HOSTS Spybot F-Secure BackWeb

[FromTheRafters]

"Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:9RMcb.153330$0v4.11425106@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> The presence of BackWeb in the F-Secure download and the fact that it causes
> SpyBot to hang an XP system is simply unconscionable and moves F-Secure to
> the dark side.

It's presence means nothing of the sort, and the XP hang
was likely caused by your meddling and not reading the
Spybot Search & Destroy literature.

http://spybot.eon.net.au/index.php?l...ts-backweblite

or any of the references therein.

http://www.cexx.org/dlgli.htm

...I am not affiliated with any computer related organization,
and couldn't care any less about which program you use. I
am unbiased in this respect.

[FromTheRafters]

"Jeffrey A. Setaro" <jasetaro@SPAM.ME.NOT.mags.net> wrote in message news:MPG.19ddffff3690df8989767@news.mags.net...

> FWIW... AdAware 6.0.181 DOES NOT flag F-Secure Backweb on my system.

Hmmm...must be defective, or they're in cahoots...
....there oughta be a law...

To the OP:

Put down Debbies book and RTFM.

[Randall Bart]

'Twas Sat, 27 Sep 2003 06:23:43 -0400 when all alt.privacy.spyware stood
in awe as BoB <rhoward30@myrealbox.com> uttered:

>To the adware allegation, GRISOFT wasn't, doesn't and won't ever include
>any spy- or ad-ware with the AVG."

>AVG uses Akamai services. Blocking 'all' Akamai sites makes it difficult
>to update AVG.

Akamai is in the business of helping make the Internet worse. Akamai was
party to crashing my browser thousands of times. I realize that lots of
sites have crashed my browsers over the years, but in the era when I was
crashing over a dozen times every day, over 75% of the crashes were served
up by Akamai. They showed no concern for their victims. Akamai should
have quality control over what they are serving up.

If AVG is allied with Akamai, they are part of the problem not part of the
solution.
--
RB |\ © Randall Bart
aa |/ admin@RandallBart.spam.com Barticus@att.spam.net
nr |\ Please reply without spam I LOVE YOU 1-917-715-0831
dt ||\ http://RandallBart.com/ Ånåheim Ångels 2002 World Chåmps!
a |/ Multiple sclerosis: http://www.cbc.ca/webone/alison/
l |\ DOT-HS-808-065 The Church Of The Unauthorized Truth:
l |/ MS^7=6/28/107 http://yg.cotut.com mailto:s@cotut.com

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 00:09:54 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "Ron Reaugh"
<ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> I find that most your post was jibber.
>
[snip]

Actually, that was precisely the reaction I had to your original incoherent
rant which started this thread.

> No reputable computer security company should be including ANYKIND of
> adware/spyware code in there downloads.
[snip]

True enough; but you've not established that the fine folks at <f-prot.com>
did anything even remotely approaching that. Here, this might help:

<http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html>

> I say blacklist F-Secure for so
> doing.
>
[snip]

I'm sure you do.

<http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame74.html>

> Both Adware and Spybot remove BackWeb...therefore BackWeb is bad stuff!
[snip]

Your logic engine is obviously VERY broken. Perhaps the hamster died?

Tell me, if you're *so* concerned about security and privacy, why do you
even permit on your system, let alone *use*, Windows XP, MSIE and Outleak
Excuse -- the Unholy Trinity of big-time malware?

*And* you're a top-posting twit.

*plonk*

--

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.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[BoB]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 21:02:31 GMT, Randall Bart <Barticus@att.spam.net>
wrote:

>'Twas Sat, 27 Sep 2003 06:23:43 -0400 when all alt.privacy.spyware stood
>in awe as BoB <rhoward30@myrealbox.com> uttered:
>
>>To the adware allegation, GRISOFT wasn't, doesn't and won't ever include
>>any spy- or ad-ware with the AVG."
>
>>AVG uses Akamai services. Blocking 'all' Akamai sites makes it difficult
>>to update AVG.
>
>Akamai is in the business of helping make the Internet worse. Akamai was
>party to crashing my browser thousands of times. I realize that lots of
>sites have crashed my browsers over the years, but in the era when I was
>crashing over a dozen times every day, over 75% of the crashes were served
>up by Akamai. They showed no concern for their victims. Akamai should
>have quality control over what they are serving up.
>
>If AVG is allied with Akamai, they are part of the problem not part of the
>solution.

What can I say. Backweb and Akamai are in business to make money.
Ad serving is profitable. I choose not to use programs that are
supported by displaying ads. If I can't find freeware, I buy the
programs I need to avoid ads, so haven't had these kinds of
problems.

I ran AVG for two years without problems on my Win98FE. But neither
have I ever re-installed windows while using 3.11, FE or SE. I also
never added a single MS update during those 6 years. I don't fix
what ain't broken.

BoB
For the duration of Swen, my address is inoperative.