Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30

Thread: Help with AVG Anti-virus email scanning

  1. #1
    Howard M. Rensin
    Guest

    Help with AVG Anti-virus email scanning

    I have just installed AVG Free Ver 7.5 and it is blocking my sending web
    pages in the body of emails. I am running XP SP2 on my desktop and using
    Outlook 2003 as my email client and IE 6 as my browser. With the browser
    open and on a page I want to sent to someone, I pull down the Tools menu and
    click on the top item which is email & news. I then click on 'Send Page' and
    it opens a composition window with the web page in the body. If I then send
    that to someone, AVG blocks the entire web page and the only thing that
    comes through is AVG's message that the email has been scanned. I did not
    have this problem with Norton.
    Does anyone have a suggestion on how to fix the problem and still use
    AVG and have it scan the email?



  2. #2
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty
    Guest

    Re: Help with AVG Anti-virus email scanning

    Howard M. Rensin wrote:

    > I have just installed AVG Free Ver 7.5 and it is blocking my sending web
    > pages in the body of emails.


    Were the answers you got in the other group you multi-posted to
    unsatisfactory?

    <quote>
    Why You Don't Need Your Anti-Virus Program to Scan Your E-Mail
    http://thundercloud.net/infoave/tuto...ning/index.htm
    </quote>

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

  3. #3
    Sebastian G.
    Guest

    Re: Help with AVG Anti-virus email scanning

    Howard M. Rensin wrote:

    > I have just installed AVG Free Ver 7.5 and it is blocking my sending web
    > pages in the body of emails. I am running XP SP2 on my desktop and using
    > Outlook 2003 as my email client and IE 6 as my browser.



    Seems like it does the right thing.

    > I did not have this problem with Norton.



    So you suggested the developers to add this annoyance?

    > Does anyone have a suggestion on how to fix the problem and still use
    > AVG and have it scan the email?


    Well, what exactly is your problem? It seems to work exactly as it should:
    hinder horribly insecure applications being abused for unsuitable scenarios.

  4. #4
    bz
    Guest

    Re: Help with AVG Anti-virus email scanning

    "Howard M. Rensin" <hrensin@gmail.com> wrote in
    news:QoydnbkcS8nSqYvVnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@comcast.com:

    > I have just installed AVG Free Ver 7.5 and it is blocking my sending web
    > pages in the body of emails. I am running XP SP2 on my desktop and using
    > Outlook 2003 as my email client and IE 6 as my browser. With the browser
    > open and on a page I want to sent to someone, I pull down the Tools menu
    > and click on the top item which is email & news. I then click on 'Send
    > Page' and it opens a composition window with the web page in the body.
    > If I then send that to someone, AVG blocks the entire web page and the
    > only thing that comes through is AVG's message that the email has been
    > scanned. I did not have this problem with Norton.
    > Does anyone have a suggestion on how to fix the problem and still
    > use
    > AVG and have it scan the email?


    E-mail should be plain text, not HTML. The behavior is correct.
    If you want to send a web page to someone, send them the URL so they can
    visit the page.

    If you NEED to send HTML to someone, zip or compress it into a file and
    rename the file so that it does NOT end in .zip (I rename mine ..piz)

    The rename is because so many viruses have been sending zip files AND
    Micro-soft [in their in-finite wisdom] made their mail client execute some
    types of files, automatically, so that now, some ISPs filter out all mail
    containing zip files as malicious.





    --
    bz

    please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
    infinite set.

    bz+csm@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

  5. #5
    Ertugrul =?UTF-8?B?U8O2eWxlbWV6?=
    Guest

    Re: Help with AVG Anti-virus email scanning

    bz <bz+csm@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:

    > E-mail should be plain text, not HTML. The behavior is correct.
    > If you want to send a web page to someone, send them the URL so they
    > can visit the page.
    >
    > If you NEED to send HTML to someone, zip or compress it into a file
    > and rename the file so that it does NOT end in .zip (I rename mine
    > ..piz)


    What's wrong with HTML emails without remote content? Why the
    unnecessary inconvenience with ZIP files? I understand that in some
    places (e.g. newsgroups) HTML mails are inappropriate, but why this
    generalization?


    Regards,
    Ertugrul.


    --
    http://ertes.de/


  6. #6
    bz
    Guest

    Re: Help with AVG Anti-virus email scanning

    Ertugrul =?UTF-8?B?U8O2eWxlbWV6?= <es@ertes.de> wrote in
    news:fv7aq6$ta7$02$1@news.t-online.com:

    > bz <bz+csm@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
    >
    >> E-mail should be plain text, not HTML. The behavior is correct.
    >> If you want to send a web page to someone, send them the URL so they
    >> can visit the page.
    >>
    >> If you NEED to send HTML to someone, zip or compress it into a file
    >> and rename the file so that it does NOT end in .zip (I rename mine
    >> ..piz)

    >
    > What's wrong with HTML emails without remote content? Why the
    > unnecessary inconvenience with ZIP files? I understand that in some
    > places (e.g. newsgroups) HTML mails are inappropriate, but why this
    > generalization?


    Oh, here are a few of my reasons:

    1) E-mail was originally designed to convey textual information, NOT html.
    Information, not 'beauty' or 'cute'.

    2) html enabled e-mail clients are executing programs that others have
    sent you when they render html coded text.

    3) it is practially impossible to 'foolproof' such rendering so as to
    protect the viewer from all possible attacks.

    4) embeded images in html can tell the sender 'an idiot
    just opened the e-mail I sent them' so you just told the spammer that the
    e-mail address is a good one. He can now sell it to other spammers.

    5) html encoded stuff takes more bytes to transmit. Often lots more.

    6) html can be coded so that the viewer sees one link while being sent to a
    different place on the web.

    7) Those that fight spam OFTEN use text only e-mail client in self defense.
    I do.
    8) Some discard ALL html encoded and graphic encoded incoming e-mail,
    unviewed.


    There are several other good reasons that I can't think of at the moment
    but they are all related to 'microsoft thought it would be cool to make
    messages pretty. They assumed a small offfice environment.' Since they
    came up with that bright idea, many viruses have been spread that way.
    They keep plugging holes in the dike, but there are more hole yet to be
    discovered.

    It (html via e-mail) was a bad idea to start with. It is STILL a bad idea.
    Nothing I can think of will ever make it a good idea.

    Of course, opinions are like noses, everyone has one.

    --
    bz

    please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
    infinite set.

    bz+csm@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

  7. #7
    jc
    Guest

    Re: Help with AVG Anti-virus email scanning

    Ertugrul Söylemez wrote:
    > bz <bz+csm@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
    >
    >> E-mail should be plain text, not HTML. The behavior is correct.
    >> If you want to send a web page to someone, send them the URL so they
    >> can visit the page.
    >>
    >> If you NEED to send HTML to someone, zip or compress it into a file
    >> and rename the file so that it does NOT end in .zip (I rename mine
    >> ..piz)

    >
    > What's wrong with HTML emails without remote content? Why the
    > unnecessary inconvenience with ZIP files? I understand that in some
    > places (e.g. newsgroups) HTML mails are inappropriate, but why this
    > generalization?
    >
    >


    HTML may contain malicious script. Some people set their email clients
    to view messages in plain text only.


    jc

  8. #8
    Sebastian G.
    Guest

    Re: Help with AVG Anti-virus email scanning

    Ertugrul Söylemez wrote:


    > What's wrong with HTML emails without remote content?


    <!doctype stupid><html><head><meta name="foo"
    content="bar"><title>baz</title></head><body><p>Nothing, it's very readible
    if the receiver's client doesn't support HTML.</body></html>

    > Why the unnecessary inconvenience with ZIP files? I understand that in some
    > places (e.g. newsgroups) HTML mails are inappropriate, but why this
    > generalization?



    Because there's no standard for it, neither de-jure nor de-facto? because
    there is a standard to include some basic formatting (text/enriched)?
    Because it's a waste or bandwidth? Because eMail isn't supposed to emit any
    formatting? Because HTML is meant for hypertext, not formatted documents?

  9. #9
    Sebastian G.
    Guest

    Re: Help with AVG Anti-virus email scanning

    bz wrote:


    > There are several other good reasons that I can't think of at the moment
    > but they are all related to 'microsoft thought it would be cool to make
    > messages pretty. They assumed a small offfice environment.'



    Microsoft just copied what Netscape has started. Just that Microsoft's
    pseudo-mail clients where really just intended for an isolated small office
    environment, and later some stupid marketing fool decided to expose them to
    the Internet.

  10. #10
    Howard M. Rensin
    Guest

    Re: Help with AVG Anti-virus email scanning

    I would not keep posting if I got a real response and not some smartass
    comment. I have better things to do than keep asking the same question when
    I get an answer and 'change email scanners' is not an answer to an AVG
    problem.

    "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote in message
    news:4816433b$0$7039$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
    > Howard M. Rensin wrote:
    >
    >> I have just installed AVG Free Ver 7.5 and it is blocking my sending web
    >> pages in the body of emails.

    >
    > Were the answers you got in the other group you multi-posted to
    > unsatisfactory?
    >
    > <quote>
    > Why You Don't Need Your Anti-Virus Program to Scan Your E-Mail
    > http://thundercloud.net/infoave/tuto...ning/index.htm
    > </quote>
    >
    > --
    > -bts
    > -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck




  11. #11
    Sebastian G.
    Guest

    Re: Help with AVG Anti-virus email scanning

    Howard M. Rensin wrote:

    > I would not keep posting if I got a real response and not some smartass
    > comment. I have better things to do than keep asking the same question when
    > I get an answer and 'change email scanners' is not an answer to an AVG
    > problem.



    It is. May I summarize your problems? Abusing Outlook Express as a mail
    client and newsreader, an installed virus scanner, and then even having it
    interfere with the submission of emails, those are damn serious problems all
    resulting in thing not working as intended and being impossible to diagnose.
    Solve these problems first and then look if the issues still persist!

  12. #12
    Jim Watt
    Guest

    Re: Help with AVG Anti-virus email scanning

    On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:41:12 -0400, "Howard M. Rensin"
    <hrensin@gmail.com> wrote:

    >I would not keep posting if I got a real response and not some smartass
    >comment. I have better things to do than keep asking the same question when
    >I get an answer and 'change email scanners' is not an answer to an AVG
    >problem.


    Its not an AVG problem, its a dumb user problem

    HINT: why not turn off the email scanning?
    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com

  13. #13
    Howard M. Rensin
    Guest

    Re: Help with AVG Anti-virus email scanning

    How am I supposed to scan my email, if I turn off the scanner?
    "Jim Watt" <jimwatt@aol.no_way> wrote in message
    news:1use145fhngn0mpo9m5gmmg731do16f3jk@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:41:12 -0400, "Howard M. Rensin"
    > <hrensin@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >>I would not keep posting if I got a real response and not some smartass
    >>comment. I have better things to do than keep asking the same question
    >>when
    >>I get an answer and 'change email scanners' is not an answer to an AVG
    >>problem.

    >
    > Its not an AVG problem, its a dumb user problem
    >
    > HINT: why not turn off the email scanning?
    > --
    > Jim Watt
    > http://www.gibnet.com




  14. #14
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty
    Guest

    Re: Help with AVG Anti-virus email scanning

    Howard M. Rensin wrote:
    [Top-posting corrected]

    > "Jim Watt" wrote:
    >> "Howard M. Rensin" wrote:
    >>> I would not keep posting if I got a real response and not some
    >>> smartass comment. I have better things to do than keep asking the
    >>> same question when I get an answer and 'change email scanners' is
    >>> not an answer to an AVG problem.

    >>
    >> Its not an AVG problem, its a dumb user problem
    >>
    >> HINT: why not turn off the email scanning?

    >
    > How am I supposed to scan my email, if I turn off the scanner?


    As long as you leave the resident scanner running in the background, it
    will prevent you from saving, or executing, any viruses you receive in
    an email (so long as your definitions are up to date).

    The links you were given explain why.

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Windows

  15. #15
    Ertugrul =?UTF-8?B?U8O2eWxlbWV6?=
    Guest

    Re: Help with AVG Anti-virus email scanning

    "Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote:

    > > What's wrong with HTML emails without remote content?

    >
    > <!doctype stupid><html><head><meta name="foo"
    > content="bar"><title>baz</title></head><body><p>Nothing, it's very
    > readible if the receiver's client doesn't support HTML.</body></html>


    That's why usually there is also a text/plain part. Even the
    mail-readers from the Outlook family generate it, so simpler readers can
    display them (though the formatting is a mess).


    > > Why the unnecessary inconvenience with ZIP files? I understand that
    > > in some places (e.g. newsgroups) HTML mails are inappropriate, but
    > > why this generalization?

    >
    > Because there's no standard for it, neither de-jure nor de-facto?
    > because there is a standard to include some basic formatting
    > (text/enriched)? [...]


    MIME is a standard. It allows multipart-emails. HTML is also a
    standard. Together with a standard MIME type name for HTML, that makes
    HTML mails completely standardized. It's left to mail-readers how they
    interpret the non-text/plain parts. Feel free to use a client, which
    displays the text/plain parts only.


    > Because it's a waste or bandwidth?


    A waste of bandwidth? A few kilobytes per person per day? In the times
    of home ADSL and gigabit backbone links? Demanding CR/LF instead of
    sole LF for telnet-like protocols (including HTTP) must be a waste also.
    All text-based protocols, in fact, must be a waste in your view.

    You want to know, what _really_ is a waste today? Two people from the
    same local subnet listening to the same internet radio station -- that
    _is_ a waste of traffic. Not to mention botnets. And the internet
    handles even that very well.

    But no, MP3 streams via HTTP must be a waste anyway, just like graphics
    on web pages and all the other fancy stuff. Back to the roots! \o/


    > Because eMail isn't supposed to emit any formatting?


    Oh yeah, everything that was made up in the 70s and 80s was ultimate.
    There is no reason for inventions. In fact, we don't even need X11 or
    OpenGL. Back to phosphor terminals! \o/


    > Because HTML is meant for hypertext, not formatted documents?


    Maybe HTML 1.0 was. Today, hypertext is one of many features of HTML.


    Regards,
    Ertugrul.


    --
    http://ertes.de/


  16. #16
    Ertugrul =?UTF-8?B?U8O2eWxlbWV6?=
    Guest

    Re: Help with AVG Anti-virus email scanning

    bz <bz+csm@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:

    > > What's wrong with HTML emails without remote content? Why the
    > > unnecessary inconvenience with ZIP files? I understand that in some
    > > places (e.g. newsgroups) HTML mails are inappropriate, but why this
    > > generalization?

    >
    > Oh, here are a few of my reasons:


    I've made a statement to most of these in my reply to Sebastian, so you
    may want to have a look at <fv9cqq$7e8$02$1@news.t-online.com>, too.


    > 1) [...] Information, not 'beauty' or 'cute'.


    Formatting is not meant to make information beautiful or cute.


    > 2) html enabled e-mail clients are executing programs that others have
    > sent you when they render html coded text.


    Odd, mine doesn't. Maybe I misconfigured it?


    > 3) it is practially impossible to 'foolproof' such rendering so as to
    > protect the viewer from all possible attacks.


    HTML is much more complex than plain-text, yes. Still, we have very
    good SGML and XML parsers, which are well tested and seldomly fail in a
    way that can be exploited. Reinventing the wheel is a bad idea in this
    place, so you would just use one of these parsers.

    BTW, if it would be that bad, web browsers would be much more hazardous
    to use. Consider that a mail-reader would only need a small subset of
    the possible HTML extensions, e.g. it doesn't need stuff like JavaScript
    and you may even decide to disregard things like CSS).


    > 4) embeded images in html can tell the sender 'an idiot just opened
    > the e-mail I sent them' so you just told the spammer that the e-mail
    > address is a good one. He can now sell it to other spammers.


    Read the first sentence of my last reply again.


    > 6) html can be coded so that the viewer sees one link while being sent
    > to a different place on the web.


    How? Remember, we ignore JavaScript for mails, and the destination
    address is shown in the status bar.


    > 7) Those that fight spam OFTEN use text only e-mail client in self
    > defense. I do.


    That's okay. I do, too. Though I have an HTML plugin loaded, it
    displays the plaintext parts by default, and displays nothing it there
    is no plaintext part. I have to specifically select the HTML part, if I
    want to view it.

    Reason: Some HTML-enabled mail-readers format their plaintext parts
    that horribly, that the HTML part is just much more readable. Products
    from the Outlook family are one example.


    > 8) Some discard ALL html encoded and graphic encoded incoming e-mail,
    > unviewed.


    Those people don't do serious business. 90% of my incoming business
    emails have an HTML part.


    > There are several other good reasons that I can't think of at the
    > moment but they are all related to 'microsoft thought it would be cool
    > to make messages pretty. They assumed a small offfice environment.'
    > Since they came up with that bright idea, many viruses have been
    > spread that way. They keep plugging holes in the dike, but there are
    > more hole yet to be discovered.


    They were the first to use the MIME and HTML standards in that way. How
    they did it was rather abusive, but we shouldn't demonize a technology
    just because one damn company misimplemented it.


    > It (html via e-mail) was a bad idea to start with. It is STILL a bad
    > idea. Nothing I can think of will ever make it a good idea.


    People like you said similar things when color TVs, CRT monitors (as
    opposed to phosphor), LCD monitors (as opposed to CRT), graphics cards,
    OpenGL, fancy user interfaces, mice, 32-bit processors and other things
    came out. They are more complex and so more likely to fail, and we
    would never really need them.

    It's a matter of taste. Feel free to tell us your opinion, but remember
    that your opinion is based on the state of things, not the other way
    round.


    > Of course, opinions are like noses, everyone has one.


    That sounds like you'd like it to be different.


    Regards,
    Ertugrul.


    --
    http://ertes.de/


  17. #17
    Jim Watt
    Guest

    Re: Help with AVG Anti-virus email scanning

    On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:19:44 -0400, "Howard M. Rensin"
    <hrensin@gmail.com> wrote:

    >How am I supposed to scan my email, if I turn off the scanner?


    Why do you think you need to scan your email?

    If you have AVG installed it will prevent, to the best of its
    ability and updates, any malicious stuff from running.

    You can further enhance your security by running as a user
    with limited rights.

    If you are running outlook express, dump it and replace it
    with Thunderbird which is more secure and has fewer problems.
    If you want to use newsgroups regularly get a proper news
    client, as no doubt Sebastian has mentioned OE does it badly.

    Thunderbird also warns you of things it is suspicious of, like
    phishing attempts and if you get lots of mails you do not recognise
    delete them without opening them.

    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com

  18. #18
    Jim Watt
    Guest

    Re: Help with AVG Anti-virus email scanning

    On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:46:56 +0200, Ertugrul Söylemez <es@ertes.de>
    wrote:

    >> It (html via e-mail) was a bad idea to start with. It is STILL a bad
    >> idea. Nothing I can think of will ever make it a good idea.

    >
    >People like you said similar things when color TVs, CRT monitors (as
    >opposed to phosphor), LCD monitors (as opposed to CRT), graphics cards,
    >OpenGL, fancy user interfaces, mice, 32-bit processors and other things
    >came out.


    Some people also thought that eight track audio tapes, Betamax and
    LED digital watches were a pretty neat idea.

    I see HD DVD has joined the list too.

    HTML mail sucks.
    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com

  19. #19
    bz
    Guest

    Re: Help with AVG Anti-virus email scanning

    Ertugrul =?UTF-8?B?U8O2eWxlbWV6?= <es@ertes.de> wrote in news:fv9f6g$io9$03
    $1@news.t-online.com:

    > bz <bz+csm@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
    >
    >> > What's wrong with HTML emails without remote content? Why the
    >> > unnecessary inconvenience with ZIP files? I understand that in some
    >> > places (e.g. newsgroups) HTML mails are inappropriate, but why this
    >> > generalization?

    >>
    >> Oh, here are a few of my reasons:

    >
    > I've made a statement to most of these in my reply to Sebastian, so you
    > may want to have a look at <fv9cqq$7e8$02$1@news.t-online.com>, too.
    >
    >
    >> 1) [...] Information, not 'beauty' or 'cute'.

    >
    > Formatting is not meant to make information beautiful or cute.


    What is it meant for?

    >
    >
    >> 2) html enabled e-mail clients are executing programs that others have
    >> sent you when they render html coded text.

    >
    > Odd, mine doesn't. Maybe I misconfigured it?


    Maybe you and I disagree a bit on what is meant by 'executing programs'.
    And maybe you and I see different sides of the problem. You seem concerned
    with protecting YOUR computer.

    I, on the other hand, clean computers for people after they have been
    infected due to clueless use.

    >> 3) it is practically impossible to 'foolproof' such rendering so as to
    >> protect the viewer from all possible attacks.

    >
    > HTML is much more complex than plain-text, yes. Still, we have very
    > good SGML and XML parsers, which are well tested and seldomly fail in a
    > way that can be exploited.


    'Seldom' is too often.

    > Reinventing the wheel is a bad idea in this
    > place, so you would just use one of these parsers.


    I see people spend hundreds of hours making their HTML 'look right' on
    their screen. They don't realize that the format and display is platform
    and browser dependent. Even when it is explained to them, they still don't
    'get it' on a deep level and STILL try to make it 'look right' on their
    screen. They don't 'get it' until I show them how it looks on another
    computer.

    Using HTML in e-mail is like gluing flowers on your car's tires.

    It looks pretty until your try to use it.

    Some of the flowers (roses for example) have thorns and poke holes in the
    tires.

    > BTW, if it would be that bad, web browsers would be much more hazardous
    > to use.


    They are much more hazardous than you imagine. I see infected machines
    every day, usually infected by browsing or reading e-mails.


    > Consider that a mail-reader would only need a small subset of
    > the possible HTML extensions, e.g. it doesn't need stuff like JavaScript
    > and you may even decide to disregard things like CSS).


    And do these things come 'turned off' by default?

    I turn off all html rendering AND do not 'preview'. Not only that, but any
    suspicious e-mail I 'view source' rather than opening.

    And I use thunderbird. But the users in my department use Outlook and
    Outlook express. Their machines get infected.

    When I want to open a suspicious e-mail, I open it on a 'sandbox' machine
    running under VMware or boot from a KNOPPIX cd.

    >> 4) embedded images in html can tell the sender 'an idiot just opened
    >> the e-mail I sent them' so you just told the spammer that the e-mail
    >> address is a good one. He can now sell it to other spammers.

    >
    > Read the first sentence of my last reply again.


    Your responsibility seems limited to your machines.

    >> 6) html can be coded so that the viewer sees one link while being sent
    >> to a different place on the web.

    >
    > How? Remember, we


    You have a mouse in your pocket? Who is 'we'.
    How would you get 40,000 students and 3,000 faculty/staff to 'practice safe
    hex'?

    >ignore JavaScript for mails, and the destination
    > address is shown in the status bar.


    That feature can be disabled. It can also be fooled and you seem to assume
    that the user LOOKS at the status bar before they click on the link.
    I'll bet that even YOU have 'clicked first', sometime.

    >> 7) Those that fight spam OFTEN use text only e-mail client in self
    >> defense. I do.

    >
    > That's okay. I do, too. Though I have an HTML plugin loaded, it
    > displays the plaintext parts by default, and displays nothing it there
    > is no plaintext part. I have to specifically select the HTML part, if I
    > want to view it.
    >
    > Reason: Some HTML-enabled mail-readers format their plaintext parts
    > that horribly, that the HTML part is just much more readable.


    You assume that all HTML rendering is good and readable. I was just looking
    at a web page where text was overlaying other text.

    > Products
    > from the Outlook family are one example.


    Microsoft's fault.


    >> 8) Some discard ALL html encoded and graphic encoded incoming e-mail,
    >> unviewed.

    >
    > Those people don't do serious business.


    What you call 'serious business', some others might consider to be chicken
    feed.

    > 90% of my incoming business
    > emails have an HTML part.


    If you handle your 'serious business' via e-mail, you have a problem.

    E-mail never has been and never will be reliable. E-mails get lost.

    That is why 'serious companies' do not allow the use of e-mail for 'serious
    business'. It IS useful for some things but if you want to make sure your
    message gets through, talk to them on the telephone, confirm via fax. Check
    via e-mail to make sure the fax got through ok.

    90% of my incoming spam has HTML. Eliminating HTML eliminates 90% of the
    spam.

    >> There are several other good reasons that I can't think of at the
    >> moment but they are all related to 'microsoft thought it would be cool
    >> to make messages pretty. They assumed a small offfice environment.'
    >> Since they came up with that bright idea, many viruses have been
    >> spread that way. They keep plugging holes in the dike, but there are
    >> more hole yet to be discovered.

    >
    > They were the first to use the MIME and HTML standards in that way. How
    > they did it was rather abusive, but we shouldn't demonize a technology
    > just because one damn company misimplemented it.


    I don't demonize it 'just because....'
    I 'demonize it' because it was a bad idea and has yet to be implemented
    properly.
    And because Microsoft continues to mis-implement it!

    >> It (html via e-mail) was a bad idea to start with. It is STILL a bad
    >> idea. Nothing I can think of will ever make it a good idea.

    >
    > People like you said similar things when color TVs, CRT monitors (as
    > opposed to phosphor), LCD monitors (as opposed to CRT), graphics cards,
    > OpenGL, fancy user interfaces, mice, 32-bit processors and other things
    > came out. They are more complex and so more likely to fail, and we
    > would never really need them.


    I have been playing with computers since 1964 and electronics longer than
    that.
    I have fixed those TVs etc for a living, done board repair on computers for
    a living, programmed for a living.

    I like 'new and improved' when it is really improved.

    > It's a matter of taste. Feel free to tell us your opinion, but remember
    > that your opinion is based on the state of things, not the other way
    > round.


    You ASKED. I answered.

    >> Of course, opinions are like noses, everyone has one.

    >
    > That sounds like you'd like it to be different.


    There are many things I would like to see improved.



    --
    bz

    please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
    infinite set.

    bz+csm@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

  20. #20
    Sebastian G.
    Guest

    Re: Help with AVG Anti-virus email scanning

    Howard M. Rensin wrote:

    > How am I supposed to scan my email, if I turn off the scanner?



    Not at all?

Similar Threads

  1. virus, can't boot, stuck in cyberlimbo
    By Samuel4u in forum Network Security
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-08-08, 03:43 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-12-07, 07:32 AM
  3. Swap BLACKICE for AVG Anti Virus PRO
    By W_I_Z_K_I_D in forum Network Security
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-03-07, 03:27 AM
  4. Anti Virus Software
    By baby0522 in forum Software Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-08-07, 11:29 PM
  5. anti virus....
    By monkeyhead in forum Software Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-31-07, 06:10 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •