Hello Vladimir Mincev,
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000 00:33:23 +0200 GMT your local time,
which was Sunday, September 03, 2000, 5:33:23 AM (GMT+0700) my local time,
Vladimir Mincev wrote:
> Hello Warren,
> Saturday, September 02, 2000, 10:23:05 PM, you wrote:
W>> Does it, really? I tested it by sending myself copies of the "love
W>> letter" and "very funny" viruses from another machine as binary
W>> attachments. NAV2K did, indeed, scan the incoming emails, but it did
W>> not alert me to their contents until I attempted to save the
W>> attachments. Only when I sent them as text attachments or in the body
W>> of the email did NAV2K detect them and, no matter which option I chose
W>> (repair attachment, delete, quarantine), The Bat's "retrieving mail
W>> from server" pop-up box would stay open and The Bat would hang. I
W>> could close the box, but The Bat would still hang. I'd have to close
W>> the program, turn off email scanning, and restart.
> Well NAV is known as very stupid anti-virus program which has very low
> possibilities for finding new (cloned) viruses. It's heruistic methods
> are bad. Same performace is with McAfee. Again I suggest AVP!
same performance isnt surprising since Mcafee nicked part of the
Symantec code before they bought Dr Solomons.... and the Av part
wasnt the only sw Symantec found pieces of their code.
Best regards,
tracer
--
Using theBAT 1.46 Beta/3 with Windows NT
mail to : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am using FireTalk: 321338
ICQ: on request
Website: www.phuketcomputers.com
Our special website hosting/mailservers are now operational
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed as : [email protected]
