Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #79088 > unrolled thread

spinning beach ball of death

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-08-28 22:35 -0600
    Re: spinning beach ball of death Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-08-29 17:25 +1200
      Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-08-29 09:10 -0600
    Re: spinning beach ball of death Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-28 22:49 -0700
      Re: spinning beach ball of death dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-08-29 16:09 +1000
        Re: spinning beach ball of death Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-08-29 18:55 +1200
          Re: spinning beach ball of death nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-29 07:35 -0400
            Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-08-29 09:56 -0600
              Re: spinning beach ball of death Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-08-29 17:46 +0000
                Re: spinning beach ball of death nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-29 14:17 -0400
                Re: spinning beach ball of death Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-08-30 12:44 +1200
                  Re: spinning beach ball of death nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-29 20:44 -0400
                  Re: spinning beach ball of death Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-30 02:00 +0000
              Re: spinning beach ball of death nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-29 14:17 -0400
                Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-08-29 22:47 -0600
                  Re: spinning beach ball of death Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-29 22:04 -0700
                    Re: spinning beach ball of death nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-30 01:10 -0400
                      Re: spinning beach ball of death Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-30 03:17 -0700
                        Re: spinning beach ball of death Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-08-30 15:09 +0000
                  Re: spinning beach ball of death nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-30 01:07 -0400
                    Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-08-30 11:07 -0600
                      Re: spinning beach ball of death nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-30 13:18 -0400
                        Re: spinning beach ball of death JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-08-30 15:18 -0400
                          Re: spinning beach ball of death nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-30 15:32 -0400
                            Re: spinning beach ball of death JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-08-30 15:51 -0400
                              Re: spinning beach ball of death nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-30 16:01 -0400
                                Re: spinning beach ball of death JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-08-30 20:50 -0400
              Re: spinning beach ball of death Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-08-30 10:17 +1200
                Re: spinning beach ball of death nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-29 18:17 -0400
                Re: spinning beach ball of death Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-29 22:32 +0000
          Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-08-29 09:41 -0600
            Re: spinning beach ball of death Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-08-30 10:12 +1200
              Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-08-30 09:36 -0600
                Re: spinning beach ball of death Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2015-08-30 22:57 -0700
                  Re: spinning beach ball of death Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-31 15:09 +0000
                    Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-08-31 10:00 -0600
                  Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-08-31 09:50 -0600
        Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-08-30 11:02 -0600
      Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-08-29 09:12 -0600
        Re: spinning beach ball of death David Fritzinger <email@domain.com> - 2015-08-29 11:23 -0400
    Re: spinning beach ball of death nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-29 07:35 -0400
      Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-08-29 09:52 -0600
        Re: spinning beach ball of death nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-29 14:17 -0400
          Re: spinning beach ball of death JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-08-29 14:23 -0400
            Re: spinning beach ball of death nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-29 14:31 -0400
              Re: spinning beach ball of death JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-08-29 14:53 -0400
                Re: spinning beach ball of death nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-29 15:06 -0400
            Re: spinning beach ball of death Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-29 19:38 +0000
            Re: spinning beach ball of death Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-08-29 21:47 +0000
          Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-08-30 11:11 -0600
            Re: spinning beach ball of death nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-30 13:18 -0400
              Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-08-30 23:05 -0600
                Re: spinning beach ball of death nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-31 11:53 -0400
                  Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-08-31 10:18 -0600
                    Re: spinning beach ball of death nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-31 12:29 -0400
    Re: spinning beach ball of death J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2015-08-29 18:26 -0400
      Re: spinning beach ball of death nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-29 18:29 -0400
        Re: spinning beach ball of death Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-29 22:43 +0000
          Re: spinning beach ball of death J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2015-08-29 19:43 -0400
      Re: spinning beach ball of death Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-29 22:41 +0000
        Re: spinning beach ball of death Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-29 22:45 +0000
    Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-09-02 16:58 -0600
      Re: spinning beach ball of death Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-09-02 16:25 -0700
        Re: spinning beach ball of death J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2015-09-02 19:55 -0400
        Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-09-02 18:14 -0600
          Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-09-02 20:14 -0600
        Re: spinning beach ball of death Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-09-03 13:15 +1200
          Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-09-02 19:48 -0600
      Re: spinning beach ball of death dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-09-03 12:48 +1200
        Re: spinning beach ball of death Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-03 01:10 +0000
        Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-09-02 20:12 -0600
          Re: spinning beach ball of death nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-02 22:22 -0400
            Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-09-02 20:27 -0600
              Re: spinning beach ball of death nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-02 22:32 -0400
                Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-09-02 20:37 -0600
                  Re: spinning beach ball of death nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-02 22:48 -0400
                    Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-09-02 21:58 -0600
                      Re: spinning beach ball of death JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-09-03 02:01 -0400
                        Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-09-03 20:18 -0600
                      Re: spinning beach ball of death Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2015-09-04 18:27 -0700
                  Re: spinning beach ball of death Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-09-02 19:55 -0700
                    Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-09-02 21:53 -0600
                      Re: spinning beach ball of death Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-03 04:03 +0000
                        Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-09-03 20:41 -0600
                          Re: spinning beach ball of death Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-04 03:36 +0000
                  Re: spinning beach ball of death Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-03 04:01 +0000
                    Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-09-03 20:43 -0600
                      Re: spinning beach ball of death Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-04 03:44 +0000
                  Re: spinning beach ball of death Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-09-03 16:15 +1200
                    Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-09-03 20:47 -0600
              Re: spinning beach ball of death Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-03 03:59 +0000
                Re: spinning beach ball of death nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-03 00:01 -0400
                  Re: spinning beach ball of death Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-03 04:04 +0000
                  Re: spinning beach ball of death Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-09-03 12:21 -0400
                    Re: spinning beach ball of death Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-03 16:55 +0000
                      Re: spinning beach ball of death Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-09-03 14:35 -0400
                        Re: spinning beach ball of death David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> - 2015-09-03 21:26 -0500
                    Re: spinning beach ball of death Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-09-04 08:52 +1200
                    Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-09-03 21:11 -0600
                      Re: spinning beach ball of death nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-03 23:49 -0400
                  Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-09-03 20:50 -0600
                    Re: spinning beach ball of death nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-03 23:49 -0400
                      Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-09-04 09:45 -0600
                        Re: spinning beach ball of death Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-04 15:56 +0000
                        Re: spinning beach ball of death nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-04 13:00 -0400
                        Re: spinning beach ball of death Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-09-04 22:44 +0100
                          Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-09-04 17:13 -0600
                            Re: spinning beach ball of death Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-09-05 12:10 +1200
                              Re: spinning beach ball of death Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-09-05 08:29 +0100
                            Re: spinning beach ball of death Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-05 15:04 +0000
                              Re: spinning beach ball of death Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2015-09-05 11:03 -0700
                                Re: spinning beach ball of death Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-06 02:34 +0000
                        Re: spinning beach ball of death dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-09-05 10:09 +1000
                          Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-09-04 18:23 -0600
                            Re: spinning beach ball of death dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-09-05 10:33 +1000
                Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-09-03 20:48 -0600
                  Re: spinning beach ball of death nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-03 23:49 -0400
                  Re: spinning beach ball of death Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-09-04 18:20 +1200
                    Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-09-04 09:21 -0600
            Re: spinning beach ball of death Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-03 03:58 +0000
          Re: spinning beach ball of death Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-03 03:57 +0000
      Re: spinning beach ball of death JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-09-02 21:35 -0400
        Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-09-02 20:24 -0600
      Re: spinning beach ball of death nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-02 22:22 -0400
    Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-10-29 09:29 -0600
      Re: spinning beach ball of death Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-30 05:09 +0000
        Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-10-30 02:49 -0600
          Re: spinning beach ball of death Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-30 09:40 +0000
            Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-10-30 08:21 -0600
              Re: spinning beach ball of death nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-30 10:39 -0400
                Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-10-30 09:08 -0600
                  Re: spinning beach ball of death nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-30 11:13 -0400
                    Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-10-30 09:41 -0600
                      Re: spinning beach ball of death Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-10-30 18:14 +0000
                      Re: spinning beach ball of death Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-30 20:42 -0700
          Re: spinning beach ball of death nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-30 10:39 -0400
            Re: spinning beach ball of death Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> - 2015-10-30 09:39 -0600

Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7  Next page →

#79487

In article <ms8bp3$g0f$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
<wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:

> Did you not read and comprehend my second paragraph?  No AV software
> catches 100% of viruses.  And AFAIK, everyone I communicate with does
> run AV software, but it's not my place to tell them which one to use,
> or how to use it.
> 
> >>> nearly all windows users use anti-malware, so even if you did
> >>> pass something along, it will be blocked.
> >>
> >> Assuming the AV software the recipient is using recognizes/catches
> >> the infection.  Since none of them are perfect...    :-)
> >
> > so?
> >
> > do you really expect a mac antivirus app to catch all windows
> > malware?
> 
> The AV software I run checks for both Mac and Windows malware.

As you said, it doesn't catch all of them, so even if you use it, you
still might pass along malware.

Personally, I don't pass along attachments unless I *know* that there's
no malware in them.  They're very easy to catch manually.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79488

On 9/2/15 8:55 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <ms8bp3$g0f$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
> <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>
>> Did you not read and comprehend my second paragraph?  No AV software
>> catches 100% of viruses.  And AFAIK, everyone I communicate with does
>> run AV software, but it's not my place to tell them which one to use,
>> or how to use it.
>>
>>>>> nearly all windows users use anti-malware, so even if you did
>>>>> pass something along, it will be blocked.
>>>>
>>>> Assuming the AV software the recipient is using recognizes/catches
>>>> the infection.  Since none of them are perfect...    :-)
>>>
>>> so?
>>>
>>> do you really expect a mac antivirus app to catch all windows
>>> malware?
>>
>> The AV software I run checks for both Mac and Windows malware.
>
> As you said, it doesn't catch all of them, so even if you use it, you
> still might pass along malware.

But at least I can have a clear conscience that I tried.  :-)

> Personally, I don't pass along attachments unless I *know* that there's
> no malware in them.  They're very easy to catch manually.
>


-- 
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 36.0.4
Thunderbird 31.5
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
      and it's gone!"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79495

On 2015-09-03, Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
> On 9/2/15 8:55 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>> In article <ms8bp3$g0f$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
>> <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Did you not read and comprehend my second paragraph?  No AV software
>>> catches 100% of viruses.  And AFAIK, everyone I communicate with does
>>> run AV software, but it's not my place to tell them which one to use,
>>> or how to use it.
>>>
>>>>>> nearly all windows users use anti-malware, so even if you did
>>>>>> pass something along, it will be blocked.
>>>>>
>>>>> Assuming the AV software the recipient is using recognizes/catches
>>>>> the infection.  Since none of them are perfect...    :-)
>>>>
>>>> so?
>>>>
>>>> do you really expect a mac antivirus app to catch all windows
>>>> malware?
>>>
>>> The AV software I run checks for both Mac and Windows malware.
>>
>> As you said, it doesn't catch all of them, so even if you use it, you
>> still might pass along malware.
>
> But at least I can have a clear conscience that I tried.  :-)

At the expense of CPU, memory, and time, sure. Question for you:

How many times, exactly, has your Mac anti-virus utility prevented you
from forwarding an attachment to a friend?

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79505

On 9/2/15 10:03 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2015-09-03, Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>> On 9/2/15 8:55 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>> In article <ms8bp3$g0f$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
>>> <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Did you not read and comprehend my second paragraph?  No AV software
>>>> catches 100% of viruses.  And AFAIK, everyone I communicate with does
>>>> run AV software, but it's not my place to tell them which one to use,
>>>> or how to use it.
>>>>
>>>>>>> nearly all windows users use anti-malware, so even if you did
>>>>>>> pass something along, it will be blocked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Assuming the AV software the recipient is using recognizes/catches
>>>>>> the infection.  Since none of them are perfect...    :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> so?
>>>>>
>>>>> do you really expect a mac antivirus app to catch all windows
>>>>> malware?
>>>>
>>>> The AV software I run checks for both Mac and Windows malware.
>>>
>>> As you said, it doesn't catch all of them, so even if you use it, you
>>> still might pass along malware.
>>
>> But at least I can have a clear conscience that I tried.  :-)
>
> At the expense of CPU, memory, and time, sure.

Do you really keep track of this kind of stuff in a ledger?  Why would 
you even care?  For as little time it takes, the computer is still 
faster than I can think.

> Question for you:
>
> How many times, exactly, has your Mac anti-virus utility prevented you
> from forwarding an attachment to a friend?

Forwarding an attachment, no.  Infections, now and again.  Were they Mac 
or Windows infections?  Don't know, don't give a f***, just want it gone.



-- 
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 36.0.4
Thunderbird 31.5
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
      and it's gone!"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79511

On 2015-09-04, Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
> On 9/2/15 10:03 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2015-09-03, Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/2/15 8:55 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>> In article <ms8bp3$g0f$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
>>>> <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Did you not read and comprehend my second paragraph?  No AV software
>>>>> catches 100% of viruses.  And AFAIK, everyone I communicate with does
>>>>> run AV software, but it's not my place to tell them which one to use,
>>>>> or how to use it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> nearly all windows users use anti-malware, so even if you did
>>>>>>>> pass something along, it will be blocked.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Assuming the AV software the recipient is using recognizes/catches
>>>>>>> the infection.  Since none of them are perfect...    :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> do you really expect a mac antivirus app to catch all windows
>>>>>> malware?
>>>>>
>>>>> The AV software I run checks for both Mac and Windows malware.
>>>>
>>>> As you said, it doesn't catch all of them, so even if you use it, you
>>>> still might pass along malware.
>>>
>>> But at least I can have a clear conscience that I tried.  :-)
>>
>> At the expense of CPU, memory, and time, sure.
>
> Do you really keep track of this kind of stuff in a ledger?  Why would 
> you even care?  For as little time it takes, the computer is still 
> faster than I can think.

I've personally seen anti-virus software cause system issues including
spinning beach ball cursors and other things, so yeah.

>> Question for you:
>>
>> How many times, exactly, has your Mac anti-virus utility prevented you
>> from forwarding an attachment to a friend?
>
> Forwarding an attachment, no.  Infections, now and again.  Were they Mac 
> or Windows infections?  Don't know, don't give a f***, just want it gone.

Sounds more like you *assumed* they were infections without actually
knowing. Ignorance is bliss?

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79493

On 2015-09-03, Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>
> The AV software I run checks for both Mac and Windows malware.

You assume, yes. You know what they say about assumptions.

What a waste of time. Let your Windows-using friends worry about their
own systems, sheesh.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79506

On 9/2/15 10:01 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2015-09-03, Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>>
>> The AV software I run checks for both Mac and Windows malware.
>
> You assume, yes. You know what they say about assumptions.

Apparently, you assume the opposite?  Why is that?  Any proof?

> What a waste of time. Let your Windows-using friends worry about their
> own systems, sheesh.

Obviously, you don't care about your friends, only yourself.  Small 
mind, small man.


-- 
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 36.0.4
Thunderbird 31.5
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
      and it's gone!"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79512

On 2015-09-04, Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
> On 9/2/15 10:01 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2015-09-03, Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The AV software I run checks for both Mac and Windows malware.
>>
>> You assume, yes. You know what they say about assumptions.
>
> Apparently, you assume the opposite?  Why is that?  Any proof?

I don't assume either way, and I have seen tests showing that they often
miss active malware.

>> What a waste of time. Let your Windows-using friends worry about their
>> own systems, sheesh.
>
> Obviously, you don't care about your friends, only yourself.  Small 
> mind, small man.

No, I just don't make a habit of forwarding just any old bullshit on to
others. If I don't trust it, I'm not about to send it to someone else.
That would be silly. ; )

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79497

In article <ms8bp3$g0f$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
<wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
> On 9/2/15 8:32 PM, nospam wrote:
> > In article <ms8b64$f3n$2@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
> > <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>> I always have.  I'm not worried about my Mac, but I don't want someone
> >>>> sending me an infected file, likely with a Windows virus, and I
> >>>> unwittingly send the file on to someone else.
> >>>
> >>> why should you run anti-virus software that can compromise the
> >>> performance and stability of your system only to block malware for
> >>> *other* people?
> >>
> >> Because they are my friends and relatives.  And I care if I pass along a
> >> virus, which I guess you don't.  :-)
> >
> > if you care that much, install antivirus software on their system.
> 
> Did you not read and comprehend my second paragraph?  
<snip>

As you've already found out, "nospam" is a brainless moron who can't
read, let alone have any comprehension skills. The idiot is best put in
your newsreader's fillfile / filter to be ignored.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79507

On 9/2/15 10:15 PM, Your Name wrote:
> In article <ms8bp3$g0f$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
> <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>> On 9/2/15 8:32 PM, nospam wrote:
>>> In article <ms8b64$f3n$2@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
>>> <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> I always have.  I'm not worried about my Mac, but I don't want someone
>>>>>> sending me an infected file, likely with a Windows virus, and I
>>>>>> unwittingly send the file on to someone else.
>>>>>
>>>>> why should you run anti-virus software that can compromise the
>>>>> performance and stability of your system only to block malware for
>>>>> *other* people?
>>>>
>>>> Because they are my friends and relatives.  And I care if I pass along a
>>>> virus, which I guess you don't.  :-)
>>>
>>> if you care that much, install antivirus software on their system.
>>
>> Did you not read and comprehend my second paragraph?
> <snip>
>
> As you've already found out, "nospam" is a brainless moron who can't
> read, let alone have any comprehension skills. The idiot is best put in
> your newsreader's fillfile / filter to be ignored.

Along with a couple others here, I'm sure many readers have them killfiled.

But I don't believe in killfiling, as every once in a blue moon, one of 
them will actually say something I need to know.  nospam actually helped 
me a couple of times with a truly serious discussion.

If they are in a BS, waste your time mode, I'll either ignore them, or 
waste their time.   LOL  You'll notice that in this thread.


-- 
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 36.0.4
Thunderbird 31.5
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
      and it's gone!"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79492

On 2015-09-03, Ken Springer <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
> On 9/2/15 8:22 PM, nospam wrote:
>> In article <ms8a9q$e0m$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
>> <wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> I've never run AV software regularly on my Macs. Once or twice I've
>>>> installed some and done a one-off pass to check that I hadn't picked up
>>>> anything. It only found a few old email attachments (which were Windows
>>>> malware anyway), and an inert copy I had deliberately kept of one piece
>>>> of Mac-specific malware that had infected the Mac of someone I know (one
>>>> of the variants of the so-called "Flashback" malware from around 2011 or
>>>> 2012).
>>>
>>> I always have.  I'm not worried about my Mac, but I don't want someone
>>> sending me an infected file, likely with a Windows virus, and I
>>> unwittingly send the file on to someone else.
>>
>> why should you run anti-virus software that can compromise the
>> performance and stability of your system only to block malware for
>> *other* people?
>
> Because they are my friends and relatives.  And I care if I pass along a 
> virus, which I guess you don't.  :-)
>
>> nearly all windows users use anti-malware, so even if you did pass
>> something along, it will be blocked.
>
> Assuming the AV software the recipient is using recognizes/catches the 
> infection.  Since none of them are perfect...    :-)

You are assuming *your* *Mac*-based anti-virus software detects Windows
malware, sure. How silly.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79494

In article <d4putjFrrc5U3@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> >> nearly all windows users use anti-malware, so even if you did pass
> >> something along, it will be blocked.
> >
> > Assuming the AV software the recipient is using recognizes/catches the 
> > infection.  Since none of them are perfect...    :-)
> 
> You are assuming *your* *Mac*-based anti-virus software detects Windows
> malware, sure. How silly.

some do, but not all that effectively because there's no need. it's a
checklist item. 

meanwhile, the mac is worse off.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79496

On 2015-09-03, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <d4putjFrrc5U3@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> >> nearly all windows users use anti-malware, so even if you did pass
>> >> something along, it will be blocked.
>> >
>> > Assuming the AV software the recipient is using recognizes/catches the 
>> > infection.  Since none of them are perfect...    :-)
>> 
>> You are assuming *your* *Mac*-based anti-virus software detects Windows
>> malware, sure. How silly.
>
> some do, but not all that effectively because there's no need. it's a
> checklist item. 

Indeed, and that's my point.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79499

On 9/3/15 12:01 a, nospam wrote:
> In article <d4putjFrrc5U3@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>>> nearly all windows users use anti-malware, so even if you did pass
>>>> something along, it will be blocked.
>>>
>>> Assuming the AV software the recipient is using recognizes/catches the
>>> infection.  Since none of them are perfect...    :-)
>>
>> You are assuming *your* *Mac*-based anti-virus software detects Windows
>> malware, sure. How silly.
>
> some do, but not all that effectively because there's no need. it's a
> checklist item.
>
> meanwhile, the mac is worse off.

Ken, I applaud your intention to not pass on 'Doze viruses to your 'Doze 
using friends. However, all major AV apps enable realtime, background 
scanning of your hard drive or at least certain folders by default. We 
all agree this can have a negative affect on your Mac's performance.

A workaround, which is only slightly clunky, is to set your AV software 
to scan your drive every night before you go to bed. You can do this 
manually or perhaps write an Applescript to do it. Since a complete scan 
of today's large hard drives can take many _hours_, it's not something 
you want to do while using the machine.

Personally, I recommend ClamXAV for this purpose. Just turn off its 
auto-scanning when you install it. It used to be free but is now 
$30--well worth the money if you're going to run AV software. It's virus 
definitions are updated almost daily and include 'Doze malware as well 
as Mac.

-- 
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
      --from Emma Lazarus, The New Colossus, Statue of Liberty

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79500

On 2015-09-03, Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:
>
> Personally, I recommend ClamXAV for this purpose. Just turn off its 
> auto-scanning when you install it. It used to be free but is now 
> $30--well worth the money if you're going to run AV software. It's virus 
> definitions are updated almost daily and include 'Doze malware as well 
> as Mac.

And yet it still misses tons of active malware:

<http://www.reedcorner.net/mac-av-detection-rates/>

I wouldn't pay for it, personally. But then I wouldn't pay for *any* of
them.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79501

On 9/3/15 12:55 p, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2015-09-03, Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:
>>
>> Personally, I recommend ClamXAV for this purpose. Just turn off its
>> auto-scanning when you install it. It used to be free but is now
>> $30--well worth the money if you're going to run AV software. It's virus
>> definitions are updated almost daily and include 'Doze malware as well
>> as Mac.
>
> And yet it still misses tons of active malware:
>
> <http://www.reedcorner.net/mac-av-detection-rates/>
>
> I wouldn't pay for it, personally. But then I wouldn't pay for *any* of
> them.

Well, I still have the free version on OS 10.9.5. I won't upgrade unless 
I have to for 10.10 or 10.11. I only run it pro forma once or twice a 
year. Since Ken is intent on running _something_ to shield 'Doze users, 
I'd still go with CalmXAV. Best bang for the buck.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79504

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message

On Thursday, 03 September 2015 14:35 -0400, 
 in article <msa3q0$obn$1@dont-email.me>, 
 Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:

> On 9/3/15 12:55 p, Jolly Roger wrote:

>> On 2015-09-03, Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:

>>> Personally, I recommend ClamXAV for this purpose. Just turn off 
>>> its auto-scanning when you install it. It used to be free but is 
>>> now $30--well worth the money if you're going to run AV software. 
>>> It's virus definitions are updated almost daily and include 'Doze 
>>> malware as well as Mac.

>> And yet it still misses tons of active malware:

s/tons of/most

>> <http://www.reedcorner.net/mac-av-detection-rates/>

>> I wouldn't pay for it, personally. But then I wouldn't pay for *any* of
>> them.

> Well, I still have the free version on OS 10.9.5. I won't upgrade 
> unless I have to for 10.10 or 10.11. I only run it pro forma once or 
> twice a year. Since Ken is intent on running _something_ to shield 
> 'Doze users, I'd still go with CalmXAV. Best bang for the buck.

If one actually wants run a free AV product, which does a reasonably 
decent job of identifying malware, which is free and runs on any OS X 
from 10.6 on up, I'd strongly recommend Sophos Anti-Virus Home Edition.  
The current version is 9.4.0.

<https://www.sophos.com/en-us/products/free-tools/sophos-antivirus-for-mac-home-edition.aspx>

Sophos has the advantage of including command-line tools, which is how 
I personally use it in most instances.

I'd estimate the savosx_he_r package is somewhere around three to four 
times more likely to identify malware than ClamAV, whether its the 
cute GUI mentioned in this thread or the CLI version that is free and 
available from clamav.net.  (Build and install it yourself or use one 
of the CLI package managers to do so for you.

(   $ port list clamav
(   clamav                         @0.98.7         sysutils/clamav
(
(   $ fink list clamav
(   Information about 11418 packages read in 6 seconds.
(        clamav           0.98.7-2     Clam Anti-Virus scanner
(        clamav-daemon    0.98.7-2     ClamAV daemon
(        clamav-dev                    [virtual package]
(        clamav7-dev      0.98.7-2     Developer files for ClamAV
(        clamav7-shlibs   0.98.7-2     Shared libraries for ClamAV)

BTW -- I run both, although I've yet to do a full disk scan or run any 
automated scans with either.

    $ /usr/local/bin/sweep --version
    Sophos Anti-Virus
    Copyright (c) 1989-2015 Sophos Plc. All rights reserved.

    System time 20:34:46, System date 03 September 2015

    Product version           : 9.4.0
    Engine version            : 3.61.0
    Virus data version        : 5.18
    User interface version    : 2.07.361
    Platform                  : Darwin/AMD64
    Released                  : 18 August 2015
    Total viruses (with IDEs) : 9732855

    $ /usr/local/bin/clamscan --version
    ClamAV 0.99-beta1/20874/Thu Sep  3 15:49:32 2015

$ /Applications/Server.app/Contents/ServerRoot/usr/bin/clamscan --version
ClamAV 0.98.6

    $ clamscan 0000802734.zip
=>  0000802734.zip: OK
    
    ----------- SCAN SUMMARY -----------
    Known viruses: 5993268
    Engine version: 0.99-beta1
    Scanned directories: 0
    Scanned files: 1
=>  Infected files: 0
    Data scanned: 0.02 MB
    Data read: 0.00 MB (ratio 0.00:1)
    Time: 17.185 sec (0 m 17 s)

    $ sweep 0000802734.zip
=>  >>> Virus 'JS/DwnLdr-MON' found in file 0000802734.zip

<https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/6635ddb2ec58d82bf002d57b6dcc6b27b5a160299fd2b281695312a22c574989/analysis/1441333355/>

-- 
David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com>
 Be kind to animals; kiss a shark.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAlXpAUEACgkQUrwpmRoS3uueIQCeNwATBRMJ48wp++AQx3i5SUAh
wKkAn3FzFqtfotKeKPNj8SdU2q0br0Jl
=cWpi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79502

In article <ms9ru4$lng$1@dont-email.me>, Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org>
wrote:
> 
> Ken, I applaud your intention to not pass on 'Doze viruses to your 'Doze 
> using friends. However, all major AV apps enable realtime, background 
> scanning of your hard drive or at least certain folders by default. We 
> all agree this can have a negative affect on your Mac's performance.
> 
> A workaround, which is only slightly clunky, is to set your AV software 
> to scan your drive every night before you go to bed. You can do this 
> manually or perhaps write an Applescript to do it. Since a complete scan 
> of today's large hard drives can take many _hours_, it's not something 
> you want to do while using the machine.
> 
> Personally, I recommend ClamXAV for this purpose. Just turn off its 
> auto-scanning when you install it. It used to be free but is now 
> $30--well worth the money if you're going to run AV software. It's virus 
> definitions are updated almost daily and include 'Doze malware as well 
> as Mac.

That pretty much ignores his reason for wanting to use silly anti-virus
software in the first place, and makes it even more pointless using it.
If he gets a Windoze-virus-infested email and forwards it to his
Windoze using friends then and there, the overnight check will be far
too late.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79510

On 9/3/15 10:21 AM, Fred Moore wrote:
> On 9/3/15 12:01 a, nospam wrote:
>> In article <d4putjFrrc5U3@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
>> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> nearly all windows users use anti-malware, so even if you did pass
>>>>> something along, it will be blocked.
>>>>
>>>> Assuming the AV software the recipient is using recognizes/catches the
>>>> infection.  Since none of them are perfect...    :-)
>>>
>>> You are assuming *your* *Mac*-based anti-virus software detects Windows
>>> malware, sure. How silly.
>>
>> some do, but not all that effectively because there's no need. it's a
>> checklist item.
>>
>> meanwhile, the mac is worse off.
>
> Ken, I applaud your intention to not pass on 'Doze viruses to your 'Doze
> using friends.

Thank you.

> However, all major AV apps enable realtime, background
> scanning of your hard drive or at least certain folders by default. We
> all agree this can have a negative affect on your Mac's performance.

Agreed on AV general operation.  But I'm not sure all of them 
continuously scan every thing.  What's the point?  Put guards on all the 
doors, and once in, there's little to worry about.  One exception would 
be zip files that get opened, another would be expanding an installation 
package, etc.  There's no need to scan the same file each time it's 
updated by the user, or move from here to there and back again.

To me, AV software is like the safety program at work.  Yes, safety 
slows things down, but one disaster overlooked can be very costly in 
time and money.  I prefer the safety.  :-)  Obviously, others do not.

It's not that Macs are immune, they are not.  They just aren't a large 
target.  Heck, there's even a few Linux viruses out there if you go look.

> A workaround, which is only slightly clunky, is to set your AV software
> to scan your drive every night before you go to bed. You can do this
> manually or perhaps write an Applescript to do it. Since a complete scan
> of today's large hard drives can take many _hours_, it's not something
> you want to do while using the machine.

Somewhere in this thread, and I can't find it right now, someone 
mentioned that this method doesn't prevent me from getting some piece of 
malware and sending it on before the nightly scan.

> Personally, I recommend ClamXAV for this purpose. Just turn off its
> auto-scanning when you install it. It used to be free but is now
> $30--well worth the money if you're going to run AV software. It's virus
> definitions are updated almost daily and include 'Doze malware as well
> as Mac.

Since you may have a particular poster killfiled, I'll repost this 
link... 
https://www.av-test.org/en/news/news-single-view/mac-os-x-under-attack-10-security-packages-put-to-the-test/

ClamXAV does not score too well.  This site and Virus Bulletin I check 
from time to time to see how things may have changed.  No program is 
perfect, and the positions in the lists change.  Which I would expect, 
since the bad guys will always be ahead of the good guys.

Years ago, I used ClamXAV when it was the only AV program I could find 
that was still supporting Windows 98.  That machine is long gone.

-- 
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 36.0.4
Thunderbird 31.5
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
      and it's gone!"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79515

In article <msb258$iuq$1@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
<wordworks@greeleynet.com> wrote:

> It's not that Macs are immune, they are not. They just aren't a large 
> target.  Heck, there's even a few Linux viruses out there if you go look.

actually, macs a *huge* target because apple is very popular and it's
instant fame among hackers to be the one that pwns a lot of macs.

with windows, it's yea whatever, anyone can do that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web