[pchelpers] reader-friendly quoting

From: "Ekhart GEORGI (last name last)" <ekhart.georgi@xxxxxxxxx>
To: pchelpers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 12:36:36 +0200
forwarding to list to remind anyone interested why
1) recommending the free version of BitDefender is a very bad idea and
2) why it's important to be careful in quoting messages the traditional 
way to not frustrate many people

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [pchelpers] Re: my computer's a zombie (sending spam)
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 09:00:29 +0200
From: Ekhart GEORGI (last name last) <Ekhart.GEORGI@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: pchelpers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: pchelpers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hi John

You and i are among the last people still using the traditional, polite
method of putting answers after the quoted text instead of above it.
This makes it easy for the reader to understand the answers and prevents
the annoying situation now common on this list and elsewhere, in which
one doesn't understand the answers and has to scroll down and hunt for
what is being responded to and then has to reread the answers.

However, when you put an answer after a quoted part, it is important to
remove those parts of the old message that are not necessary for
understanding your answer (and previous messages quoted in the old
message). It is also important to have at least one empty line between
the quoted message and your answer. Otherwise most people find such
interleaved answers very confusing and annoying. Many can't even find
your answers.

> You make some interesting points here (noted). This must be why many
> users also use things like Spywareblaster, hosts protection and other
> methods to fill the gaps.

These can only supplement and can not replace the protection provided by
having both an antivirus and antispyware program running actively in the
background (real-time protection).

>> Since BitDefender doesn't even initially provide real-time protection, i
>> find its attitude to consumers to be even worse and very close to what
>> drug dealers do who hand out the first hits for free.
>
> It was not obtained for real time protection, but rather for its good
> scanning abilities.

*You* obtained it for that purpose because you're a computer expert, but
most people who install it do not realise that it's not protecting their
computer and that it can only remove infections after they occur and
only if the user runs a scan.

So most people who install BitDefender do not install a normal ("real",
functional, active) antivirus program with real-time protection; in
fact, most people who install BitDefender uninstall any normal AV they
previously had. I'm very sure the company is aware of this and is
consciously compromising the security and welfare (identity theft etc.)
of thousands of people out of greed and selfishness. Very antisocial
behavior.

The following warning on the download page is incomprehensible to most
people and plain nonsense (people with Internet connections that are not
"always on" also use email and webpages!) - a classic example of the
sort of antisocial, irresponsible, dishonest, conniving gibberish
lawyers come up with to protect their dishonest clients:

"BitDefender Free Edition is an on-demand virus scanner, which is best
used in a system recovery or forensics role. If you are on an
"always-on" Internet connection, we strongly advise you to consider
using a more complex antivirus solution. "

>> Avira (not Avia) is not only the probably most effective antivirus
>> program (always the best or one of the top 3 in reliable tests), it also
>> sends out updates much faster and much more often than all other AVs.
>> Its settings can also be changed to look for updates every few hours,
>> which is only available in the pay versions of other AVs, and these
>> usually don't even have updates available that often.
>
> It probably wouldn't hurt to have an extra one, but it is also true in
> the majority of cases that they have to be run to work.
> You get what you pay for.

You're right that *if* an extra antivirus program is not running
actively, it can provide extra protection without paralysing the
computer *if* run by the user. These two ifs are however too much for
most users, so most users who install a new AV either have a crippled
computer (because they have two active AVs) or an unprotected computer
(because they have only a passive AV).
[pchelpers] reader-friendly quoting

Other related posts:
