outlook, and virii
Jason Monson
associated with email..
Most experts say to delete suspicious email without opening. (which is fair
enough given even opening some mail, may launch virii).
The question being.. how do you delete email from Outlook, without first
opening it.
In Windows outlook, to delete an email, you need to highlight it...
highlighting the email opens it.
How do you highlight an email _without_ it opening.
the only way I can see around this problem.. is to first read the safe
emails, and moving them if you want to save them.. then do a select all, and
delete from the pull down menu.
thus deleting the untouched suspect email
comments? solutions? etc?
Jason
Clay
"Jason Monson" <jmo...@FAKE.aks.quik.co.nz> wrote in message
news:%sLQ4.19118$QN6.1...@newsfeed.intelenet.net...
> A question arrising out of the recent publicity about virii and the
problems
> associated with email..
>
> Most experts say to delete suspicious email without opening. (which is
fair
> enough given even opening some mail, may launch virii).
>
> The question being.. how do you delete email from Outlook, without first
> opening it.
>
not being used. If it is, switch it off. Then you can just delete any mail
with an attachment showing, before opening the mail. Follow the same
procedure in Outlook.
Rgds,
Clay
KDX2000
Antivirus) or somewhere, before running your Outlook?
I think that is the safest way.
Chris Gill
How about just not running outlook?
Jax
actually run the attachment, just highlight message a click delete - you'll
be fine...
Matt
Chris Gill <more...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:39148216...@ihug.co.nz...
Orca II
With all the virus talk going on I just thought it would be a good time to
inform readers here that, despite popular belief,
it IS actually "viruses" - not "virii". I dont know how that ever got
moving...
...just so you know...
Glars@home
Maybe he read it in his book of funguses?
Ashley Campbell
"Scooter" <sco...@tipnet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:4refhsopcuhfpfa9v...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 8 May 2000 22:55:17 +1200, "Orca II" <Met...@maps.umail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Can I just jump in here to say that there is no such thing as "virii" ?
> >
> >With all the virus talk going on I just thought it would be a good time
to
> >inform readers here that, despite popular belief,
> >it IS actually "viruses" - not "virii". I dont know how that ever got
> >moving...
>
> What is your source for such a claim?
>
Probably the Oxford, which states that the plural of virus is viruses.
So many people seem to forget that the language we are speaking is English,
not Latin.
Ashley Campbell
> consistent. To learn englsih one must learn many exceptions.
Absolutely. And one must also learn what the English plurals of words are,
rather than trying to be clever and take a wild guess at what their Latin
plurals might be.
The English plural of virus is viruses. I have an Oxford, a Chambers, and a
Fowlers Modern English Usage on my desk that all agree with me :-)
Ashley Campbell
> On Tue, 9 May 2000 22:50:36 +1200, "Ashley Campbell"
> <ashle...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
<snip stuff>
> >
> >Absolutely. And one must also learn what the English plurals of words
are,
> >rather than trying to be clever and take a wild guess at what their Latin
> >plurals might be.
> >
> And if a large number of people believe that the plural is virii and write
> it , it gets quoted then it becomes common usage and the word will enter
> the dictionaries, "correct" or not. My point was that common usage is what
> is used.
>
Absolutely again. Now, I dare you, go out on to the street and pick 100
people at random and ask them what the plural of virus is. Personally, as
someone who works with words everyday, this thread was the first time I had
ever seen anyone write "virii" and I've sure as hell never heard anyone
speak it. Once upon a time in another language, it may have been a word. But
given that extraordinarily few New Zealanders have any real knowledge of
that word, I don't hold out any hopes for your vox pop throwing up a figure
of more than about 5% for that alternative. In this case, it appears to me,
someone was trying to be clever and think of what the Latin rules might be,
simply because they couldn't quite remember what the commonly used English
word is.
> >The English plural of virus is viruses.
>
> At preent, it may change.
>
How much money do you want to put on it, and in what time frame?
Ashley Campbell
>
Chicken! :-)
Adam Cameron
>>it IS actually "viruses" - not "virii". I dont know how that ever got
>>moving...
>What is your source for such a claim?
Dunno about *his* claim but my claim would be that even if we *were*
speaking Latin, it would be "viri" not "virii". "Virii" would be the
plural of the - ficitious - word "virius".
So the basis for using "viruses" is common sense and correct English
word construction.
The basis for using "viri" would be some quaint idea that "virus" is
still a Latin word even though it has - obviously - been adopted as an
English word.
The basis for "virii" is the desire to sound impressive whilst just
coming across as being ignorant.
Your choice.
Adam
Alan Torrance
Yes, I realised I was incorrect -- almost anything for a good stir.
--
Alan Torrance
Adam Cameron <da_ca...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rvogissrv94cnl6nf...@4ax.com...
> >So, you would also opt for using the word "funguses" instead of "fungi"?
>
> Actually I would probably use "fungi", but looking up the dictionary
> "funguses" is there too ("fungi" listed first).
>
> >Being both a pedant and a purist, I prefer "viri", but I realise the
>
> Well I'd agree on "pedant". You're not a purist because you're just
> wrong, which is not one of the trademark features of a purist, I
> believe.
>
> We speak English (well at least for the purposes of this discourse we
> are referencing the English language): there is no word "viri" in
> English. It is a Latin word. There *is* a word "fungi" in English -
> and yes, it was adopted from Latin - but it is an *English* word,
> hence we use it.
>
> If you are this selfstated purist, do you also use the Latin
> accusative, genetive and dative forms of "virus" and "fungus"? Do you
> use Latin grammar on other latinate words that are perhaps not so
> obviously Latin, or do you limit yourself to the familiar first and
> second declension nouns? What about latinate verbs? If not, *WHY
> NOT*? It's about at this point it should be screamingly obvious to
> you that we're not speaking Latin, so using Latin grammar is A BLOODY
> STUPID IDEA.
>
> Adam
>