"Andy" nospam@ wrote in message
...
~BD~ wrote:
Mark McGinty wrote:
"Andy"nospam@ wrote in message
...
~BD~ wrote:
Andy wrote:
Doug Robbins - Word MVP wrote:
The 24hoursupport.helpdesk newsgroup however cannot be resolved by
my
news
program so my responses are not being posted to that group.
Yes they are.
You are 100% correct, Andy. Thanks for posting. 
Doug Robbins seems to be an "A-OK" MVP but has obviously *no clue*
about
what is happening here!
Most 'MVPs' are completely stupid and haven't a clue about anything, so
you shouldn't be surprised.
I saw a message in the 'microsoft.public.test.here'group - nowhere
else.
Fair enough. Microsoft's news server is probably screwed, which would
explain Mr McGinty's post.
Gah, was there a "how far can you go off-topic" contest I didn't hear
about?
:-)
Usenet is great fun, is it not? 
For the record I didn't cross-post anything -- thought about it, then
was
going to paste a copy of the post that failed into a post to the test
group,
then I [correctly] theorized it was a chunk of VBS code that was causing
it
to fail. Problem solved... er, worked-around I should say -- the
problem is
excessively paranoid filtering.
I agree with what you have said.
How many usenet clients out there can pick out a chunk of script in a
post
and execute it?
I have no idea!
I would suggest that no _decent_ newsreader would go around executing
code. Does Outhouse Express have this 'feature'?
I wish I could definitively say no -- it damn well shouldn't -- but if you
run Spy++ you will find that thw Window Class for both the view and compose
windows (even for plain text format) is "Internet Explorer_Server".
But although it seems undeniable that the possibility exists, an
IWebBrowser2 object can disable the scripting engine, so I going to go way
out on a limb here and say the possibility is quite remote. A much more
likely vector would be for a user to copy the script to a text file, name it
something.vbs, and execute it -- but IMHO, if a user transfers any type of
code from a non-executable form/media to one that is executable, without
FULLY AND COMPLETELY either understanding said code, or trusting its author,
that act constitutes stupidity deserving of whatever it brings. (It
irritates me when developers are hampered by attempts to protect stupid
users.)
Really it's all indicative of what I consider to be a flawed approach to the
malware problem: it's commonly thought that computers and software aren't
designed securely enough; I submit to you that the problem lies in human
ethics and integrity, and should be dealt with accordingly. If the penalty
for writing a virus was, say, being burned at the stake, there would be a
lot fewer people willing to even think about developing nefarious code...
But I digress... :-)
-MM
[Not cross-posted to 24hoursupport.helpdesk because I can't reach it.]
Kind of a security risk, doncha think?
--
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/