 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / December 2004I can't reply, using Google groups, anyone else get the message.....
Unable to retrieve message.......(details of message) I used to be able to reply to this group using Google Groups, but the last week I get this meesage, and the option of posting a new subject... Which makes it a little difficult to respond to peoples posts. Anyone else use Google and have no problems? Or what program do you use? or any suggestions? Ronaldo Testing the new Google Groups. I didn't get the error message "Unable to retrieve message..." so I can't explain this. jimhoney > Unable to retrieve message.......(details of message) > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Ronaldo Seems in the last couple weeks I have had a lot of problems with ng and email (not Google BTW). Makes one wonder about virus', etc. >Unable to retrieve message.......(details of message) > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Ronaldo > Seems in the last couple weeks I have had a lot of problems with ng > and email (not Google BTW). Makes one wonder about virus', etc. For troubleshooting purposes only, I advise that I have had not problems at all. Using RoadRunner NG. > Unable to retrieve message.......(details of message) > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Anyone else use Google and have no problems? Google Groups has changed, much to the dissatisfaction of the majority of Usenet users. Now, if you want to reply using Google Groups you must access the system through their "Beta" Version, which you can access at http:/groups-beta.google.com. You can still search Usenet via the old Google Groups, but you need to use the "Beta" version to reply. Be warned, however, that this new version has several changes that make using Google Groups much less user friendly to Usenet users, than it ever was. The people at Google need to monitor these postings as the overall public sentiment of this beta version is totally "thumbs down". If you don't like the new version, you can send them your feedback at the following website: http://groups-beta.google.com/support/bin/request.py Stephen > ... > Be warned, however, that this new version has several > changes that make using Google Groups much less user > friendly to Usenet users, than it ever was. > ... Stephen, What are the things you dislike about the new interface and like better in the old? I mostly use Outlook Express with a regular news server, but occasionally use Google when I don't have access to my ISP news server. I've also found that it's more convenient when using really huge newsgroups (rec.photo.digital is one), where Outlook Express takes forever to update whenever I connect to it. Google's web interface requires no such update. I haven't decided what I think about the new Google. It does have some neat new features like the ability to email you messages, the ability to see either titles or titles + excerpts, some history capability, and the ability to subscribe to groups. Other good features are "Topics I've posted to with new activity", and "Active older topics". It may be that the old version had those and I didn't know about them. On balance, my feeling about the new Google is that it has more functionality. The different user interface requires getting used to. I'm reluctant to criticize it yet because whenever anyone changes any user interface, it's always confusing until you get used to it. It may be that when you've used it longer you'll like it more. Alan > > Be warned, however, that this new version has several > > changes that make using Google Groups much less user [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What are the things you dislike about the new interface and like > better in the old? There are multiple reasons which I'll discuss below. I've worked in the I.T. industry for 17 years, and I understand how end users don't like it when they have to adjust to a new interface, but they usually do adjust after a time. I'll also admit that the new version has some nice features, like immediate posting. But, one of the worst changes they've made is that in the new version you have to perform additional mouse clicks to perform tasks that only required one click in the old version. For example: If you want to Reply and include previously quoted text, you have to click on the "show options" link at the top of each posting, and then click on the Reply button. If don't do this, and you simply click on the reply link at the bottom of each message, the reply that reaches Usenet will only contain what you type, and not any previously quoted text. This is fine for users who only use Google Groups since they always see the previous messages in thread. But for traditional Usenet users, they won't always see the previous text. You also have to use the "show options" link to display all the messages posted by the same author, to post to multiple groups (this may or may not be a good thing, depending on your point of view), to forward a message, reply to the author, etc. All of these operations used to be available with one click. On top of this, you have to click "show options" for each and every posting displayed in a thread that you've searched. There's no way to set it to always show the options. Many users would want these "options" to ALWAYS be shown for EVERY message in a thread that is displayed. Google should develop the interface so that if a user always wants the options to be shown, that they can set this once. A cookie should be able to take care of this. Another task in the new version that requires more mouse clicks on the page where the results of a search appear. On this resulting page, there is no "search groups" button and box at the top of the resulting page, for you to do your next search. You have to hit your back button or click on the "back to search" link to get to a search box again. In the old version, the resulting page from a search always contained another "search groups" button at the top for you to do your next search. Again, it's more mouse clicks for no benefit. The new version also hide a lot of previously quoted text and requires you to click on "show quoted text" to see the quoted text. There should be a setting so that the browser will always show the quoted text, if the user wants that, rather that requiring him to click it each time. Stephen P.S. One minor P.R. mistake that they made was when they changed the system so that you couldn't reply anymore with the "old" Google Groups, they should have either redirected the user to the new version or to a page explaining that replies can only be done using the new version, rather than just showing an "unable to retrieve" error message. That caused a lot of confusion and ill feelings. > > ... > > Be warned, however, that this new version has several [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > What are the things you dislike about the new interface and like > better in the old? > > ... > > Be warned, however, that this new version has several [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > What are the things you dislike about the new interface and like > better in the old? **Here's a slightly modified reply** There are multiple reasons which I'll discuss below. I've worked in the I.T. industry for 17 years, and I understand how end users don't like it when they have to adjust to a new interface, but they usually do adjust after a time. I'll also admit that the new version has some nice features, like immediate posting. But, one of the worst changes they've made is that in the new version you have to perform additional mouse clicks to perform tasks that only required one click in the old version. For example: If you want to Reply and include previously quoted text, you have to click on the "show options" link at the top of each posting, and then click on the Reply button. If don't do this, and you simply click on the reply link at the bottom of each message, the reply that reaches Usenet will only contain what you type, and not any previously quoted text. This is fine for users who only use Google Groups since they always see the previous messages in the thread. But for traditional Usenet users, they won't always see the previous text. You also have to use the "show options" link to display all the messages posted by the same author, to post to multiple groups (this may or may not be a good thing, depending on your point of view), to forward a message, reply to the author, etc. All of these operations used to be available with one click. On top of this, you have to click "show options" for each and every posting displayed in a thread that you've searched. There's no way to set it to always show the options. Many users would want these "options" to ALWAYS be shown for EVERY message in a thread that is displayed. Google should develop the interface so that if a user always wants the options to be shown, that they can set this once. A cookie should be able to take care of this. Another task in the new version that requires more mouse clicks is that there's no "search groups" button on the page containing the results of a previous search, for you to do your next search. You have to hit your back button or click on the "back to search" link to get to a search box again. In the old version, the resulting page from a search always contained another "search groups" button at the top for you to do your next search. Again, it's more mouse clicks for no benefit. The new version also hides a lot of previously quoted text and requires you to click on "show quoted text" to see the quoted text. There should be a setting so that the browser will always show the quoted text, if the user wants that, rather that requiring him to click it each time. Stephen P.S. Also, they should have modified the old search pages so that when a person tried to reply, he receive a message telling him to go to the new version, rather than simply displaying an "unable to retrieve message.." error. That caused a lot of confusion and ill feelings. >> What are the things you dislike about the new interface and like >> better in the old? > > **Here's a slightly modified reply** > ... All excellent suggestions. Google has the resources to really do this right. The suggestions you made should be simple to implement. I hope Google is listening. Maybe I'll send them the same feedback too. Alan > **Here's a slightly modified reply** > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > mouse clicks to perform tasks that only required > one click in the old version. Excellent points snipped. In addition the options on the left side take up unnecessary room. They should be at the top or bottom of the screen. In addition, there used to be a vertical line, so that those with smaller monitors could move it over in order to read the messages w/o the advertising (on the right) overwriting the messages. There's no vertical line anymore. They either don't have alpha testers or their alpha testers don't know/care? how end users use their software. I did alpha testing for over 6 years. At first, the programmers resented me, but came to realize that my job made theirs easier - less complaints from users. All over newsgroups, people are replying to very old posts, because they cannot see the year...apparently. And there's "posting hiccups", duplicates and tripicates, as yours just did. J PS Alan, I've sent numerous comments. All they do is say "all messages are read, see the FAQ blah, blah, which does not address any of these issues. Even that, as I recall is duplicated on the page. J (additional excellent comments snipped) People need to send these recommendations to Google's beta support feedback http://groups-beta.google.com/support/bin/request.py > PS Alan, I've sent numerous comments. All they do is say "all messages are > read, see the FAQ blah, blah, which does not address any of these issues. > Even that, as I recall is duplicated on the page. > J I have to comment that Google did reply to me on my first letter to them, which was strictly on the issue of not including previously quoted text. They explained that I should use the "show options" link and then click on reply. So, they do get back to you, eventually. Their reply to me took about a week. Stephen > (additional excellent comments snipped) > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > They explained that I should use the "show options" > link and then click on reply. That's the "extra click" syndrome. You're going in circles.. J Thanks for the link, Stephen. I'll give this new version a go Ronaldo Just checking whether or not I can reply. This is from Google groups beta. Robert Ronaldo wrote: >NNTP-Posting-Host: 211.26.84.15 Your ISP is Primus. >Or what program do you use? >or any suggestions? The name of your ISP news server is 'news.primus.com.au'. Combining your ISP news server and this group into a single URL: news://news.primus.com.au/alt.support.cancer.prostate A URL like this can open up a newsreader program, such as Outlook Express. Thanks for the tip Brian, I'am about to switch over to a new ISP next week, going from dialup to ADSL. the new Google groups seems to work well enough for me I tend to give Outlook Express a wide berth because of the high level of Virus attacks it seems to get. I Use Mozzila Firebird, a great browser! Ronaldo. No problems with Outlook Express if you take a couple steps you should take with any setup: 1) Install Virus software. You can get McAfee Virus Scan 2005 version 9.0 for $9.99 shipped. Includes one year of frequent updates of virus definitions. http://www.softwareandstuff.com/SWW12350.html 2) Never open any attachment with an executable (exe, scr, pif, etc.) or any from people you don't know. If you do slip up on this one, McAfee will catch it. 3) For IE use add a free spyware app such as AdAware SE Personal. Yes, OE and IE are riskier but only because they offer a huge target for the scumbag virus authors/spreaders but the above steps eliminate 99% + of the problems, IMHO. Haven't had a successful attack in years -- plenty of attempt but no success. Happy holidays! PS- I have tried Firebird. I'm back to using IE/OE. > Thanks for the tip Brian, > I'am about to switch over to a new ISP next week, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Ronaldo. > 1) Install Virus software. You can get McAfee Virus Scan 2005 version 9.0 > for $9.99 shipped. Includes one year of frequent updates of virus [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > any from people you don't know. If you do slip up on this one, McAfee will > catch it. Good advice. The main problem is that many viruses are set up to spoof the sender's address. For example, User A triggers a virus on his computer. The virus goes through User A's e-mail list and finds two user addresses User B and User C. The virus then send's an e-mail to User B, but changes the e-mail so that it looks like it's been sent from User C, instead of User A. This e-mail has a virus attached to it. If User B knows User C, he may feel that the e-mail is safe to open. But it's not. It also does not reveal the fact that the infected computer belongs to User A. That's why, as stated, it's important to use anti-virus protection. Stephen And the signatures so many use here - - those PC histories below their names? They can carry viruses, as can HTML. The average virus/spam/popup-free life span of a new computer on the internet is now rated at 15 seconds. I have hardware and software firewalls plus a whole host of other programs to wrap my system in a cybercondom, just to protect my personal home computer. It merely slows the assault. I.P. > > 1) Install Virus software. You can get McAfee Virus Scan 2005 > version 9.0 [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > That's why, as stated, it's important to use anti-virus protection. > Stephen >>> And the signatures so many use here - - those PC histories below their names? They can carry viruses, as can HTML.<<< Can you try and explain that better? Frankly, there is no way that there are viruses in the sigs of posters on here. Not to mention that there are only two well-known viruses that utilized HTML in emails or posts.....Bugbear and Kakworm, to be exact. I have been active in the anti-virus world for some 9 years......and also in the spyware/hijacker world these past 2 or 3 years. I probably have the same protection on here as you do, however I practice *safe hex* and don't get viruses, period. So my antivirus is never activated, but is on here as part of my line of defence. I think I was one of the first to get hit with a hijacker some 3 years ago from a legit website, and have been part of the spyware forums since then. I would say hijackers and spyware are more prevalent than viruses, IMHO. And they can be quite troublesome. But I have HiJack This and CWS on standby for those, if needed. As for antivirus programs......I personally would not use McAfee or Norton, but they are usually on new computers, which is not a bad thing for newbies. I have used EZ Trust for some 5 years.........and Zone Alarm Pro, of course. I am never without a firewall....I think it is more important than an antivirus with regard to trojans!! Btw.....Microsoft has offered EZ Armor for free and that runs out Jan. 2nd, 2005. It combines EZ Trust antivirus and a *rebadged* latest version of Zone Alarm. And then there are also AVG and Avast which are free. And Zone Alarm.....and AdAware 1.05.....and so on. Should anyone want the links.....I will add them below. All of these programs are free!! AdAware 1.05 - www.lavasoftusa.com, install, update, and run it every day to catch spyware cookies. AVG antivirus http://free.grisoft.com/freeweb.php/doc/1/ EZ Trust Antivirus (You can still get a free 12 month license at the following link). Just install the AV program if you already have a software firewall. http://www.my-etrust.com/microsoft/ Avast antivirus http://www.avast.com/eng/avast_4_home2.html (haven't tried this one, but it gets good reports on the antivirus n.g. Zone Alarm - free firewall http://www.zonelabs.com/store/content/catalog/products/sku_list_za.jsp?lid=nav_za There are others that I have on here, but the above should do for starters. SpywareBlaster is a nifty preventative proggie for the obvious....I am never without that one. So I will add this freebie too.... Download Spyware Blaster here: (enable all protection) http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.html I have also gone to Mozilla Firefox for my browser and it is quite good. Way faster...and not as susceptible to popups, spyware, etc. Cheers....and have a Happy (and Safe Hex) New Year....... Heather........aka "Auntie Virus" > And the signatures so many use here - - those PC histories below their > names? They can carry viruses, as can HTML. The average [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > will > > > catch it. The PC magazines and books say signatures can transmit viruses (actually Trojan horses, I think). That's good enough for me to avoid using one, to protect others. For the same reason, my address book contains only a couple of people, whom I have deemed deserving of viruses. If everyone zeroed out their address books, viruses would probably die of loneliness or boredom. I.P. > >>> And the signatures so many use here - - those PC histories below their > names? They can carry viruses, as can HTML.<<< > > Can you try and explain that better? Frankly, there is no way that there > are viruses in the sigs of posters on here. Not that I have ever seen or heard of.......trojan horses usually come in via open ports (as in *no firewall*). No need to have an empty address book. Simply use an AV and a firewall and safe hex (aka common sense).......grin. Perhaps the magazines and books are saying NOT to use your *real* address on news groups, etc.....because then you will receive mega spam and viruses. That would make more sense. I stopped using mine a long time ago because of spam.....not viruses. We have a website for those that want to know more about how to avoid malware of all types......in 4 languages even. http://www.claymania.com/nav-map.html The contributors are all very knowledgeable antivirus people....not to mention that some do have their own AV companies.....but no advertising to that effect. It is totally non-biased. Have fun!! Cheers.....Heather > The PC magazines and books say signatures can transmit viruses (actually > Trojan horses, I think). That's good enough for me to avoid using one, to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Can you try and explain that better? Frankly, there is no way that there > > are viruses in the sigs of posters on here. > The PC magazines and books say signatures can transmit viruses (actually > Trojan horses, I think). That's good enough for me to avoid using one, to > protect others. For the same reason, my address book contains only a couple > of people, whom I have deemed deserving of viruses. If everyone zeroed out > their address books, viruses would probably die of loneliness or boredom. > I.P. Yes, and if you unplug the RJ45* from the wall, you'll never get a virus, but what have you accomplished? *NOTE -- RJ45, as used here, is just a figure of speech to refer to all wired and wireless connections to the Internet. Every moment I'm not sitting right here USING my internet cable, my modem is switched off. It takes one second to tap the switch, and it's cheap insurance. I hope never to go through again the nightmare I experienced a few years ago, and that was just simple, freaking popups. They took over my computer and rendered it virtually unusable for months, and harmful malware is far worse. That virus writer one poster would "talk to", I would put in the hospital, hopefully a prison hospital. Anyone who would maliciously cause others that much grief does not deserve to walk freely on the earth. Gotta go; it's time to run Spybot. I clicked off a website a while ago, and the 5 seconds of hourglass it left behind leaves me suspicious that it took a dump into my hard drive. Paranoid? You'd better believe it! Time is precious to me, these miscreants deliberately do their very best to steal it from me, and they know infinitely more about attacking me than I do about defending myself from them . . . at least in cyberspace. I.P. "Steve Kramer" <skramer@cinci.rr.com> wrote > > Yes, and if you unplug the RJ45* from the wall, you'll never get a virus, > but what have you accomplished? It sounds like you had a browser hijacker (BHO) which could have been easily solved had you known about Hijack This written by Merijn. It too sits on my desktop in case I need it. I don't usually recommend Spybot Search & Destroy to newbies as it is not as user friendly as AdAware 1.05.....but it is on here too and I use one of them at least every other day.......usually alternating. I still recommend that you download SpywareBlaster and/or a Hosts File, but it is your choice. Oh.....and who are you referring to as 'the person who talks to virus writers'??? I do know who a few of them are, but don't talk to them. They prefer to remain hidden via 3 anonymous remailers. When you investigate this sort of stuff, nicknames come to the surface because they can't stand people NOT knowing who they are. As Steve says, the only way to 100% avoid them is to never go online. For the rest of us (you included), we have to be well-armed with all sorts of security programs. A simple thing you can do is use your Message Rules to divert any email with an attachment into its own folder.....then drop the Preview Pane and check it out via the back door. It would take me way too long to explain all of the tweaks and methods, which is why I referred you to our website for malware. Here's to a better 2005 in the cyberworld, grin!! Heather Psssst.....those sort of popups usually only come from porn or crack sites...lol!! Couldn't resist teasing you, grin. > Every moment I'm not sitting right here USING my internet cable, my modem is > switched off. It takes one second to tap the switch, and it's cheap [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Yes, and if you unplug the RJ45* from the wall, you'll never get a virus, > > but what have you accomplished? <snip> >Psssst.....those sort of popups usually only come from porn or crack >sites...lol!! Couldn't resist teasing you, grin. <snip> Psssst....Since I've been on ADT, I have a Jelly Worm and 2 Salty Plums to work with, so my 200,000 ++ Porn Jpeg Collection doesn't work for me any more :-( . I'm thinking of selling it on e-bay to defray my petrol costs going to the Rad Clinic, unless YOU want to bid for it?? Your original post smells of SPAM, so I am with tounge-in cheek, with this response. As GWB would say "Make No Mistake", my pc has so much armour on it, sometimes even I cannot get in!!! -- Reader to complete... -- Please reply to this ng as my email adress is fake: -- Regards -- CC > On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 13:31:38 -0500, "Heather" > Psssst....Since I've been on ADT, I have a Jelly Worm and 2 Salty > Plums to work with, so my 200,000 ++ Porn Jpeg Collection doesn't work > for me any more :-( . I'm thinking of selling it on e-bay to defray my > petrol costs going to the Rad Clinic, unless YOU want to bid for it?? Nah.....too old and too prissy for that sort of stuff, lol. Besides, Aussie porn is probably way too graphic for a North American (chuckle) > Your original post smells of SPAM, so I am with tounge-in cheek, with > this response. Stab me in the heart, why don't you (G)......I am a very active virus fighter/remover, hate spam with a passion, and so on...... I merely gave out links to free programs that I use....or I should say, a lot of us use in the malware world......just to help out those that don't know much about them. I am a firm believe in using free programs which are as good as pay ones. Eventually a lot of them end up as *pay programs* anyway. Might as well make use of the best ones before then. > As GWB would say "Make No Mistake", my pc has so much armour on it, sometimes even I cannot get in!!! Who is GWB?? Remember, I am Canadian. (tongue in cheek back) Auntie Virus. > -- Reader to complete... > -- Please reply to this ng as my email adress is fake: > > -- Regards > > -- CC <snip> >> As GWB would say "Make No Mistake", my pc has so much armour on it, >sometimes even I cannot get in!!! > >Who is GWB?? Remember, I am Canadian. (tongue in cheek back) > >Auntie Virus. Sorry, didn't realise you're a Kanuck so 'GWB' could mean a 'Get Well Bed' or similar lol. Don't fret Auntie, I have most of the programs you published in the links plus some that you didn't mention. I occasionally drop in on alt.comp.virus and alt.privacy.spyware. My biggest tribute to keeping the Gremlins out is a major move AWAY from Microsux products, (major carriers of 'disease-ware'). I use these: Opera Browser, Courier Email, Agent NewsReader (for my textual exchanges), plus NEVER, repeat NEVER use my Direct POP Email address in any Groups or Forums. On top of what I've got in Ailments, my detractors tell me Multiple Personality Disorder is next on the list. (I'm trying to cut back here, especially on the female alter-egos, as I'm not really a home-wrecker at heart *s*). -- Reader to complete... -- Please reply to this ng as my email adress is fake: -- Regards -- CC Thanks for the tips. I flat don't have time to keep up with all this computer stuff, because PCs themselves, even if not connected to the net, are their own infinite source of trouble. The only computer I've ever owned that wasn't a total PITA, and I've had the dang things in my home since '83, is my '92 Mac that still works nearly flawlessly. My Dell PCs w/Win 98SE and XP freeze at least daily -- I'm wearing the paint off this new one's hardware OFF switch by using it daily, and all I use it for is WORD and OE. I wouldn't dream of putting anything important on a PC. I am certain I've devoted two man-years to my PC problems, be it Dell, Microsoft, or malware, over the last five years, and so far neither Dell nor Microsoft has been much help. Now that I probably HAVE only a handful of years left, I'm not going to spend too much of it fighting these miscreants. I'm just going windsurfing and hope angrier, younger, bored Special Forces dudes take care of the problems at the source. I.P. > It sounds like you had a browser hijacker (BHO) which could have been easily > solved had you known about Hijack This written by Merijn. It too sits on my [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Here's to a better 2005 in the cyberworld, grin!! I'm not an expert, but is seems to me that my signature, as long as it is, is far too few bits and bytes to support a virus. Now, if it were an html signature, I'd cede to the possibility. BTW, I an thick-skinned enough to not take your post as an assault on our using signatures in the NG to demonstrate our histories. I assume you were just using it as an example. I just don't agree that text signatures can bear viri.  SignatureProstate Cancer Survivor (so far), not a doctor PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3bN0M0 PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75 EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 Lupron (1 mo) 07/21/2003 @ 48 PSA .07 .05 .06 Lupron (3 mo) 8/03 (48), 12/03, 4/04 (49), 09/04 (50) non Illegitimi carborundum > And the signatures so many use here - - those PC histories below their > names? They can carry viruses, as can HTML. The average [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > That's why, as stated, it's important to use anti-virus protection. > > Stephen You're right; not an assault at all. Merely repeating a warning issued and explained by the mags and books. Sigs don't CONTAIN the virus; they are claimed to serve as a pipeline or portal of sorts for them. If I assault someone, there will be no doubt in anyone's mind, and most will agree it was deserved. It's also extremely unlikely in a forum such as this. In the meantime, everyone can safely assume my perceived faux paus are unintended, merely the result of my deliberate unwillingness to devote half my waking life to political correctness. I don't have enough time left on earth to spend it walking on eggshells making sure no one is offended . . . and I've felt that way for about 57 years now. If facts offend anyone, that's their choice, not my intent. I.P. > I'm not an expert, but is seems to me that my signature, as long as it is, > is far too few bits and bytes to support a virus. Now, if it were an html [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > just using it as an example. I just don't agree that text signatures can > bear viri. It seems my caveat had the opposite effect. I wanted to make sure you understood that I, as one of the longer signitors, was not taking it as a shot. > You're right; not an assault at all. Merely repeating a warning issued and > explained by the mags and books. Sigs don't CONTAIN the virus; they are [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > just using it as an example. I just don't agree that text signatures can > > bear viri. > ... > Good advice. The main problem is that many viruses are set up to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > send's an e-mail to User B, but changes the e-mail so that it looks > like it's been sent from User C, instead of User A. That happened to me. I was User C. Someone with me in their address book got infected and sent out hundreds of viruses to people with my email address appearing in the From line. People sent me angry emails telling me to stop sending them viruses, and my email address got put on various black lists. Some people I worked with could no longer receive emails from me because their companies bought email protection software from some service that had put me on their s**t list. If I could have caught the guy who wrote that virus, I would have had a few choice things to say to him. Alan Happened to me once too. Just minding my own business and a bunch of people started yelling at me because of the anti-Bush message I supposedly sent them. Except in my case, these were people who were not in my contact list. > > ... > > Good advice. The main problem is that many viruses are set up to [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Alan Yes......we get so many people on the antivirus ng's who are absolutely LIVID that their *friend* sent them all sorts of spam or viruses. Alan explained it well....but we do spend a lot of time trying to get them not to report the purported sender to their ISP......he didn't do it. Hell...apparently there is a porn spam with my surname on it as sender. I had to laugh.......because I got a lot of teasing from my genealogy and anti-virus friends. Humour....the only way to handle the cr*p life throws at you!! Cheers.....Heather > Happened to me once too. Just minding my own business and a bunch of people > started yelling at me because of the anti-Bush message I supposedly sent [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > > > Alan > No problems with Outlook Express if you take a couple steps you should take > with any setup: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > definitions. > http://www.softwareandstuff.com/SWW12350.html A very nice free virus scanner that works with Outlook Express and other email clients too is AVG anti-virus. See http://www.grisoft.com. Alan
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.