Dave,
> I had real problems with one of our Win2000 machines grinding almost
> to a halt using AVG.
Interesting. I've only run it on Win98, and there it has performed
very well. When it is running checks, I can run other tasks with
little or no detectable load on the system. I am planning to ins
Dave,
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, at 22:37:03 [GMT +] (which was 4:07 AM where I live) you
wrote:
DC> I had real problems with one of our Win2000 machines grinding almost
DC> to a halt using AVG. Even after uninstalling the thing the improvement
DC> was only slight. Only cure was to reformat and re
Hello Thomas,
Thanks! Much appreciated! All is now well ;-)
Jason
> Hi Jason,
> On Wed, 27 Dec 2000 01:04:59 -0500GMT (27/12/2000, 14:04 +0800GMT),
> Jason Ellis wrote:
JE>> But the box does say to "contact your network administrator to disable
JE>> it permanently" (or something to that affec
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Lija!
On Thursday, February 22, 2001 at 8:17:34 PM you wrote:
> AFAIK, B64 is intended to be used in mail and UUE for Usenet. I only wonder
> about the same size of msg I get between these encodings. I thought with UUE
> encoding it will be sm
Hi,
On Thursday, March 29, 2001, 5:25:36 PM, Ming-Li wrote:
> What got me curious is what emailer would encode its mail as rtf.
Let me state for the record that Mail.app under NEXTSTEP used RTF for
formatting mail.
Regards,
Markus
--
Using The Bat! 1.52 Beta/1 under Windows NT 4.0 Build
1381
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 05:30:24 +1100, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Groetjes, Roelof
The ultimate Virus, a self-installing copy of Bob.
The Bat! 3.70.06 "Qigong" (Beta)
Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2
1 pop3 account, server on LAN
OTFE enabled
P4 3GHz
2 GB RAM
Hallo Stephen,
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 06:26:28 +1100GMT (2-2-2006, 20:26 +0100, where I
live), you wrote:
SL> "The ultimate Virus, a self-installing copy of Bob."
SL> What the...???
Just shows my age. For the rest I only can say that this is rather off
topic.
--
Groetjes, Ro
m , you doing your updates.
Your knowledge of what the program does/doesnt do.
Not only on the actual antivirus program.
Norton and McAfee marketing is excellent and their latest versions are
getting a lot better but if you test them over as I did on a set of
around 1 virus strains, I found
Tuesday, November 16, 1999
Hello Thomas,
Monday, Monday, November 15, 1999, you wrote:
Thomas> Also, do you know whether it kills CIH so that I don't need the
Thomas> programme you (illegally ;-)) attached to your posting?
have a look here : www.grc.com
Best regards,
tracer
Using theBAT
n you. NEVER,
NEVER, NEVER run any attachment that you don't know what it is.
Hopefully your virus scanner definitions were up to date and you were
not infected.
As for Mike, you really need to update your virus definition files, or
install a virus scanning package if you don't h
I meant to say *no* plugin
MLW> I use NOD32 with TB! and I do not use a plugin, and EVERY virus that
MLW> comes my way is caught. I have NEVER had problem.
That's just what I wanted to hear! :)
I'm very new to TB! and I was fearing that TB! might use 'something'
that p
Hello William,
WM> Hello Simon
WM> Thank you for your email dated Saturday, June 12, 2004, 9:26:48 PM,
WM> in which you wrote:
>> NOD32 can only deal with POP3 or MAPI through it's IMON / EMON
>> scanners.
WM> Since IMON is email client independent and works at the winsock level
WM> doesn't it
Hello Joseph,
JN> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 20:51:57 GMT, Allie Martin wrote:
>> You may also be using POP3 but with encryption. Again, the usual
>> POP3 scanners will not detect viruses over an ecrypted feed. The
>> plugin helps there.
JN> Allie, wouldn't the AMON fi
T>> What use is an Anti Virus (AV) plug-in?
T>> I think all decent AV tools sniff incoming/outgoing e-mail traffic
T>> automatically.
T>> So what benefit does a plug-in add?
> It quarantines bad mails into a quarantine folder within TB, while a
> AV program without
Monday, June 21, 2004, 11:26:39 AM, Andre wrote:
> On 21 Jun 2004 at 21:03:10 -0600 GMT [05:03 CEST] you wrote:
WK>> Will AVG work without the plugin? I only use pop3 and am happy
WK>> to have infected messages/attachments just deleted.
> What's so terrible wrong with doing exactly that with a p
Howdy Wayne,
Thursday, June 24, 2004, 2:57:23 AM, Wayne wrotened:
Wayne> I didn't say there was anything terribly wrong with it,
Wayne> I just asked whether the plugin was necessary.
Its not necessary, but then again AV programs generally aren't
specifically necessary but they do a
Hello:
I get these messages containing the Mimail virus (I-Worm/Mimail.J according to
AVG) supposedly from PayPal.com (but obviously spoofed!) and TB has a hard time
parsing them correctly. In fact, by some reason it sets the *ENTIRE* message text
(headers, body and all) as a single
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: MD5
Tuesday, February 12, 2002
9:43:30 AM
RE: "[OT] free decent virus checker that works with TB?"
Greetings Jernej,
On Monday, February 11, 2002, 8:57:03 AM, you wrote:
Jernej> Hello Dierk,
Jernej> 11. februar 2002, 14:29:22, you wr
Hi Dierk,
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, at 17:09:09 [GMT +0100, your local time]
(22.2.2001. at 17:09 was my local time), you wrote:
DH> "base64" stands for the encoding method you used for the attachment.
DH> It appears always when I put a file into the mail.
By default, yes... but, I wanna know why it
Leif,
Thursday, Thursday, December 02, 1999, Leif wrote:
LG> Mike,
LG> Oh man...
Just to keep us on our toes, Norton has failed to identify
the Happy99/SKA attachment, even with up to date definitions.
I checked to be sure that the definitions contained the
information and then ra
John,
I think you are forgetting something though. The message sent to the
list had Happy99.exe UUencoded, therefore a separate file was not
saved to the attach directory. If you want to see NAV go red with
warnings, right click the Happy99.exe file in the e-mail and try to
save it (provided you
ee NAV go red
LG> with warnings, right click the Happy99.exe file in the e-mail and
LG> try to save it (provided you have auto-protect enabled. I not,
LG> then save the file and then scan the directory.)
Sorry Leif, I have other opinion.
AFAIK Happy99.exe is a Trojan Vir
John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just to keep us on our toes, Norton has failed to identify
> the Happy99/SKA attachment, even with up to date definitions.
> I checked to be sure that the definitions contained the
> information and then ran NAV, which scanned right past the
> worm.
Hello Werner Hintze,
On Friday, December 03, 1999, 19:28:22 (GMT +07:00) you told us:
>> AFAIK Happy99.exe is a Trojan Virus (Hoax ?), which infected to
>> mailer with MAPI capable such Outlook97/98/2000, Outlook Express 4/5,
>> Exchange Client.
WH> I think, th
Hello Kevin Boylan,
On Friday, December 03, 1999, 20:26:02 (GMT +07:00) you told us:
>> Sorry Leif, I have other opinion. AFAIK Happy99.exe is a Trojan
>> Virus (Hoax ?), which infected to mailer with MAPI capable such
>> Outlook97/98/2000, Outlook Express 4/5
Hello Kevin Boylan,
On Friday, December 03, 1999, 21:08:35 (GMT +07:00) you told us:
KB>>> NAV picked up on it as soon as I tried to save it out to a
KB>>> directory.
>> That's OK, because most people will save it before running it.
>> Question : what happen if you try to run
them from home. I wanted to
KB> download it at home to see if McAfee would catch it, but when I
KB> got home and downloaded messages, the message wasn't there, so
KB> Compuserve must have detected it in the mean time and deleted it.
Yupe, some mail server equip with Anti Vi
> the message wasn't there, so Compuserve must have detected it in the mean
time
> and deleted it.
<100% OT>
without telling you ?! nice solution ... :-/
i would hope that if they scan mail for viruses (viri ?) they'd send on the
message without the attachment and a warning to tell the addresse
Hello Werner Hintze,
On Friday, December 03, 1999, 20:55:47 (GMT +07:00) you told us:
>> Means, Happy99 only active if the program using Winsock32.dll, right.
>> Outlook97/98 use this socket, that's why Outlook97/98 infected by this
>> viruses.
WH> Does this mean that The Bat doesn't use winso
On Friday, December 03, 1999, 12:47:19 PM Syafril Hermansyah ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> AFAIK Happy99.exe is a Trojan Virus (Hoax ?), which infected to
> mailer with MAPI capable such Outlook97/98/2000, Outlook Express 4/5,
> Exchange Client.
I think, that's not true.
Hi,
> Sorry Leif, I have other opinion. AFAIK Happy99.exe is a Trojan
> Virus (Hoax ?), which infected to mailer with MAPI capable such
> Outlook97/98/2000, Outlook Express 4/5, Exchange Client. Luckyly The
> Bat! not MAPI capable, yet; in the next version if The Ba
Hi,
KB>> NAV picked up on it as soon as I tried to save it out to a
KB>> directory.
> That's OK, because most people will save it before running it.
> Question : what happen if you try to run it directly from mail
> attachment (without saving it first) ?
Still catches it because
Hi,
>>> That's OK, because most people will save it before running it.
>>> Question : what happen if you try to run it directly from mail
>>> attachment (without saving it first) ?
KB>> Still catches it because it has to be decoded first before it can
KB>> do anything.
> Good, you're l
On Friday, December 03, 1999, 2:24:13 PM Syafril Hermansyah ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> Means, Happy99 only active if the program using Winsock32.dll, right.
> Outlook97/98 use this socket, that's why Outlook97/98 infected by this
> viruses.
Does this mean that The Bat doesn't use winsock32.d
Hello Ivan!
On Friday, November 05, 2004, 8:35 AM, you wrote:
MB>> Kaspersky and TB! are no longer compatible
I> As I heard TheBat can work with KAV 4,5 - 5 (Personal)
I> via new plug-in klav 4.0.1.19
I>
http://www.thebatworld.de/modules/download/index.php?op=viewlinkdetails&lid=44&ttitle=Kasp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 03 May 2002, at 00:27:44 +0200 Mrten wrote:
>> Btw, the term "Microsoft anything-dealing-with-privacy-security" sounds
>> pretty weird, nein? Do you folks really think it is a good idea making
>> Bat involved with a such things?
M> the bat!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Om 2:16 op vrijdag 3 mei 2002, Mandara:
> Ahhh... Bat became so excellent right because it was *different*, and
> pretty "independent". Ahhh... Hmmm... Grmph... Hmmm...
it is pretty because the programmers designed it right, and used the input
they
Hello Thomas F,
On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 11:47:16 +0700 GMT your local time,
which was Saturday, June 29, 2002, 11:47:16 AM (GMT+0700) my local time,
Thomas F wrote:
> Hello tracer,
> On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 06:26:49 +0700 GMT (29/06/02, 06:26 +0700 GMT),
> tracer wrote:
t>> Mail comes from their
Pixie-
Cool. I sneaked in under your virus check software? Got my mojo
working today...
Anyway, in digest mode the header on my message looks fine to me.
--
-Mark Wieder
Using The Bat! v1.63 Beta/7 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2
Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 1:27:47 AM, Pixie wrote:
P> about an hour or so ago a couple messages came in with this modified
P> subject. Not just the thread I ripped the subject from but also 1
P> or 2 others has it.
P> ..just trying to see if my ISP has been monkeying with something on
P> th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday, September 09, 2003, Pixie wrote...
> ..just trying to see if my ISP has been monkeying with something on
> their servers or if others on the list are also seeing the same.
I don't use my comcast account for emails, I run my own server, so
Hallo Pixie,
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 06:56:57 -0400GMT (10-9-03, 12:56 +0200, where I
live), you wrote:
MW>> Anyway, in digest mode the header on my message looks fine to me.
P> Does there happen to exist a command I can grab digests for the
P> last day or two?
Not automatically. But you could ask
On Thursday, September 11, 2003, Pixie wrote...
JA>> I don't use my comcast account for emails, I run my own server,
JA>> so it's easier to monkey with what I want. There is a possibility
JA>> that it
> Do you happen to run that on a 'home' service? I've been thinking of
> throwing a server back
1001 - 1043 of 1043 matches
Mail list logo
