On Sat, 10 May 2008 15:41:55 +0700, Kayman wrote:

> On Sat, 10 May 2008 00:32:45 -0700 (PDT), rodney.usenet@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On 10 mei, 03:07, Kayman <kaymanDeleteT...@operamail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 8 May 2008 23:48:56 -0700 (PDT), rodney.use...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On 9 mei, 06:36, Straight Talk <b__n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You really can't rely on online scanners.
>>>
>>>> Could you explain why online scanners are not reliable ?
>>>
>>> On-line scanners are the most unsafe and next to useless. Because by the
>>> time you've started your infected Windows and connected to the
>>> Internet via this infected code base, and start to look for scanning sites
>>> through infected DNS, you are almost certain to have the malware
>>> perfectly positioned to overrule your attempts to clean it.
>>
>> that makes sense
>>
>>> David's Multi-AV is *better and safer*, because you don't have to be
>>> on-line to use it (it has no dependencies on using a web browser to perform
>>> its function), and it can be used in Safe Mode.
>>>
>>> http://pcdid.com/Multi_AV.htm
>>
>> Thanks, already use that. I'm almost dissappointed that none of the
>> AV's ever find anything.
>
> Don't be, consider yourself as 'bloody good and safe' operater :-)

Oh, I almost forget; In case you didn't know, David's Multi-AV version 6.0
is out and has added an A-S scanning in the Trend Micro module.