outlook express changed

[James E. Morrow]

Han <noone@nospam.invalid> wrote in
news:Xns93C5A69F624EFikkezelf@130.81.64.196:

> "James E. Morrow" <jamesemorrow@email.com> wrote in
> news:Xns93C5978DDE075jamesemorrowxxx@205.188.138.1 61:
>
>> "Dick Hazeleger" <Dick@post_it_in_the_newsgroup.com> wrote in
>> news:vi5vk1707471df@corp.supernews.com:
>>
>>> Is the observation in your final paragraph based on the 181
>>> build or previous ones... I have seen the 181 build in action
>>> and it was really fast! I use both of them, in tandem... and am
>>> a very happy camper (no spyware whatsoever).
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I don't know the build # for Adware6. It has been a few months
>> since I last had this program. It may be that later builds are
>> faster.
>>
> build 181 is like a jet compared to Wilbur's first.
>

In that case I'll have to try it. Thanks.


--
James E. Morrow
Email to: jamesemorrow@email.com

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:25:14 -0500, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "Little
Johnny" <missb93@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have to agree with you about big and goes everywhere. But what is
> better and easier to use. Please don't say McAfee as I'v been there,
> done that and don't like it. Misses to many virus.

Message-ID: <84fqhv44vvuar4pt53v4mincimk6u8u3m7@news.rcn.com >

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Dave K]

mto wrote:
> "James E. Morrow" <jamesemorrow@email.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns93C4A2CA4279Fjamesemorrowxxx@205.188.138.1 61...
>
>>Dave K <davek28@knotlycos.co.uk> wrote in
>>news:nfrUa.52081$xd5.3036035@stones.force9.net :
>
> <SNIP> Sybase Personal Firewall is an excellent firewall. It is much more
>
>>reliable than Zone Alarm.
>
>
> Perhaps - if it will run. I have tried it 3X, most recently about 3 weeks
> ago. It simply will not run on my machine. Installs just fine, but then I
> cannot connect to the internet at all, ever. Yes I have checked all the
> settings everywhere. Uninstall it and things work just fine. Meanwhile I
> have been using ZA for years now and have never had a thing to complain
> about.
>
>

I used to love ZA when I had a Windows 98 machine. When I switched to a
new XP Home Edition box, ZA prevented me from dialling my ISP more than
once without rebooting. SPF didn't and seemed to pass all the tests -
so I kept it.

SPF does sometimes crash following waking my PC from Standby. It always
crashes when reawakening from Hibernate. But these are minor issues
really as other installed software behaves similarly.

Maybe ZA has been fixed for XP since I last tried it, but I'm happy with
Sygate for now.

Dave K
--
Remove the knot to email me.

[mto]

"Dave K" <davek28@knotlycos.co.uk> wrote in message
news:%3kVa.50629$9C6.2933959@wards.force9.net...
> mto wrote:
> > "James E. Morrow" <jamesemorrow@email.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns93C4A2CA4279Fjamesemorrowxxx@205.188.138.1 61...
> >
> >>Dave K <davek28@knotlycos.co.uk> wrote in
> >>news:nfrUa.52081$xd5.3036035@stones.force9.net :
> >
> > <SNIP> Sybase Personal Firewall is an excellent firewall. It is much
more
> >
> >>reliable than Zone Alarm.
> >
> >
> > Perhaps - if it will run. I have tried it 3X, most recently about 3
weeks
> > ago. It simply will not run on my machine. Installs just fine, but
then I
> > cannot connect to the internet at all, ever. Yes I have checked all the
> > settings everywhere. Uninstall it and things work just fine. Meanwhile
I
> > have been using ZA for years now and have never had a thing to complain
> > about.
> >
> >
>
> I used to love ZA when I had a Windows 98 machine. When I switched to a
> new XP Home Edition box, ZA prevented me from dialling my ISP more than
> once without rebooting. SPF didn't and seemed to pass all the tests -
> so I kept it.
>
> SPF does sometimes crash following waking my PC from Standby. It always
> crashes when reawakening from Hibernate. But these are minor issues
> really as other installed software behaves similarly.
>
> Maybe ZA has been fixed for XP since I last tried it, but I'm happy with
> Sygate for now.
>
> Dave K
> --
> Remove the knot to email me.
>

Wierd - I have had almost exactly the opposite experience with Sygate, ZA &
XP, though I've used ZA for years now. When I tried the Sygate on my XP
home machine I literally couldn't connect no matter what.

I also do have to comment that I almost never have to reboot since I blocked
all ads and wiped every scrap of spyware I could find off the machine -
including turning off that danged built-in Instant Messenger that comes with
XP - even when I am using several programs simultaneously in addition to all
the antivirus and other stuff that just runs. That IM, in fact, seemed to
be the biggie as it phones home about every 2 minutes even when you are
logged out.

[mto]

"James E. Morrow" <jamesemorrow@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93C760F3E0B6jamesemorrowxxx@205.188.138.16 1...
> "mto" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in
> news:Yd-cnYojA6fERbiiXTWJiA@seg.net:
>
> >
> > "Dave K" <davek28@knotlycos.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:%3kVa.50629$9C6.2933959@wards.force9.net...
> >> mto wrote:
> >> > "James E. Morrow" <jamesemorrow@email.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:Xns93C4A2CA4279Fjamesemorrowxxx@205.188.138.1 61...
> >> >
> >> >>Dave K <davek28@knotlycos.co.uk> wrote in
> >> >>news:nfrUa.52081$xd5.3036035@stones.force9.net :
> >> >
> >> > <SNIP> Sybase Personal Firewall is an excellent firewall. It is
> >> > much
> > more
> >> >
> >> >>reliable than Zone Alarm.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Perhaps - if it will run. I have tried it 3X, most recently
> >> > about 3
> > weeks
> >> > ago. It simply will not run on my machine. Installs just
> >> > fine, but
> > then I
> >> > cannot connect to the internet at all, ever. Yes I have
> >> > checked all the settings everywhere. Uninstall it and things
> >> > work just fine. Meanwhile
> > I
> >> > have been using ZA for years now and have never had a thing to
> >> > complain about.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> I used to love ZA when I had a Windows 98 machine. When I
> >> switched to a new XP Home Edition box, ZA prevented me from
> >> dialling my ISP more than once without rebooting. SPF didn't and
> >> seemed to pass all the tests - so I kept it.
> >>
> >> SPF does sometimes crash following waking my PC from Standby. It
> >> always crashes when reawakening from Hibernate. But these are
> >> minor issues really as other installed software behaves
> >> similarly.
> >>
> >> Maybe ZA has been fixed for XP since I last tried it, but I'm
> >> happy with Sygate for now.
> >>
> >> Dave K
> >> --
> >> Remove the knot to email me.
> >>
> >
> > Wierd - I have had almost exactly the opposite experience with
> > Sygate, ZA & XP, though I've used ZA for years now. When I tried
> > the Sygate on my XP home machine I literally couldn't connect no
> > matter what.
> >
> > I also do have to comment that I almost never have to reboot since
> > I blocked all ads and wiped every scrap of spyware I could find
> > off the machine - including turning off that danged built-in
> > Instant Messenger that comes with XP - even when I am using
> > several programs simultaneously in addition to all the antivirus
> > and other stuff that just runs. That IM, in fact, seemed to be
> > the biggie as it phones home about every 2 minutes even when you
> > are logged out.
> >
> >
> >
>
> When I got rid of Zone Alarm it significantly reduced my time to boot
> up. This seems to relate to a large number of keys ZA puts on the
> registry.
>
> I have had few problems with Sybase, but as noted it does sometimes
> crash coming out of standby. I'm running win98.
>
> --
> James E. Morrow
> Email to: jamesemorrow@email.com

Ran ZA on 98SE for a couple of years. Maybe the difference is that I never
put my machine into standby.

[Sweet Andy Licious]

Started talkin' 'bout norton (I asssumed firewall) but then switched to
virus protection. Anyway, I use eTrust from CA, easy update and catches
some. I know it's not the best but I've heard fprot is good, so probably
going to that next. I've had Norton headaches too, installed 2002 in my Win
98 machine and liveupdate wouldn't work. Scan took about a week, various
other problems. Never did get it totally uninstalled (still pieces
everywhere). Installed Win XP home and got rid of it that way. It still
sites on the shelf.

--
Andy


email: sweetandylicious at eml dot cc
"Jay T. Blocksom" <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote in message
news:nsf8ivomjest37k1ek5bc5vuu53flq0dm1@news.rcn.c om...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:25:14 -0500, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "Little
> Johnny" <missb93@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I have to agree with you about big and goes everywhere. But what is
> > better and easier to use. Please don't say McAfee as I'v been there,
> > done that and don't like it. Misses to many virus.
>
> Message-ID: <84fqhv44vvuar4pt53v4mincimk6u8u3m7@news.rcn.com >
>
> --
>
> Jay T. Blocksom
> --------------------------------
> Appropriate Technology, Inc.
> usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net
>
>
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
> NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to
mail.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
> Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly
prohibited
> under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
> $1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 10:39:08 -0700, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "Sweet Andy
Licious" <me@christmas.com> wrote:
>
> Started talkin' 'bout norton (I asssumed firewall) but then switched to
> virus protection. Anyway, I use eTrust from CA,
[snip]

Eeeeewwww... Spammers (and developers/vendors of generally crappy software,
too; but that's really irrelevant in light of the spamming).

> I know it's not the best
[snip]

Now _there's_ an understatement.

> ...but I've heard fprot is good, so probably
> going to that next.
[snip]

Certainly better than CA crap! Perhaps not as good in some ways as some of
the other first-string AV vendors; but you could do worse.

> I've had Norton headaches too, installed 2002 in my Win
> 98 machine and liveupdate wouldn't work. Scan took about a week, various
> other problems. Never did get it totally uninstalled (still pieces
> everywhere).
[snip]

Lemme guess... You let the install routine run in default ("install
everything, everywhere, and please rape my registry while you're at it")
mode -- and probably _without_ the aid of an installation tracker such as
InCtrl.

That's usually a Bad Idea on general principles. With anything from
Symantec (or Microsoft, or a few other folks), it is akin to a death wish.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -