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.