any attachments that the original E-mail might have > included, and including any dangerous attachments that the original E-mail > might have included. So if you are running an E-mail client that presents > text/RFC822 attachments to you as if they were attachments, and if it lets > you "drill down" to those text/RFC822 attachments and open them like > original E-mails, then you can still be bitten by an included (lower level, > if you will) attachment. > > Digests are one kind of E-mail which creates text/RFC822 attachments. In > addiiton, some (probably not most) E-mail clients create text/RFC822 > attachments when you forward an E-mail. The attachment is simply the > complete text (including any attachments and therefore including any > viruses) that the original E-mail included before it was forwarded. > > I hope this makes sense. It's a lot easier to see if you can study the > full, raw ASCII text of an digest. And it's a lot easier to see if you have > access to an E-mail client that lets you see explicitly and drill down to > text/RFC822 attachments. If your E-mail client will let you do neither > thing, then you may wonder what I have been smoking. > > But in summary, rootsweb digests are safe, no matter which E-mail client you > might be using, and no matter how it displays text/RFC822 attachments. > > Jerry Bryan > > > ____________________________________________________________ _____ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > UNSUBSCRIBE? Send the word: UNSUBSCRIBE(inside the message) and no additional text to: FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L-request@rootsweb.com or FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-D-request@rootsweb.com for DIGEST > > ============================== > Create a FREE family website at MyFamily.com! > http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST2 >