nobody > wrote:
> 1PW wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, those who would rate Norton "good" are not those who I
>> might depend upon for an opinion to professionally protect an entire
>> company, corporation, or arm of a major governmental super power.
>
> Supposedly.... Norton Security 2009 has been trimmed of its bloat and is
> now a viable "paid for" option.

I don't disagree that it hasn't been improved. However, folks in
these antimalware NGs have never recommended a Norton antimalware
product in my memory. I recently read (somewhere) that providers had
to lower the price of Norton AntiVirus 2009 to less than $20USD to
help sales.

We still pity those who install Norton stuff on systems with
challenged resources. We would much rather see a n00be install Avira
for their AV needs. Perhaps Microsoft Security Essentials will show
promise.

>> Try checking out what some of the professional research organizations
>> have to report about Norton:
>>
>> <http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/results?display=summary>
>
> FYI requires registration to view results, but free

My bad. I did that intensionally to make a point.

>> <http://www.av-comparatives.org/>
>
> Not updated well

That was sort of a ploy to show that Norton products haven't been
rated professionally.

>> I'm fairly certain you know this; A Norton product should not be
>> considered a Symantec product - and a Symantec product should not be
>> considered a Norton product. So that is for the benefit others...
>
> Oh??
> Where do you find the mfr's website for Norton Security 2009??
>
> http://www.symantec.com/norton/internet-security
>
> The "Norton" trademark was bought from Peter Norton many years ago by
> Symantec.

Yes. Certainly. If you're new to the malware fight, you soon find
this out in short order. Some of us may still remember Peter Norton
Utilities a few decade ago.

A Norton product has no relationship to a corporate Symantec product.
As I, and others have oft said in these NGs, with a few embarrassing
instances, Symantec corporate products hold a much higher level of
respect when compared to Norton antimalware offerings.

None of us truly wants this.

Respectfully,

Pete
--
1PW @?6A62?FEH9E=6o2@=]4@> [r4o7t]

Fruit2O wrote:

Snip, snip...

> How did you know I was a Rhode Islander?

Though you /are/ running the latest Forte Agent, your newsreader and
security practices are quite generous with /your/ information.

Not to worry. We have relatively few stalkers in this newsgroup...

:-)

Regards,

Pete
--
1PW @?6A62?FEH9E=6o2@=]4@> [r4o7t]

1PW wrote:

> Fruit2O wrote:
> > How did you know I was a Rhode Islander?
>
> Though you /are/ running the latest Forte Agent, your newsreader
> and security practices are quite generous with /your/ information.

Wrong.

Fruit20's news reader and his "security practices" had nothing to do
with id'ing him as being in Rhode Island.

1PW knows that Fruit20 is in Rhode Island because of this line in the
header of Fruit20's posts:

NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.1.163.181

A reverse lookup on that IP address returns this:

ip68-1-163-181.ri.ri.cox.net

Whois information also indicates that the likely geolocation of that IP
is RI - Rhode Island.

The presence of the NNTP-Posting-Host line in Fruit20's posts is not
caused by his news reader or his "security practices". That line is
created by the NNTP server or service he uses to read and post to
usenet, which is COX, or perhaps more correctly, a highwinds-media.com
server used by COX customers.

> your newsreader and security practices are quite
> generous with /your/ information

I wonder what caused 1PW to make such a false claim.

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:03:08 -0400, Virus Guy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>1PW wrote:
>
>> Fruit2O wrote:
>> > How did you know I was a Rhode Islander?
>>
>> Though you /are/ running the latest Forte Agent, your newsreader
>> and security practices are quite generous with /your/ information.
>
>Wrong.
>
>Fruit20's news reader and his "security practices" had nothing to do
>with id'ing him as being in Rhode Island.
>
>1PW knows that Fruit20 is in Rhode Island because of this line in the
>header of Fruit20's posts:
>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.1.163.181
>
>A reverse lookup on that IP address returns this:
>
> ip68-1-163-181.ri.ri.cox.net
>
>Whois information also indicates that the likely geolocation of that IP
>is RI - Rhode Island.
>
>The presence of the NNTP-Posting-Host line in Fruit20's posts is not
>caused by his news reader or his "security practices". That line is
>created by the NNTP server or service he uses to read and post to
>usenet, which is COX, or perhaps more correctly, a highwinds-media.com
>server used by COX customers.
>
>> your newsreader and security practices are quite
>> generous with /your/ information
>
>I wonder what caused 1PW to make such a false claim.

I wonder why anyone would bother to look up the source of a posting?

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:03:08 -0400, Virus Guy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> your newsreader and security practices are quite
>> generous with /your/ information
>
>I wonder what caused 1PW to make such a false claim.


That's shut him up but only on this thread it appears.


Jim.