-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 ***^\ ."_)~~ ~( __ _"o Was another beautiful day, Sat, 6 Nov 2004, @ @ at 09:57:05 +0100, when Alexander S. Kunz wrote:
>> What is "heavy" for a broadband user? I just downloaded newest version >> of ~4,5 MB, for some 25 minutes on *dial-up*. > Well, if you don't mind - its OK. I wouldn't like it, even though I'm > on a DSL. :) That's why they call you Alexander and me Mica. (-: And I like this. In both directions. Otherwise would be boring. > The whole update process is a bit uncomfortable. You download the > complete installation archive at least twice a month. Yep. Something like this. And for me is not uncomfortable, until I can resume download (but using this way it almost never happens that connection is interrupted for those 20-30 minutes; I don't know why...). > My AV does all that in the background without my interaction. There you see. While I *like* to interact with the contraption. (: > But it isn't free, so thats the deal maybe. :-) Yep. It is, of course, and often, and especially in the world of software. The fact is that the price does not guarantee any quality. If it would be different, I wouldn't buy a Candy freezer for my winter (Native) American turkeys for about 250 Euros, instead Win XP, after I had tried it for a month or so. (-: Man, the freezer is of 110 liters and is full of turkeys (just two of them). I have a winter food, something I can *remember*, and enjoy in. Investing, that way, in software is very risky. And often silly. >> If I would try to update it "online" it would disconnect me countless >> times, or connection will drop in coma, the equal number of times, >> without possibility of resuming so I'd probably have to bequeath this >> "online" update to my progeny, using such a "method". > Yes, their update servers are overloaded very often... which is perfectly > understandable because they preserve their bandwidth for their paying home > & business users. Hmmmmmmmmmm... IMO, *no* AV is that good that should be paid for. >> And above all, I would have firstly to *provide* some progeny. You must >> admit, therefore, that what you subtly foreshadow has no all pros and >> cons modestly equilibrated. (Today, we are string walkers.) > My expectations are different that yours, thats all. I want easy & slim > automatic updates without wading into the depths of the program, activating > some scheduler & adding an event to it to get them automatically first > place, and all that... it must be easy for the end user. You're an > experienced end-user and you don't care to be bothered by long downloads > and manual updates. Thats OK, but there's others who don't think like you. I am all the time aware of it. (: That's the reason we exchange our experiences and each person can choose and apply the preferred way. >>>> There are plenty of good AV programs >>> Actually, there are not. :) Usually less than 50% of tested AV software >>> reach 100% detection rate... >> I wholelungsly suspect that even ONE AV on this beautiful world in this >> part of galaxy can do that. What we read in newspapers mainly does not >> exist. > So you rely on vague statements like "there are plenty of good AV > programs" made on some mailing list? :) Quite contrarily, this statement of mine, I exposed on a mailing list, comes from experience I had with AV programs, which I rely on. > I prefer programs to be tested in an equal environment... that > environment may be different with each test, but it shows performers > and non-performers. Agree. That's the experience. >> "Encrypted channels"? What's that? Teach me. Please. (: > Using an SSL-encrypted POP3 or IMAP connection to your mailserver for > security and/or privacy reasons. Ah, that. OK. Thanks. >> Btw, once a single message is in a message base (files TBB) no AV will be >> able to recognize any virus, since all of them (if attachments are >> stored in same file) are then in plain text format. (-; Catch-22. > Actually, it would be pretty bad for a virus scanner to not recognize > base64 or uu-encoded inline attachments in a message(base). Most do. KAV couldn't, NOD-32 couldn't, PC-Sillyn couldn't, F-prot couldn't... Try this and see yourself. Put a virus file as an attachment in a new message, save it in Outbox, and scan the respective TBB file/the message base. Will show nothing. Check directly out the attachment in TB, and AV will react. I have to throw some turkey slices (from my Candy freezer I bought for about 250 Euros, for my winter [Native] American turkeys, instead Win XP, after I had tried it for a month or so) on the grill now. Hungry. (: You are welcome to participate. (-: - -- Mica PGP key uploaded at: <http://pgp.mit.edu/> once just before breakfast :happypiglet: [Earth LOG: 66 day(s) since v3.0 unleashing] OS: Windows 98 SE Micro Lite Professional IVa Enterprise Millennium with nestled ZipSlack(tm) 9.1 UMSDOS Linux; and, for TB sometimes Libranet (Linux) 2.8.1, via Cross Over Office -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFBjOvT9q62QPd3XuIRAm02AJ4n5ZdF/PqYbUoIIp3hIXPa+cLBygCfeNtD aAblnJ/5hGf83KAwndSNJko= =oVPh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ________________________________________________ Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
