**** Adobe! How do I stop Acrobat Reader 8.x from calling home?

[David H. Lipman]

From: "David Wright Sr." <dwrightsr@alltel.net>


| IMO. Anytime a program is trying to contact a website without the knowledge
| of the user, even if it is supposedly the product's own site, there exists
| the potential for spyware or adware. Why shouldn't that be a concern here,
| if for no other reason than to let other users of that product about it.
|
| David Wright Sr.

Because Adobe is a legit. company and so are their products. One should seek assistance
from their support first. As the OP noted, he wanted to know a way to disable the "Adobe
Acrobat Updates". Therefore the OP was cognizant this is not a spyware issue.

I will also add that the word used in the subject of this thread is inappropriate to say the
least.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

[cmsix]

"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:Rauqi.194$vW.19@trnddc08...
> From: "David Wright Sr." <dwrightsr@alltel.net>
>
>
> | IMO. Anytime a program is trying to contact a website without the
> knowledge
> | of the user, even if it is supposedly the product's own site, there
> exists
> | the potential for spyware or adware. Why shouldn't that be a concern
> here,
> | if for no other reason than to let other users of that product about it.
> |
> | David Wright Sr.
>
> Because Adobe is a legit. company and so are their products. One should
> seek assistance
> from their support first. As the OP noted, he wanted to know a way to
> disable the "Adobe
> Acrobat Updates". Therefore the OP was cognizant this is not a spyware
> issue.
>
> I will also add that the word used in the subject of this thread is
> inappropriate to say the
> least.

I have to agree with you on the subject line. That word would be more
appropriate for those of us in alt.sex.stories.d

cmsix

>
> --
> Dave
> http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
> http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
>
>

[Leythos]

In article <Xns997AACFCEC487nokvamli@208.49.80.253>,
dwrightsr@alltel.net says...
> IMO. Anytime a program is trying to contact a website without the knowledge
> of the user, even if it is supposedly the product's own site, there exists
> the potential for spyware or adware. Why shouldn't that be a concern here,
> if for no other reason than to let other users of that product about it.

If you read the terms in the agreement that YOU AGREED TO when you
installed the software you would see that YOU permitted it to be able to
contact home.

Almost all quality software products that are worth using phone home for
updates, there is no reason to think any of them don't.

--
Leythos - spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 to email me)

Learn more about PCBUTTS1 and his antics and ethic and his perversion
with Porn and Filth. Just take a look at some of the FILTH he's created
and put on his website: http://www.webservertalk.com/message1907860.html
3rd link shows what he's exposed to children (the link I've include does
not directly display his filth). You can find the same information by
googling for 'PCBUTTS1' and 'exposed to kids'.

[cmsix]

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.21143cdaebdb9555989856@adfree.Usenet.com. ..
> In article <Xns997AACFCEC487nokvamli@208.49.80.253>,
> dwrightsr@alltel.net says...
>> IMO. Anytime a program is trying to contact a website without the
>> knowledge
>> of the user, even if it is supposedly the product's own site, there
>> exists
>> the potential for spyware or adware. Why shouldn't that be a concern
>> here,
>> if for no other reason than to let other users of that product about it.
>
> If you read the terms in the agreement that YOU AGREED TO when you
> installed the software you would see that YOU permitted it to be able to
> contact home.

If you read every EULA you'd end up being an anal retentive jerk with no
other life, or even worse, a lawyer.

cmsix

>
> Almost all quality software products that are worth using phone home for
> updates, there is no reason to think any of them don't.
>
> --
> Leythos - spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 to email me)
>
> Learn more about PCBUTTS1 and his antics and ethic and his perversion
> with Porn and Filth. Just take a look at some of the FILTH he's created
> and put on his website: http://www.webservertalk.com/message1907860.html
> 3rd link shows what he's exposed to children (the link I've include does
> not directly display his filth). You can find the same information by
> googling for 'PCBUTTS1' and 'exposed to kids'.

[Leythos]

In article <TaCqi.53463$5j1.42617@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net> ,
cmsix@hotmail.com says...
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.21143cdaebdb9555989856@adfree.Usenet.com. ..
> > In article <Xns997AACFCEC487nokvamli@208.49.80.253>,
> > dwrightsr@alltel.net says...
> >> IMO. Anytime a program is trying to contact a website without the
> >> knowledge
> >> of the user, even if it is supposedly the product's own site, there
> >> exists
> >> the potential for spyware or adware. Why shouldn't that be a concern
> >> here,
> >> if for no other reason than to let other users of that product about it.
> >
> > If you read the terms in the agreement that YOU AGREED TO when you
> > installed the software you would see that YOU permitted it to be able to
> > contact home.
>
> If you read every EULA you'd end up being an anal retentive jerk with no
> other life, or even worse, a lawyer.

Before you can complain about something that you agreed to, and not look
like a fool, you should check to see if you actually agreed to it when
you clicked YES/OK/I ACCEPT to the licensing agreement that you didn't
read.

--
Leythos - spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 to email me)

Learn more about PCBUTTS1 and his antics and ethic and his perversion
with Porn and Filth. Just take a look at some of the FILTH he's created
and put on his website: http://www.webservertalk.com/message1907860.html
3rd link shows what he's exposed to children (the link I've include does
not directly display his filth). You can find the same information by
googling for 'PCBUTTS1' and 'exposed to kids'.

[Vanguard]

"David Wright Sr." wrote in message
news:Xns997AACFCEC487nokvamli@208.49.80.253...
>
> "David H. Lipman" wrote:
>
<with change of David's "|" quoting character to ">")
>>
>> <xp_newbie@yahoo.com> wrote ...
>>>
>>> The so called "Free" Adobe Acrobat Reader 8.1 attempts to check for
>>> updates everytime I invoke it. My firewall blocks it, but it's so
>>> annoying to get this message displayed again and again.
>>>
>>> I checked all the Edit | Preferences but couldn't find any way to
>>> disable checking for updates. Is Adobe so dumb? or are we, the
>>> people
>>> who agree to use such crap are the dumb?
>>
>> This isn't spyware issue and is Off Topic.
>
> IMO. Anytime a program is trying to contact a website without the
> knowledge
> of the user, even if it is supposedly the product's own site, there
> exists
> the potential for spyware or adware. Why shouldn't that be a concern
> here,
> if for no other reason than to let other users of that product about
> it.

Then you would have to included EVERY program that provides an
auto-update function, and that is a lot of software. I've had the
auto-update in Acrobat Reader disabled for, well, as long as I've ever
had a version of it. Doesn't it pop open a dialog telling YOU what new
version is available?

You mean you aren't running a software firewall that provides
application rules to regulate what can connect where, along with a log
to tell you what connected, to where, and when? It has been a decade,
or more, of software having an auto-update function and not all provide
a means of disabling it via user-configurable options, so your remaining
option is to disable that auto-update by blocking it at the firewall.

So, I guess that the anti-virus software you run that has an auto-update
function is also spyware. And that the anti-spyware or anti-malware
program(s) you use to scan for pests and which has an auto-update option
(often configured by default to check for updates before doing a scan)
must be spyware, too.
(rolls eyes twice)

[Kayman]

"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:uQsqi.184$vW.27@trnddc08...
> From: <xp_newbie@yahoo.com>
>
> | The so called "Free" Adobe Acrobat Reader 8.1 attempts to check for
> | updates everytime I invoke it. My firewall blocks it, but it's so
> | annoying to get this message displayed again and again.
> |
> | I checked all the Edit | Preferences but couldn't find any way to
> | disable checking for updates. Is Adobe so dumb? or are we, the people
> | who agree to use such crap are the dumb?
> |
> | If anyone knows how to disable Adobe Acrobat Updates please post it
> | here.
> |
> | Thanks,
> | Alex
>
> This isn't spyware issue and is Off Topic.
>
> Next time please post in an appropriate news group.
> In this case it would be Usenet Adobe group or on Adobe's own News Server.
> { You will have to go to Adobe's web site and register to have a posting
> account otherwise
> it is Read/Only. }
>
> news://adobeforums.com
>
No that I am in disagreement here but what good does this message supposed
to do? The ng is not moderated and an 'appropriate' sticker can not be
displayed to inform newcomers accordingly. So, the ones who read David's
advisory may bear this in mind and take notice or (probably) forget all
about when they post a message the next time. Newcomers however will not
know.
With respect to the subject line, has anybody had any success communicating
to Kadaitcha Man the use of crudities?

[Vanguard]

"Kayman" wrote in message news:f8e2uf$ekr$1@aioe.org...
> With respect to the subject line, has anybody had any success
> communicating to Kadaitcha Man the use of crudities?

Learn to killfile.