If I know that an update will going to give me problems I don't install it. The question is that was not known until we did it.
It seems to me to be subrealistic on that the debate centres on my tone, when some users we have had to cut our work and to dedicate our time to solving this problem. I know that for much people this is normal today. They don't know that there were other times when this was not normal. With regard to the methods to avoid the problem, marking like with confidence the affected program, recovering of Norton's backup the erased library, etc ... it's very easy to a personal user say this. But sure that not, if he have to do it in his users under hiw own account and risk, without knowing if it is a question really of a real or false positive. If you do that, you are skipping a program buyed by the user with its own warranty limits, and you are assuminig that you do that under your own responsability. This is... legaly, and monetary possible damages if the library finally is malware. Seems different... ummm ? The problem is why I have to explain this questions. What I have missed is a place, blog, person, declaration... saying... DO IT. OUR LIBRARY IS OK AND YES, IS A FALSE POSOTIVE. So... the only way has been to wait 4 hours the Symantec veredict. ohhh... the tag continued here. But seems that nobody is interested in this: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.support.seamonkey/aqODDufGPeM _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
