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

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #157351 > unrolled thread

recommended free email?

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  recommended free email? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-22 10:16 -0800
    Re: recommended free email? philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-01-22 12:59 -0600
      Re: recommended free email? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-22 19:05 +0000
      Re: recommended free email? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-22 14:23 -0500
    Re: recommended free email? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-22 13:32 -0600
      Re: recommended free email? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-22 20:31 +0000
        Re: recommended free email? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-22 17:10 -0600
          Re: recommended free email? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-22 19:09 -0500
    Re: recommended free email? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-22 15:45 -0500
      Re: recommended free email? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-22 21:19 +0000
    Re: recommended free email? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-22 14:49 -0600
      Re: recommended free email? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-23 04:58 +0000
    Re: recommended free email? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-22 22:52 +0000
      Re: recommended free email? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-01-27 14:57 -0600
        Re: recommended free email? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-27 21:47 +0000
    Re: recommended free email? "kipg" <io@nospam.com> - 2016-01-23 12:58 +1100
      Re: recommended free email? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-23 10:57 -0500
        Re: recommended free email? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-23 16:49 +0000
          Re: recommended free email? "kipg" <io@nospam.com> - 2016-01-24 04:42 +1100
          Re: recommended free email? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-23 20:24 +0000
        Re: recommended free email? "kipg" <io@nospam.com> - 2016-01-24 04:34 +1100
        Re: recommended free email? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-01-27 15:00 -0600
          Re: recommended free email? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-27 17:22 -0600
            Re: recommended free email? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-28 11:46 -0500
              Re: recommended free email? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2016-01-31 13:36 +0000
                Re: recommended free email? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-31 11:03 -0500
                  Re: recommended free email? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2016-01-31 17:29 +0000
    Re: recommended free email? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-23 09:25 +0000
    Re: recommended free email? David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 10:31 +0000
      Re: recommended free email? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-23 13:54 +0000
        Re: recommended free email? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-23 14:58 +0000
          Re: recommended free email? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-23 15:35 +0000
            Re: recommended free email? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-23 16:04 +0000
        Re: recommended free email? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-23 16:42 +0000
          Re: recommended free email? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 13:39 -0500
        Re: recommended free email? David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 00:43 +0000
          Re: recommended free email? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-24 10:56 +0000
            Re: recommended free email? David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 16:27 +0000
              Re: recommended free email? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-24 16:34 +0000
            Re: recommended free email? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-24 11:53 -0600
              Re: recommended free email? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-25 08:22 +0000
                Re: recommended free email? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-25 11:25 +0000
                Re: recommended free email? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-25 13:32 +0100
              Re: recommended free email? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-25 11:21 +0000
                Re: recommended free email? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-25 14:18 +0000
                  Re: recommended free email? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-25 09:54 -0800
                    Re: recommended free email? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-25 13:56 -0600
                      Re: recommended free email? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-26 08:10 -0800
                        Re: recommended free email? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 12:07 -0600
                          Re: recommended free email? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-26 13:32 -0500
                            Re: recommended free email? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-01-27 15:15 -0600
                              Re: recommended free email? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-28 10:33 -0800
                                Re: recommended free email? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-28 20:57 +0000
                                  Re: recommended free email? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-28 21:47 +0000
                                    Re: recommended free email? RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2016-02-06 20:20 +0300
                              Re: recommended free email? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-28 20:50 +0000
                          Re: recommended free email? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-26 11:06 -0800
                            Re: recommended free email? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-26 16:13 -0600
                              Re: recommended free email? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 21:32 -0600
                            Re: recommended free email? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 21:20 -0600
                          Re: recommended free email? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 19:19 -0500
                    Re: recommended free email? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-25 15:45 -0600
                    Re: recommended free email? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-25 22:24 +0000
                    Re: recommended free email? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-01-27 15:11 -0600
                  Re: recommended free email? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-25 18:14 +0000
    Re: recommended free email? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2016-01-23 18:42 +0000

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

#157598

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 11:53:38 -0600, Dave Garland 
<dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>
> Ghostery, uBlock, Flashblock, and NoScript (which does break a lot of 
> websites, but at least lets me select who gets to run Javascript on my 
> computer).

In the good(?) old days when this ad nonsense first started I used to
run wwwoffle on my server and maintained my own list of adslingers.
Wwwoffle replaced requested files with one containing a single
transparent pixel so those sites that checked to see if the ad had
been received were fooled.

Might revisit that idea...

-- 
Stan Barr     plan.b@bluesomatic.org

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

#157601

On 2016-01-25, Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 11:53:38 -0600, Dave Garland 
><dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Ghostery, uBlock, Flashblock, and NoScript (which does break a lot of 
>> websites, but at least lets me select who gets to run Javascript on my 
>> computer).
>
> In the good(?) old days when this ad nonsense first started I used to
> run wwwoffle on my server and maintained my own list of adslingers.
> Wwwoffle replaced requested files with one containing a single
> transparent pixel so those sites that checked to see if the ad had
> been received were fooled.
>
> Might revisit that idea...

I run dnsmasq, which pretends to be a DNS server, to serve name
resolution to my home network, then you can install a hosts file on the
dnsmasq machine to redirect stuff wherever you like. My hosts file has
~17000 entries, mostly redirecting advert sites to localhost. You can
download good starter files. Doing it like this means you only need
maintain the file in one place.

-- 
Today is Setting Orange, the 25th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3182
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

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

#157602

In article <slrnnabmpm.8ul.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de>,
Stan Barr  <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 11:53:38 -0600, Dave Garland 
><dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Ghostery, uBlock, Flashblock, and NoScript (which does break a lot of 
>> websites, but at least lets me select who gets to run Javascript on my 
>> computer).
>
>In the good(?) old days when this ad nonsense first started I used to
>run wwwoffle on my server and maintained my own list of adslingers.
>Wwwoffle replaced requested files with one containing a single
>transparent pixel so those sites that checked to see if the ad had
>been received were fooled.
>
>Might revisit that idea...

Try bfilter, from the ports collection in *bsd's. This is a program
that runs as a proxy, and evaluates the various web objects for security.

You can have it disallow java and javascript from any set of hosts, 
or you can disallow video etc. It goes by mime-type and hosts. It also
scans for signatures of malware, but you have to provide the signature
files. It replaces filtered objects with dummy ones. You can have the
dummy ones be paintings etc. (but you have to provide them).

I regularly send notices to the websites complaining about my use of
bfilter telling them to straighten up their security and then the ads will
show, automatically. It is the malware signatures that take out the
largest number; and I have a cron job that disables anything but plain
html and text from sites where I have logged malware from.

It does this with an amazing number of sites that should otherwise be
trusted. 

-- mrr

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

#157600

On 2016-01-24, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:

[28 lines snipped]

> Ghostery, uBlock, Flashblock, and NoScript (which does break a lot of 
> websites, but at least lets me select who gets to run Javascript on my 
> computer).
>
> I've seen multiple people get drive-by malware from Yahoo in 
> particular, via syndicated adverts with payloads. I expect the ads 
> were clean when they were placed, and had the malware inserted later, 
> after the ad was running.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising


-- 
Today is Setting Orange, the 25th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3182
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

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

#157615

On 25 Jan 2016 11:21:12 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

>On 2016-01-24, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>
>[28 lines snipped]
>
>> Ghostery, uBlock, Flashblock, and NoScript (which does break a lot of 
>> websites, but at least lets me select who gets to run Javascript on my 
>> computer).
>>
>> I've seen multiple people get drive-by malware from Yahoo in 
>> particular, via syndicated adverts with payloads. I expect the ads 
>> were clean when they were placed, and had the malware inserted later, 
>> after the ad was running.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising

I've never had any malware get passed Malwarebytes. 

Steve


-- 
Neural Network Software for Windows                 http://www.npsnn.com

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

#157635

On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 9:18:29 AM UTC-5, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:

> I've never had any malware get passed Malwarebytes. 

Could someone explain the difference between 'malware' and 'virus'?
(I thought they were the same.)

I plan to run AVG and Malwarebytes on my PC.  Hopefully that will be
adequate.

But as a lay user, it's frustrating in that merely visiting a new website
could result in something nasty being downloaded to your machine without
you knowing it.  I know people who had to have extensive and expensive
cleanups, even when supposed 'protected' by something like McAffee.

To be honest, this is a reason I wish we had simple browsers that
had very limited capability--so the nasty stuff can't get into
the machines.

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

#157653

On 25-Jan-16 11:54, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
>> I've never had any malware get passed Malwarebytes. 
> 
> Could someone explain the difference between 'malware' and 'virus'?
> (I thought they were the same.)

Malware is a superset invented to include all malicious software, much
of which was incorrectly called a "virus" for lack of a better term.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

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

#157774

On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 2:56:50 PM UTC-5, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> Malware is a superset invented to include all malicious software, much
> of which was incorrectly called a "virus" for lack of a better term.

Thanks for the explantion.

So, would a single malware protector, like the product "Malwarebytes",
be adequate to protect a personal computer?

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

#157797

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 08:10:39 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 2:56:50 PM UTC-5, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
>> Malware is a superset invented to include all malicious software, much
>> of which was incorrectly called a "virus" for lack of a better term.
>
>Thanks for the explantion.
>
>So, would a single malware protector, like the product "Malwarebytes",
>be adequate to protect a personal computer?

You need a firewall, Malwarebytes, and an anti-virus program. 

-- 
JimP.

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

#157803

JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 08:10:39 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 2:56:50 PM UTC-5, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>
>>> Malware is a superset invented to include all malicious software, much
>>> of which was incorrectly called a "virus" for lack of a better term.
>>
>>Thanks for the explantion.
>>
>>So, would a single malware protector, like the product "Malwarebytes",
>>be adequate to protect a personal computer?
>
> You need a firewall, Malwarebytes, and an anti-virus program. 

Or Fedora.

-- 
Dan Espen

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

#157963

Dan Espen wrote:

> JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 08:10:39 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 2:56:50 PM UTC-5, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>
>>>> Malware is a superset invented to include all malicious software, much
>>>> of which was incorrectly called a "virus" for lack of a better term.
>>>
>>>Thanks for the explantion.
>>>
>>>So, would a single malware protector, like the product "Malwarebytes",
>>>be adequate to protect a personal computer?
>>
>> You need a firewall, Malwarebytes, and an anti-virus program.
> 
> Or Fedora.
> 
Right, the whole concept of Windows is run any script, program, screensaver 
or installer that comes in on an image file, email, web page or whatever.
What idiocy!

The concept of Linux is NEVER run anything unless the user specifically asks 
you to.  And, if a document says it is xyz.pdf, then run a pdf viewer, which 
will promptly barf if it is NOT, in fact, a pdf file, but an executable, 
screensaver, etc.  Right there, that stops a lot of this stuff cold.

Jon

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

#158035

On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 4:15:11 PM UTC-5, Jon Elson wrote:

> Right, the whole concept of Windows is run any script, program, screensaver 
> or installer that comes in on an image file, email, web page or whatever.
> What idiocy!

Yes, indeed.

Going into manual mode is a pain in the $##$.


I'm learning that Google does the same thing--highly automated, even
when one doesn't want it to be.  Going into manual mode is a PITA.

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

#158047

On 2016-01-28, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 4:15:11 PM UTC-5, Jon Elson wrote:
>
>> Right, the whole concept of Windows is run any script, program, screensaver 
>> or installer that comes in on an image file, email, web page or whatever.
>> What idiocy!
>
> Yes, indeed.
>
> Going into manual mode is a pain in the $##$.
>
> I'm learning that Google does the same thing--highly automated, even
> when one doesn't want it to be.  Going into manual mode is a PITA.

I've noticed more and more that the problem with modern gadgets and
software is not in getting them to do what you want, but in preventing 
them from doing what you don't want.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

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

#158060

On 2016-01-28, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2016-01-28, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 4:15:11 PM UTC-5, Jon Elson wrote:
>>
>>> Right, the whole concept of Windows is run any script, program, screensaver 
>>> or installer that comes in on an image file, email, web page or whatever.
>>> What idiocy!
>>
>> Yes, indeed.
>>
>> Going into manual mode is a pain in the $##$.
>>
>> I'm learning that Google does the same thing--highly automated, even
>> when one doesn't want it to be.  Going into manual mode is a PITA.
>
> I've noticed more and more that the problem with modern gadgets and
> software is not in getting them to do what you want, but in preventing 
> them from doing what you don't want.

Stallman was right.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/keep-control-of-your-computing.en.html


-- 
Today is Pungenday, the 28th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3182
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

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

#158955

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> 
> 
> Stallman was right.
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/keep-control-of-your-computing.en.html



Hear hear!

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

#158046

On 2016-01-27, Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> wrote:

> Dan Espen wrote:
>
>> JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> You need a firewall, Malwarebytes, and an anti-virus program.
>> 
>> Or Fedora.
> 
> Right, the whole concept of Windows is run any script, program, screensaver 
> or installer that comes in on an image file, email, web page or whatever.
> What idiocy!
>
> The concept of Linux is NEVER run anything unless the user specifically asks 
> you to.  And, if a document says it is xyz.pdf, then run a pdf viewer, which 
> will promptly barf if it is NOT, in fact, a pdf file, but an executable, 
> screensaver, etc.  Right there, that stops a lot of this stuff cold.

But Windows is so _convenient_!

(Hah!  Anyone I know who has been coerced to upgrade to 10 hates it.)

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

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

#157810

On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 1:08:00 PM UTC-5, JimP wrote:

> >So, would a single malware protector, like the product "Malwarebytes",
> >be adequate to protect a personal computer?
> 
> You need a firewall, Malwarebytes, and an anti-virus program. 

Why would Malwarebytes be enough it protect everything?  I thought
viruses were a subset of malware, and as such would be protected by
a 'malware' program?

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

#157831

On 1/26/2016 1:06 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 1:08:00 PM UTC-5, JimP wrote:
>
>>> So, would a single malware protector, like the product "Malwarebytes",
>>> be adequate to protect a personal computer?
>>
>> You need a firewall, Malwarebytes, and an anti-virus program.
>
> Why would Malwarebytes be enough it protect everything?  I thought
> viruses were a subset of malware, and as such would be protected by
> a 'malware' program?
>
AFAIK Malwarebytes is not a "real-time" AV program, though it is very 
good at finding and removing things by scanning. This is true of the 
free version, it's not clear to me that the pay version is different 
in that regard, I think the pay version just does periodic scans and 
updates automatically. Neither AV-Comparatives.org nor AV-Test.org 
includes it in their comparative tests, which suggests that either 
they do not consider it a real-time AV program, or that the 
Malwarebytes operation does not want to pay the fee to be included, 
either because they don't want to spend the money or because they are 
not confident that the results would be favorable.

I'd say the firewall included with Windows is ok, though it's not in a 
class with running a true hardware firewall. Be sure to go into the 
settings and close openings for software that you don't actually have 
or use.

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

#157885

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 16:13:18 -0600, Dave Garland
<dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>On 1/26/2016 1:06 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 1:08:00 PM UTC-5, JimP wrote:
>>
>>>> So, would a single malware protector, like the product "Malwarebytes",
>>>> be adequate to protect a personal computer?
>>>
>>> You need a firewall, Malwarebytes, and an anti-virus program.
>>
>> Why would Malwarebytes be enough it protect everything?  I thought
>> viruses were a subset of malware, and as such would be protected by
>> a 'malware' program?
>>
>AFAIK Malwarebytes is not a "real-time" AV program, though it is very 
>good at finding and removing things by scanning. This is true of the 
>free version, it's not clear to me that the pay version is different 
>in that regard, I think the pay version just does periodic scans and 
>updates automatically. Neither AV-Comparatives.org nor AV-Test.org 
>includes it in their comparative tests, which suggests that either 
>they do not consider it a real-time AV program, or that the 
>Malwarebytes operation does not want to pay the fee to be included, 
>either because they don't want to spend the money or because they are 
>not confident that the results would be favorable.

I've used both the free and have the paid version. Free version
doesn't check the registry, the paid does. The paid does watch in real
time.

>I'd say the firewall included with Windows is ok, though it's not in a 
>class with running a true hardware firewall. Be sure to go into the 
>settings and close openings for software that you don't actually have 
>or use.

I've seen things get past the Windows firewall. I don't use it.

-- 
JimP.

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

#157881

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 11:06:55 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 1:08:00 PM UTC-5, JimP wrote:
>
>> >So, would a single malware protector, like the product "Malwarebytes",
>> >be adequate to protect a personal computer?
>> 
>> You need a firewall, Malwarebytes, and an anti-virus program. 
>
>Why would Malwarebytes be enough it protect everything?  I thought
>viruses were a subset of malware, and as such would be protected by
>a 'malware' program?

Not everything is stopped by one program.

-- 
JimP.

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

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

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web