Which anti-spyware softwear?

[Maximus the Mad]

Vanguard aka no@mail.invalid on 7/9/2007 at 11:25:32 PM in
alt.privacy.spyware<uf2dnbU9X623YQ_bnZ2dnUVZ_uKknZ 2d@comcast.com> after
much thought,came up with this jewel:

> "Gerald309" wrote in message
> news:1184021477.086159.135170@o61g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
> > ... shut this fool up ...
> > ... fraud posing as some white collar person of position in the
> > computer security filed ...
> > ... this person is a complete buffoon ...
> > ... this repulsive troll ....
> > ... This fool ...
> > ... "Mr. Talk Down BlueCollarPC.Net Forums Public Votes" ...
> > ... this "smoked troll" ..
>
> Oh hurray, I think we've found another Alan Connor wannabe.
> (http://www.pearlgates.net/nanae/kooks/ac/fga.shtml)

Or a MVP wannabe??It could be PCBUTTS evil twin?????

max
--
My Pages:
Virus Removal Instructions:
http://www.freespaces.com/maxwachtel/removal.html
Keeping Windows Clean:
http://www.freespaces.com/maxwachtel/keepingclean.html
Tools: http://www.freespaces.com/maxwachtel/tools.html
Change nomail.afraid.org to gmail.com to reply. nomail.afraid.org is
specifically setup for USENET.Feel free to use it yourself.
Always remember - only download files from Trusted Sites.
"VISTA" is an acronym for the top five Windows problems: Viruses,
Infections, Spyware, Trojans and Adware. -PanHandler
Registered Linux User #393236

[Gladiator]

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 23:05:52 -0500, "Vanguard" <no@mail.invalid> wrote:


>To be fair, it is THEIR site, not yours, and the cost of your visit and
>everyone else's to allow free access to that site may rely on ad revenue
>(i.e., ad space or click-throughs). Don't visit there if you don't like
>seeing advertisements. Just as you believe you have a right to edit the
>content of their site, they have the right to not show you that content
>unless you see ALL of it. They can even screw up the formatting of
>their page to make it difficult to read unless the ads are displayed in
>your browser (i.e., the space for the ad is different than for the
>placeholder). Blocking their ads can result in a non-sustainable web
>site that disappears because of users like yourself. Not going there
>eliminates their cost in resources to supply you with their web page.
>It is very much like going to the store to buy a box of chocolates,
>opening the box while in the store, tossing out all the ones that you
>don't like, and then claiming you should only have to pay only for the
>ones that you left in the box.

It's my computer and I'll block anything I want.

[Gladiator]

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 21:42:25 -0500, "Vanguard" <no@mail.invalid> wrote:


>
>Yet these same folks that are paranoid about tracking cookies forget
>that clicking on all those links to navigate to different pages means
>the source site can add info to the URL that the target site can use for
>tracking, and of course the user isn't changing their IP address during
>that navigation.
>
>The smartest approach to cookies is to whitelist them. You keep a
>whitelist of good cookie sites and all the rest are deleted (not
>blocked) when you exit the browser. Block 3rd party cookies (those
>where the source site writes a cookie that it can't use but has another
>domain specified within the cookie so that other domain can read that
>cookie and see it was written by the source site). After that, all
>non-whitelisted cookies get forced to be per-session cookies which get
>purged when the browser exits. I don't recommend blocking cookies if
>whitelisting is used because too many sites need them for proper
>operation of that site.
>
>There are plenty of cookie managers that include whitelisting, some of
>which are free. I happen to get cookie whitelisting in my popup blocker
>(PopUpCop, not free).

If your that worried about it then just go through a free proxy
server. Myself, I only use those to go to web forums I get banned
from.

[Gladiator]

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:42:36 GMT, Han <nobody@nospam.not> wrote:


>Sorry, I had forgotten to show that "SARCASM" was turned on. I agree
>completely.

Ah, my humor detector was in off mode. Sorry.

[Vanguard]

"Gladiator" wrote in message
news:ve4693hc8t7nutvkrco7heuhtsee2bmdap@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 23:05:52 -0500, "Vanguard" <no@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>To be fair, it is THEIR site, not yours, and the cost of your visit
>>and
>>everyone else's to allow free access to that site may rely on ad
>>revenue
>>(i.e., ad space or click-throughs). Don't visit there if you don't
>>like
>>seeing advertisements. Just as you believe you have a right to edit
>>the
>>content of their site, they have the right to not show you that
>>content
>>unless you see ALL of it. They can even screw up the formatting of
>>their page to make it difficult to read unless the ads are displayed
>>in
>>your browser (i.e., the space for the ad is different than for the
>>placeholder). Blocking their ads can result in a non-sustainable web
>>site that disappears because of users like yourself. Not going there
>>eliminates their cost in resources to supply you with their web page.
>>It is very much like going to the store to buy a box of chocolates,
>>opening the box while in the store, tossing out all the ones that you
>>don't like, and then claiming you should only have to pay only for the
>>ones that you left in the box.
>
> It's my computer and I'll block anything I want.


It's their site so don't ***** when they decide not to let you see any
of it. Now I know why some of the books I get from the library have
torn out pages and polluted with highlighted lines.

[Vanguard]

"Gladiator" wrote in message
newsj4693hg0upao8o17k4u2iicbuqmqd2p58@4ax.com...
>
> "Vanguard" wrote:
>>
>>The smartest approach to cookies is to whitelist them.
>
> If your that worried about it then just go through a free proxy
> server.

So I'm supposed to trust an unknown operator that runs a proxy server
hoping that they won't track me. I could chain the proxies hoping that
they aren't in collusion with each other. And, of course, I definitely
want to impact connection reliability and reduce speed along with losing
use of some protocols, like HTTPS. Last I remember, cookies are saved
on my host, not on the proxy. I'm not remote desktoping to their proxy
to run the browser from there. Javascript works quite nicely, if
enabled, to report your IP address.

I don't have to worry about cookies. I manage them rather than let them
clutter, and I only have to manage just a few for the domains that I
whitelist.

> Myself, I only use those to go to web forums I get banned
> from.

Which means that forums should blacklist the public proxies. There are
blacklists for those. You've been lucky so far that the forums don't
use them.

[Gladiator]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 02:44:15 -0500, "Vanguard" <no@mail.invalid>
wrote:


>It's their site so don't ***** when they decide not to let you see any
>of it. Now I know why some of the books I get from the library have
>torn out pages and polluted with highlighted lines.
>
I've never been blocked from viewing any website. I do have other OS's
installed that don't use the hosts file to block ad servers and
malicious websites so it is not an issue for me. My main OS uses the
host file though and I will continue to use it.

[Gladiator]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 02:55:02 -0500, "Vanguard" <no@mail.invalid>
wrote:


>So I'm supposed to trust an unknown operator that runs a proxy server
>hoping that they won't track me. I could chain the proxies hoping that
>they aren't in collusion with each other. And, of course, I definitely
>want to impact connection reliability and reduce speed along with losing
>use of some protocols, like HTTPS. Last I remember, cookies are saved
>on my host, not on the proxy. I'm not remote desktoping to their proxy
>to run the browser from there. Javascript works quite nicely, if
>enabled, to report your IP address.
>
>I don't have to worry about cookies. I manage them rather than let them
>clutter, and I only have to manage just a few for the domains that I
>whitelist.

Sounds to me like you are overly paranoid for some reason.

[Vanguard]

"Gladiator" wrote in message
news:4q2893pqli1ing7l469pc0fo8qbnnbaneb@4ax.com...
> "Vanguard" wrote:
>
>>So I'm supposed to trust an unknown operator that runs a proxy server
>>hoping that they won't track me. I could chain the proxies hoping
>>that
>>they aren't in collusion with each other. And, of course, I
>>definitely
>>want to impact connection reliability and reduce speed along with
>>losing
>>use of some protocols, like HTTPS. Last I remember, cookies are saved
>>on my host, not on the proxy. I'm not remote desktoping to their
>>proxy
>>to run the browser from there. Javascript works quite nicely, if
>>enabled, to report your IP address.
>>
>>I don't have to worry about cookies. I manage them rather than let
>>them
>>clutter, and I only have to manage just a few for the domains that I
>>whitelist.
>
> Sounds to me like you are overly paranoid for some reason.


You're the one trying to use public proxies to circumvent banning and to
hide your IP address while browsing and I'm the one that's paranoid?
I'm the one saying that I'm not going to bother with the unreliability
and reduced speed of using proxies and that makes me paranoid? I'm the
one suggesting a smarter and MUCH simpler solution of whitelisting
cookies rather than blocking all of them or bothering to maintain a long
list of blocked domains for cookies and I'm the one that's paranoid?
You mention proxies in a discussion about cookies while totally
forgetting where the cookies get stored and that makes me paranoid to
point out your error in logic? There are so many other methods of
tracking users, like using interstitial pages, that is seems stupid to
spend much effort worrying about and managing cookies.

Yep, based on some weird criteria of yours, I must be paranoid. Oooh,
what was that? It was another more interesting thread.

[Gladiator]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:52:32 -0500, "Vanguard" <no@mail.invalid>
wrote:


>You're the one trying to use public proxies to circumvent banning and to
>hide your IP address while browsing

Stop right there. I never said I was trying to hide while browsing. I
merely use it to foil the web forums that ban me. You're the one all
worried about proxies spying on you. I've got better things to do than
whitelist cookies all day too.