On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:19:57 -0500, Autumn <Autumn@Juno.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 22:52:31 -0500, "siljaline" <spam@uce.gov> wrote:
>
>>Autumn wrote:
>>> On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 09:37:37 -0500, "siljaline" <spam@uce.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Running Avira perhaps ?
>>>>(http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=288444)
>>>>
>>>>Silj
>>>
>>> Thanks for posting this, Silj. I have the problem. Avira seems to be
>>> a bit slow regarding posting a hotfix. Perhaps, as suggested in the
>>> link, they should revert back to the previous engine until they
>>> (Avira) can get this figured out.
>>
>>If whatever Avira suggests I would go with that in the interim, Autumn.
>>AV Support in situations where they are in damage control can be funky.
>>
>>Best of luck !
>>
>>Silj
>
>Silj,
>
>Isn't there a certain amount of redundancy in running Spywareblaster
>and a Hosts file? So, if one lets Avira run the way it is...with SWB
>at least partially running...wouldn't one be better off?. I don't
>feel comfortable unchecking the protection the Avira temporary
>solution suggests.

Here is a thread that explains, in a post by Mele, how Spyware Blaster
works...for those that didn't know...like me.
http://forum.avira.com/wbb/index.php...hreadID=123979

Cheers!

Autumn