>>I had a long rant on this subject publish as a postscript to the series in the VFUG newsletter. It appeared during the first half of 2001. Mostly, it was a response to some nonsense that had appeared on ProFox.
>
>I won't deny the "nonsense" part; but nonsense or not, some people may have it disabled on purpose. I suppose that in the end, the question is, how much control do you have over the users' machines. In your company, you can tell them, please do not disable the WSH, 'cause we need it. Unfortunately, for a commercial program, this may be a little more difficult.
>
>Now, whether you like it or not (of course you don't <g>), that is a point that has to be considered when you decide for or against WSH.

Hilmar,

In some instances, there isn't a choice. The WSH is an integral part of Win2K and above (including XP Home). Further, some versions of IE install it. So then the only choice is between current and out-dated technology.

I think that the approach I take is the safest and sanest. If I get an email from someone with an attachment that I'm not expecting, it goes straight to the bit-bucket. It doesn't matter who the person is or if I know them or not. I've done this to both my wife and daughter. I've battled with viruses on friends computers that got there because they launched an attachment from a friend or relative.