On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 02:29:15 +0200, Mica Mijatovic [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Okay, it's about money. I could write some 5-6 KB on this topic,
This is not about money, this is about the quality of the
software, is that SO hard to understand?
--
Gruesse / Greetings,
Alexander Kunz
Monday, April 4, 2005, 2:12:15 PM, Paul wrote:
PB Have you asked the List about grouping? The list has helped me over
PB the years.
Oh, yes! I had a gripe quite recently and many tried to help, but to no
avail.
--
Cheers,
Allister
:flag-newzealand:
New Zealand / Aotearoa
Hello Arjan de Groot everyone else,
on 04-Apr-2005 at 00:07 you (Arjan de Groot) wrote:
You really believe this, do you?
I do. I've been using personal computers for almost 20 years
now and never needed any protection against virusses, trojans or
whatever, whatsoever.
There was one
Hi Alexander,
On 4/4/2005 12:54 PM +0200, you wrote:
This was such an everyday situation, I dare say it could've happened
to everyone... especially since the standard accounts creating during
the Win XP installation are administrative accounts, anyway...
I got adware/spyware on my machine under
Hello Anthony,
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 22:38:33 +0200 GMT (04/04/2005, 03:38 +0700 GMT),
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
AGA Antivirus products, generally speaking, are inferior substitutes for
AGA safe computing practices.
They are better than nothing.
AGA The only threats that truly justify automated
Hello Anthony,
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 06:02:13 +0200 GMT (04/04/2005, 11:02 +0700 GMT),
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
[...]
AGA Then they will get what they deserve.
[...]
AGA Shared computers are never a good idea.
Does this sounds arrogant (or elitaire) or is it just me?
--
Cheers,
Thomas.
Hello Alexander,
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 12:54:53 +0200 GMT (04/04/2005, 17:54 +0700 GMT),
Alexander S. Kunz wrote:
Yes. Poor Average Joe User. Buys Norton Antivirus in a shop and
believes he's safe...
ASK I see postings here that blame the average user, I don't think that is
ASK fair. Melissa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
***^\ ._)~~
~( __ _o Was another beautiful day, Mon, 04 Apr 2005,
@ @ at 08:57:42 +0200, when Alexander S. Kunz wrote:
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 02:29:15 +0200, Mica Mijatovic [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Okay, it's about money. I could
Hi
On Monday 4 April 2005 at 2:32:44 PM, in
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED], Thomas Fernandez wrote:
... confirmation that 100% virus free in the mail.
I once had such certifications turned on for testing purposes and
forgot to turn them off before sending an email. The message was
bounced back with
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 15:46:50 +0200, Mica Mijatovic [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
/// So, it *is* about money, since the value system used to estimate a
software, is directly derived, to a significant extent, from what money
means/represents to someone, a particular person, or a group of them.
This
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 15:34:50 +0200, Thomas Fernandez
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
AGA Then they will get what they deserve.
[...]
AGA Shared computers are never a good idea.
Does this sounds arrogant (or elitaire) or is it just me?
Nope, its not only you.
--
Gruesse / Greetings,
Alexander Kunz
Alexander S. Kunz writes:
There was one incident that change my attitude towards this. I'm
normally using Opera, but in order to use some pages, as you surely
know, one must use Internet Explorer. One of these sites that require
IE *and* ActiveX is ebay when you want to sell something and use
Allie Martin writes:
It's ridiculous now and we simply have to run the software rather
than sit thinking that we alone can make the difference.
It only gets dangerous when you stop thinking.
--
Anthony
__
Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33 on Windows XP
Thomas Fernandez writes:
They are better than nothing.
Yes, but safe computing practices are better than A/V products, and they
are free and do not interfere with the functioning of the OS.
Firewalls have nothing to do with AV software.
They have a lot to do with safe computing, though. In
Thomas Fernandez writes:
Does this sounds arrogant (or elitaire) or is it just me?
Some people think the mere notion of people having computers at home is
arrogant and elitist.
--
Anthony
__
Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
***^\ ._)~~
~( __ _o Was another beautiful day, Mon, 4 Apr 2005,
@ @ at 12:54:53 +0200, when Alexander S. Kunz wrote:
I see postings here that blame the average user, I don't think that is
fair. Melissa Reece mentioned a bit of
Hello Anthony,
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 16:48:35 +0200 GMT (04/04/2005, 21:48 +0700 GMT),
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
They are better than nothing.
AGA Yes, but safe computing practices are better than A/V products, and they
AGA are free and do not interfere with the functioning of the OS.
You
Hello Mica,
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 16:54:04 +0200 GMT (04/04/2005, 21:54 +0700 GMT),
Mica Mijatovic wrote:
MM If I know that someone is not practising appropriate methods in making
MM his/her machine safe, I will not accept an invitation, for instance,
MM to chat with him/her, will not share files
Hello Alexander,
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 16:17:37 +0200 GMT (04/04/2005, 21:17 +0700 GMT),
Alexander S. Kunz wrote:
Does this sounds arrogant (or elitaire) or is it just me?
ASK Nope, its not only you.
OK, thanks for the heads-up.
--
Cheers,
Thomas.
Fettflecken werden wie neu, wenn man sie
Hello Anthony G. Atkielski everyone else,
on 04-Apr-2005 at 16:48 you (Anthony G. Atkielski) wrote:
Files from a trusted source are clean by definition
So, every Netsky virus that sends itself around with a fake sender address
would come from a trusted source by that definition. Thats secure
Hello Anthony G. Atkielski everyone else,
on 04-Apr-2005 at 16:43 you (Anthony G. Atkielski) wrote:
Don't use the advance picture service
Impractical.
--
Best regards,
Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981)
A learned blockhead is a greater blockhead than an ignorant one. --
Hi Anthony,
On 04/04/2005 04:44 PM +0200, you wrote:
It only gets dangerous when you stop thinking.
From reading your other messages it would seem that your use of your
system and why *you* require or need allows you the luxury of being
able to simply avoid risky practices. More power to you
Thomas Fernandez writes:
You are not in business or academy. In those fields, attached files
with macros are common.
I'm in both, and macro-laden files comprise only a tiny minority of
attached files.
Right. There is no 100% protection, if you need to open those files.
Often, you don't need
Alexander S. Kunz writes:
So, every Netsky virus that sends itself around with a fake sender address
would come from a trusted source by that definition.
Trusted sources are verifiable sources. Digital signatures come in
handy here.
--
Anthony
Alexander S. Kunz writes:
Impractical.
Not for me. I've used eBay without the need for ActiveX.
--
Anthony
__
Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600
Current version is 3.0.1.33
Hello Anthony G. Atkielski everyone else,
on 04-Apr-2005 at 17:40 you (Anthony G. Atkielski) wrote:
Impractical.
Not for me. I've used eBay without the need for ActiveX.
That conversation ends here, because it start to get redundant. See
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Best regards,
Alexander
Hello Anthony,
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 17:39:51 +0200 GMT (04/04/2005, 22:39 +0700 GMT),
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
You are not in business or academy. In those fields, attached files
with macros are common.
AGA I'm in both, and macro-laden files comprise only a tiny minority of
AGA attached
Allie Martin writes:
From reading your other messages it would seem that your use of your
system and why *you* require or need allows you the luxury of being
able to simply avoid risky practices. More power to you that you're
able to actually do this. Unfortunately, this isn't practical
Thomas Fernandez writes:
My point is that some oneone who sent me uninfected files one day, may
send me an infected file the next.
Then that person is not a trusted source.
Not for me. Well, if they send me .exe files, I do ask them to send me
sensible files. But an Excel atttachment is
Hi Anthony,
On 04/04/2005 05:40 PM +0200, you wrote:
Not for me.
If this is only about you, then there's nothing to discuss.
General advice on security can never be based on individual needs or
specialized measures. The best security measures are never generic.
They're based on the profile of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
***^\ ._)~~
~( __ _o Was another beautiful day, Mon, 4 Apr 2005,
@ @ at 16:44:00 +0200, when Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
Allie Martin writes:
It's ridiculous now and we simply have to run the software rather
than sit thinking
Hi Anthony,
On 04/04/2005 05:56 PM +0200, you wrote:
I've been good at what I do for a very long time.
Nah. You're just able to avoid doing a lot of things others can't. I
find it disturbing that you imply that your method will work for
others. This implies that what you merely desire and can
Hello Anthony,
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 17:58:56 +0200 GMT (04/04/2005, 22:58 +0700 GMT),
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
My point is that some oneone who sent me uninfected files one day, may
send me an infected file the next.
AGA Then that person is not a trusted source.
Not, they aren't. Yet, I
Allie Martin writes:
Nah. You're just able to avoid doing a lot of things others can't.
Most can avoid them; they just don't want to. The urge to see a video
of Paris Hilton is just too strong.
--
Anthony
__
Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33 on Windows
Hi Anthony,
On 04/04/2005 06:14 PM +0200, you wrote:
Most can avoid them; they just don't want to. The urge to see a video
of Paris Hilton is just too strong.
Your funny. :)
--
Allie Martin
System specs: http://www.ac-martin.com/sysspecs.htm
-=-=-
Nothing is impossible for anyone impervious to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
***^\ ._)~~
~( __ _o Was another beautiful day, Mon, 4 Apr 2005,
@ @ at 22:17:47 +0700, when Thomas Fernandez wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 16:54:04 +0200 GMT (04/04/2005, 21:54 +0700 GMT),
Mica Mijatovic wrote:
MM If I know that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
***^\ ._)~~
~( __ _o Was another beautiful day, Mon, 04 Apr 2005,
@ @ at 11:01:00 -0500, when Allie Martin wrote to Anthony:
Your security model just isn't practical for many if not most users.
Security model is only one,
and is
Hi
On Monday 4 April 2005 at 4:56:12 PM, in
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED], Anthony G. Atkielski
wrote:
I switched to TB from Outlook Express because OE wouldn't let me turn
off display of HTML mail,
Tools | Options | Read tab | Read all messages in plain text
in OE 6; dunno about other versions.
Hi
On Monday 4 April 2005 at 3:43:09 PM, in
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED], Anthony G.
Atkielski wrote:
I have all the ActiveX turned off in MSIE, and nowadays I use
Firefox, anyway, in which I've also turned off everything I can,
including Flash.
Is there a risk to Flash?
--
Best regards,
MFPA
Hello MFPA everyone else,
on 04-Apr-2005 at 20:26 you (MFPA) wrote:
Is there a risk to Flash?
...you're male, so... probably not.
SCNR!
--
Best regards,
Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981)
Our dreams dream us. -- Anonymous
MFPA writes:
Tools | Options | Read tab | Read all messages in plain text
in OE 6; dunno about other versions.
I have OE 6, and I don't see any such option.
--
Anthony
__
Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600
MFPA writes:
Is there a risk to Flash?
Flash contains instructions that are executable on the local machine;
therefore there's always a risk.
There have been some reported virus infections of Flash content. I
don't have any legitimate use for Flash so I have no Flash software
installed.
I
Hello Anthony,
Monday, April 4, 2005, 6:41:58 PM, you wrote:
I have OE 6, and I don't see any such option.
it a feature in the sp2 version
--
Best regards,
Timmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Current version is 3.0.1.33
Tim Casten writes:
it a feature in the sp2 version
Oh. Well, it was too little, too late, as I now use TB for my e-mail
(despite several annoying bugs). I haven't even installed SP2, since
I'm sure it will break applications, and I can't afford to spend
hundreds or thousands of dollars
44 matches
Mail list logo
