reoccuring viruses

Jack,

If personal attacks are the issue here, I would suggest you to read the
sequence of events.

Regarding Symantec, I really find it weird that only mentioning a link to
Symantec is seen/read as supporting Norton.

Is this really caused by the BS software they have been releasing these last
couple of years?

Or maybe could it be related to the forthcoming MS AV...??

Just wondering...

Please be aware that I am a strong supporter of SR. You won't read any
comment of mine saying anything else.

Regarding SR off or on before malware/spyware cleansing, that is a different
issue. I have mine, turn it off, and there are MVP's and non-MVP experts
supporting the same idea I have.

Even Noel Paton admits that different opinions exist.

My personal experience tells me that is wise, or you won't be able to clean
some of the more recent malware.

And, yes, do turn on SR as soon as you have a clean system, making sure you
have a safe restore point.

I will not comment anything else as I find it too biased to be considered
debatable.

Thank you for caring to post.

Zee







"Jack E Martinelli" wrote in message
...
Disregarding for the moment this disagreement about the advisibility of
disabling SR prior to running an AV scan, or for any other reason, Zee, I
direct your attention to your particular words here to Mr. Mike Maltby,
and
to others elsewhere directed to Mr. Richard Harper.
IMO, these constitute a personal attack, unrelated to any technical
discussion about computer business.
This is not acceptible in this ng, nor really anywhere else. We are
civilized here. If you wish to troll, do so elsewhere.
If you continue in this vein, I suggest you will soon not be obtaining any
responses to any inquiries or posts here.

Like your choice in disabling SR on your personal computer, it's your
"personal" choice.

Neither Mike M, Noel Paton, Richard Harper, Mart, nor any one else here
really needs my support since many users here understand the importance of
SR to maintain the WinME computer. Readers can review years of our
comments
to aid them. IMHO, you are the one willing to take an unnecessary,
possibly
catastrophic risk.
Hopefully, less informed readers of this thread will understand this and
avoid your advice. Many already understand the inadvisibility of using
Norton tools, or following Symantec advice, under WinME.

We pride ourselves in the Millennium ng's for being compassionate and
courteous, and expect the same from you despite how heated any
disagreement
may become. There is no excuse for lack of grace under pressure.

Thank you in advance for your serious, careful reconsideration, and any
consideration of an apology to those personally attacked,
so we can return to a technical discussion avoiding personalities,
--
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for Shell/User / DTS
Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/secu...t/default.aspx
Your cooperation is very appreciated.
------
"oops!!" wrote in message
...

Mike,

LOL

I'm sure your *wisdom* is proportional to your lack of education and good
sense.

But, that's so typical of too many MVP's.

Enjoy your life, mate.

Zee



"Mike M" wrote in message
...

SNIP

Sorry you misunderstood that - the intent was to give him other shortcomings
to pick on me about, not to claim that either one was an infirmity.

Although here in northern Michigan lack of cranial insulation may not be an
infirmity but it sure is a darned irritant from about November to May. ;-)

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User]
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"Rick T" wrote in message
...
Richard G. Harper wrote:
Ordinarily I'd ask you not to insult my shortcomings - why I wear
bifocals is my own business. However, since following logical discourse
seems difficult for you, please do feel free to insult my physical
infirmities instead of discussing the real issue.

I'm also overweight and balding, if that helps.


I'll thank you not to put "overweight" and "balding" into the
"infirmities" category.



Rick
"robust with easily accessible carb backups" with a
"light maintenance tonsure"

Richard G. Harper wrote:
Sorry you misunderstood that - the intent was to give him other shortcomings
to pick on me about, not to claim that either one was an infirmity.

Although here in northern Michigan lack of cranial insulation may not be an
infirmity but it sure is a darned irritant from about November to May. ;-)


'twas a joke on my part, Richard (my bad habit of thinking the droll
face I make when I type somehow translates over); same here on the weather.



Rick
currently *under* said weather sigh

The only justification that the AV vendors can possibly produce for advising
the switching off of System Restore prior to scanning is that it reduces the
number of support calls from users worried about the apparent infections in
a non-visible folder on their HD.
It would be far better for the AV vendors to modify their offerings so that
these false-positives are dealt with in a different way - by being flagged
'en-bloc' with a direct instruction as to what to do about them once the
system is fully-cleaned.

This would
1) inform the user
2) protect the user
3) be good practice
4) reduce support costs
5) make everyone happy!

I haven't had correspondence with Symantec on this issue - although I'm
certain others have.
I am currently in correspondence with another AV provider (somewhat smaller
than Symantec, and therefore hopefully more receptive to outside opinions),
and a major University over the wording of their on-line advices - If and
when we reach a conclusion satisfactory to all, then I'll probably let the
NG know.


--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

"oops!!" wrote in message
...

Jack,

If personal attacks are the issue here, I would suggest you to read the
sequence of events.

Regarding Symantec, I really find it weird that only mentioning a link to
Symantec is seen/read as supporting Norton.

Is this really caused by the BS software they have been releasing these
last
couple of years?

Or maybe could it be related to the forthcoming MS AV...??

Just wondering...

Please be aware that I am a strong supporter of SR. You won't read any
comment of mine saying anything else.

Regarding SR off or on before malware/spyware cleansing, that is a
different
issue. I have mine, turn it off, and there are MVP's and non-MVP experts
supporting the same idea I have.

Even Noel Paton admits that different opinions exist.

My personal experience tells me that is wise, or you won't be able to
clean
some of the more recent malware.

And, yes, do turn on SR as soon as you have a clean system, making sure
you
have a safe restore point.

I will not comment anything else as I find it too biased to be considered
debatable.

Thank you for caring to post.

Zee







"Jack E Martinelli" wrote in message
...
Disregarding for the moment this disagreement about the advisibility of
disabling SR prior to running an AV scan, or for any other reason, Zee, I
direct your attention to your particular words here to Mr. Mike Maltby,
and
to others elsewhere directed to Mr. Richard Harper.
IMO, these constitute a personal attack, unrelated to any technical
discussion about computer business.
This is not acceptible in this ng, nor really anywhere else. We are
civilized here. If you wish to troll, do so elsewhere.
If you continue in this vein, I suggest you will soon not be obtaining
any
responses to any inquiries or posts here.

Like your choice in disabling SR on your personal computer, it's your
"personal" choice.

Neither Mike M, Noel Paton, Richard Harper, Mart, nor any one else here
really needs my support since many users here understand the importance
of
SR to maintain the WinME computer. Readers can review years of our
comments
to aid them. IMHO, you are the one willing to take an unnecessary,
possibly
catastrophic risk.
Hopefully, less informed readers of this thread will understand this and
avoid your advice. Many already understand the inadvisibility of using
Norton tools, or following Symantec advice, under WinME.

We pride ourselves in the Millennium ng's for being compassionate and
courteous, and expect the same from you despite how heated any
disagreement
may become. There is no excuse for lack of grace under pressure.

Thank you in advance for your serious, careful reconsideration, and any
consideration of an apology to those personally attacked,
so we can return to a technical discussion avoiding personalities,
--
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for Shell/User / DTS
Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/secu...t/default.aspx
Your cooperation is very appreciated.
------
"oops!!" wrote in message
...

Mike,

LOL

I'm sure your *wisdom* is proportional to your lack of education and good
sense.

But, that's so typical of too many MVP's.

Enjoy your life, mate.

Zee



"Mike M" wrote in message
...

SNIP

Noel,

Thank you for posting again in this somewhat twisted thread.

That is an interesting point of view on the subject.

I will be looking forward to your further news on this.

Zee







"Noel Paton" wrote in message
...
The only justification that the AV vendors can possibly produce for
advising
the switching off of System Restore prior to scanning is that it reduces
the
number of support calls from users worried about the apparent infections
in
a non-visible folder on their HD.
It would be far better for the AV vendors to modify their offerings so
that
these false-positives are dealt with in a different way - by being flagged
'en-bloc' with a direct instruction as to what to do about them once the
system is fully-cleaned.

This would
1) inform the user
2) protect the user
3) be good practice
4) reduce support costs
5) make everyone happy!

I haven't had correspondence with Symantec on this issue - although I'm
certain others have.
I am currently in correspondence with another AV provider (somewhat
smaller
than Symantec, and therefore hopefully more receptive to outside
opinions),
and a major University over the wording of their on-line advices - If and
when we reach a conclusion satisfactory to all, then I'll probably let the
NG know.


--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

"oops!!" wrote in message
...

Jack,

If personal attacks are the issue here, I would suggest you to read the
sequence of events.

Regarding Symantec, I really find it weird that only mentioning a link
to
Symantec is seen/read as supporting Norton.

Is this really caused by the BS software they have been releasing these
last
couple of years?

Or maybe could it be related to the forthcoming MS AV...??

Just wondering...

Please be aware that I am a strong supporter of SR. You won't read any
comment of mine saying anything else.

Regarding SR off or on before malware/spyware cleansing, that is a
different
issue. I have mine, turn it off, and there are MVP's and non-MVP experts
supporting the same idea I have.

Even Noel Paton admits that different opinions exist.

My personal experience tells me that is wise, or you won't be able to
clean
some of the more recent malware.

And, yes, do turn on SR as soon as you have a clean system, making sure
you
have a safe restore point.

I will not comment anything else as I find it too biased to be
considered
debatable.

Thank you for caring to post.

Zee







"Jack E Martinelli" wrote in message
...
Disregarding for the moment this disagreement about the advisibility of
disabling SR prior to running an AV scan, or for any other reason, Zee,
I
direct your attention to your particular words here to Mr. Mike Maltby,
and
to others elsewhere directed to Mr. Richard Harper.
IMO, these constitute a personal attack, unrelated to any technical
discussion about computer business.
This is not acceptible in this ng, nor really anywhere else. We are
civilized here. If you wish to troll, do so elsewhere.
If you continue in this vein, I suggest you will soon not be obtaining
any
responses to any inquiries or posts here.

Like your choice in disabling SR on your personal computer, it's your
"personal" choice.

Neither Mike M, Noel Paton, Richard Harper, Mart, nor any one else here
really needs my support since many users here understand the importance
of
SR to maintain the WinME computer. Readers can review years of our
comments
to aid them. IMHO, you are the one willing to take an unnecessary,
possibly
catastrophic risk.
Hopefully, less informed readers of this thread will understand this
and
avoid your advice. Many already understand the inadvisibility of using
Norton tools, or following Symantec advice, under WinME.

We pride ourselves in the Millennium ng's for being compassionate and
courteous, and expect the same from you despite how heated any
disagreement
may become. There is no excuse for lack of grace under pressure.

Thank you in advance for your serious, careful reconsideration, and any
consideration of an apology to those personally attacked,
so we can return to a technical discussion avoiding personalities,
--
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for Shell/User / DTS
Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/secu...t/default.aspx
Your cooperation is very appreciated.
------
"oops!!" wrote in message
...

Mike,

LOL

I'm sure your *wisdom* is proportional to your lack of education and
good
sense.

But, that's so typical of too many MVP's.

Enjoy your life, mate.

Zee



"Mike M" wrote in message
...

SNIP

Ah - I didn't see a smiley face so I wasn't sure whether you meant it or
not.

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User]
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"Rick T" wrote in message
...
Richard G. Harper wrote:
Sorry you misunderstood that - the intent was to give him other
shortcomings to pick on me about, not to claim that either one was an
infirmity.

Although here in northern Michigan lack of cranial insulation may not be
an infirmity but it sure is a darned irritant from about November to May.
;-)


'twas a joke on my part, Richard (my bad habit of thinking the droll face
I make when I type somehow translates over); same here on the weather.



Rick
currently *under* said weather sigh

Zee, I like your response.
I differ from your judgement in some regards.
I have read the entire previous thread here.
I have no opinion or financial incentives regarding the new MS anti-spyware
tool.
I am a MS MVP: I have no other contract with Microsoft. I am here to help
the Millennium user community. And I think I am honorable and
uncorruptible. I genuinely think the others here are doing the same.


IMO, disabling SR can permit removing some infected SR files, but these are
already "quarantined" if SR is running effectively. Only an inadvertent or
ignorant reversion using SR by the user can reinfect the machine from these
files.
IMO, this risk is far less than any from not having SR available in the
possible circumstance that the current session results in a serious problem.
If I understand Mike M and Noel correctly, this is their point, with which I
agree. Cleansing a SR file is trivial relative to being able to restore a
failing machine. It's the "parachute" thing.

OTH, disabling SR before running a AV scan is not nearly as effective as
running the AV in Safe Mode, if available, or DOS mode, to kill malactors
not yet loaded and executing.

I am most pleased with your reasonable response here and hope that we can
discuss (debate ?) these apparent differences of opinion to a cordial
resolution. It's not necessary that we finally agree on a best course of
action. It is preferable that we have a civil discourse to a point where we
can agree to disagree, if that is the case. As I said earlier, it's the
"personal" in personal computer.

I congratulate you for this reasonable rejoinder. I look forward to your
response.

--
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for Shell/User / DTS
Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/secu...t/default.aspx
Your cooperation is very appreciated.
------
"oops!!" wrote in message
...

Jack,

If personal attacks are the issue here, I would suggest you to read the
sequence of events.

Regarding Symantec, I really find it weird that only mentioning a link to
Symantec is seen/read as supporting Norton.

Is this really caused by the BS software they have been releasing these
last
couple of years?

Or maybe could it be related to the forthcoming MS AV...??

Just wondering...

Please be aware that I am a strong supporter of SR. You won't read any
comment of mine saying anything else.

Regarding SR off or on before malware/spyware cleansing, that is a
different
issue. I have mine, turn it off, and there are MVP's and non-MVP experts
supporting the same idea I have.

Even Noel Paton admits that different opinions exist.

My personal experience tells me that is wise, or you won't be able to
clean
some of the more recent malware.

And, yes, do turn on SR as soon as you have a clean system, making sure
you
have a safe restore point.

I will not comment anything else as I find it too biased to be considered
debatable.

Thank you for caring to post.

Zee







"Jack E Martinelli" wrote in message
...
Disregarding for the moment this disagreement about the advisibility of
disabling SR prior to running an AV scan, or for any other reason, Zee,
I
direct your attention to your particular words here to Mr. Mike Maltby,
and
to others elsewhere directed to Mr. Richard Harper.
IMO, these constitute a personal attack, unrelated to any technical
discussion about computer business.
This is not acceptible in this ng, nor really anywhere else. We are
civilized here. If you wish to troll, do so elsewhere.
If you continue in this vein, I suggest you will soon not be obtaining
any
responses to any inquiries or posts here.

Like your choice in disabling SR on your personal computer, it's your
"personal" choice.

Neither Mike M, Noel Paton, Richard Harper, Mart, nor any one else here
really needs my support since many users here understand the importance
of
SR to maintain the WinME computer. Readers can review years of our
comments
to aid them. IMHO, you are the one willing to take an unnecessary,
possibly
catastrophic risk.
Hopefully, less informed readers of this thread will understand this and
avoid your advice. Many already understand the inadvisibility of using
Norton tools, or following Symantec advice, under WinME.

We pride ourselves in the Millennium ng's for being compassionate and
courteous, and expect the same from you despite how heated any
disagreement
may become. There is no excuse for lack of grace under pressure.

Thank you in advance for your serious, careful reconsideration, and any
consideration of an apology to those personally attacked,
so we can return to a technical discussion avoiding personalities,
--
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for Shell/User / DTS
Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/secu...t/default.aspx
Your cooperation is very appreciated.
------
"oops!!" wrote in message
...

Mike,

LOL

I'm sure your *wisdom* is proportional to your lack of education and
good
sense.

But, that's so typical of too many MVP's.

Enjoy your life, mate.

Zee



"Mike M" wrote in message
...

SNIP

So are we agreed now that each of you has correctly straightened me out ...
vbg
--
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for Shell/User / DTS
Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/secu...t/default.aspx
Your cooperation is very appreciated.
------
"Richard G. Harper" wrote in message
...
Ah - I didn't see a smiley face so I wasn't sure whether you meant it or
not.

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User]
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"Rick T" wrote in message
...
Richard G. Harper wrote:
Sorry you misunderstood that - the intent was to give him other
shortcomings to pick on me about, not to claim that either one was an
infirmity.

Although here in northern Michigan lack of cranial insulation may not
be
an infirmity but it sure is a darned irritant from about November to
May.
;-)


'twas a joke on my part, Richard (my bad habit of thinking the droll
face
I make when I type somehow translates over); same here on the weather.



Rick
currently *under* said weather sigh

You can be straightened out? That's news to me!

GD&RVVF

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User]
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"Jack E Martinelli" wrote in message
...
So are we agreed now that each of you has correctly straightened me out
...
vbg

Jack,

Thank you for your comments but don=92t misunderstand me.

I have no intention of taking back any of my previous comments and I =
will not change my opinion on SR on or off before running =
AV/malware/spyware scanners.

You will forgive me, but I think the different opinions are also based =
on different parameters.

Mine is troubleshooting IRL, yours seems to be the defence of the theory =
and design behind SR. Which, again, is great, but will work against you =
when you want to cleanup an infected system.

What you seem to be unaware is that recent malware is being designed to =
use SR to be quickly reinstalled (restored?).

And you will never get rid of it without disabling SR before cleansing.

I am not the only one thinking this way. Many people do, including other =
MVP=92s.

Rather than a cordial resolution, not at all possible given the =
different opinions, time will tell which one is the correct one, if =
there is only one 100% correct.

As you say: We agree we disagree.

Take care.

Zee





"Jack E Martinelli" wrote in message =
...
Zee, I like your response.
I differ from your judgement in some regards.
I have read the entire previous thread here.
I have no opinion or financial incentives regarding the new MS =
anti-spyware
tool.
I am a MS MVP: I have no other contract with Microsoft. I am here to =
help
the Millennium user community. And I think I am honorable and
uncorruptible. I genuinely think the others here are doing the same.
=20
=20
IMO, disabling SR can permit removing some infected SR files, but =
these are
already "quarantined" if SR is running effectively. Only an =
inadvertent or
ignorant reversion using SR by the user can reinfect the machine from =
these
files.
IMO, this risk is far less than any from not having SR available in =
the
possible circumstance that the current session results in a serious =
problem.
If I understand Mike M and Noel correctly, this is their point, with =
which I
agree. Cleansing a SR file is trivial relative to being able to =
restore a
failing machine. It's the "parachute" thing.
=20
OTH, disabling SR before running a AV scan is not nearly as effective =
as
running the AV in Safe Mode, if available, or DOS mode, to kill =
malactors
not yet loaded and executing.
=20
I am most pleased with your reasonable response here and hope that we =
can
discuss (debate ?) these apparent differences of opinion to a cordial
resolution. It's not necessary that we finally agree on a best course =
of
action. It is preferable that we have a civil discourse to a point =
where we
can agree to disagree, if that is the case. As I said earlier, it's =
the
"personal" in personal computer.
=20
I congratulate you for this reasonable rejoinder. I look forward to =
your
response.
=20
--=20
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for Shell/User / DTS
Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm
=20
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/secu...t/default.aspx
Your cooperation is very appreciated.
------
"oops!!" wrote in message
...

Jack,

If personal attacks are the issue here, I would suggest you to read =
the
sequence of events.

Regarding Symantec, I really find it weird that only mentioning a =
link to
Symantec is seen/read as supporting Norton.

Is this really caused by the BS software they have been releasing =
these
last
couple of years?

Or maybe could it be related to the forthcoming MS AV...??

Just wondering...

Please be aware that I am a strong supporter of SR. You won't read =
any
comment of mine saying anything else.

Regarding SR off or on before malware/spyware cleansing, that is a
different
issue. I have mine, turn it off, and there are MVP's and non-MVP =
experts
supporting the same idea I have.

Even Noel Paton admits that different opinions exist.

My personal experience tells me that is wise, or you won't be able =
to
clean
some of the more recent malware.

And, yes, do turn on SR as soon as you have a clean system, making =
sure
you
have a safe restore point.

I will not comment anything else as I find it too biased to be =
considered
debatable.

Thank you for caring to post.

Zee







"Jack E Martinelli" wrote in =
message
...
Disregarding for the moment this disagreement about the =
advisibility of
disabling SR prior to running an AV scan, or for any other reason, =
Zee,
I
direct your attention to your particular words here to Mr. Mike =
Maltby,
and
to others elsewhere directed to Mr. Richard Harper.
IMO, these constitute a personal attack, unrelated to any =
technical
discussion about computer business.
This is not acceptible in this ng, nor really anywhere else. We =
are
civilized here. If you wish to troll, do so elsewhere.
If you continue in this vein, I suggest you will soon not be =
obtaining
any
responses to any inquiries or posts here.

Like your choice in disabling SR on your personal computer, it's =
your
"personal" choice.

Neither Mike M, Noel Paton, Richard Harper, Mart, nor any one else =
here
really needs my support since many users here understand the =
importance
of
SR to maintain the WinME computer. Readers can review years of =
our
comments
to aid them. IMHO, you are the one willing to take an =
unnecessary,
possibly
catastrophic risk.
Hopefully, less informed readers of this thread will understand =
this and
avoid your advice. Many already understand the inadvisibility of =
using
Norton tools, or following Symantec advice, under WinME.

We pride ourselves in the Millennium ng's for being compassionate =
and
courteous, and expect the same from you despite how heated any
disagreement
may become. There is no excuse for lack of grace under pressure.

Thank you in advance for your serious, careful reconsideration, =
and any
consideration of an apology to those personally attacked,
so we can return to a technical discussion avoiding personalities,
--=20
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for Shell/User / DTS
Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/secu...t/default.aspx
Your cooperation is very appreciated.
------
"oops!!" wrote in message
...

Mike,

LOL

I'm sure your *wisdom* is proportional to your lack of education =
and
good
sense.

But, that's so typical of too many MVP's.

Enjoy your life, mate.

Zee



"Mike M" wrote in message
...

SNIP

=20