Re: Why you shouldn't email MSWord files

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Mainlander, Jul 11, 2003.

  1. Mainlander

    Mainlander Guest

    In article <52TMa.2655$>,
    says...
    > Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >
    > > In article <66yMa.2445$>, Allistar
    > > <> wrote:
    > >>Peter wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>
    > >>> there's an interesting post over on nz.politics;
    > >>>>MS Word revision history catches Blair out as LIAR
    > >>>
    > >>> Microsoft Word bytes Tony Blair in the butt
    > >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
    > >>> Richard M. Smith
    > >>> June 30, 2003
    > >>> Microsoft Word documents are notorious for containing private
    > >>> information in file headers which people would sometimes rather not
    > >>> share. The British government of Tony Blair just learned this lesson the
    > >>> hard way. ------------------------------------------
    > >>>
    > >>> It appears some politically interesting material was distributed as a
    > >>> MSWord
    > >>> file. Problem is, MSWord files contain a whole pile of stuff apart from
    > >>> just the text you see in the Word window. In this case, it was the
    > >>> revision history, complete with author's names, that creates the
    > >>> interest.
    > >>>
    > >>> Definitely a lesson in what file format NOT to use when sending emails.
    > >>
    > >>It's no wonder MS Word files are so large. The equivelent OpenOffice.org
    > >>files are often about a fifth the size (for exactly the same content!)

    > >
    > > Words are even smaller :)
    > >
    > > Sadly, some people don't know about words these days ... it's all
    > > "documents".
    > >
    > > I have seen 2 lines of text emailed as a word document. That, to me, is
    > > the best reason for not doing it .. it makes people think it's OK :)
    > >
    > > Bruce

    >
    > I agree. At one of my clients the most common way to send screen snapshots
    > is to embed them into MS Word documents, which bloats the size. If they
    > were to be sent as pngs the size of the email would be much much smaller.


    Since 97, word has inline compression of image files.
    Mainlander, Jul 11, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mainlander

    Allistar Guest

    Mainlander wrote:

    > In article <52TMa.2655$>,
    > says...
    >> Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >>
    >> > In article <66yMa.2445$>, Allistar
    >> > <> wrote:
    >> >>Peter wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >>>
    >> >>> there's an interesting post over on nz.politics;
    >> >>>>MS Word revision history catches Blair out as LIAR
    >> >>>
    >> >>> Microsoft Word bytes Tony Blair in the butt
    >> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
    >> >>> Richard M. Smith
    >> >>> June 30, 2003
    >> >>> Microsoft Word documents are notorious for containing private
    >> >>> information in file headers which people would sometimes rather not
    >> >>> share. The British government of Tony Blair just learned this lesson
    >> >>> the hard way. ------------------------------------------
    >> >>>
    >> >>> It appears some politically interesting material was distributed as a
    >> >>> MSWord
    >> >>> file. Problem is, MSWord files contain a whole pile of stuff apart
    >> >>> from
    >> >>> just the text you see in the Word window. In this case, it was the
    >> >>> revision history, complete with author's names, that creates the
    >> >>> interest.
    >> >>>
    >> >>> Definitely a lesson in what file format NOT to use when sending
    >> >>> emails.
    >> >>
    >> >>It's no wonder MS Word files are so large. The equivelent
    >> >>OpenOffice.org files are often about a fifth the size (for exactly the
    >> >>same content!)
    >> >
    >> > Words are even smaller :)
    >> >
    >> > Sadly, some people don't know about words these days ... it's all
    >> > "documents".
    >> >
    >> > I have seen 2 lines of text emailed as a word document. That, to me, is
    >> > the best reason for not doing it .. it makes people think it's OK :)
    >> >
    >> > Bruce

    >>
    >> I agree. At one of my clients the most common way to send screen
    >> snapshots is to embed them into MS Word documents, which bloats the size.
    >> If they were to be sent as pngs the size of the email would be much much
    >> smaller.

    >
    > Since 97, word has inline compression of image files.


    The point is that it is unneccessary to send images embedded in word
    documents (that is if it is only the images yo want to send). What a silly
    was of doing it, considering the memory overhead and the blatant assumption
    that the person receiving the files can open them.

    Allistar.
    Allistar, Jul 12, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mainlander

    Mainlander Guest

    In article <_MLPa.4449$>,
    says...
    > Mainlander wrote:
    >
    > > In article <52TMa.2655$>,
    > > says...
    > >> Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > In article <66yMa.2445$>, Allistar
    > >> > <> wrote:
    > >> >>Peter wrote:
    > >> >>
    > >> >>>
    > >> >>> there's an interesting post over on nz.politics;
    > >> >>>>MS Word revision history catches Blair out as LIAR
    > >> >>>
    > >> >>> Microsoft Word bytes Tony Blair in the butt
    > >> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
    > >> >>> Richard M. Smith
    > >> >>> June 30, 2003
    > >> >>> Microsoft Word documents are notorious for containing private
    > >> >>> information in file headers which people would sometimes rather not
    > >> >>> share. The British government of Tony Blair just learned this lesson
    > >> >>> the hard way. ------------------------------------------
    > >> >>>
    > >> >>> It appears some politically interesting material was distributed as a
    > >> >>> MSWord
    > >> >>> file. Problem is, MSWord files contain a whole pile of stuff apart
    > >> >>> from
    > >> >>> just the text you see in the Word window. In this case, it was the
    > >> >>> revision history, complete with author's names, that creates the
    > >> >>> interest.
    > >> >>>
    > >> >>> Definitely a lesson in what file format NOT to use when sending
    > >> >>> emails.
    > >> >>
    > >> >>It's no wonder MS Word files are so large. The equivelent
    > >> >>OpenOffice.org files are often about a fifth the size (for exactly the
    > >> >>same content!)
    > >> >
    > >> > Words are even smaller :)
    > >> >
    > >> > Sadly, some people don't know about words these days ... it's all
    > >> > "documents".
    > >> >
    > >> > I have seen 2 lines of text emailed as a word document. That, to me, is
    > >> > the best reason for not doing it .. it makes people think it's OK :)
    > >> >
    > >> > Bruce
    > >>
    > >> I agree. At one of my clients the most common way to send screen
    > >> snapshots is to embed them into MS Word documents, which bloats the size.
    > >> If they were to be sent as pngs the size of the email would be much much
    > >> smaller.

    > >
    > > Since 97, word has inline compression of image files.

    >
    > The point is that it is unneccessary to send images embedded in word
    > documents (that is if it is only the images yo want to send). What a silly
    > was of doing it, considering the memory overhead and the blatant assumption
    > that the person receiving the files can open them.


    Everyone who has word can open word. Embedding them in word is very
    simple, simpler than creating pngs.
    Mainlander, Jul 12, 2003
    #3
  4. Mainlander

    Allistar Guest

    Mainlander wrote:

    > In article <_MLPa.4449$>,
    > says...
    >> Mainlander wrote:
    >>
    >> > In article <52TMa.2655$>,
    >> > says...
    >> >> Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> > In article <66yMa.2445$>, Allistar
    >> >> > <> wrote:
    >> >> >>Peter wrote:
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >>>
    >> >> >>> there's an interesting post over on nz.politics;
    >> >> >>>>MS Word revision history catches Blair out as LIAR
    >> >> >>>
    >> >> >>> Microsoft Word bytes Tony Blair in the butt
    >> >> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
    >> >> >>> Richard M. Smith
    >> >> >>> June 30, 2003
    >> >> >>> Microsoft Word documents are notorious for containing private
    >> >> >>> information in file headers which people would sometimes rather
    >> >> >>> not share. The British government of Tony Blair just learned this
    >> >> >>> lesson the hard way. ------------------------------------------
    >> >> >>>
    >> >> >>> It appears some politically interesting material was distributed
    >> >> >>> as a MSWord
    >> >> >>> file. Problem is, MSWord files contain a whole pile of stuff
    >> >> >>> apart from
    >> >> >>> just the text you see in the Word window. In this case, it was
    >> >> >>> the revision history, complete with author's names, that creates
    >> >> >>> the interest.
    >> >> >>>
    >> >> >>> Definitely a lesson in what file format NOT to use when sending
    >> >> >>> emails.
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >>It's no wonder MS Word files are so large. The equivelent
    >> >> >>OpenOffice.org files are often about a fifth the size (for exactly
    >> >> >>the same content!)
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Words are even smaller :)
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Sadly, some people don't know about words these days ... it's all
    >> >> > "documents".
    >> >> >
    >> >> > I have seen 2 lines of text emailed as a word document. That, to me,
    >> >> > is the best reason for not doing it .. it makes people think it's OK
    >> >> > :)
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Bruce
    >> >>
    >> >> I agree. At one of my clients the most common way to send screen
    >> >> snapshots is to embed them into MS Word documents, which bloats the
    >> >> size. If they were to be sent as pngs the size of the email would be
    >> >> much much smaller.
    >> >
    >> > Since 97, word has inline compression of image files.

    >>
    >> The point is that it is unneccessary to send images embedded in word
    >> documents (that is if it is only the images yo want to send). What a
    >> silly was of doing it, considering the memory overhead and the blatant
    >> assumption that the person receiving the files can open them.

    >
    > Everyone who has word can open word. Embedding them in word is very
    > simple, simpler than creating pngs.


    Any what of people who don't have Word?

    The simplicity of creating png's depends on the software you use. When I do
    screen snapshots for example I use KSnapshot which saves as .png by
    default.

    Allistar.
    Allistar, Jul 13, 2003
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. willy_gates

    Directly linking to files such as MSWord

    willy_gates, May 14, 2004, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    386
    willy_gates
    May 14, 2004
  2. Christopher Jones
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    7,589
    Boomer
    Nov 3, 2003
  3. Aman's Space

    Why We Shouldn't Like This ????

    Aman's Space, Oct 19, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    598
    kráftéé
    Oct 19, 2007
  4. chrisv
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    400
    chrisv
    Sep 18, 2009
  5. karlaserv
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,845
    TagCalls
    Jul 10, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page