April 2005 // Volume 43 // Number 2

Issue Contents Previous Article

A Cautionary Note About Attachments

"A Cautionary Note About Attachments" delivers just what the title suggests and should be of particular interest to prospective authors. "April JOE" highlights three of the many good articles in this issue.

A Cautionary Note About Attachments

A few weeks ago, an author tried--and tried--to send me two submissions. Every time he tried, I'd get his message but not his attachments. Instead, I'd get the following:

"Warning: This message has had one or more attachments removed."

But I wanted the submissions--and the author really wanted me to have them, needless to say.

So I consulted some colleagues more technologically proficient than I. It turns out that the problem is all the fault of those dreaded viruses and worms, and of the lengths we have had to go to protect ourselves from them.

The following explanation comes courtesy of Don Kindred, in Purdue's Department of Agriculture Information Technology:

"If you really want to send an MS-Word document, then you want to make sure the file name includes only one period. In a nutshell, rename 'Orient.VAA.doc' something else like 'Orient-VAA.doc.'

Including more than one period in a name is a tactic often employed in email-based viruses/worms. They do this to make something harmful look innocuous. For example, they might send a file called 'readthis.doc.exe.' Some mail readers will display this as just 'readthis.doc,' but if the user opens it, then it will actually execute the *.exe binary. This happens so frequently that some sites reject email containing an attachment filename of this type."

I confess that I don't understand all of Don's explanation, but I now know enough not to send Word attachments with more than one period in the filename. I hope those of you who are planning to send submissions to JOE will take note, as well.

By they way, I shared this information with the author, and I finally got his submissions.

April JOE

I like it when JOE articles resonate with each other.

The first Commentary, "Applied Extension Research in an Era of Devolution," makes a case for an expanded role for locally focused applied Extension research as a way to convince local policy decision makers to continue funding some important programs. The first Feature, "The View from County Partners--Extension in Southwest Washington," examines how well Extension serves its clientele and also discusses discretionary funding from what the author calls "county partners." As these two articles suggest, evaluation, accountability, and proving our worth at the local level have never been more important.

I also like it when JOE articles resonate with readers.

"What Cooperative Extension Professionals Need to Know About Institutional Review Boards: Obtaining Consent" marks the end of a four-part Tools of the Trade series on Institutional Review Boards. Besides garnering lots of positive feedback, the series has also prompted an inquiry from an author proposing two more articles on the subject. The articles already published and the ones to come suggest that IRB's are increasingly important to Extension professionals who perform the kind of research that will continue to prove our worth.

These are just three of the 28 articles in the April issue. They all have a great deal to offer, and they all prove our worth.

Laura Hoelscher, Editor