"~BD~" <BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:WeidnQxlHuhbCsDRnZ2dnUVZ8tGdnZ2d@bt.com...

[...]

> You know far more about computing than I ever will. If you experiment
> with Google Chrome you will note that if you change *133* to 132 or
> 134 there is *no* similar warning. It relates simply to the thread
> started by Roy C.
>
> Perhaps this matter is of little significance but I'd be interested in
> your view.

Perhaps not the post, but something *in* the post warrants an alert.
Some anti-badstuff programs not only scan for malware, but follow found
links to *other* locations and search them too. A posted URL to a photo
hosting site that is "infected" with an iframe to a known malware server
site might get investigated by antimalware/safe surf type programs.

Do you recall the "price of rice in china" post I made a while back? It
turned out that I posted a URL that was currently (or at one time)
leading to malware, a safe surfing browser feature finding that post on
a web based NNTP gateway could make one believe the gateway itself was
infected because the safe browsing feature followed links posted there
to exploits with no teeth.