Art said:
Probably from experts. It's generally a bad idea.
Art
Let me clarify.
Note: I'm using a Windows Me system right now.
I have already experienced two instances in which my inbox files were
trashed in two different programs (Outlook Express and Thunderbird). The
data files were damaged in exactly the same way. What was common to both
was that I was using AVG, and AVG is, indeed, involved with email scanning.
Therefore, I suspect that what trashed my inbox files was the automatic
scanning done by AVG -- there's a long moment during which the AV
program intercepts the email download off the server. Note carefully the
procedure here in which the scanner grabs the normal down-feed of the
mail, processes it, and then passes it onward to the mail program. If
the file is open at the time, it's a moment during which mayhem may
happen -- not on purpose, of course. I believe that in both cases, the
email stream was particularly complex: attached illustrations were part
of the mix. So, I think that the systems became overwhelmed.
I've worked in software development enough to know first-hand that
programmers, especially ones in the development environment, tend to be
given the latest and almost the fastest equipment, with
industrial-strength OSs. They'll tend to not be in touch with what the
average home user is actually running. The software houses that I know
work with up-to-date, rented computers. There is not a single legacy
system on the premises -- and when I say "legacy," I mean _any_ form of
Windows 9x. In fact, they may only get feedback about XP performance
when somone comes in yelling, "Oh my god, I took this home, and we've
got a real problem here. My wife was..."
I, on the other hand, am running the most notoriously unstable OS
Microsoft ever produced. Granted, I've emasculated the sucker and killed
almost all of its nasty parts. But I think that my OS requires special
care when it comes to routines like this.
Perhaps one or two of you can run multiple AV programs with automatic
scanning of downloads on-the-fly because you're using newer, better OSs
than I am. I just can't take that chance, based on my own very painful
experience. Recovering over 2000 messages -- twice -- were not very
quick jobs -- in fact, the recovery took days of work.
This is not an NT box, yet (hopefully, it will be one before long).
Meanwhile, I've got to tread lightly when it comes to certain
automation. And we must always remember that many programmers do not
write responsible code! And many managers won't pay responsible
programmers to ensure that their code is crafted with excellence. And in
the world of freeware, we've got to take special care to test any
programs we want to use rigorously to ensure ourselves that the code is
safe.
So, my intention is to use three or four antivirus programs, but never
more than one at the same time (to prevent conflicts) -- I mean, what if
two of them try to grab the incoming mail at the same time? And I don't
see why they won't. Each program, after all, is intended to be the only
antivirus on the system. Why would an AV publisher think it wouldn't be?
We all have experienced programs that assume that we want them to take
over our machines (like Real Networks). Care is warranted.
I'm also thinking of killing all automatic scanning and invoking that
process manually. However, one thing at a time. I'm re-thinking, too,
about the fact that these programs tend to install multiple processes to
auto-load on bootup. I've learned the hard way, too, to keep TSRs to a
minimum because that load can be really severe (and yes, Symantec's
wares can be awful hogs). I'm into keeping that "system tray" as lean as
possible.
If my question has stirred up controversy, I'm glad, because this issue
can be critical, especially if we're exploring software. Some software
reviewers get so much nasty junk on their systems that they must
reformat their hard drives at least twice per year -- it's the only way
to really clean up a very messy registry. This is reality.
Make sense?
Richard
)