AvianFlux wrote:
>
> No resident, real time, active AV/AT scanner needs to be
> installed/running on a the machine with a correctly configured
> firewall and safe hex operation.
>
A lot of bad advice floats through this group but this one may win the
trophy.
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 09:59:48 -0700, "ted s." <ted@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
>AvianFlux wrote:
>>
>> No resident, real time, active AV/AT scanner needs to be
>> installed/running on a the machine with a correctly configured
>> firewall and safe hex operation.
>>
>A lot of bad advice floats through this group but this one may win the
>trophy.
Agreed.
--
Regards,
Ian Kenefick
http://antivirus.ik-cs.com
ted s. wrote:
> AvianFlux wrote:
> >
> > No resident, real time, active AV/AT scanner needs to be
> > installed/running on a the machine with a correctly configured
> > firewall and safe hex operation.
> >
> A lot of bad advice floats through this group but this one may win
the
> trophy.
As do a lot of subjective, misinformed, erroneous opinions.
"AvianFlux" <neomoniker@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112634643.333626.188600@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>
> ted s. wrote:
> > AvianFlux wrote:
> > >
> > > No resident, real time, active AV/AT scanner needs to be
> > > installed/running on a the machine with a correctly configured
> > > firewall and safe hex operation.
> > >
> > A lot of bad advice floats through this group but this one may win
> the
> > trophy.
>
> As do a lot of subjective, misinformed, erroneous opinions.
Yea, but your post tops the list ...
Bob
"AvianFlux" <neomoniker@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112634643.333626.188600@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>
> ted s. wrote:
>> AvianFlux wrote:
>> >
>> > No resident, real time, active AV/AT scanner needs to be
>> > installed/running on a the machine with a correctly configured
>> > firewall and safe hex operation.
>> >
>> A lot of bad advice floats through this group but this one may win
> the
>> trophy.
>
> As do a lot of subjective, misinformed, erroneous opinions.
A post that's beautiful for its simplicity.
I don't necessarily see the purpose for eschewing a resident
anti-spyware program, since there are many free choices. I agree that
they aren't completely necessary, but feel that they're (avast
atleast) worth the bother to avoid the larger bother of checking
attachments via an online scanner.
I'd like to hear more about your reason for avoiding one.
cmsix
>
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 18:48:13 GMT, "cmsix" <cmsix@cmsix.com> wrote:
>
>"AvianFlux" <neomoniker@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1112634643.333626.188600@f14g2000cwb.googleg roups.com...
>>
>> ted s. wrote:
>>> AvianFlux wrote:
>>> >
>>> > No resident, real time, active AV/AT scanner needs to be
>>> > installed/running on a the machine with a correctly configured
>>> > firewall and safe hex operation.
>>> >
>>> A lot of bad advice floats through this group but this one may win
>> the
>>> trophy.
>>
>> As do a lot of subjective, misinformed, erroneous opinions.
>
>A post that's beautiful for its simplicity.
>
>I don't necessarily see the purpose for eschewing a resident
>anti-spyware program, since there are many free choices. I agree that
>they aren't completely necessary, but feel that they're (avast
>atleast) worth the bother to avoid the larger bother of checking
>attachments via an online scanner.
>
>I'd like to hear more about your reason for avoiding one.
>
>cmsix
>
>>
He wasn't referring just to resident antispyware. He also referred to
antivirus. This is grossly misleading and a lot of bs.
--
Regards,
Ian Kenefick
http://antivirus.ik-cs.com
"Ian JP Kenefick" <ian_kenefick@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:gc33515mcg0mi6ghge029a24s5chgdnk6h@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 18:48:13 GMT, "cmsix" <cmsix@cmsix.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"AvianFlux" <neomoniker@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1112634643.333626.188600@f14g2000cwb.google groups.com...
>>>
>>> ted s. wrote:
>>>> AvianFlux wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > No resident, real time, active AV/AT scanner needs to be
>>>> > installed/running on a the machine with a correctly configured
>>>> > firewall and safe hex operation.
>>>> >
>>>> A lot of bad advice floats through this group but this one may
>>>> win
>>> the
>>>> trophy.
>>>
>>> As do a lot of subjective, misinformed, erroneous opinions.
>>
>>A post that's beautiful for its simplicity.
>>
>>I don't necessarily see the purpose for eschewing a resident
>>anti-spyware program, since there are many free choices. I agree
>>that
>>they aren't completely necessary, but feel that they're (avast
>>atleast) worth the bother to avoid the larger bother of checking
>>attachments via an online scanner.
>>
>>I'd like to hear more about your reason for avoiding one.
>>
>>cmsix
>>
>>>
>
> He wasn't referring just to resident antispyware. He also referred
> to
> antivirus. This is grossly misleading and a lot of bs.
That's your opinion and it's shared by many, if not most.
I did make a mistake in my reply though. I intended to ask to say
anti-virus instead of anti-spyware and I would like to hear the
reasons for avoiding it.
Email virus scans are handy even if they aren't completely necessary
for some very experienced users who don't allow html email. I use one
because I often make mistakes, but I don't assume it is infallible
either.
I do think the advice to leave it off is a little hasty when I
consider how many people drop in here to get a quick fix for something
that's bothering them right now and ignore most of the things they
could be learning about protecting themselves.
Maybe AvianFlux things they get what they deserve. I don't know, but I
would like to.
cmsix
> --
>
> Regards,
> Ian Kenefick
> http://antivirus.ik-cs.com
cmsix wrote:
> "AvianFlux" <neomoniker@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1112634643.333626.188600@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> >
> > ted s. wrote:
> >> AvianFlux wrote:
> >> >
> >> > No resident, real time, active AV/AT scanner needs to be
> >> > installed/running on a the machine with a correctly configured
> >> > firewall and safe hex operation.
> >> >
> >> A lot of bad advice floats through this group but this one may win
> > the
> >> trophy.
> >
> > As do a lot of subjective, misinformed, erroneous opinions.
>
> A post that's beautiful for its simplicity.
>
> I don't necessarily see the purpose for eschewing a resident
> anti-spyware program, since there are many free choices. I agree that
> they aren't completely necessary, but feel that they're (avast
> atleast) worth the bother to avoid the larger bother of checking
> attachments via an online scanner.
>
> I'd like to hear more about your reason for avoiding one.
>
> cmsix
>
> >
For myself, it's because I don't really need a resident, active
anti-virus scanner for email attachments. I receive very few emails
with attachments from known, trusted, sources; as for unknown emails
w/attachments, which I receive plenty of, they just get chucked
(deleted).
The unknown emails w/attachments I receive are, without exception,
loaded with malware installers.
On 4 Apr 2005 12:10:12 -0700, "AvianFlux" <neomoniker@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>For myself,
But you weren't referring to yourself. You were making a
recommendation.
> it's because I don't really need a resident, active
>anti-virus scanner for email attachments. I receive very few emails
>with attachments from known, trusted, sources; as for unknown emails
>w/attachments, which I receive plenty of, they just get chucked
>(deleted).
You may be able to distinguish between legit and illegit email but the
average user who receive an email from an address that he/she
recognises will open it.
>The unknown emails w/attachments I receive are, without exception,
>loaded with malware installers.
what do you mean by unknown mails?
--
Regards,
Ian Kenefick
http://antivirus.ik-cs.com
Ian JP Kenefick wrote:
> On 4 Apr 2005 12:10:12 -0700, "AvianFlux" <neomoniker@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >For myself,
>
> But you weren't referring to yourself. You were making a
> recommendation.
>
> > it's because I don't really need a resident, active
> >anti-virus scanner for email attachments. I receive very few emails
> >with attachments from known, trusted, sources; as for unknown emails
> >w/attachments, which I receive plenty of, they just get chucked
> >(deleted).
>
> You may be able to distinguish between legit and illegit email but
the
> average user who receive an email from an address that he/she
> recognises will open it.
>
> >The unknown emails w/attachments I receive are, without exception,
> >loaded with malware installers.
>
> what do you mean by unknown mails?
>
> --
>
> Regards,
> Ian Kenefick
> http://antivirus.ik-cs.com
"But you weren't referring to yourself. You were making a
recommendation."
What better recommendation to give than what I know works for myself?
In any case, I can't possibly recommend what works for others when,
first, I don't know what works for others, and, second, have no way of
confirming that it works as others claim it does.
"You may be able to distinguish between legit and illegit email but the
average user who receive an email from an address that he/she
recognises will open it."
Legit email is easy to distinguish for anyone.
One) Legitimate email comes from known/legitimate sources, generally,
without attachments, e.g., family, friends, business associates, etc.
Two) Illegitimate email comes from unknown, unrecognized sources,
generally, with an attachment, or with a phished/scam link page
requesting private information, e.g., bank account, social security
numbers, mother's maiden name, etc.
"what do you mean by unknown mails?"
Unknown emails are emails from people/sources you're unfamiliar with.
Duh.
If a user does exchange large numbers of emails w/attachments, as a
work function for example, than it's advisable to either have an email
service that automatically scrubs them for malware, or have an on board
scanner launched when opening the attachments.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote