901017 links me to DL 907245 ???

I'm using XP SP 1. I go to downloads and see that I need 901017. I
click "details" I click the link to the article The article is
907245.

What?

<*((((><{

From: "<*(((><{" <>

| I'm using XP SP 1. I go to downloads and see that I need 901017. I
| click "details" I click the link to the article The article is
| 907245.
|
| What?
|
| <*((((><{
|

Since KB907245 is greater than KB901017 it could be that KB907245 supercedes the older
patch/HotFix.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

But then, why does the KB article show links to download 901017? And
it discusses 901017? But 907245 shows up in the title and heading?

Could be -- but maybe not

<*((((><{


In the last exciting episode on Wed, 9 Nov 2005 10:02:20 -0500, "David
H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:

>From: "<*(((><{" <>
>
>| I'm using XP SP 1. I go to downloads and see that I need 901017. I
>| click "details" I click the link to the article The article is
>| 907245.
>|
>| What?
>|
>| <*((((><{
>|
>
>Since KB907245 is greater than KB901017 it could be that KB907245 supercedes the older
>patch/HotFix.

It goes like this....

KB907245 is the KB article specifically related to the MS Security Bulletin
#MS05-048. This KB article refers to two subordinate KB articles that discuss
the various scenarios in which this security issue can be involved.

The first is in the /Windows/ operating system, the second is in the
/Exchange/ server product.

Here's an excerpt from KB907245, referring to the other articles:
For more information about the Windows-based version of this issue, click the
following article number to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:
901017 (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/901017/) Vulnerability in the
Microsoft Collaboration Data Objects could allow code execution (Windows)
For more information about the Exchange-based version of this issue, click the
following article number to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:
906780 (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/906780/) Vulnerability in the
Microsoft Collaboration Data Objects could allow code execution (Exchange)


"<*(((><{" <> wrote in message
news:...
> But then, why does the KB article show links to download 901017? And
> it discusses 901017? But 907245 shows up in the title and heading?
>
> Could be -- but maybe not
>
> <*((((><{
>
>
> In the last exciting episode on Wed, 9 Nov 2005 10:02:20 -0500, "David
> H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
>
>>From: "<*(((><{" <>
>>
>>| I'm using XP SP 1. I go to downloads and see that I need 901017. I
>>| click "details" I click the link to the article The article is
>>| 907245.
>>|
>>| What?
>>|
>>| <*((((><{
>>|
>>
>>Since KB907245 is greater than KB901017 it could be that KB907245 supercedes
>>the older
>>patch/HotFix.
>

Now I understand. I'm just glad Microsoft makes things so easy for
end users to understand.

<*((((><{


In the last exciting episode on Wed, 9 Nov 2005 10:39:12 -0600,
"Lawrence Garvin [MVP]" <> wrote:

>It goes like this....
>
>KB907245 is the KB article specifically related to the MS Security Bulletin
>#MS05-048. This KB article refers to two subordinate KB articles that discuss
>the various scenarios in which this security issue can be involved.
>
>The first is in the /Windows/ operating system, the second is in the
>/Exchange/ server product.
>
>Here's an excerpt from KB907245, referring to the other articles:
>For more information about the Windows-based version of this issue, click the
>following article number to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:
>901017 (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/901017/) Vulnerability in the
>Microsoft Collaboration Data Objects could allow code execution (Windows)
>For more information about the Exchange-based version of this issue, click the
>following article number to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:
>906780 (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/906780/) Vulnerability in the
>Microsoft Collaboration Data Objects could allow code execution (Exchange)
>
>
>"<*(((><{" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> But then, why does the KB article show links to download 901017? And
>> it discusses 901017? But 907245 shows up in the title and heading?
>>
>> Could be -- but maybe not
>>
>> <*((((><{
>>
>>
>> In the last exciting episode on Wed, 9 Nov 2005 10:02:20 -0500, "David
>> H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
>>
>>>From: "<*(((><{" <>
>>>
>>>| I'm using XP SP 1. I go to downloads and see that I need 901017. I
>>>| click "details" I click the link to the article The article is
>>>| 907245.
>>>|
>>>| What?
>>>|
>>>| <*((((><{
>>>|
>>>
>>>Since KB907245 is greater than KB901017 it could be that KB907245 supercedes
>>>the older
>>>patch/HotFix.
>>
>