Re: Symantec and SeaMonkey....

[Rick Shaich]

On 12/7/2012 12:51 PM, Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:

Hey Guys,

So I have to say, I am quite annoyed with Symantec/Norton at the moment.

Our Beta 2, which has been out for ~ a week, and I submitted the
whitelist request to Norton ~12 hours before the *DAY* of our release,
still is not complete.




Have you done any research to see the penetration percentage of 
Symantec/Norton?


I really don't know a sole who is using it that has a computer newer 
than say 2005.  It seems they were king in the 90s and have been slowly 
going down hill since then.  I used to see it around still a decent 
amount up to about 2003 or so but now almost never see it.
Seamonky users (by default) are an odd breed. Many are very modern, many 
are anachronistic Netscape holders (I am in that category). Still I 
suspect that most are more computer savy than the average joe.


That is all a long way to say I doubt this affects a very high 
percentage of Seamonkey users.


Hawker (who uses Avast and hasn't used Nortan since the Dos days).


___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Symantec and SeaMonkey....

[Michael Gordon]

Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:

Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:

Rich Gray wrote:

Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:

we have no
sane way to detect the presence of Norton and delay JUST those updates.


Does the user get notified by Semantic of the quarantined files?




*cough* well now I'm even MORE annoyed/frustrated with Symantec.

We got notification yesterday AM that the newest beta was whitelisted.

We made the update live last night

I just now restart to update and get notified by Symantec on my own comp
that it detected an issue (the same problem I described in this thread).
GRR

Bad Symantec Bad.

(p.s. yes I will be letting this license expire and switching to another
provider for myself)



Justin,

I am sorry that you are experiencing the problems many of us have 
already discovered, and the reasons to discard Norton's.


There is only one bright spot in your experience, you have now seen what 
others have been complaining about for decades, and you know here is no 
easy fix for the problem.


Because you have now had these real life problems to ponder, and because 
you have a unique position within SeaMonkey, and connections with 
Mozilla Foundation; you can  better formulate a work-around for the 
majority of users of SeaMonkey when downloading and installing Alpha's, 
Beta's, and public release versions of SeaMonkey.


I wish you good luck, you have a rocky field to hoe.

Michael G

--
Armadillo Web Development
www.armadilloweb.com

Cell: 903.244.3644

Opening your Door to Opportunity
and inviting the world to walk through.

Character is doing the right thing...
Even when no one is watching...

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Symantec and SeaMonkey....

[Justin Wood (Callek)]

Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:
> Rich Gray wrote:
>> Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:
>>> we have no
>>> sane way to detect the presence of Norton and delay JUST those updates.
>>
>> Does the user get notified by Semantic of the quarantined files?
> 

*cough* well now I'm even MORE annoyed/frustrated with Symantec.

We got notification yesterday AM that the newest beta was whitelisted.

We made the update live last night

I just now restart to update and get notified by Symantec on my own comp
that it detected an issue (the same problem I described in this thread).
GRR

Bad Symantec Bad.

(p.s. yes I will be letting this license expire and switching to another
provider for myself)

-- 
~Justin Wood (Callek)

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Symantec and SeaMonkey....

[GerardJan]

Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:

Rich Gray wrote:

Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:

we have no
sane way to detect the presence of Norton and delay JUST those updates.


Does the user get notified by Semantic of the quarantined files?


Depending on NAV settings


Can the SM installer detect that not all files made it?


No, because NAV also pulls/quarantines the files when SeaMonkey starts.
And there is also the chance that NAV could have been disabled
temporarily (and when it comes back up, if SeaMonkey is already running
it also kills off the .dlls)

I tested those situations, no easy/doable solution programatically on
our end here.



I don´t like Norton on Windows 7
I run *bullguard*

sincerely

--
Gérard Vinkesteijn RI
http://vinkesteijn.info
http://ciudadpatricia.com
mailto:g.j.f.vinkeste...@hotmail.es
/* on Linux Fedora version 16, 64bits */

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Symantec and SeaMonkey....

[Justin Wood (Callek)]

Rich Gray wrote:
> Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:
>> we have no
>> sane way to detect the presence of Norton and delay JUST those updates.
> 
> Does the user get notified by Semantic of the quarantined files?

Depending on NAV settings

> Can the SM installer detect that not all files made it?  

No, because NAV also pulls/quarantines the files when SeaMonkey starts.
And there is also the chance that NAV could have been disabled
temporarily (and when it comes back up, if SeaMonkey is already running
it also kills off the .dlls)

I tested those situations, no easy/doable solution programatically on
our end here.

-- 
~Justin Wood (Callek)

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Symantec and SeaMonkey....

[Rich Gray]

Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:

we have no
sane way to detect the presence of Norton and delay JUST those updates.


Does the user get notified by Semantic of the quarantined files?

Can the SM installer detect that not all files made it?  Seems like if the 
installer could check at the end of the install to make sure all files are 
in fact correctly installed, it could put up a message reporting the problem 
and suggest re-running with any AV disabled.  Perhaps this could even be a 
[Try Again] loop that stays in the installer and reminds the user to 
re-enable AV after completion.


--
Rich(Pull thorn from address to e-mail me.)
SeaMonkey - Surfing the net has never been so suite!
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Symantec and SeaMonkey....

[MCBastos]

Interviewed by CNN on 08/12/2012 15:43, Michael Gordon told the world:
> Robert Kaiser wrote:
>> Michael Gordon schrieb:
>>> In addition to listing on your download page, also note the AV/Firewall
>>> applications that work well with SM, FireFox, and ThunderBird.  (Writing
>>> of the latter two, how do they handle this problem?
>>
>> No, please don't. We are not a free advertisement shop. If some provider
>> of such software will donate a significant amount of money towards
>> making SeaMonkey better, maybe it might be an idea to suggest the use of
>> their product, but otherwise, we should keep suggestions for using
>> specific third-party products out of our websites.
>>
>> Robert Kaiser
> 
>   Robert,
> 
> I am not advocating that SeaMonkey indorse any other product or 
> application.  I am suggesting that SM note those AV applications that 
> work well with SM when Norton's fails to perform well.

I think KaiRo's point is that there's a difference between "we are
having some problems with this specific vendor, we are working on it but
in the meantime there's a workaround if you cannot or prefer not to
change security products" and "don't use this product,  use these
instead." The first is a valid technical note, the second is giving away
free advertising.

-- 
MCBastos

This message has been protected with the 2ROT13 algorithm. Unauthorized
use will be prosecuted under the DMCA.

-=-=-
... Sent from my superior attunement to the Force.
* Added by TagZilla 0.7a1 running on Seamonkey 2.14.1 *
Get it at http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmailnews.html#tagzilla
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Symantec and SeaMonkey....

[Cruz, Jaime]

Michael Gordon wrote:

Cruz, Jaime wrote:

I don't know how Symantec stays in business with the crap they've been
putting out lately.




They do it because they have major contracts with the Federal Government.

Michael G



I think that says everything right there.

--
Jaime A. Cruz
Secretary
Nassau Wings Motorcycle Club
http://www.nassauwings.org/

AMA District 34
http://www.AMADistrict34.com/
Pop's Run
http://www.popsrun.org/
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Symantec and SeaMonkey....

[Michael Gordon]

Cruz, Jaime wrote:

When I first got into computers, Norton Anti-Virus was one of those
essentials that everyone had to have on their machines. Over the years
it has become more intrusive, more bloated, and more CPU hungry than
almost anything else I can think of.

I've also registered far more false alarms with NAV (now SAV) than any
other product I've ever used.  The straw that broke the camel's back was
when SAV wiped out my entire inbox because one piece of E-Mail had a
malicious attachment.

On my Windows machines I now use Microsoft's Security Essentials, but
I've also started migrating more and more over to Linux.

I don't know how Symantec stays in business with the crap they've been
putting out lately.




They do it because they have major contracts with the Federal Government.

Michael G

--
Armadillo Web Development
www.armadilloweb.com

Cell: 903.244.3644

Opening your Door to Opportunity
and inviting the world to walk through.

Character is doing the right thing...
Even when no one is watching...

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Symantec and SeaMonkey....

[Cruz, Jaime]

When I first got into computers, Norton Anti-Virus was one of those 
essentials that everyone had to have on their machines. Over the years 
it has become more intrusive, more bloated, and more CPU hungry than 
almost anything else I can think of.


I've also registered far more false alarms with NAV (now SAV) than any 
other product I've ever used.  The straw that broke the camel's back was 
when SAV wiped out my entire inbox because one piece of E-Mail had a 
malicious attachment.


On my Windows machines I now use Microsoft's Security Essentials, but 
I've also started migrating more and more over to Linux.


I don't know how Symantec stays in business with the crap they've been 
putting out lately.



--
Jaime A. Cruz
Secretary
Nassau Wings Motorcycle Club
http://www.nassauwings.org/

AMA District 34
http://www.AMADistrict34.com/
Pop's Run
http://www.popsrun.org/
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Symantec and SeaMonkey....

[Philip TAYLOR]

Robert Kaiser wrote:

> Michael Gordon schrieb:


In addition to listing on your download page, also note
the AV/Firewall applications that work well with SM,
FireFox, and ThunderBird.  (Writing of the latter two, how
do they handle this problem?


No, please don't. We are not a free advertisement shop. If
some provider of such software will donate a significant
amount of money towards making SeaMonkey better, maybe it
might be an idea to suggest the use of their product, but
otherwise, we should keep suggestions for using specific
third-party products out of our websites.


I could not agree less.  Just because an A/V vendor is willing
to underwrite some of the Seamonkey development costs says
nothing about the quality of his/her/their products, nor about
how well or how badly they will interact with Seamonkey. Let
us offer free publicity for those that behave well, and either
negative or no publicity for those that do not.  To do what you
suggest would make the Seamonkey team what Chairman Mao would
have called "lackeys of the capitalist running dogs".

Philip Taylor
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Symantec and SeaMonkey....

[Robert Kaiser]

Frank Wein schrieb:

After all our builds should not be that
different as the NSS dlls (which do the encryption) use exactly the same
code as the Firefox ones.


AFAIK, they're using MD5 checksums to identify them, so any bit that 
comes out different in compilation makes up for something completely 
different they "detect".


Robert Kaiser
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Symantec and SeaMonkey....

[Michael Gordon]

Robert Kaiser wrote:

Michael Gordon schrieb:

In addition to listing on your download page, also note the AV/Firewall
applications that work well with SM, FireFox, and ThunderBird.  (Writing
of the latter two, how do they handle this problem?


No, please don't. We are not a free advertisement shop. If some provider
of such software will donate a significant amount of money towards
making SeaMonkey better, maybe it might be an idea to suggest the use of
their product, but otherwise, we should keep suggestions for using
specific third-party products out of our websites.

Robert Kaiser


 Robert,

I am not advocating that SeaMonkey indorse any other product or 
application.  I am suggesting that SM note those AV applications that 
work well with SM when Norton's fails to perform well.


A point to pursue, on the side, contact those AV vendors who work with 
SM install applications and see if they can help, funding, or other support.


Michael G

--
Armadillo Web Development
www.armadilloweb.com

Cell: 903.244.3644

Opening your Door to Opportunity
and inviting the world to walk through.

Character is doing the right thing...
Even when no one is watching...

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Symantec and SeaMonkey....

[Robert Kaiser]

Michael Gordon schrieb:

In addition to listing on your download page, also note the AV/Firewall
applications that work well with SM, FireFox, and ThunderBird.  (Writing
of the latter two, how do they handle this problem?


No, please don't. We are not a free advertisement shop. If some provider 
of such software will donate a significant amount of money towards 
making SeaMonkey better, maybe it might be an idea to suggest the use of 
their product, but otherwise, we should keep suggestions for using 
specific third-party products out of our websites.


Robert Kaiser
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Symantec and SeaMonkey....

[Robert Kaiser]

Justin Wood (Callek) schrieb:

My proposal:


+1 on all accounts.

Robert Kaiser
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Symantec and SeaMonkey....

[Michael Gordon]

Frank Wein wrote:

Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:

Hey Guys,

So I have to say, I am quite annoyed with Symantec/Norton at the moment.

Our Beta 2, which has been out for ~ a week, and I submitted the
whitelist request to Norton ~12 hours before the *DAY* of our release,
still is not complete.

With the release cadence we have/need, the turnaround time on their
whitelisting is completely unacceptable/bad. It completely hurts our
ability to get meaningful data for betas, and hurts our ability to keep
our release users up to date with latest stability/security updates.

My proposal:
* No longer wait for Symantec to indicate that the whitelisting is complete


I agree with that.


* Mention it on our known-issues page that Norton can interact badly
with us on occassion


Yes.


* Specifically list the .dll's [by name] it thinks are viruses on our
known-issues page as "ok" and "Norton's fault"


Agreed.


* Continue to submit whitelisting requests ASAP
* Continue to move forward with getting signed builds out [`may` help
with this]
* Continue to *try* getting a human contact at Norton to see if/when we
can speed up their process or fix this misidentification, and how.

The key point is this *will* be a pain point for windows users who have
Norton, where the most-logical solution for those users is to *disable*
their Virus Software during the duration of SeaMonkey use. And is
specifically manifests in the following ways:
* Quarantines 1-or-2 dll's
* The dll's affect our cryptography ability, in such that them missing
may/could break some https sites from functioning/cause crashes etc. (I
haven't witnessed it, but I also have avoiding us ever shipping in this
case)
* Restoration of the dll's seems to sign/modify them slightly such that
partial updates fail for these users, and end up having to download
updates twice (the second download being our full 20ish MB download).


Hrm, too bad the failure case does not obviously point to Norton as a
cause of this. But after all the user should have already been notified
about a "virus" before.
What "virus" does Norton actually detect? Does Firefox also whitelist
their versions with Symantec? After all our builds should not be that
different as the NSS dlls (which do the encryption) use exactly the same
code as the Firefox ones.

Frank



There is another option which has been used by other software vendors in 
the past, and continues today.


Create simple install/uninstall instructions on your download page. 
These instructions should include:
1. With your current we browser download the installation package into a 
folder of your choice.
2. After download is complete suggest the customer disconnect from the 
internet.

3. Turn off Norton's Anti-virus.
4. Double click the downloaded file to install the new program.
5. After install of the new program/upgrade is complete suggest the 
customer remove the older version.
6. After the install is complete have the new program/version open a web 
page welcoming the customer to this new version, and reminding the 
customer he/she should warm boot the computer, and double check that 
Norton's is again live and well, manual re-connection to the internet 
may be required.  In many PC's rebooting will turn on previously turned 
off manually selected programs, except Network Connections,  and no 
further action is necessary.
7. After rebooting The program can be launched in the usual manner, in 
the case of a new installation some user settings may need to be 
adjusted (supply a page to these settings).  In the case of an upgrade 
the new version should pick up the user settings from the named user 
profile.


Important.  Advise the user to double check the condition of the AV 
program before connecting to the internet (icon in System Task Bar, next 
to clock).


Michael G


--
Armadillo Web Development
www.armadilloweb.com

Cell: 903.244.3644

Opening your Door to Opportunity
and inviting the world to walk through.

Character is doing the right thing...
Even when no one is watching...

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Symantec and SeaMonkey....

[NFN Smith]

Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:



My proposal:


I think that's a reasonable approach.

In particular, if handling of betas is an issue, I might go even a bit 
further with documentation, of advising beta users that they should 
replace Norton, if they find that Norton use is generating 
false-positives.  In short, people who are using betas should not be 
using Norton.



One thing that I've discovered with AV tools -- for people that have 
paid for licenses, they're often unwilling to move to another product, 
even if there's benefit to them, and no cost (other than the effort of 
removal of one, and installation of another).


In our company, we do a lot of support of BYOD, and we have a corporate 
license from another AV vendor, and we make individual licenses 
available to our users, without charge.  We don't require use of our 
license, but we do have a list of AV tools that we consider to be 
acceptable (NAV is explicitly not on the list).  It's interesting to see 
the number of users who already have Norton installed (and paid for) 
that give us resistance to replacing Norton.  Some of it may be 
reluctance to remove pre-installed software (especially if it carries 
some sort of implied "official" sanction from either Microsoft, the OEM 
or the retail vendor, some of it may be reluctance to remove a all-in 
one suite with a unified UI.  However, most often, the resistance seems 
to be in discarding a paid-for license, regardless if the alternative 
has no financial cost.



* Continue to *try* getting a human contact at Norton to see if/when we
can speed up their process or fix this misidentification, and how.


One question --

Do you have interaction with any of the other Mozilla development 
communities (especially Firefox and Thunderbird) to see if they may have 
any contacts experience with Symantec that may be useful?  Or are they 
subject to the same "don't even *think* about trying to waste the 
valuable time of our employees attempting personal interaction" 
processes, but where they get higher-priority attention, simply by 
having a user base that's much larger?  Also, are there any other other 
Mozilla projects with similar issues?


Smith

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Symantec and SeaMonkey....

[NFN Smith]

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:




Do we know /which/ Norton we're talking about? I'm willing to believe
that some Norton software users have a problem, but I'm a Norton user
and have never had the slightest problem installing any Mozilla product
(going all the way back to Netscape 4.x). So for me it's an annoyance
that you're holding up a perfectly good update that I can install
without difficulty in order to avoid trouble for those other users.


Also, are there any quantitative differences between the 
consumer-focused NAV, and the business-grade Symantec Anti-Virus?  I 
dumped NAV and other Norton-branded stuff years ago, but for several 
years, my employer was using SAV, before we moved on to other tools


With SAV, there was a lot less overhead imposed on the machine, 
especially less memory use, and far easier to uninstall (and get a 
reasonable cleanup of the Windows registry).


What I never determined was whether SAV was merely the same NAV product 
in a corporate wrapper, or if there were/are real differences in the 
scanning engine and/or signature set.


Smith


___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Symantec and SeaMonkey....

[Paul B. Gallagher]

Ray_Net wrote:

Paul B. Gallagher wrote, On 08/12/2012 00:10:

Jim Taylor wrote:


On the corporate side, where end users have no choice about their
antivirus product, I don't know if Symantec's corporate products
detect the false positive or not.  But even if they do I doubt that
many large companies are using SeaMonkey as their standard browser
and the individual users that may be running it are probably
knowledgeable enough to deal with it, particularly if they are told
about it in the release notes and known problems.


The key for most users would be to have the information /before/
installing, not after (do you read those things before or after? most
people I know read them afterward). But it would have to be carefully
worded so new arrivals wouldn't get the mistaken impression that it's
/our/ problem and avoid SeaMonkey.


Reading that:

With the release cadence we have/need, the turnaround time on their
whitelisting is completely unacceptable/bad.

We conclude that because "the release cadence SM have" ..., SM is the
culprit.


Not sure what that has to do with anything I said...

At any rate, a false positive from an AV vendor is obviously the AV 
vendor's fault, no matter how often SM releases its updates. Just 
because they've never seen the file before, that doesn't make it a virus.


--
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Symantec and SeaMonkey....

[Ray_Net]

Paul B. Gallagher wrote, On 08/12/2012 00:10:

Jim Taylor wrote:


On the corporate side, where end users have no choice about their
antivirus product, I don't know if Symantec's corporate products
detect the false positive or not.  But even if they do I doubt that
many large companies are using SeaMonkey as their standard browser
and the individual users that may be running it are probably
knowledgeable enough to deal with it, particularly if they are told
about it in the release notes and known problems.


The key for most users would be to have the information /before/ 
installing, not after (do you read those things before or after? most 
people I know read them afterward). But it would have to be carefully 
worded so new arrivals wouldn't get the mistaken impression that it's 
/our/ problem and avoid SeaMonkey.



Reading that:

With the release cadence we have/need, the turnaround time on their
whitelisting is completely unacceptable/bad.

We conclude that because "the release cadence SM have" ..., SM is the culprit.


___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Symantec and SeaMonkey....

[Frank Wein]

Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:
> Hey Guys,
> 
> So I have to say, I am quite annoyed with Symantec/Norton at the moment.
> 
> Our Beta 2, which has been out for ~ a week, and I submitted the
> whitelist request to Norton ~12 hours before the *DAY* of our release,
> still is not complete.
> 
> With the release cadence we have/need, the turnaround time on their
> whitelisting is completely unacceptable/bad. It completely hurts our
> ability to get meaningful data for betas, and hurts our ability to keep
> our release users up to date with latest stability/security updates.
> 
> My proposal:
> * No longer wait for Symantec to indicate that the whitelisting is complete

I agree with that.

> * Mention it on our known-issues page that Norton can interact badly
> with us on occassion

Yes.

> * Specifically list the .dll's [by name] it thinks are viruses on our
> known-issues page as "ok" and "Norton's fault"

Agreed.

> * Continue to submit whitelisting requests ASAP
> * Continue to move forward with getting signed builds out [`may` help
> with this]
> * Continue to *try* getting a human contact at Norton to see if/when we
> can speed up their process or fix this misidentification, and how.
> 
> The key point is this *will* be a pain point for windows users who have
> Norton, where the most-logical solution for those users is to *disable*
> their Virus Software during the duration of SeaMonkey use. And is
> specifically manifests in the following ways:
> * Quarantines 1-or-2 dll's
> * The dll's affect our cryptography ability, in such that them missing
> may/could break some https sites from functioning/cause crashes etc. (I
> haven't witnessed it, but I also have avoiding us ever shipping in this
> case)
> * Restoration of the dll's seems to sign/modify them slightly such that
> partial updates fail for these users, and end up having to download
> updates twice (the second download being our full 20ish MB download).

Hrm, too bad the failure case does not obviously point to Norton as a
cause of this. But after all the user should have already been notified
about a "virus" before.
What "virus" does Norton actually detect? Does Firefox also whitelist
their versions with Symantec? After all our builds should not be that
different as the NSS dlls (which do the encryption) use exactly the same
code as the Firefox ones.

Frank

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Symantec and SeaMonkey....

[W3BNR]

On 12/7/2012 8:45 PM Philip Chee submitted the following:
> On Fri, 07 Dec 2012 14:59:46 -0500, Ed wrote:
> 
>> There was a time, long ago, when Peter Norton free lanced not only anti-virus
>> software but other good ones.  Do we all remember N-DOS?  Great product.  Any
>> how he sold out to Symantec and the anti-virus product started going down 
>> hill.
> 
> Not that I disagree with you (being a heavy user of the old DOS based
> Norton Utilities) but ndos was a rebadged OEM of 4DOS, and I was already
> using 4DOS as a replacement for command.com.
> 
> I am currently using a descendant of 4DOS called TCC.
> 
> Phil
> 

Ah, yes it was.  But where I was working at the time preferred NDOS and Norton
Utilities.  Things were much simpler then.  Computer problem?  No problem.
Had a backup of your files?  Format C:  & Reload.

-- 
Ed
http://JonesFarm.us
Powered by SeaMonkey: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend;
 inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."   -Groucho Marx (1890-1977)
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Symantec and SeaMonkey....

[Ed Mullen]

MCBastos wrote:

Interviewed by CNN on 07/12/2012 17:59, Ed told the world:


There was a time, long ago, when Peter Norton free lanced not only anti-virus
software but other good ones.  Do we all remember N-DOS?  Great product.  Any
how he sold out to Symantec and the anti-virus product started going down hill.


You do know that NDos was not developed by eihter Norton OR Symantec,
don't you? It was a licensed version of the well-known shareware (now
freeware) 4DOS.



Just reading this thread is making me feel incredibly OLD.

Not the least of which was some recent searches for batch file command 
info. So, it's not all your fault.  ;-)  I mean, hell, I've got a folder 
in my W7 system named "batch."  Which I use regularly.  Sigh. 
Anachronism, yes.  Works?  Yep!


Hey, don't fix it if it ain't broke, right?

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
Have you noticed since everyone has a camcorder these days no one talks 
about seeing UFOs like they used to?

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Symantec and SeaMonkey....

[MCBastos]

Interviewed by CNN on 07/12/2012 17:59, Ed told the world:

> There was a time, long ago, when Peter Norton free lanced not only anti-virus
> software but other good ones.  Do we all remember N-DOS?  Great product.  Any
> how he sold out to Symantec and the anti-virus product started going down 
> hill.

You do know that NDos was not developed by eihter Norton OR Symantec,
don't you? It was a licensed version of the well-known shareware (now
freeware) 4DOS.

-- 
MCBastos

This message has been protected with the 2ROT13 algorithm. Unauthorized
use will be prosecuted under the DMCA.

-=-=-
... Sent from my Starfleet Universal Translator.
* Added by TagZilla 0.7a1 running on Seamonkey 2.14.1 *
Get it at http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmailnews.html#tagzilla
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Symantec and SeaMonkey....

[Philip Chee]

On Fri, 07 Dec 2012 14:59:46 -0500, Ed wrote:

> There was a time, long ago, when Peter Norton free lanced not only anti-virus
> software but other good ones.  Do we all remember N-DOS?  Great product.  Any
> how he sold out to Symantec and the anti-virus product started going down 
> hill.

Not that I disagree with you (being a heavy user of the old DOS based
Norton Utilities) but ndos was a rebadged OEM of 4DOS, and I was already
using 4DOS as a replacement for command.com.

I am currently using a descendant of 4DOS called TCC.

Phil

-- 
Philip Chee , 
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Symantec and SeaMonkey....

[Paul B. Gallagher]

Jim Taylor wrote:


On the corporate side, where end users have no choice about their
antivirus product, I don't know if Symantec's corporate products
detect the false positive or not.  But even if they do I doubt that
many large companies are using SeaMonkey as their standard browser
and the individual users that may be running it are probably
knowledgeable enough to deal with it, particularly if they are told
about it in the release notes and known problems.


The key for most users would be to have the information /before/ 
installing, not after (do you read those things before or after? most 
people I know read them afterward). But it would have to be carefully 
worded so new arrivals wouldn't get the mistaken impression that it's 
/our/ problem and avoid SeaMonkey.


There seem to be two diametrically opposite experiences with Norton 
products. For some people like myself, it just quietly runs without 
problems. For some others, it's the program from hell. I wish I knew how 
to predict which would be which before installing. I mean, it's like a 
food allergy -- some people love shrimp, and others go straight to the 
hospital. It's not the shrimp's fault, and it's not the people's fault, 
either -- neither of them took any intentional action that can be blamed.


--
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Symantec and SeaMonkey....

[Jim Taylor]

Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:

Hey Guys,

So I have to say, I am quite annoyed with Symantec/Norton at the moment.

Our Beta 2, which has been out for ~ a week, and I submitted the
whitelist request to Norton ~12 hours before the *DAY* of our release,
still is not complete.

With the release cadence we have/need, the turnaround time on their
whitelisting is completely unacceptable/bad. It completely hurts our
ability to get meaningful data for betas, and hurts our ability to keep
our release users up to date with latest stability/security updates.

My proposal:
* No longer wait for Symantec to indicate that the whitelisting is complete
* Mention it on our known-issues page that Norton can interact badly
with us on occassion
* Specifically list the .dll's [by name] it thinks are viruses on our
known-issues page as "ok" and "Norton's fault"
* Continue to submit whitelisting requests ASAP
* Continue to move forward with getting signed builds out [`may` help
with this]
* Continue to *try* getting a human contact at Norton to see if/when we
can speed up their process or fix this misidentification, and how.

The key point is this *will* be a pain point for windows users who have
Norton, where the most-logical solution for those users is to *disable*
their Virus Software during the duration of SeaMonkey use. And is
specifically manifests in the following ways:
* Quarantines 1-or-2 dll's
* The dll's affect our cryptography ability, in such that them missing
may/could break some https sites from functioning/cause crashes etc. (I
haven't witnessed it, but I also have avoiding us ever shipping in this
case)
* Restoration of the dll's seems to sign/modify them slightly such that
partial updates fail for these users, and end up having to download
updates twice (the second download being our full 20ish MB download).

I am literally treating this as a proposal for the community, we have no
sane way to detect the presence of Norton and delay JUST those updates.

This is not a vote, and I will take on the final call [unless the
SeaMonkey Council think that they as a whole should make the final
call]. So reasons for/against are appreciated, including "me toos", or
"please no" though I'd appreciate reasons for any of those mails.

With *myself* as a Symantec user as well [in my case because it came
pre-installed on my computer, and I decided to just register/subscribe
rather than fight and try to remove/switch] it is a bad situation to
have to be in, but I feel this is a decision I need community input on,
rather than decided that some subset of our users will have to suffer
due to a larger companies issues.



I see no reason that all Windows users should be penalized with slow 
updates because some users choose to use a bloated and buggy antivirus 
program.  Perhaps if it causes them enough pain they will either 
complain to Symantec enough that they will fix their algorithm or they 
will switch to another antivirus program.  It's not like there aren't 
alternatives available particularly since Microsoft Security 
Essentials is free.


On the corporate side, where end users have no choice about their 
antivirus product, I don't know if Symantec's corporate products 
detect the false positive or not.  But even if they do I doubt that 
many large companies are using SeaMonkey as their standard browser and 
the individual users that may be running it are probably knowledgeable 
enough to deal with it, particularly if they are told about it in the 
release notes and known problems.


--
Jim
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Symantec and SeaMonkey....

[David E. Ross]

On 12/7/12 9:51 AM, Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:
> Hey Guys,
> 
> So I have to say, I am quite annoyed with Symantec/Norton at the moment.
> 
> Our Beta 2, which has been out for ~ a week, and I submitted the
> whitelist request to Norton ~12 hours before the *DAY* of our release,
> still is not complete.
> 
> With the release cadence we have/need, the turnaround time on their
> whitelisting is completely unacceptable/bad. It completely hurts our
> ability to get meaningful data for betas, and hurts our ability to keep
> our release users up to date with latest stability/security updates.
> 
> My proposal:
> * No longer wait for Symantec to indicate that the whitelisting is complete
> * Mention it on our known-issues page that Norton can interact badly
> with us on occassion
> * Specifically list the .dll's [by name] it thinks are viruses on our
> known-issues page as "ok" and "Norton's fault"
> * Continue to submit whitelisting requests ASAP
> * Continue to move forward with getting signed builds out [`may` help
> with this]
> * Continue to *try* getting a human contact at Norton to see if/when we
> can speed up their process or fix this misidentification, and how.
> 
> The key point is this *will* be a pain point for windows users who have
> Norton, where the most-logical solution for those users is to *disable*
> their Virus Software during the duration of SeaMonkey use. And is
> specifically manifests in the following ways:
> * Quarantines 1-or-2 dll's
> * The dll's affect our cryptography ability, in such that them missing
> may/could break some https sites from functioning/cause crashes etc. (I
> haven't witnessed it, but I also have avoiding us ever shipping in this
> case)
> * Restoration of the dll's seems to sign/modify them slightly such that
> partial updates fail for these users, and end up having to download
> updates twice (the second download being our full 20ish MB download).
> 
> I am literally treating this as a proposal for the community, we have no
> sane way to detect the presence of Norton and delay JUST those updates.
> 
> This is not a vote, and I will take on the final call [unless the
> SeaMonkey Council think that they as a whole should make the final
> call]. So reasons for/against are appreciated, including "me toos", or
> "please no" though I'd appreciate reasons for any of those mails.
> 
> With *myself* as a Symantec user as well [in my case because it came
> pre-installed on my computer, and I decided to just register/subscribe
> rather than fight and try to remove/switch] it is a bad situation to
> have to be in, but I feel this is a decision I need community input on,
> rather than decided that some subset of our users will have to suffer
> due to a larger companies issues.
> 

My favorite computer shop (now defunct, alas) advised me several years
ago to remove Symantec's Norton AV, which was causing more problems than
it prevented.  Instead, they suggested using AVG anti-virus, freeware
from .  However, they also suggested
installing the freeware version of Malwarebytes from
, which requires manual running; they told
me to run it every so often.

As for your problem, my suggestion would be a strongly-worded (but not
hostile) postal letter from the head of the Mozilla Project (or from the
president of the Mozilla Foundation) to the CEO of Symantec:
Mr. Stephen M. Bennett, President
Symantec Corporation
350 Ellis Street
Mountain View, CA 94043
USA
I also suggest the users of Norton AV also send letters to Mr. Bennett.

-- 
David E. Ross


Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation.
© 1997 by David E. Ross
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Symantec and SeaMonkey....

[chicagofan]

Michael Gordon wrote:

Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:

Hey Guys,

So I have to say, I am quite annoyed with Symantec/Norton at the moment.
I don't' blame you, I dumped Norton's when I had Win 98SE years ago 
and never went back.
Unfortunately large number of major corporations have been suckered 
into believing Norton's is the best and only AV software available for 
their systems.


Our Beta 2, which has been out for ~ a week, and I submitted the
whitelist request to Norton ~12 hours before the *DAY* of our release,
still is not complete.
This is what happens when a company gets into bed with a Federal 
Government.




With the release cadence we have/need, the turnaround time on their
whitelisting is completely unacceptable/bad. It completely hurts our
ability to get meaningful data for betas, and hurts our ability to keep
our release users up to date with latest stability/security updates.

My proposal:
* No longer wait for Symantec to indicate that the whitelisting is 
complete

* Mention it on our known-issues page that Norton can interact badly
with us on occassion
In addition to listing on your download page, also note the 
AV/Firewall applications that work well with SM, FireFox, and 
ThunderBird.  (Writing of the latter two, how do they handle this 
problem?



* Specifically list the .dll's [by name] it thinks are viruses on our
known-issues page as "ok" and "Norton's fault"
End users may be able to bypass the testing of these files.  (Place 
them into their own white list.)



* Continue to submit whitelisting requests ASAP

That's like blowing smoke up their A**.


* Continue to move forward with getting signed builds out [`may` help
with this]
* Continue to *try* getting a human contact at Norton to see if/when we
can speed up their process or fix this misidentification, and how.

Probably useful if you could find someone who could accept a gift.


The key point is this *will* be a pain point for windows users who have
Norton, where the most-logical solution for those users is to *disable*
their Virus Software during the duration of SeaMonkey use.
The most logical solution is for Windows users who have Norton's to 
upgrade to a much better product.  I do not recommend SM promote 
actively other vendors, but state which vendors work best with 
installing, updating, and program operation with SM.




ITA with the above comment... I have never used Norton's products, and 
feel sure SM users can find a suitable replacement ... or work around.

  [And free to boot.]   :)

bj


___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Symantec and SeaMonkey....

[Paul B. Gallagher]

Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:


Hey Guys,

So I have to say, I am quite annoyed with Symantec/Norton at the moment.
...
The key point is this *will* be a pain point for windows users who have
Norton, where the most-logical solution for those users is to *disable*
their Virus Software during the duration of SeaMonkey use. And is
specifically manifests in the following ways:
...


Do we know /which/ Norton we're talking about? I'm willing to believe 
that some Norton software users have a problem, but I'm a Norton user 
and have never had the slightest problem installing any Mozilla product 
(going all the way back to Netscape 4.x). So for me it's an annoyance 
that you're holding up a perfectly good update that I can install 
without difficulty in order to avoid trouble for those other users.


For example, if the issue arises only with certain products or versions, 
that would be useful info to our subscribers.


--
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Symantec and SeaMonkey....

[Michael Gordon]

Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:

Hey Guys,

So I have to say, I am quite annoyed with Symantec/Norton at the moment.
I don't' blame you, I dumped Norton's when I had Win 98SE years ago and 
never went back.
Unfortunately large number of major corporations have been suckered into 
believing Norton's is the best and only AV software available for their 
systems.


Our Beta 2, which has been out for ~ a week, and I submitted the
whitelist request to Norton ~12 hours before the *DAY* of our release,
still is not complete.

This is what happens when a company gets into bed with a Federal Government.



With the release cadence we have/need, the turnaround time on their
whitelisting is completely unacceptable/bad. It completely hurts our
ability to get meaningful data for betas, and hurts our ability to keep
our release users up to date with latest stability/security updates.

My proposal:
* No longer wait for Symantec to indicate that the whitelisting is complete
* Mention it on our known-issues page that Norton can interact badly
with us on occassion
In addition to listing on your download page, also note the AV/Firewall 
applications that work well with SM, FireFox, and ThunderBird.  (Writing 
of the latter two, how do they handle this problem?



* Specifically list the .dll's [by name] it thinks are viruses on our
known-issues page as "ok" and "Norton's fault"
End users may be able to bypass the testing of these files.  (Place them 
into their own white list.)



* Continue to submit whitelisting requests ASAP

That's like blowing smoke up their A**.


* Continue to move forward with getting signed builds out [`may` help
with this]
* Continue to *try* getting a human contact at Norton to see if/when we
can speed up their process or fix this misidentification, and how.

Probably useful if you could find someone who could accept a gift.


The key point is this *will* be a pain point for windows users who have
Norton, where the most-logical solution for those users is to *disable*
their Virus Software during the duration of SeaMonkey use.
The most logical solution is for Windows users who have Norton's to 
upgrade to a much better product.  I do not recommend SM promote 
actively other vendors, but state which vendors work best with 
installing, updating, and program operation with SM.

 And is

specifically manifests in the following ways:
* Quarantines 1-or-2 dll's
* The dll's affect our cryptography ability, in such that them missing
may/could break some https sites from functioning/cause crashes etc. (I
haven't witnessed it, but I also have avoiding us ever shipping in this
case)
* Restoration of the dll's seems to sign/modify them slightly such that
partial updates fail for these users, and end up having to download
updates twice (the second download being our full 20ish MB download).
The option here is to advise users with Norton's to download the full 
version, this would probably require users to wait for the next major 
release version (2.1 to 2.2 to 2.3, etc.)


I am literally treating this as a proposal for the community, we have no
sane way to detect the presence of Norton and delay JUST those updates.
Most Windows users install new programs utilizing the default 
installation options found in the install interface.  Would it not be 
possible to instruct the SM install application to check for the default 
install location looking for Norton?  C:\Program 
Files\Symantec\Norton's.  ?


This is not a vote, and I will take on the final call [unless the
SeaMonkey Council think that they as a whole should make the final
call]. So reasons for/against are appreciated, including "me toos", or
"please no" though I'd appreciate reasons for any of those mails.

With *myself* as a Symantec user as well [in my case because it came
pre-installed on my computer, and I decided to just register/subscribe
rather than fight and try to remove/switch] it is a bad situation to
have to be in, but I feel this is a decision I need community input on,
rather than decided that some subset of our users will have to suffer
due to a larger companies issues.






Hello Justin,

Please refer to my comments in the above sections.

Michael G

--
Armadillo Web Development
www.armadilloweb.com

Cell: 903.244.3644

Opening your Door to Opportunity
and inviting the world to walk through.

Character is doing the right thing...
Even when no one is watching...

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Symantec and SeaMonkey....

[Ed]

http://JonesFarm.us
Powered by SeaMonkey: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/

"Politics is the only business where doing northing other
 than making the other guy look bad is an acceptable outcome."
  -Mark Warner (1954-)
On 12/7/2012 12:51 PM Justin Wood (Callek) submitted the following:
> Hey Guys,
> 
> So I have to say, I am quite annoyed with Symantec/Norton at the moment.
> 
> Our Beta 2, which has been out for ~ a week, and I submitted the
> whitelist request to Norton ~12 hours before the *DAY* of our release,
> still is not complete.
> 
> With the release cadence we have/need, the turnaround time on their
> whitelisting is completely unacceptable/bad. It completely hurts our
> ability to get meaningful data for betas, and hurts our ability to keep
> our release users up to date with latest stability/security updates.
> 
> My proposal:
> * No longer wait for Symantec to indicate that the whitelisting is complete
> * Mention it on our known-issues page that Norton can interact badly
> with us on occassion
> * Specifically list the .dll's [by name] it thinks are viruses on our
> known-issues page as "ok" and "Norton's fault"
> * Continue to submit whitelisting requests ASAP
> * Continue to move forward with getting signed builds out [`may` help
> with this]
> * Continue to *try* getting a human contact at Norton to see if/when we
> can speed up their process or fix this misidentification, and how.
> 
> The key point is this *will* be a pain point for windows users who have
> Norton, where the most-logical solution for those users is to *disable*
> their Virus Software during the duration of SeaMonkey use. And is
> specifically manifests in the following ways:
> * Quarantines 1-or-2 dll's
> * The dll's affect our cryptography ability, in such that them missing
> may/could break some https sites from functioning/cause crashes etc. (I
> haven't witnessed it, but I also have avoiding us ever shipping in this
> case)
> * Restoration of the dll's seems to sign/modify them slightly such that
> partial updates fail for these users, and end up having to download
> updates twice (the second download being our full 20ish MB download).
> 
> I am literally treating this as a proposal for the community, we have no
> sane way to detect the presence of Norton and delay JUST those updates.
> 
> This is not a vote, and I will take on the final call [unless the
> SeaMonkey Council think that they as a whole should make the final
> call]. So reasons for/against are appreciated, including "me toos", or
> "please no" though I'd appreciate reasons for any of those mails.
> 
> With *myself* as a Symantec user as well [in my case because it came
> pre-installed on my computer, and I decided to just register/subscribe
> rather than fight and try to remove/switch] it is a bad situation to
> have to be in, but I feel this is a decision I need community input on,
> rather than decided that some subset of our users will have to suffer
> due to a larger companies issues.
> 

There was a time, long ago, when Peter Norton free lanced not only anti-virus
software but other good ones.  Do we all remember N-DOS?  Great product.  Any
how he sold out to Symantec and the anti-virus product started going down hill.

I quit using it a few years ago.  What a time I and Symantec support had in
trying to remove all the bits and pieces that are left over on a new install and
removal.  Took 3 days on the phone with a tech to get ALL instances and traces
of Norton Antivirus off.  Symantic even returned my money.

Now MS Security Essentials and Avast fill my bill.  That and being very careful
of the sites I visit and e-mail I open.

--
Ed

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Symantec and SeaMonkey....

[GerardJan]

Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:

Hey Guys,

So I have to say, I am quite annoyed with Symantec/Norton at the moment.

Our Beta 2, which has been out for ~ a week, and I submitted the
whitelist request to Norton ~12 hours before the *DAY* of our release,
still is not complete.

With the release cadence we have/need, the turnaround time on their
whitelisting is completely unacceptable/bad. It completely hurts our
ability to get meaningful data for betas, and hurts our ability to keep
our release users up to date with latest stability/security updates.

My proposal:
* No longer wait for Symantec to indicate that the whitelisting is complete
* Mention it on our known-issues page that Norton can interact badly
with us on occassion
* Specifically list the .dll's [by name] it thinks are viruses on our
known-issues page as "ok" and "Norton's fault"
* Continue to submit whitelisting requests ASAP
* Continue to move forward with getting signed builds out [`may` help
with this]
* Continue to *try* getting a human contact at Norton to see if/when we
can speed up their process or fix this misidentification, and how.

The key point is this *will* be a pain point for windows users who have
Norton, where the most-logical solution for those users is to *disable*
their Virus Software during the duration of SeaMonkey use. And is
specifically manifests in the following ways:
* Quarantines 1-or-2 dll's
* The dll's affect our cryptography ability, in such that them missing
may/could break some https sites from functioning/cause crashes etc. (I
haven't witnessed it, but I also have avoiding us ever shipping in this
case)
* Restoration of the dll's seems to sign/modify them slightly such that
partial updates fail for these users, and end up having to download
updates twice (the second download being our full 20ish MB download).

I am literally treating this as a proposal for the community, we have no
sane way to detect the presence of Norton and delay JUST those updates.

This is not a vote, and I will take on the final call [unless the
SeaMonkey Council think that they as a whole should make the final
call]. So reasons for/against are appreciated, including "me toos", or
"please no" though I'd appreciate reasons for any of those mails.

With *myself* as a Symantec user as well [in my case because it came
pre-installed on my computer, and I decided to just register/subscribe
rather than fight and try to remove/switch] it is a bad situation to
have to be in, but I feel this is a decision I need community input on,
rather than decided that some subset of our users will have to suffer
due to a larger companies issues.



I am quite satisfied with BullGuard, take also care for backups on on my 
Windows7 with XP shell...


sincerely,

--
Gérard Vinkesteijn RI
http://vinkesteijn.info
http://ciudadpatricia.com
mailto:g.j.f.vinkeste...@hotmail.es
/* on Linux Fedora version 16, 64bits */

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Symantec and SeaMonkey....

[Philip TAYLOR]

I recommend focussing all of your efforts on the certificate
issue; the lack of a properly signed installer is just as
damaging to the reputation of Seamonkey as any one vendor-
specific anti-virus issue.

Philip Taylor
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey