sbc info
- From: "mark" <mwittig@xxxxxxx>
- To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 14:29:46 -0500
Spyware Weekly Newsletter :· December 1, 2004
The Spyware Weekly Newsletter is distributed every week to 16,000
subscribers and read online by tens of thousands of visitors. Click here to
subscribe.
To unsubscribe from this newsletter, click the link provided at the bottom
of the newsletter. Please read our Terms of Use for quoting guidelines. Old
issues are available online. This edition of the Spyware Weekly Newsletter
is archived permanently at
http://www.spywareinfo.net/dec01,2004.
Wherever the term "adware" is used, it is referring to a category of
software, not to any particular company or product.
Customers Who Opt Out Threatened With Higher Bills
This is a story you might want to spread around a bit, particularly where
large numbers of Californians might read it. It seems that SBC (the
telecommunications
company) is using some unsavory and possibly illegal means to force
customers to not opt out of having their personal information provided to
other companies.
SBC circulated a letter to customers recently stating that unless they
specifically opt out, SBC will begin sharing their personal information with
some
of their subsidiary companies. Missing from the letter is the fact that SBC
currently has more than fifty such subsidiary companies. Also missing from
that letter is the fact that they intend to raise rates on services or even
cancel service to people who choose to opt out.
If you call SBC and try to opt out of their privacy sharing plans, you will
be informed that significant discounts you may be receiving for bundled
services
will be revoked. At least one person even was threatened with cancellation
of his high-speed DSL internet service if he opted out.
I know what some of you are thinking. While it may be distasteful, SBC has
the right to provide or not provide discounts at their discretion. Well, it
turns
out that this is not the case. SBC might be breaking state and federal laws
with their actions.
According to the Federal Communications Commission, "telecom providers are
prohibited from engaging in unreasonable discrimination. If what SBC is
doing
is designed to prevent people from exercising their privacy rights, that's
not reasonable.".
A spokesperson for California's Public Utilities Commission said that they
are interested in looking into this situation.
To opt out of SBC's plan to provide your personal information to other
companies, you must call the company. Residential customers should call
(800) 310-2355.
Business customers should call (800) 750-2355. Better yet, cancel your SBC
account and find a different service provider.
This is beyond being an outrage. This calls for a full scale boycott of SBC,
class-action lawsuits and criminal investigations by the state and federal
authorities. I would like to see every single customer of SBC call to opt
out of this information sharing and then file a complaint against the
company
when they are threatened with higher bills or cancellation of services. Then
I would like to see every one of those customers cancel their accounts on
the spot.
If you have been threatened by SBC while trying to opt out of their data
sharing plans and want to file a complaint, here is the information you
need:
To file a complaint with the California Public Utilities Commission, you can
use an online form available at
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/static/forms/complaint.htm
To file a complaint with the California Attorney-General, you can use an
online form available at
http://ag.ca.gov/consumers/mailform.htm
To file a complaint with the FCC, send an email to
fccinfo@xxxxxxx
or call (888) 225-5322.
Please, please file a complaint if this effects you. This company needs to
be slapped down - hard.
Links:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/11/26/BUGHDA11CU1.DTL
::
Privacy is going to cost you
****************************************
Christmas Special - SuperAdBlocker
Program: SuperAdBlocker
Author: SuperAdBlocker.com
Platform: MSIE 5.x, 6.x, MSN, AOL
License: $29.95 [20% off for SpywareInfo visitors until December 7, 2004]
Use coupon code SPYWAREINFO at checkout
Purchase:
http://www.superadblocker.com/shoppingcart.html?action=add&sku=SAB000
Spywareinfo not only protects your computer - we are going to help you with
your December shopping. This week is the start of the second annual
Spywareinfo
December shopping specials. We have suppliers offering great bargains from
now until the end of the year. These are specials that will not be offered
during
the rest of the year. For this week, you can buy two SuperAdBlockers at the
regular price and receive another two free - buy three and receive another
three free ... and so on. You will receive an email with your free codes.
These programs are great gifts for those computer users on your shopping
list. They are wonderful for the dedicated geek and for the person receiving
a
new computer for the holidays. These are the best programs that Spywareinfo
can find. And we would like to thank all the suppliers who are participating
in this December event. This is their way of supporting Spywareinfo and
extending greetings to the Spywareinfo readership. We thank these suppliers
for
their excellent programs and for their continuous support and generosity.
SuperAdBlocker is flat out the best ad blocking software I have ever seen.
SuperAdBlocker blocks every known method of generating a pop-up ad,
something
I've never seen in a blocker program before now. It passed every single
pop-up test I threw at it, including a few nasty ones included in 1st Page
HTML
editor (the so-called six buttons virus). Not even my beloved FireFox is
that good.
Something else I've never seen is the fact that it also blocks DHTML slider
ads. You've probably seen these a few times. When a slider loads, it either
slides in from the side or the top and looks like a new window and stays
there until you dismiss it. It is part of the page, not a new window, so
most
pop-up blockers miss them. With the rise in pop-up blocker programs, many
sites have started using these. Personally, I find those to be many times
more
annoying than a pop-up.
SuperAdBlocker uses heuristics as well as a rules database to determine what
is an ad. It is very accurate and it is very careful not to block things
that
are not ads. The database is updated constantly and the company always is
looking for ads that slip past the program. It can be set to update itself
from
the company servers automatically so that new rules can be integrated almost
as soon as they are created.
SuperAdBlocker also blocks pop-ups generated by most adware programs. I've
seen that in only one other program. It also scans the hard drive to look
for
installed spyware and will warn you if it finds any. It won't remove the
spyware itself, but it will warn you that it is there. It even disables
Windows
Messenger spam.
SuperAdBlocker also deletes the URL History from the Internet Explorer
address bar, visited page history, cookies and temporary internet files.
If you are looking for an ad blocking program, this is the one to buy.
Simply put, this is the best ad blocker I have seen ... ever.
If you have any problems with the purchase page or with the coupon code
(SPYWAREINFO), please email my partner Catherine.
****************************************
AOL Is Spyware
Many people go on about AOL's software being spyware. To be sure, I've heard
hundreds of times that the advertising AOL members see often begins to
reflect
their style of web surfing. Someone who visits many car racing or hobbyist
sites will notice that the AOL advertising tends to be car-related after a
while.
There is also the matter of some AOL software tampering with Internet
Explorer security settings by adding an AOL web server to the "Trusted
Zone". Still,
I've never agreed that it was spyware - until now.
AOL's newest software is specifically designed to be used as surveillance
spyware. The intention, while misguided, is good. It is listed as a parental
control
and allows the "Master User" to monitor the internet usage of every other
user. The software creates reports of other users' web surfing, emails and
instant
messaging activity. I don't know if it also takes screenshots. If it
doesn't, that is just about the only feature missing that is found in most
commercial
spyware products.
While this is billed as a "parental control", anyone could use this feature
to spy on you if you use AOL. Anyone with the "Master" account's password
can
turn on this feature and spy on anyone else using that computer. This can
even be done remotely, so the person doesn't have to be right there in the
house.
If you use AOL, you had better check to make sure someone isn't using it to
spy on you.
****************************************
Marketscore Redirecting Encrypted Web Traffic
A program called Marketscore, the newest incarnation of an older spyware
program called Netsetter, has been discovered to be decrypting encrypted web
browsing
data and sending it to their servers.
According to an article at PCWorld, Marketscore promises to speed up web
surfing by serving pages from their proxy servers. The problem is that the
software
creates its own trusted certificate authority on computers. That certificate
authority intercepts data that is encrypted, decrypts the data, then passes
it to the Marketscore servers before reencrypting the data and passing it
along to its final destination. That data could be anything from passwords
to
credit card numbers to all of the personal information needed to file for a
bank loan.
On top of that, all other web browsing requests go through Marketscore's
servers, encrypted or otherwise. Combined with a unique tracking code,
potentially
this would allow Marketscore to monitor every single web site you visit.
Marketscore is classified and detected as spyware by most antispyware
products. Lavasoft rates Marketscore as a level 10 threat, their highest
threat rating.
It is bundled with unrelated software such as the Imesh file sharing
program. Some people may not realize that this software is running on their
machine.
I strongly suggest installing an antispyware program such as Ad-aware or
Spybot and removing Marketscore if it is installed on your computer.
Links:
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,118757,00.asp ::
Universities Struggling with SSL-Busting Spyware
http://www.lavasoftnews.com/ms/display_main.php?tac=Marketscore(Netsetter)
::
Lavasoft's Threat Assessment Chart
http://www.lavasoft.de/ ::
Ad-aware
http://www.spybot.info/ ::
Spybot
****************************************
Claria/Gator's EULA
There is an interesting article at Ben Edelman's site. He has written about
his examination of Claria/Gator's end user license agreement (EULA). I know
how that sounds but it is actually very interesting.
The first thing he points out is the fact that the license agreement is
extraordinarily difficult to read, if you happen to be the one person out of
10,000
who actually reads an EULA. Assuming it is readable at all (that's not
always the case apparently), often it is presented in a very small portion
of a
small scroll box. The reader is forced to scroll several dozen times to read
the entire agreement.
If you persevere and manage to read Claria/Gator's EULA, you'll find one
clause that prohibits a user from viewing or recording the network traffic
between
Claria/Gator's software and their web servers. That is a particularly odd
thing to put into a software license. I wonder what it is Claria/Gator has
to
hide from their users?
Another section demands that you not remove or encourage the removal of the
software in any way other than going to add/remove. Claria/Gator seems to be
forbidding the use of antispyware tools.
Uh huh. And I demand that you close my newsletter only by setting fire to
your computer while baying at the moon. If you close it in any other way,
you
are in violation of my policy. I wonder if anyone from Claria/Gator is
reading this?
Links:
http://www.benedelman.org/news/112904-1.html ::
Gator's EULA Gone Bad
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/ads/gator/ ::
Documentation of Gator Advertisements and Targeting
****************************************
RFID Privacy Concerns
I have read yet another article about Radio Frequency ID (RFID) tags and
privacy. I am beginning to wonder if every article on the subject is written
by
someone who is pro-RFID and wants to make privacy advocates look like fools.
Something that appears in every one of these stories is a statement similar
to this: "privacy advocates are uneasy at the thought of being tracked
through the store with a system recording exactly what is in their shopping
cart.".
Oh good grief. While I'm sure those very people exist (somewhere), that is
not the main objection to RDIF tags. "THEY" are going to find out what items
are in my shopping cart anyway when I go to pay for them. The actual concern
that people have is that these tags will remain readable once they have left
the store.
At the moment, RFID tags are readable only up to a very small distance away.
In the future, this will not be the case. Imagine having several thousand
dollars
worth of jewelry, all tagged with RFID chips, on your person while walking
down a dark street. Do you really want someone with an RFID reader following
you around? Or how about someone outside your home pretending to read your
electric meter while waving an RFID reader up and down the walls outside
your
bedroom?
There is a clear, simple way to dispell these concerns. All RFID chips, ALL
OF THEM, should be destroyed at the point of purchase. This is not a
difficult
thing to do and it is not asking too much of RFID makers and retailers to do
this. And yet, the proponents of RFID tracking technology categorically have
refused to consider this when confronted with the idea. Why? What can they
possibly be planning to do that requires that these tags not be destroyed
after
they have left the store?
RFID tracking of inventory is going to happen. And frankly, that is a good
thing. It will reduce cost and make it much easier to manage warehouses and
retail
stocks. I've worked in a warehouse and I would have loved to have had
something like this. What is not a good thing is the ominous potential
represented
by RFID tags out in the wild.
I believe Congress needs to step in here. All we need is one simple
requirement, that all RFID tags will be destroyed as soon as the item to
which it is
attached is purchased. As soon as I hand over cash for the item, it is no
longer the store's merchandise. It is now my private property and the store
loses
any right to track its location.
Here's an idea that solves the problem. Embed the RFID chip into a piece of
plastic attached to the merchandise, same as the price tag. The cashier
clips
off the plastic tag as it is being checked out. In this way the tracking
chip never leaves the store, disabled or otherwise. They could even find a
way
to recycle the tags and save money.
What possible objection could there be to this - unless they have other
plans for the tags which "THEY" don't want us to know about?
Links:
http://www.crmbuyer.com/story/Squaring-the-Circle-with-RFID-and-Privacy-38385.html
::
Squaring the Circle with RFID and Privacy
****************************************
Local News
I was playing a video game the other night with the local TV news playing in
the other room. They started talking about spyware, so I paused the game to
go watch the piece.
Journalists often seem to be clueless about spyware. Many news articles or
TV reports about spyware make it obvious that the writer really doesn't know
what they're talking about. This piece was pretty good however. They covered
the basics and even suggested Ad-aware and Spybot near the end.
Then the reporter pointed viewers to a page on the TV station's web site
with links to the programs. I loaded the page and nearly fell out of my
chair.
They had the wrong link to Ad-aware. They are linking to some copycat site
selling an unrelated program. The site and program have nothing more to do
with
Ad-aware than the fact that the web site's address has "ada-ware" in the
name.
There are so many rip-off programs that play on the name of Ad-aware and
Spybot and this is one of them. I called them and told them about the error
but
they still haven't fixed the link.
This is a problem I notice in many TV news reports about spyware. The people
selling these copycat programs play on the name of Ad-aware and Spybot and
hope to fool people into going to their site instead of the real sites.
Reporters tend to fall for it hook, line and sinker.
Do your neighbors a favor. If you see a report about spyware on your local
news and they link to the wrong place on their web site, call them to point
out
the error and ask them to fix it. Many of the programs you'll find at these
copycat sites are every bit as bad as the targets of the real Ad-aware. Some
of them actually are targets.
SpywareWarrior has a whole page devoted to listing these copycat and
malicious programs masquerading as antispyware. Always check this site
before trying
a new program that claims to be an antispyware program.
There was another story right after the spyware story that caught my
interest. It has nothing to do with spyware but it really ticks me off and I
want to
rant about it.
Morgan Gallo and Tim O'Bryant are a young couple living in a suburb outside
of Savannah, Georgia. They are engaged to be married. Last Saturday, someone
broke into their garage and stole hundreds, possibly thousands, of dollars
worth of property. Along with the Christmas gifts and other items taken, the
thief stole a flak jacket and an armored kevlar helmet.
Tim is a soldier with the U.S. Army, Third Infantry Division, which is based
nearby at Fort Stewart. His unit is going to be deployed to Iraq very soon.
And now he doesn't have the body armor that he certainly is going to need
when he is in Iraq. The Army probably won't issue replacements and the
police
probably won't be able to find the armor before he ships out.
That just ticks me off. They should charge that thief with treason when they
catch him. Or better yet, draft him and send him to Iraq without body armor.
Links:
http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm ::
Rogue Antispyware Programs
****************************************
Same Old Simpleminded Argument
Something I hear constantly from people, when I'm discussing privacy and
spyware, is the phrase "I have nothing to hide". How I counter that depends
on
who says it and what prompted it. In all cases, it infuriates me when
someone says that. It is a cop out. It is lazy. It is ignorant. It is
apathetic.
It is a simpleminded argument that, instead of addressing the issue,
attempts to embarrass the person speaking up for their privacy.
More importantly, it is dangerous argument. You cannot live in a free
society and have an attitude like that. If you don't protest when your
rights are
violated, all too soon the society will cease being free.
It turns out that some of those who say they don't worry about their
privacy, because they have nothing to hide, sometimes are lying. When their
privacy
is invaded unfairly, they squawk just as loudly as anyone else. Read this
story at the Willamette Week Online and you'll see what I mean.
I was watching a show on Fox News (yes, I realize I watch too much news)
when they did a segment about unjustified searches. It seems that the cops
in New
Jersey or somewhere used dogs to sniff around outside a car after a person
refused a "consensual" search by a state trooper.
Police in the United States have no right to search a vehicle without
permission unless they have reason to believe they will find evidence of a
crime.
If you are pulled over and a police officer asks permission to search the
vehicle, you are perfectly within your rights to say no.
Linda Vester, God bless her, piped up with "I would have no problem letting
a policeman search my car because I know I've done nothing wrong and have
nothing
to hide.". She followed that up with a suspiciously arrogant-looking smirk.
It was almost sad when the person with whom she was debating stuck a pin in
her bubble. "Really? And if you've just returned from Atlantic City with
several
thousand dollars in cash from a good night at the casino?". The live
audience roared with laughter. Poor Linda, she had no answer to that and so
she changed
the subject.
When someone is pulled over by police and they have thousands of dollars in
cash, quite often that cash doesn't make it home with them. Under US Federal
forfeiture law, you actually don't have to commit a crime for the police to
seize your property. They can just take it, never charge you with a crime or
even arrest you. All they have to do is claim that they suspect the property
is related to some sort of crime, usually drug-related. They are not
required
to prove this. Why this practice hasn't been banned for violating the Fourth
Amendment is beyond me.
Two hundred different federal laws make it close to impossible ever to
recover that property. You have to prove the property was not gained by
illegal actions
(how do you prove a negative fact?), you are prohibited from suing for your
legal costs and you are even forced to pay the police department's legal
costs
whether you win or lose. If you don't believe me, do a Google search for the
words "forfeiture+cops". You'll be in for a blood-chilling read.
Still have no problem with an illegal search of your car, Linda?
There is always something to hide that is none of anyone's business. Credit
card numbers for instance. A medical condition. What you ate for lunch.
That,
however, is not the point. The point is, some things are none of anyone
else's business.
Privacy is a right. Short of a court order or a policeman's valid "probable
cause", my right to keep my private information private supersedes anyone
else's
desire to make learn of or make use of it.
That, really, is all there is to it.
Links:
http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=3485 ::
RUBBISH!
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentiv
::
Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.
****************************************
What is Computer Associates Thinking?
Computer Associates, which recently purchased the antispyware company
PestPatrol, has released a list of the top spyware applications. In that
list is the
program Kazaa. While installing Kazaa is an excellent way to infect yourself
with all manner of spyware, the program itself certainly is not spyware.
What
can CA possibly be thinking?
Use of the term "spyware" has gotten out of hand. Some firms are reporting
that 97% of all computers are infected with spyware. The trouble is that
they
are counting cookies as spyware. As I have explained repeatedly, cookies are
NOT spyware.
This overuse of the word spyware reduces its impact. When you start
referring to cookies as spyware and labeling programs such as Kazaa as
spyware, it makes
it very hard for people to take the issue seriously.
While the term "spyware" caught the attention of people when Steve Gibson
first coined it years ago, I am beginning to wish he had called it something
else.
For one thing, it doesn't apply to many of the problems lumped under the
category of "spyware". CWS may be nasty but it is by no means spyware. I've
started
calling the software that causes these problems "parasites".
Computer Associates needs to rethink what they are doing. They are causing a
headache to all of us involved in this new antispyware industry.
Links:
http://www.spywareinfo.net/nov10,2004#cost ::
The Cost Of Spyware
http://www.marketingvox.com/archives/2004/11/29/spyware_label_abused_losing_nasty_effect/
:: '
Spyware' Label Abused, Losing Nasty Effect
****************************************
Headlines
I do not intentionally link to web sites that require registration before
allowing visitors to read the article. At the time I read these articles, I
was
not required to register. If one of these sites requires that you register
before allowing you to read the article, please let me know and I will
blacklist
that site.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-fone27.html ::
Loophole would let messages penetrate Do Not Call list
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Banking/FinancialPrivacy/P73724.asp ::
How to fight spam, junk mail and sales calls
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/11/29/a1.uospyware.1129.html ::
Beware Spyware - Infections on Rise
http://www.techweb.com/wire/networking/54200967 ::
Computer Firms Score Poorly In Privacy, Customer Response
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5469837.html ::
Random answers retain privacy
http://www.newstarget.com/002542.html ::
Color laser printers snitch on their owners
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/analysis_and_features/story.jsp?story=587774
::
Small Talk: Spyware company has its eye on a fund raiser
http://www.onlypunjab.com/fullstory1104-insight-MetroPipe+Releases+Technology-status-10-newsID-7581.html
::
MetroPipe Releases Technology Preview of the Portable Virtual Privacy
Machine
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/10288470.htm?1c ::
The king of adware
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19889 ::
CIA funds monitoring of IRC
http://www.crmbuyer.com/story/Whose-Computer-Is-This-38386.html ::
Whose Computer Is This?
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2004/11/24/opinion/opinion4.txt ::
Take privacy for granted at your peril
http://www.dmnews.com/cgi-bin/artprevbot.cgi?article_id=31131 ::
ID Theft, Spyware Could Dent Holiday E-Commerce
****************************************
Support SpywareInfo
Running SpywareInfo has become an expensive thing to do. We are using seven
separate servers to display the site and to protect it from denial of
service
attacks. This is not a cheap web site to host.
If you would like to help with the costs, there are three options. There is
PayPal for those who have a Paypal account or don't mind signing up for one
(it is free).
There is a snail mail address if you do not like Paypal or have no means of
sending money online. Please make sure to make checks (in US Dollars) or
money
orders (in American currency) out to James Healan and not Mike Healan so I
am not hassled at the bank. Please note that contributions to SpywareInfo
are
not tax deductible.
The address is:
James Healan
PO Box 2378
Reidsville, GA USA 30453
Thank you very much for your contributions.
You can also purchase t-shirts, hats, bumper stickers and other items from
our CafePress storefront. We'll have more designs to offer soon.
****************************************
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Click the link below to unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe, go to the followig URL :
http://www.spywareinfo.com/subscribe_text/ml.php?type=desinscription&addr=markw@xxxxxxxxxxxx&hash=4ef2bc97fcd0a9a6d8fa1dbf14a8d8a6
-----
Original Message -----
From: <
ptusing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <
jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: Any problems with SBC "Self-support" upgrade & JAWS?
Hi,
I have complained all the way to "Resolution expert".
If any one does try this SBC "mandatory" upgrade and you hate it, write
me.
The escalation "Resolution" expert would be interested in direct
correspondence with any one who cannot use the mandatory upgrade.
I have means of having the Resolution Expert call me back.
Yes, I refuse the upgrade every time which is very often.
I told her this in my opinion violatesthe contract and ifI am forced to
usethestuff,I will changeto cable.
If enough people gripe, they will listen.
To gripe, call Customer Service and escalateto Manager and be insistent.
----- Original Message -----
From: "david poehlman" <
david.poehlman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <
jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: Any problems with SBC "Self-support" upgrade & JAWS?
> is there a box to uncheck? if there is, take the option. If not,
complain.
> There is no reason to have that junk on your pc whether or not it is
> accessible to jaws.
>
> Johnnie Apple Seed
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <
ptusing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <
jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 12:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Any problems with SBC "Self-support" upgrade & JAWS?
>
>
> HI,
> Every one is getting the reminder which is marked "mandatory" and that is
> whyI am asking if any one has checked "yes" to upgrade?
> Also if you upgraded, does it work well with JAWS?
> My preference would be to skip the upgrade entirely, but that appears to
> not be an option.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stu" <
k5stu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <
jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 9:41 AM
> Subject: Re: Any problems with SBC "Self-support" upgrade & JAWS?
>
>
> > Why even use the software?
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <
ptusing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <
jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 6:32 PM
> > Subject: Any problems with SBC "Self-support" upgrade & JAWS?
> >
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > Because in the past 5 weeks, some of us have found problems with
> software
> > > from 3 major vendors having latest versions partially or mostly
> > > inaccessible,
> > > I would be curious to know the experience of JAWS users and the SBC
> > > self-support upgrade before one alters a program that works.
> > > As there are so many blind SBC users, it might be possible to get
the
> > > company's attention if there are major problems with the upgraded
> > software.
> > >
> > > --
> > > To post a message to the list, send it to
jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message to
> >
jfw-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
> > > Archives located at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/jfw
> > >
> > > If you have any concerns about the list, post received from the list,
or
> > the way the list is being run, do not post them to the list. Rather
> contact
> > the list owner at
jfw-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > --
> > To post a message to the list, send it to
jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message to
>
jfw-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
> > Archives located at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/jfw
> >
> > If you have any concerns about the list, post received from the list, or
> the way the list is being run, do not post them to the list. Rather
contact
> the list owner at
jfw-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> --
> To post a message to the list, send it to
jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message to
>
jfw-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
> Archives located at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/jfw
>
> If you have any concerns about the list, post received from the list, or
the
> way the list is being run, do not post them to the list. Rather contact
the
> list owner at
jfw-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> --
> To post a message to the list, send it to
jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message to
jfw-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
> Archives located at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/jfw
>
> If you have any concerns about the list, post received from the list, or
the way the list is being run, do not post them to the list. Rather contact
the list owner at
jfw-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To post a message to the list, send it to
jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message to
jfw-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
Archives located at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/jfw
If you have any concerns about the list, post received from the list, or the
way the list is being run, do not post them to the list. Rather contact the
list owner at
jfw-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To post a message to the list, send it to jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message to
jfw-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
Archives located at: //www.freelists.org/archives/jfw
If you have any concerns about the list, post received from the list, or the
way the list is being run, do not post them to the list. Rather contact the
list owner at jfw-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
