Thank you George, the comments you made below basically mimic the ones I have already in my meeting document.

I will try to get them to tell me exactly why they jumped to this conclusion.


>
>I think it's important to determine why they want to eliminate the WSH. Simply saying that, "Well, a virus can be spread via the WSH" is too simplistic a reason. Viruses have been spread by macros in Office documents, but I doubt if you'd hear the same sort of "fix" suggested (no macros or no word processing, spreadsheets, etc.).
>
>To take this to an extreme, back in the DOS days viruses could be spread in batch files, or, with some work, a wedge could be driven into the command interpreter. This sort of solution is somewhat akin to saying, "We're not going to let people run batch files or issue commands from the command line." Afterall, one of the main purposes of the WSH was to provide the equivalent of the DOS batch file. To be sure, it's many times more sophisticated, but in essence, that's what it is.
>
>The solution isn't to eliminate the WSH, but rather to take the necessary steps to eliminate the problem of spreading the virus. Part the solution is in educating the users. Further, I believe that Outlook can be set up so that double clicking an attachment with certain extensions (vbs, vbe, js, and jse) open them in Notepad rather than running them. I've never tried to do it, but I think it can be done. If I'm wrong about this, I hope someone will let me know.