Well, for what it's worth, Ian and Kevin, I've used McAfee for years and have rarely heard a peep from it. It's not
that I haven't had infected email, it's just that McAfee never seemed to notice them until I tried to save the
attachments. There was one exception when I slipped up and opened an infected attachment from a friend, (forgetting
to save, then scan, as I usually do) but McAfee screamed right away, so my machine wasn't infected. From what
you've both explained, AVG seems to act pretty much the same way, in that it allows you to manipulate
virus-infected email, but knows when to speak up. To me, it sounds like Norton is too intrusive, albeit, safe, but
just how safe one needs to feel is personal.

So should we feel safe if our flavor of VS programs look and act differently? As long as they know when to scream,
that should be the deciding factor. However, as good as AVG sounds, there's still something in the back of my
little head that murmurs, "you get what you pay for", so even though they seem to do the same thing, I'm sticking
with McAfee. If you really want to put AVG through its paces, I would acquire a copy of the standard Eicar virus
test, rather than playing with fire using known infected files - which, admittedly, had me more nervous then I like
to be, especially since I didn't know Norton had already cleaned them, and McAfee just let me play with them like
they were kittens!

It's definitely a bonus knowing that my ISP is on the ball. They have caught most of the viri headed for my inbox,
so I'll never know how McAfee would have dealt with them. McAfee just let me send the Eicar test file to myself
without a peep, (outbound), but my ISP didn't miss it, so I never did get it back. If more ISP's were concerned
enough about the spread of viri, perhaps together they and the VS programs could put an end to this foolishness.

As a final note from me on this subject, I wouldn't be too concerned about so-called viri that can infect a system
just by previewing the email. Sure there will be infections, but I'm betting the good people getting paid to keep
the VS programs on the cutting edge have more incentive than the people writing viri. Have a good day.

Al Thompson

 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Porter" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 2:18 AM
Subject: [PCSOFT] XP and AVG - W98SE and Norton 2002


> As to whether these mails were really infected, read on.
>
> As I said earlier, I sent these infected mails to Kevin Johnson and Al
> Thompson, who both wanted to test their systems.
>
> Kevin, you obviously got yours ok.  But Al didn't.  The reason?  His ISP
> intercepted the mails, and refused to forward them to Al, because of their
> virus content. Then they told me what they'd done.
>
> I also got a blast from Xtra (which is an ISP you'll be familiar with,
> Kevin) about disseminating viruses.
>
> So there's no doubt that they were infected.
>
> Therefore I have to say that, while AVG might be a very good AV prog, it
> won't necessarily alert you to the presence of a bug in an email, even when
> you manipulate the infected files to some extent.
>
> And to what extent you can safely manipulate infected files, or harbor them,
> but still maintain a clean system, is somewhat of an unknown quantity.
>
> So, annoying as the damn thing is, I think I'll have to stick with Norton
> for the time being.
>
> And that really bugs me.
>
> Ian Porter
> Computer Guys Inc.
> Arrowtown
> New Zealand
> [log in to unmask]
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin Johnson" Subject: Re: [PCSOFT] XP and AVG - W98SE and Norton
> 2002
>
>
> > Please disregard my previous post. I was interrupted and inadvertently
> > sent it before I realized that I hadn't finished the story. Read on...
> >
> > I have AVG Antivirus Free version on my computer, set to scan all emails
> > and every type of file. The virus database is dated June 13, 2002.
> > I am using Netscape messenger 4.77 for email and my OS is Win98SE.
> >
> > Ian sent me three emails with infected attachments. They arrived in my
> > mailbox without triggering any alerts. Furthermore, AVG did not detect
> > anything when it scanned the mail folder on my hard drive. Hmm...Should
> > I be worried? Maybe.
> >
> > I was able to Shift-Click on two of the attachments and save them in a
> > folder without a response from AVG. However, when I tried to access the
> > folder in Explorer, AVG DID detect the Klez virus in these two files.
> > AVG also detected the Klez virus in the other attachments when I clicked
> > on them or when I shift-clicked on them.
> >
> > So...although the viruses arrived undetected in my inbox, AVG prevented
> > any access to the infected files without a clear warning. That would
> > make me safe, wouldn't it? I don't think "the horse has bolted," as Ian
> > suggests.
> > However, I wonder about viruses that arrive via email but don't require
> > the recipient to open any attachments. I have heard that such viruses
> > exist. Do they?
> >
> > There is always the possibility that these files may not actually be
> > infected. They may just contain something that looks like Klez to AVG. I
> > have no way of really knowing unless I open them and watch to see if
> > anything happens to my computer that I know is caused by Klez. I'll give
> > that a miss--don't want the hassle.
> >
> > Personally, I still feel safe with AVG. I have found it easy to use,
> > configure and update. It is also unobtrusive and seems not to affect
> > performance and to work on all versions of Windows. Not so with McAfee
> > and Norton. AVG being free as well, clinches it for me. It has not let
> > me down yet, so I'll keep on using it.  ;>)

             Do you want to signoff PCSOFT or just change to
                    Digest mode - visit our web site:
                   http://freepctech.com/pcsoft.shtml