Dustin Cook wrote:
> "Bear Bottoms" <bearbottoms1@gmai.com> wrote in
> newsp.tugdgeuqjo4m88@c57jw11:
>
> > On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 19:41:09 -0500, Dustin Cook
> > <spamfilterineffect.see.sig@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/NEWSIG.TXT
> >>
> > Well, waddaya know. I like it. Seems to be a good tool to have in your
> > recovery toolbox. Some of the reviews are outdated, like some say
> > 1300 sigs, and you now have over 9000. Is this correct? Downloadpipe
>

Doesn't Beararse sound a lot like
AV shill Chuckie the mental radioham?


> Some of the reviews are outdated yes. While it's true BugHunter can't
> prevent you from getting the annoying stuff it scans for, it does a
> reasonably decent job of cleaning it up, if I do say so myself. heh.
>

Yes, more ****az spamming for your
Trojan crap tool, you don't mention it
nearly enough in these groups!

*MORE!*


> > likes it a lot giving it their 5 star rating. Snapfiles never has
> > liked dos based ware from what I've seen. If it truly does a thorough
> > job handling the sigs you list, then it surely should get a better
> > rating from them.
>

That's right Chuckie II shill that
beauty!


> It's GUI isn't what they consider to be user friendly. I've been working

WHAT?! Never! That's GUI is a masterpiece

> on a new layout, but it's not ready to send to beta testers to see if
>

*Hmmm* me thinks Raidy dickhead has taken
my critque too heart :-(


>they even think it's worth doing or not. BugHunter wasn't designed for
> eye candy in mind so much as it was for doing what it does best, hunt
> down malware.
>

Eye candy *ROFL* I can't wait to see the
next spastic cobbled together "GUI"
front-end you are going to tag onto your
bASIC batch script.


4Q
http://fourq.host.sk <-- Chuckie, here's
the 5star review you were looking for.