G
Guest
The spyware definitions were updated from 5678 to 5680 today. Has that
seemed to fix many of all these false positives?
seemed to fix many of all these false positives?
W
Walter Clayton
In a word, no.
T
thomas lee
-----Original Message-----
Shouldn't MS publish details of the changes in
signatures? Some sort of update log as to what's new?
Shouldn't MS publish details of the changes in
signatures? Some sort of update log as to what's new?
T
thomas lee
-----Original Message-----
Shouldn't MS publish details of the changes in
signatures? Some sort of update log as to what's new?
Shouldn't MS publish details of the changes in
signatures? Some sort of update log as to what's new?
W
Walter Clayton
It's their call and it may be in the works. During the beta there are bigger
fish to fry though. Publishing detection changes is something that's done by
most vendors but that data is really only meaningful to a handful of people
and isn't really a part of the baseline product.
fish to fry though. Publishing detection changes is something that's done by
most vendors but that data is really only meaningful to a handful of people
and isn't really a part of the baseline product.
G
Guest
I disagree, as participants in an open beta we are
entitled to information such as issues addressed in
incramental patches and updates, beta is a two way street
and demands the open flow of information in both
directions.
if an update is put out that addresses a specific
previously reported issue and we're not told about it how
will we know to report the issue as still active? or are
we supposed to re-report all previously detected bugs with
every patch just in case one of them was supposed to be
addressed in that patch?
do you see what I mean about the flow of info? we're not
animals in a lab getting sprayed with perfume so someone
can observe the results, we are supposed to be active
participants in this, and someone there needs to get a
handle on making this pig fly.
entitled to information such as issues addressed in
incramental patches and updates, beta is a two way street
and demands the open flow of information in both
directions.
if an update is put out that addresses a specific
previously reported issue and we're not told about it how
will we know to report the issue as still active? or are
we supposed to re-report all previously detected bugs with
every patch just in case one of them was supposed to be
addressed in that patch?
do you see what I mean about the flow of info? we're not
animals in a lab getting sprayed with perfume so someone
can observe the results, we are supposed to be active
participants in this, and someone there needs to get a
handle on making this pig fly.
R
Ron Chamberlin
Hey Thomas!
That would be a nice add on.
Ron Chamberlin
MS-MVP
That would be a nice add on.
Ron Chamberlin
MS-MVP
W
Walter Clayton
You got it. In general unless MS specifically says*not* to report an issue
you continue to report it after each build just for that reason.
We aren't lab animals.
However one of the things most tricky in testing in general is in fact
providing too much information to specific groups. It's considered a form of
blind testing. I've been in formal betas where testing 'scripts' were
supplied and it was encouraged to stick to the scripts only. I've also been
in other betas where certain issues were published to the testing community
and not retested by the people with the original issues and the product went
out the door with the issue still present although in a subtly different
form. There's also the problem that something fixed on the current build
gets hosed on the next build.
Welcome to beta testing. 8-P