Well here goes and thank you! Jon
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Fred Sawyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Sorry for the delay guys. The offending email address > [EMAIL PROTECTED] was not a registered member of NTSysAdmins. > After some digging we believe we found the email account that was forwarding > to the .local domain. Please let us know if any other bounce backs are > being received on new messages to the list. > > Thanks again for the patience. > > > Thank you, > > Fred Sawyer > Sunbelt Software > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Jon Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:43 AM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* Fwd: Undeliverable: Re: Interesting read on Symantec's latest > effort > > Could someone at Sunbelt please get this guy off the list it is a PITA > to get one of these every time you post. > > Jon > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: System Administrator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 10:40 AM > Subject: Undeliverable: Re: Interesting read on Symantec's latest effort > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Your message > > To: "NT System Admin Issues" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Interesting read on Symantec's latest effort > Sent: Wed Sep 17 10:40:02 2008 > > > did not reach the following recipient(s): > [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed Sep 17 10:40:02 2008 > > The e-mail account does not exist at the organization this message > was sent to. Check the e-mail address, or contact the recipient > directly to find out the correct address. > <zhadum.korriban.local #5.1.1> > > Final-Recipient: RFC822; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Action: failed > Status: 5.1.1 > X-Supplementary-Info: zhadum.korriban.local > X-Display-Name: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Jon Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "NT System Admin Issues" <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:39:43 -0400 > Subject: Re: Interesting read on Symantec's latest effort > I think you will find that this is the Home user software. Symantec > always labels their Home/SMB stuff as Norton and the Corporate stuff as > Symantec. Until someone I know and trust tells me that Symantec has fixed > the [EMAIL PROTECTED] way they handle engine updates and their even worse way > of > uninstalling but leaving a mess behind I would not even consider them again. > > Jon > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Rod Trent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> Still waiting to see. Folks have complained publicly about them for >> years, not to mention those who are contract customers, and Symantec is >> somehow **just** getting it? >> >> >> >> <rant on> >> >> >> >> Dollars talk. If not for the Altiris acquisition, Symantec would be >> losing money miserably. They have lost a lot of AV/Security customers over >> the last couple years. So – do they care about protecting the customer? >> Nope. They care about the bank statements. Granted, that's what companies >> do and there's nothing wrong with making money, but I wish they'd stop with >> the political spin >> >> >> >> </rant off> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Tim Evans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:22 AM >> *To:* NT System Admin Issues >> *Subject:* Interesting read on Symantec's latest effort >> >> >> >> http://www.stuff.co.nz/4668507a28.html >> >> >> >> Quote: >> >> "But is it still protecting us properly? Symantec assures me it is, and >> even better than ever." >> >> >> >> OK, I'm a believer :-) At least it sounds like they have finally >> understood their fatal flaw and are making attempts to fix it. >> >> >> >> >> >> …Tim >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
