Warning to Users of PKZIP Explorer and Microsoft Outlook 2000

A warning to anyone who has the PKZIP Explorer product installed and uses Microsoft Outlook 2000 for e-mail.

The PKZIP Explorer application may attach itself to Microsoft Outlook 2000 and compress any files that are attached to e-mail messages into a ZIP file format. Unless the receiving person of the e-mail has PKZIP installed on their computer, they will not be able to read the attached ZIP files. PKZIP transforms attached files into the ZIP file format, and attached files are not transmitted in the original file format intended to be sent. PKZIP does not notify users when an attached file is being compressed or that PKZIP is working within Outlook.

The installation program of PKZIP Explorer automatically installs the “PKZIP Attachments”. It is this installation process that attaches PKZIP to Outlook 2000 and allows PKZIP to modify attached files. Most users simply accept default settings with application installations, and with PKZIP Explorer, this causes all attachments to e-mail files within Outlook 2000 to be converted to ZIP files. Most users would not understand the installation process or that it was installing this attachment process to Outlook even if they studied what was being installed. User must be careful when installing PKZIP Explorer to not allow this to happen unless they desire all their e-mail file attachments to be converted to ZIP files.

Once the PKZIP Explorer Attachments have been installed, there is no apparent method to prevent PKZIP from modifying file attachments within Outlook. Users may uninstall PKZIP Explorer in order to prevent attached files from being compressed into ZIP files. This can be accomplished by clicking on the Start menu, then Settings, then Control Panel. Within the Control Panel, select the “Add or Remove Programs” icon. Once the Add or Remove Program application is shown, select the “PKZIP Explorer” program and then select Remove. There may be other PKZIP applications listed, but they do not modify e-mail attachments.

PKZIP is an application that compresses a file into a smaller file of a different format, and usually results in a filename ending with “.zip”. It has been useful for many years to compress large files into much smaller ones, especially for transmitting files via the Internet.

PKZIP is a popular program, but is becoming less common, such that not many people will be able to read a ZIP file attached to an e-mail. Many corporations do not allow PKZIP to be installed, as PKWare, the producers of PKZIP, require a corporate license that corporations are not willing to pay. Many systems administrators of computer networks do not want the overhead of another application to manage or the management of the PKZIP licenses. So, many corporations simply do not allow PKZIP to be installed and your attachments cannot be read.

User can determine if they have received a ZIP file, and need PKZIP to read it, if a file is received attached to an e-mail and has a filename ending in “.zip”. Users will need PKZIP to un-ZIP the file to view its contents. A ZIP file may contain one or more files. PKWare, at www.pkware.com, allows users to download a shareware version of PKZIP. Of course, the PKZIP Explorer application may attach itself to Outlook 2000 and compress and modify files attached to e-mail messages.

Users can test if PKZIP is installed and compressing attached files to e-mails sent by Outlook by sending themselves an attached file and then checking if the received file is in the ZIP file format. ZIP files end with the “.zip” file extension in the filename.

This problem is symptomatic of the “automatic feature” frenzy that is plaguing the computer software industry. It seems that if a program can do something, whether a user wants it to or not, some kid will program the software to do it, because he found that he can and thinks that it is “cool”. More adult supervision is needed for software companies to help prevent “cool” features from being a serious problem to software users.

In the “old days”, software would warn users, or ask, before modifying a file format or the file’s contents. It seems that such courtesy and necessity is not understood by today’s software companies or developers.

When software continues to perform functions that users do not know is happening, the results can be very adverse. Another “nagging” problem is software that continues to ask a user if they want to do something each time the user performs a function within the application. An example would be when a user pastes text into an application and application asks “Would you like to keep the current formatting?”, and the application does this each and every time text is pasted into the application. “Nagware” was something previously only seen in Shareware products, but is now a common trait in too many software applications.

Software companies should stop nagging their customers to use features of their software. They should stop popping up windows that continue to ask, “Would you like to...”. If the software is so complex that the user needs reminders that a particular feature is present, maybe the software should be redesigned to make the feature more accessible and understood.

I guess developers don't want to write excellent code, but, instead, just think of newer "cool" features to add without thinking if they provide any benefit.

I think it's an architecture problem.

What you want to do there is view a piece of your machine. I would argue that the 'OS' only includes the software you need to run the machine and look at each drive/mount.

Everything else is 'Gui'.

MS, for business reasons, prefers an 'integrated' architecture. Their 'Gui' components like Word, IE, etc, they want to 'integrate' into the OS, because of their OS monopoly. The software world, consumers, good software practices -- everything else prefers 'componentized'.

That, I think, is at the heart of all of MS's problems. They are using every single trick in the book to keep software 'integrated', and fight the 'componentized' approach.

For obvious business purposes.

But the market is against them, so they're actually using their powers to prevent the market from 'innovating'.

So to fight that, their developers are told to integrate things as tightly as possible. This leads to all these issues.

In my humble opinion.

I think developers at Microsoft want to integrate features as it is better to use a feature someone else has already created than to create your own. A nice approach, but a feature may work in one app and misbehave in another.

The problem is that no one stops and thinks about writing solid code,and instead everyone wants to get credit for writing the latest and geatest feature. Let's face it, no one wants to rewrite working code just to make it more secure or faster. That just isn't sexy programming.

I find that the more experienced and talented programers take longer on a feature, but the end result in near perfection. Not to ttot my own horn, but I try to give the users the capabilities they need and nothing more. I will work on a feature 3 times longer than the kid next to me, but the end result is user satisfaction.

It is just difficult to have such a large enterprise of developers at Microsoft and keep them all working in one direction. I don't think MS is evil, it just needs closer internal supervision. I am glad that Gates went back as the Chief Architect. Maybe some MS developers might not think so, but it tells me that the development aspects of MS are getting closer supervision. Gates is a talented developer, and has the track record to show for it. I think that .NET is a good move, and this latest security emphasis is a good move, now lets just see how far the momentum actually carries MS into better software.

I think developers at Microsoft want to integrate features as it is better to use a feature someone else has already created than to create your own.

But you're suppose to integrate features in a componentized, or decoupled way, so that you can swap out 'components' at will. That's what the customers want, that's what the developers want, that's what the market is chosing.

It's just not what the bean-counters want.

MS's management, for obvious reasons, doesn't want the word processor, web browser, etc to be an interchangable 'component' of the system. They want all the other software to be 'integrated'. If they had their choice, they'd copy and 'bundle' every single possible app into their 'OS'.

Purely for monopolistic reasons, even tho the market is trying to innovate the other way. They own the train tracks, and therefore they control the trains.

This also explains their moves on Java and with .NET.

With a cross-platform programming language, the OS becomes just another component that can be switched out as need be. So first they tried to pervert Java into being Windows only, as their internal emails showed, and then when the courts slapped them for that they just copied Java and made a Windows-only version in C#.

MS will break any law to try and prevent java from moving to the desktop, as it's now poised to do. I believe that a mountain of evidence shows that MS has done some bad things in the past. I believe that's why they lost the court case.

I don't doubt that there is a configuration item somewhere in the PKZIP program where you can turn off automatic file compression of email attachments. .zip files have been around almost as long as PCs (I've personally been using them for over eight years) and there's nothing nefarious about 'em. They're so ingrained in the computer world that almost every company in the world has a site license for some sort of software to deal with them, usually either WinZip or PKZip.

PKWare has probably gone to an advertising-supported model for one version of its software in order to get some revenue. They're giving you the software for free... but they sure as heck ain't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. They need to make a buck, too.

I don't like advertising-supported software so I always BUY the full-fledged version of software that doesn't have any ad-bots built in. I own licensed copies of both PKZip and WinZip. I don't have the current version of PKZip so I can't verify it but I'd be willing to wager there's some way of turning off the automatic file compression feature.

“I don't doubt that there is a configuration item somewhere in the PKZIP program where you can turn off automatic file compression of email attachments.”

Tell us all where it is.

"They're so ingrained in the computer world that almost every company in the world has a site license for some sort of software to deal with them"

Having worked with dozens of large Fortune 1000 companies, I can say that is not true.

"PKWare has probably gone to an advertising-supported model for one version of its software in order to get some revenue."

You just contradicted your last statement. If every company has PKZIP, then they already have revenue.

”They're giving you the software for free... “

No, they are not. I and many others paid for it.

Try RTFM, and then make these statements.

How can you have a worm in a MP3 file???

MP3 files are data, they're not executable or a script.

Even if one did attach code to an MP3 file it could never be executed. Perhaps your virus checker found a sequence of your MP3 file that looked like a particular virus but I don't see how it actually could be.

I did a Google search and I found this.

Besides, I thought that C# was no Java according to you.

At this point, C# is Java with the security, reliability and cross-platform taken out.

It has potential, and when some cross-platform functionality actually materializes, I'll be very happy.

C# is a nice first effort. It is *not* ready for mission-critical apps yet, but neither was Java for it's first 4 or 5 years.

How so?

Well, security wasn't important when they architected and built .NET. .NET was built under the old focus of MS -- "add features regardless of the security problems". Mr. Gate's memo makes it clear he admits they have this problem, and this was built with that focus. There are many security issues I have with .NET, from the lack or checked exceptions to their model for 'validating' web forms that can read/write the local drive (they're using IE as the gatekeeper -- IE, which is nothin but a security hole!).

And reliability depend on iterations. Only after software has been in wide release for a decent period of time can you really work out most of the bugs. As I said, Java people didn't push Java for mission-critical use for the first several years. Doing so with .NET is professional fraud.

A basic 'public beta test' is the only way to get most of the issues. Closed, 'in house' testing will never find the majority of the problems.

And of course, .NET is not yet cross-platform.

“I don't doubt that there is a configuration item somewhere in the PKZIP program where you can turn off automatic file compression of email attachments.” Tell us all where it is.

I don't use the program; my statement said that "I don't doubt that there is...", not that I KNEW there was. However, since you asked, I looked at their website http://www.pkware.com/ and retrieved this quote from the information about PKZIP Explorer... "easily toggle on or off automatic zipping of email attachments and configure other PKZIP options from within Microsoft® Outlook® 2000."

"They're so ingrained in the computer world that almost every company in the world has a site license for some sort of software to deal with them" Having worked with dozens of large Fortune 1000 companies, I can say that is not true.

I've worked with dozens of companies and never encountered one that didn't have a site license for either WinZip or PKZip or some other program for handling .zip files. A modern company can't do business without some sort of utility for dealing with .zip files.

"PKWare has probably gone to an advertising-supported model for one version of its software in order to get some revenue." You just contradicted your last statement. If every company has PKZIP, then they already have revenue.

I didn't say that every company has PKZIP, I said every company has some sort of program for dealing with .zip files. There are many software products that have an ad-supported version that's free and a version with no advertising that you have to pay for. One of the best known is Eudora. There's a freeware version that shows you advertising and a registered version that has no advertising but that you have to pay for. I didn't find anything on the PKWARE site about an ad-supported version but I only gave it a cursory glance.

”They're giving you the software for free... “ No, they are not. I and many others paid for it.

I made that statement with the presumption that there was a free ad-supported version of the software in addition to the paid version that you and many others have.

Try RTFM, and then make these statements.

And the same should apply to you as well since I was easily able to track down the information that the feature you were grumbling about can be turned off.

Mike

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.