Re: Scripts - help requested with this, please.

[David B.]

On 23/01/2019 08:01, Ray wrote:
> David B. <"David B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>> On 22/01/2019 21:29, Ian McCall wrote:
>>> On 22 Jan 2019, David B. wrote
>>> (in article <zUL1E.100968$Yn2....@fx26.fr7>):
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> What help is needed?
>>
>> Hello Ian
>>
>> Thanks for asking. I've been looking at the contents of the ClamXAV
>> Installer Package with a facility called Pacifist.
>>
>> The script shown is called 'preinstall' yet there seems to be much
>> related to removing items (which should not exist on my clean machine!)
>>
> It’s looking for an existing install of the application to determine what
> if anything needs to be changed, deleted or installed.
> Nothing unusual about that when you think about it.

Thank you. I'll accept that.

>> The 'Owner' of all the files and folders is 'root' - I'm not so sure
>> that giving the ClamXAV software such privileges is such a good idea.
>>
> Then don’t install it.

I haven't ..... and I will not do so. I understand that there are NO
viruses which attack an Apple computer and, if necessary, Trojans and
Worms may be removed with Malwarebytes.

Here's a screenshot of much of what is contained in the installation
package. There's no way that I could determine whether or not anything
untoward is being installed!

https://i.imgur.com/yELJvy8.png

I'd like to know if ANYONE reading the Usenet groups has installed ClamXAV.

--
David B.

[nospam]

In article <QsW1E.10667$3G1....@fx01.fr7>, David B. <

B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

> I'd like to know if ANYONE reading the Usenet groups has installed ClamXAV.

why are you so obsessed with what other people do?

[Bob Campbell]

The Village Idiot is always obsessed with something. Now - AGAIN - it
is ClamXAV. It is his perennial stalking target.

[André G. Isaak]

On 2019-01-23 2:28 a.m., David B. wrote:

> I'd like to know if ANYONE reading the Usenet groups has installed ClamXAV.

Yes. A former employer required, for some unspecified reason, that it be
installed on all Macs attached to the network. It never caused me any
problems.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

[David B.]

On 23/01/2019 15:17, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2019-01-23 2:28 a.m., David B. wrote:
>
>> I'd like to know if ANYONE reading the Usenet groups has installed
>> ClamXAV.
>
> Yes. A former employer required, for some unspecified reason, that it be
> installed on all Macs attached to the network. It never caused me any
> problems.

Thank you, André.

Are you using it on your personal machine right now?

Will you, please, just clarify - was your employer using ClamXAV ......

..... or simply ClamAV ?
--
David B.

[André G. Isaak]

On 2019-01-23 10:22 a.m., David B. wrote:
> On 23/01/2019 15:17, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2019-01-23 2:28 a.m., David B. wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to know if ANYONE reading the Usenet groups has installed
>>> ClamXAV.
>>
>> Yes. A former employer required, for some unspecified reason, that it
>> be installed on all Macs attached to the network. It never caused me
>> any problems.
>
> Thank you, André.
>
> Are you using it on your personal machine right now?

No

> Will you, please, just clarify - was your employer using ClamXAV ......
>
>      ..... or simply ClamAV ?

ClamXAV, which is just a graphical front-end for ClamAV.

[David B.]

This item might help you understand:-

http://www.communitydevelopment.uiuc.edu/resources/factsheets/commsurvey.html

PLUS

One isn't allowed to take a poll on the Apple Support Communities
forums. It's against Apple's rules.

https://discussions.apple.com/terms

Extract:-

Submissions

Stay on topic. Apple Support Communities is here to help people use
Apple products and technologies more effectively. Unless otherwise
noted, do not add Submissions about non technical topics, including:
Speculations or rumors about unannounced products.

Discussions of Apple policies or procedures or speculation on Apple
decisions.

Be polite. Everyone should feel comfortable reading Submissions and
participating in discussions. Apple will not tolerate flames or other
inappropriate statements, material, or links. Most often, a "flame" is
simply a statement that is taunting and thus arbitrarily inflammatory.
However, this also includes those which are libelous, defamatory,
indecent, harmful, harassing, intimidating, threatening, hateful,
objectionable, discriminatory, abusive, vulgar, obscene, pornographic,
sexually explicit, or offensive in a sexual, racial, cultural, or ethnic
context.

Post constructive comments and questions. Unless otherwise noted, your
Submission should either be a technical support question or a technical
support answer. Constructive feedback about product features is welcome
as well. If your Submission contains the phrase "Im sorry for the rant,
but…" you are likely in violation of this policy.

*Do not post polls or petitions or links to same*

--
David B.

[David B.]

On 23/01/2019 17:46, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2019-01-23 10:22 a.m., David B. wrote:
>> On 23/01/2019 15:17, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2019-01-23 2:28 a.m., David B. wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd like to know if ANYONE reading the Usenet groups has installed
>>>> ClamXAV.
>>>
>>> Yes. A former employer required, for some unspecified reason, that it
>>> be installed on all Macs attached to the network. It never caused me
>>> any problems.
>>
>> Thank you, André.
>>
>> Are you using it on your personal machine right now?
>
> No

OK - me neither!

>> Will you, please, just clarify - was your employer using ClamXAV ......
>>
>>       ..... or simply ClamAV ?
>
> ClamXAV, which is just a graphical front-end for ClamAV.

I hope you are right about that, André.

There's no way any ordinary folk can check that. :-(

What REALLY is a give-away is the company's inability to run a Facebook
page! Have you taken a look?

--
David B.

[nospam]

In article <O_12E.42832$Xl2....@fx20.fr7>, David B. <

B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

> >
> > ClamXAV, which is just a graphical front-end for ClamAV.
>
> I hope you are right about that, André.
>
> There's no way any ordinary folk can check that. :-(

of course there is.

> What REALLY is a give-away is the company's inability to run a Facebook
> page! Have you taken a look?

that means absolutely nothing, and is actually a big plus.

[nospam]

In article <HO12E.90135$am2....@fx14.fr7>, David B. <

B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

> >> I'd like to know if ANYONE reading the Usenet groups has installed ClamXAV.
> >
> > why are you so obsessed with what other people do?
>
> This item might help you understand:-
>
> http://www.communitydevelopment.uiuc.edu/resources/factsheets/commsurvey.html

you aren't conducting a survey.

> PLUS
>
> One isn't allowed to take a poll on the Apple Support Communities
> forums. It's against Apple's rules.

that must be why you are repeatedly banned everywhere you go.

[André G. Isaak]

On 2019-01-23 11:02 a.m., David B. wrote:
> On 23/01/2019 17:46, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2019-01-23 10:22 a.m., David B. wrote:
>>> On 23/01/2019 15:17, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2019-01-23 2:28 a.m., David B. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to know if ANYONE reading the Usenet groups has installed
>>>>> ClamXAV.
>>>>
>>>> Yes. A former employer required, for some unspecified reason, that
>>>> it be installed on all Macs attached to the network. It never caused
>>>> me any problems.
>>>
>>> Thank you, André.
>>>
>>> Are you using it on your personal machine right now?
>>
>> No
>
> OK - me neither!
>
>>> Will you, please, just clarify - was your employer using ClamXAV ......
>>>
>>>       ..... or simply ClamAV ?
>>
>> ClamXAV, which is just a graphical front-end for ClamAV.
>
> I hope you are right about that, André.
>
> There's no way any ordinary folk can check that. :-(

I have absolutely no idea why you are so suspicious about this
particular piece of software. It's reputable software from a reputable
company. It just performs a task which I don't see as particularly
necessary or useful.

Worst case scenario, it's buggy or causes a notable slowdown, in which
case you simply uninstall it.

> What REALLY is a give-away is the company's inability to run a Facebook
> page! Have you taken a look?

I've never visited any company's facebook page. I would hope a software
company devotes its time and effort to developing and maintaining
software rather than facebook pages.

[David B.]

On 23/01/2019 19:53, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2019-01-23 11:02 a.m., David B. wrote:
>> On 23/01/2019 17:46, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2019-01-23 10:22 a.m., David B. wrote:
>>>> On 23/01/2019 15:17, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2019-01-23 2:28 a.m., David B. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd like to know if ANYONE reading the Usenet groups has installed
>>>>>> ClamXAV.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. A former employer required, for some unspecified reason, that
>>>>> it be installed on all Macs attached to the network. It never
>>>>> caused me any problems.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you, André.
>>>>
>>>> Are you using it on your personal machine right now?
>>>
>>> No
>>
>> OK - me neither!
>>
>>>> Will you, please, just clarify - was your employer using ClamXAV ......
>>>>
>>>>       ..... or simply ClamAV ?
>>>
>>> ClamXAV, which is just a graphical front-end for ClamAV.
>>
>> I hope you are right about that, André.
>>
>> There's no way any ordinary folk can check that. :-(
>
> I have absolutely no idea why you are so suspicious about this
> particular piece of software. It's reputable software from a reputable
> company. It just performs a task which I don't see as particularly
> necessary or useful.

*WHO* says it's a "reputable company"? (apart from it's own marketing blurb)

It's not recommended by Apple and it isn't available in the App Store.

> Worst case scenario, it's buggy or causes a notable slowdown, in which
> case you simply uninstall it.

Worst case scenario is that your computer may become part of a Botnet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botnet

..... and you'd likely never know about it!

>> What REALLY is a give-away is the company's inability to run a
>> Facebook page! Have you taken a look?
>
> I've never visited any company's facebook page. I would hope a software
> company devotes its time and effort to developing and maintaining
> software rather than facebook pages.

André, THOUSANDS of companies now advertise their wares on Facebook.

Would you like some examples?

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-30-biggest-advertisers-on-facebook-2012-9?r=US&IR=T#29-hsbc-has-a-large-facebook-footprint-in-europe-and-asia-2

--
David B.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <w842E.114915$Mo2....@fx28.fr7>,

David B. <"David B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

>Andre, THOUSANDS of companies now advertise their wares on Facebook.

>
>Would you like some examples?

I think it should be clear to everyone now that the poster of these
messages is a troll, and we should therefore apply the well-known
remedy. I shall certainly be doing so.

-- Richard

[nospam]

In article <w842E.114915$Mo2....@fx28.fr7>, David B. <

B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

> >
> > I have absolutely no idea why you are so suspicious about this
> > particular piece of software. It's reputable software from a reputable
> > company. It just performs a task which I don't see as particularly
> > necessary or useful.
>
> *WHO* says it's a "reputable company"? (apart from it's own marketing blurb)

everyone

> It's not recommended by Apple and it isn't available in the App Store.

so what

> > Worst case scenario, it's buggy or causes a notable slowdown, in which
> > case you simply uninstall it.
>
> Worst case scenario is that your computer may become part of a Botnet.

no

> ..... and you'd likely never know about it!

no

> >> What REALLY is a give-away is the company's inability to run a
> >> Facebook page! Have you taken a look?
> >
> > I've never visited any company's facebook page. I would hope a software
> > company devotes its time and effort to developing and maintaining
> > software rather than facebook pages.
>
> André, THOUSANDS of companies now advertise their wares on Facebook.

so what

> Would you like some examples?

go away

[nospam]

In article <q2aj26$i6t$1...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>, Richard Tobin

it's actually much worse than just a troll, thus my warning from a few
days ago.

[David B.]

On 23/01/2019 20:39, nospam *THE TROLL* responded with twaddle again!

> In article <w842E.114915$Mo2....@fx28.fr7>, David B. <
> B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I have absolutely no idea why you are so suspicious about this
>>> particular piece of software. It's reputable software from a reputable
>>> company. It just performs a task which I don't see as particularly
>>> necessary or useful.
>>
>> *WHO* says it's a "reputable company"? (apart from it's own marketing blurb)
>
> everyone

So, not even Usenet's most illustrious *TROLL* - YES, *YOU* 'nospam' -
can find *ANY* supporting literature on-line.

My, my!

>> It's not recommended by Apple and it isn't available in the App Store.
>
> so what

Anti-Virus software on an Apple machine is not needed.

>>> Worst case scenario, it's buggy or causes a notable slowdown, in which
>>> case you simply uninstall it.
>>
>> Worst case scenario is that your computer may become part of a Botnet.
>
> no

Yes - unless you know of something worse.

>> ..... and you'd likely never know about it!
>
> no

*YES*!

Hardly ANYONE will be bothering with software like Wireshark to monitor
their Internet connectivity https://www.wireshark.org/

>>>> What REALLY is a give-away is the company's inability to run a
>>>> Facebook page! Have you taken a look?
>>>
>>> I've never visited any company's facebook page. I would hope a software
>>> company devotes its time and effort to developing and maintaining
>>> software rather than facebook pages.
>>
>> André, THOUSANDS of companies now advertise their wares on Facebook.
>
> so what

It a VERY IMPORTANT part of business life in the 21st century.

>> Would you like some examples?
>
> go away

Certainly not! :-P

--
David B.

[nospam]

In article <0z42E.114917$Mo2....@fx28.fr7>, David B. <

B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

> >>>
> >>> I have absolutely no idea why you are so suspicious about this
> >>> particular piece of software. It's reputable software from a reputable
> >>> company. It just performs a task which I don't see as particularly
> >>> necessary or useful.
> >>
> >> *WHO* says it's a "reputable company"? (apart from it's own marketing
> >> blurb)
> >
> > everyone
>
> So, not even Usenet's most illustrious *TROLL* - YES, *YOU* 'nospam' -
> can find *ANY* supporting literature on-line.

you hold that title, which is why you are again making up shit.

> My, my!
>
> >> It's not recommended by Apple and it isn't available in the App Store.
> >
> > so what
>
> Anti-Virus software on an Apple machine is not needed.

exactly why they don't recommend it.

duh.

and yet you continue to obsess over it.

> >>> Worst case scenario, it's buggy or causes a notable slowdown, in which
> >>> case you simply uninstall it.
> >>
> >> Worst case scenario is that your computer may become part of a Botnet.
> >
> > no
>
> Yes - unless you know of something worse.

i do.

> >> ..... and you'd likely never know about it!
> >
> > no
>
> *YES*!

you might not, but that doesn't mean other people won't.

> Hardly ANYONE will be bothering with software like Wireshark to monitor
> their Internet connectivity https://www.wireshark.org/

especially you, who would have no clue what to do with it.

and it's not even necessary, further supporting that you don't know
what to do with it.

> >>>> What REALLY is a give-away is the company's inability to run a
> >>>> Facebook page! Have you taken a look?
> >>>
> >>> I've never visited any company's facebook page. I would hope a software
> >>> company devotes its time and effort to developing and maintaining
> >>> software rather than facebook pages.
> >>
> >> André, THOUSANDS of companies now advertise their wares on Facebook.
> >
> > so what
>
> It a VERY IMPORTANT part of business life in the 21st century.

definitely not.

companies that have a facebook page instead of their own web site
suggests laziness, incompetence and a complete disregard for their
users.

> >> Would you like some examples?
> >
> > go away
>
> Certainly not! :-P

because: troll

[David B.]

On 23/01/2019 21:48, Jolly Roger wrote:

> On 2019-01-23, David B. <"David B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>
>> Here's a screenshot of much of what is contained in the installation
>> package. There's no way that I could determine whether or not anything
>> untoward is being installed!
>>
>> https://i.imgur.com/yELJvy8.png
>

> There's no cause for you to be worried about something 'untoward"; but I
> suspect you know this and are spreading FUD about it on purpose.

>
>> I'd like to know if ANYONE reading the Usenet groups has installed ClamXAV.
>

> Of course some people here have installed ClamXAV. I've done so
> countless times in the past myself, and am sure others have as well. The
> real question is why you care what other people do? I have. So what?

You are the *FIRST* to admit that you have it on YOUR computer!

Did you read this thread of mine?

https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/protect/forum/protect_other-protect_scanning-windows_other/ramnit-trojan-on-imac-aol-disk-from-2008-false/e18cc0a4-5895-412e-9306-e565d2571849

It's a subscription service. I don't understand why have you "installed
it countless times"?

--
David B.

[nospam]

In article <jw62E.42833$Xl2....@fx20.fr7>, David B. <

B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

> >> I'd like to know if ANYONE reading the Usenet groups has installed ClamXAV.
> >
> > Of course some people here have installed ClamXAV. I've done so
> > countless times in the past myself, and am sure others have as well. The
> > real question is why you care what other people do? I have. So what?
>
> You are the *FIRST* to admit that you have it on YOUR computer!

no, he's not the first.

> Did you read this thread of mine?

no need. it's the same garbage you spew here.

> It's a subscription service. I don't understand why have you "installed
> it countless times"?

there's a lot you don't understand.

[David B.]

On 23/01/2019 22:02, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of other veteran Mac users who
> have used ClamXAV for years and know it to be of decent quality.

I call bullshit. The 'professional' service was launched less than four
years ago: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC500971

Do post some published reviews of how great the software is.

>> It's not recommended by Apple and it isn't available in the App Store.
>

> Software doesn't have to be recommended by Apple to be of good quality
> or trustworthy - same for being on the App Store. That means nothing.

You are welcome to your view. Apple recommends caution in that respect.

https://support.apple.com/kb/PH25087?locale=en_US&viewlocale=en_US

How does one determine if Mark Allan IS an "identified developer"?

Do you have any Apple contacts who can verify this?

>>> Worst case scenario, it's buggy or causes a notable slowdown, in which
>>> case you simply uninstall it.
>>
>> Worst case scenario is that your computer may become part of a Botnet.
>

> That can happen without having ClamXAV installed. Maybe you should just
> stop using your computer. Or is your supposed "concern" about botnets
> not genuine?

It's a REAL concern!

"Yes, You Are a Target!" A great item from SANS - everyone should read it!

https://www.sans.org/security-awareness-training/resources/yes-you-are-target

>> ..... and you'd likely never know about it!
>

> Nonsense. Many people would know if any popular Mac software like
> ClamXAV did such a thing.

*HOW*? If the users were completely unaware that their computers had
been compromised?

>>>> What REALLY is a give-away is the company's inability to run a
>>>> Facebook page! Have you taken a look?
>>>
>>> I've never visited any company's facebook page. I would hope a software
>>> company devotes its time and effort to developing and maintaining
>>> software rather than facebook pages.
>>
>> André, THOUSANDS of companies now advertise their wares on Facebook.
>

> So does ClamXAV.

How many 'followers' does it have? https://www.facebook.com/clamxav/

377 this evening on my machine.

https://www.facebook.com/Kaspersky/
3,352,483 people follow this!

--
David B.

[nospam]

In article <T_62E.114921$Mo2....@fx28.fr7>, David B. <

B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

> >> It's not recommended by Apple and it isn't available in the App Store.
> >
> > Software doesn't have to be recommended by Apple to be of good quality
> > or trustworthy - same for being on the App Store. That means nothing.
>
> You are welcome to your view. Apple recommends caution in that respect.

no they don't.

> https://support.apple.com/kb/PH25087?locale=en_US&viewlocale=en_US

that doesn't say what you think it does.

> How does one determine if Mark Allan IS an "identified developer"?

easily.

> Do you have any Apple contacts who can verify this?

no need.

[David B.]

On 23/01/2019 23:54, nospam wrote *TROLL RESPONSES* as always

*PLONK*!

[David B.]

On 23/01/2019 23:53, Ed Norton wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 18:43:45 -0500, David B. wrote
> (in article <T_62E.114921$Mo2....@fx28.fr7>):
>
> [snip]

>
>> How many 'followers' does it have? https://www.facebook.com/clamxav/
>>
>> 377 this evening on my machine.
>>
>> https://www.facebook.com/Kaspersky/
>> 3,352,483 people follow this!
>

> How many people follow you?

I don't have a business Facebook page, so none.

HTH, Ed. :-)

--
Regards,
David B.

[David B.]

On 23/01/2019 23:24, nospam wrote more *TROLL ANSWERS*

*PLONK*!

[Bob Campbell]

On 1/23/19 7:03 PM, David B. wrote:

>> there's a lot you don't understand.
>
> *PLONK*!

Clearly, Plonk is yet another thing that The Village Idiot does not
understand, as he has PLONKed you twice.

It is to laugh.

[David B.]

On 24/01/2019 00:12, Bob Campbell is yet *ANOTHER PLONKER*!

Like you, he's forever whining, *PLONKER*!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk_(wine)

[nospam]

In article <lt72E.39085$0C.2...@fx02.fr7>, David B. <

yep, it is to laugh.

[André G. Isaak]

You can easily search for reviews from third parties, and for
comparisons between anti-virus software. The fact that it is frequently
included in such comparisons would certainly suggest others view it as
reputable.

> It's not recommended by Apple and it isn't available in the App Store.

Apple doesn't generally make recommendations about third-party software.

And lots of things aren't available through the App Store. Microsoft
Office, Adobe Illustrator, BBEdit, etc. Does that make Microsoft,
Adobe[*], or BareBones not reputable?

And there are good reasons why lots of software isn't available through
the App Store. Apple imposes numerous restrictions on software
distributed through the App Store which often aren't reasonable for
larger, more complex applications or for software which performs fairly
low-level tasks.

As a general rule, if software is available both through the App Store
and directly from the vendor, I prefer to get the version available from
the vendor.

>> Worst case scenario, it's buggy or causes a notable slowdown, in which
>> case you simply uninstall it.
>
> Worst case scenario is that your computer may become part of a Botnet. >
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botnet
>
>  ..... and you'd likely never know about it!

Given that ClamXAV has been around for at least 15 years, if it were
doing something malicious someone would certainly have pointed this out
by now and would have shouted it far and wide. There would have been
lawsuits and much gnashing of teeth.

>>> What REALLY is a give-away is the company's inability to run a
>>> Facebook page! Have you taken a look?
>>
>> I've never visited any company's facebook page. I would hope a
>> software company devotes its time and effort to developing and
>> maintaining software rather than facebook pages.
>
> André, THOUSANDS of companies now advertise their wares on Facebook.

I never claimed they didn't. But I don't use facebook and wouldn't judge
a company by the quality of its facebook page, or blog, or website, or
whatever. Being a competent programmer and being a competent web
designer are entirely different skills.

André

[*] Actually, if you're going to be paranoid, these might be better
targets. The Adobe Flash Player Installer available from Adobe.com has
the nasty habit of trying to install Adobe Flash Player. You can find
lots of unofficial versions of this installer at other places on the web
which don't install this, but they usually install some other piece of
malware instead.

And earlier versions of Microsoft Office used to install that irritating
paper-clip dude. That was the closest thing to actual malware which I've
ever encountered on a Mac.

[Bob Campbell]

Giggle. Snort. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Look. The Village Idiot thinks he knows what PLONK means.

You are truly a fucking moron.

[David B.]

I've tried - and not found any. :-(

https://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/mac-software/mac-antivirus-3672182/

https://antivirus-uk.thetop10sites.com/best-antivirus-for-mac.html

>> It's not recommended by Apple and it isn't available in the App Store.
>
> Apple doesn't generally make recommendations about third-party software.
>
> And lots of things aren't available through the App Store. Microsoft
> Office, Adobe Illustrator, BBEdit, etc. Does that make Microsoft,
> Adobe[*], or BareBones not reputable?

No - but they are not 'one man bands'!

> And there are good reasons why lots of software isn't available through
> the App Store. Apple imposes numerous restrictions on software
> distributed through the App Store which often aren't reasonable for
> larger, more complex applications or for software which performs fairly
> low-level tasks.
>
> As a general rule, if software is available both through the App Store
> and directly from the vendor, I prefer to get the version available from
> the vendor.

OK

>>> Worst case scenario, it's buggy or causes a notable slowdown, in
>>> which case you simply uninstall it.
>>
>> Worst case scenario is that your computer may become part of a Botnet. >
> >
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botnet
>>
>>   ..... and you'd likely never know about it!
>
> Given that ClamXAV has been around for at least 15 years, if it were
> doing something malicious someone would certainly have pointed this out
> by now and would have shouted it far and wide. There would have been
> lawsuits and much gnashing of teeth.

So did Mark Allan frequent the ASC before my time there? Or did he/does
he post there under a pseudonym?

>>>> What REALLY is a give-away is the company's inability to run a
>>>> Facebook page! Have you taken a look?
>>>
>>> I've never visited any company's facebook page. I would hope a
>>> software company devotes its time and effort to developing and
>>> maintaining software rather than facebook pages.
>>
>> André, THOUSANDS of companies now advertise their wares on Facebook.
>
> I never claimed they didn't. But I don't use facebook and wouldn't judge
> a company by the quality of its facebook page, or blog, or website, or
> whatever. Being a competent programmer and being a competent web
> designer are entirely different skills.

Which are *YOU*?

> [*] Actually, if you're going to be paranoid, these might be better
> targets. The Adobe Flash Player Installer available from Adobe.com has
> the nasty habit of trying to install Adobe Flash Player. You can find
> lots of unofficial versions of this installer at other places on the web
> which don't install this, but they usually install some other piece of
> malware instead.

I don't use Flash now. That target is far to big for me anyway! ;-)

=

"When you run installer packages from outside the App Store, macOS
checks the Developer ID signature and notarization status to verify that
the software is from an identified developer and that it has not been
altered."

*IS* Mark Allan an 'identified developer'? How can one check?

> And earlier versions of Microsoft Office used to install that irritating
> paper-clip dude. That was the closest thing to actual malware which I've
> ever encountered on a Mac.

I remember him! :-)
https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-life-death-microsoft-clippy-paper-clip-loved-hate

--
David B.

[André G. Isaak]

What does being a 'one man band' have to do with anything? Some people
choose to accept Apple various restrictions and the cut which apple
takes and distribute software through the App Store. Others do not and
distribute it on their own. The size of an organization isn't really
relevant.

>> And there are good reasons why lots of software isn't available
>> through the App Store. Apple imposes numerous restrictions on software
>> distributed through the App Store which often aren't reasonable for
>> larger, more complex applications or for software which performs
>> fairly low-level tasks.
>>
>> As a general rule, if software is available both through the App Store
>> and directly from the vendor, I prefer to get the version available
>> from the vendor.
>
> OK
>
>>>> Worst case scenario, it's buggy or causes a notable slowdown, in
>>>> which case you simply uninstall it.
>>>
>>> Worst case scenario is that your computer may become part of a Botnet. >
>>  >
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botnet
>>>
>>>   ..... and you'd likely never know about it!
>>
>> Given that ClamXAV has been around for at least 15 years, if it were
>> doing something malicious someone would certainly have pointed this
>> out by now and would have shouted it far and wide. There would have
>> been lawsuits and much gnashing of teeth.
>
> So did Mark Allan frequent the ASC before my time there? Or did he/does
> he post there under a pseudonym?

How would I know?

And is there some particular reason why you think he should have
frequented ASC? That's a place where people go to get help on apple
hardware and software, not on third party products.

>>>>> What REALLY is a give-away is the company's inability to run a
>>>>> Facebook page! Have you taken a look?
>>>>
>>>> I've never visited any company's facebook page. I would hope a
>>>> software company devotes its time and effort to developing and
>>>> maintaining software rather than facebook pages.
>>>
>>> André, THOUSANDS of companies now advertise their wares on Facebook.
>>
>> I never claimed they didn't. But I don't use facebook and wouldn't
>> judge a company by the quality of its facebook page, or blog, or
>> website, or whatever. Being a competent programmer and being a
>> competent web designer are entirely different skills.
>
> Which are *YOU*?

I never claimed to be either.

André

>> [*] Actually, if you're going to be paranoid, these might be better
>> targets. The Adobe Flash Player Installer available from Adobe.com has
>> the nasty habit of trying to install Adobe Flash Player. You can find
>> lots of unofficial versions of this installer at other places on the
>> web which don't install this, but they usually install some other
>> piece of malware instead.
>
> I don't use Flash now. That target is far to big for me anyway! ;-)
>
> =
>
> "When you run installer packages from outside the App Store, macOS
> checks the Developer ID signature and notarization status to verify that
> the software is from an identified developer and that it has not been
> altered."
>
> *IS* Mark Allan an 'identified developer'?  How can one check?
>
>> And earlier versions of Microsoft Office used to install that
>> irritating paper-clip dude. That was the closest thing to actual
>> malware which I've ever encountered on a Mac.
>
> I remember him! :-)
> https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-life-death-microsoft-clippy-paper-clip-loved-hate
>
>


--

[jeremy]

In article <gashlm...@mid.individual.net>, jolly...@pobox.com
says...

>
> On 2019-01-23, David B. <"David B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> >>> I'd like to know if ANYONE reading the Usenet groups has installed
ClamXAV.
> >>
> >> Of course some people here have installed ClamXAV. I've done so
> >> countless times in the past myself, and am sure others have as well. The
> >> real question is why you care what other people do? I have. So what?
> >
> > You are the *FIRST* to admit that you have it on YOUR computer!
> >
> > Did you read this thread of mine?
>

> No, why?

>
> > It's a subscription service. I don't understand why have you "installed
> > it countless times"?
>

> Nah. It's just an app. I have owned and used many computers in the last
> decades. I don't keep track of trivial things like how many times I've
> installed a harmless piece of software.

At the risk of fanning the flames...


I installed ClamXAV back in November I think on my macbook on which I am
running Mojave and parallels 14 (and within which I run Win10)

I have been having serious issues with my Win10 - slow program loading
times, lacklustre performance, really slow to "sort itself out" after
opening the lid when on battery power (I always simply shut the lid - no
hibernate or other options used).

I had installed ClamXAV as a trial - wasn't sure I wanted it but know
that Clam is a well-regarded AV product so that I'd give it a whirl.

As it wa a trial, it quickly became out of date - it kept prompting to
download latest AV defintions (a good thign of course!) but as had no
subscription I didn't bother. I couln't find out how to prevent it from
running automatically on bootup of Mojave and couldn't find out how to
deinstal it either.


I ran a trial version of App Cleaner on Monday - it removed ClamXAV
successfully.

Since rebooting directy after, I have had none of the issues of
performanc that I was experiencing before (and have caused me a lot of
lost time & frustration over the last couple of months). This was on
Monday - I thought "give it a few days to make sure" - as I use this
machine extensively every day I think I have probably proven a point -
that (in my isolated case) ClamXAV was causing signifcant issues.

I don't want to "feed the trolls" and have no idea if this is linked to
the OP's assertions that the product should be avoided (and clearly, if
they cannot have a good Facebook page they probably aren't deserving of
anyone's custom, I can see that completely [1]) but thought it might be
worth sharing.

[1] this is where you might insert a smiley - you, dear reader, can
decide [2]
[2] As [1]

--
jeremy

[David B.]

An interesting tale, Jeremy - thanks for sharing. :-)

My friend has asked this question on the Apple Developers site but, as
you can see, made no progress.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ni5cbv6kv4rgkil/Screenshot%202019-01-25%2015.05.43.png?dl=0

Can anyone suggest how the question should be modified?

--
David B.

[nospam]

In article <ESF2E.44495$Hn2....@fx19.fr7>, David B. <

B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

> Can anyone suggest how the question should be modified?

select all, delete

[David B.]

[Jolly Roger]

jeremy <jerem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> At the risk of fanning the flames...
>
> I installed ClamXAV back in November I think on my macbook on which I am
> running Mojave and parallels 14 (and within which I run Win10)
>
> I have been having serious issues with my Win10 - slow program loading
> times, lacklustre performance, really slow to "sort itself out" after
> opening the lid when on battery power (I always simply shut the lid - no
> hibernate or other options used).

But you didn’t attempt to figure out why? The proper thing to do is take
diagnostic steps such as looking at what the system is doing at the time of
the problem, such as which processes are consuming the most CPU, RAM, and
storage activity. Since you haven’t mentioned any details it sounds like
you were completely unaware of the cause of your problem, which could have
been many things unrelated to ClamXAV.

> I couln't find out how to prevent it from
> running automatically on bootup of Mojave and couldn't find out how to
> deinstal it either.

Both are easy to do, and the steps to do so are readily available with
simple web searches.

<https://www.clamxav.com/support/features-and-settings/preferences/#tab-advanced>

“Enable Sentry background monitor

Sentry is the part of ClamXAV which monitors your computer in the
background and scans new files as they land on your computer. Keeping this
option enabled is the best way for ClamXAV to protect you and your Mac.”

<https://www.clamxav.com/support/faqs/>

“How do I uninstall ClamXAV completely?

You can simply drag ClamXAV.app to the trash; after a few seconds you’ll
see a message asking if you would also like to uninstall the scanning
engine. If this doesn’t happen or it doesn’t appear to have worked, you can
download the uninstaller and run it manually. The uninstaller will remove
the scanning engine, preferences and any schedules you’ve got set up. But
we’ll be sorry to see you go.”

> I ran a trial version of App Cleaner on Monday - it removed ClamXAV
> successfully.

App cleaners are not needed on macOS, and often cause more problems than
they solve. You mention it removed ClamXAV, but don’t mention any other
things it removed - other things that have as much or more potential to
cause your problem.

> Since rebooting directy after, I have had none of the issues of
> performanc that I was experiencing before (and have caused me a lot of
> lost time & frustration over the last couple of months). This was on
> Monday - I thought "give it a few days to make sure" - as I use this
> machine extensively every day I think I have probably proven a point -
> that (in my isolated case) ClamXAV was causing signifcant issues.

Nah. See above. You left out far too many variables to draw that
conclusion.

Correlation doesn’t imply causation:

<http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations>

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[David B.]

On 25/01/2019 16:00, Jolly Roger wrote:
> jeremy <jerem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> At the risk of fanning the flames...
>>
>> I installed ClamXAV back in November I think on my macbook on which I am
>> running Mojave and parallels 14 (and within which I run Win10)
>>
>> I have been having serious issues with my Win10 - slow program loading
>> times, lacklustre performance, really slow to "sort itself out" after
>> opening the lid when on battery power (I always simply shut the lid - no
>> hibernate or other options used).
>
> But you didn’t attempt to figure out why? The proper thing to do is take
> diagnostic steps such as looking at what the system is doing at the time of
> the problem, such as which processes are consuming the most CPU, RAM, and
> storage activity. Since you haven’t mentioned any details it sounds like
> you were completely unaware of the cause of your problem, which could have
> been many things unrelated to ClamXAV.

That's true - just like most computer USERS!

>> I couldn't find out how to prevent it from

>> running automatically on bootup of Mojave and couldn't find out how to
>> deinstal it either.
>
> Both are easy to do, and the steps to do so are readily available with
> simple web searches.
>
> <https://www.clamxav.com/support/features-and-settings/preferences/#tab-advanced>

Someone needs to suggest to Mark Allan that he should come here to
Usenet to support his position. I'd do that myself but he refuses to
correspond with me.

> “Enable Sentry background monitor
>
> Sentry is the part of ClamXAV which monitors your computer in the
> background and scans new files as they land on your computer. Keeping this
> option enabled is the best way for ClamXAV to protect you and your Mac.”
>
> <https://www.clamxav.com/support/faqs/>
>
> “How do I uninstall ClamXAV completely?
>
> You can simply drag ClamXAV.app to the trash; after a few seconds you’ll
> see a message asking if you would also like to uninstall the scanning
> engine. If this doesn’t happen or it doesn’t appear to have worked, you can
> download the uninstaller and run it manually. The uninstaller will remove
> the scanning engine, preferences and any schedules you’ve got set up. But
> we’ll be sorry to see you go.”

*What if that isn't, actually, true*?

>> I ran a trial version of App Cleaner on Monday - it removed ClamXAV
>> successfully.
>
> App cleaners are not needed on macOS, and often cause more problems than
> they solve. You mention it removed ClamXAV, but don’t mention any other
> things it removed - other things that have as much or more potential to
> cause your problem.

As an everyday USER how could he possibly know WHAT the cleaner does?!!

>> Since rebooting directy after, I have had none of the issues of
>> performanc that I was experiencing before (and have caused me a lot of
>> lost time & frustration over the last couple of months). This was on
>> Monday - I thought "give it a few days to make sure" - as I use this
>> machine extensively every day I think I have probably proven a point -
>> that (in my isolated case) ClamXAV was causing signifcant issues.
>
> Nah. See above. You left out far too many variables to draw that
> conclusion.
>
> Correlation doesn’t imply causation:
>
> <http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations>

Fascinating graphs - thanks for the link! :-D

=

I can't recall the detail now, but I used a facility from the Apple App
store called EasyFind to scour my old iMac for any file which was in any
way connected with ClamXAV - I'm 99% sure that I found some! (and
deleted all of them!) Try it for yourself and see for yourself.

--
David B.

[nospam]

In article <UJG2E.17954$oQ1....@fx03.fr7>, David B. <

B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

> Someone needs to suggest to Mark Allan that he should come here to
> Usenet to support his position.

no point in that

> I'd do that myself but he refuses to
> correspond with me.

he's smarter than i thought.

>
> >> I ran a trial version of App Cleaner on Monday - it removed ClamXAV
> >> successfully.
> >
> > App cleaners are not needed on macOS, and often cause more problems than

> > they solve. You mention it removed ClamXAV, but donšt mention any other

> > things it removed - other things that have as much or more potential to
> > cause your problem.
>
> As an everyday USER how could he possibly know WHAT the cleaner does?!!

that's the whole point.

app cleaners can potentially delete things that are entirely unrelated,
causing all sorts of problems.

they are not needed and potentially very dangerous.

>
> I can't recall the detail now,

too much booze can do that

> but I used a facility from the Apple App
> store called EasyFind to scour my old iMac for any file which was in any
> way connected with ClamXAV - I'm 99% sure that I found some! (and
> deleted all of them!) Try it for yourself and see for yourself.

that's how app cleaners work, and is a very bad idea.

[Alan Baker]

> My friend...

You mean yourself under another pseudonym.

> ...has asked this question on the Apple Developers site but, as

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

On 2019-01-24 00:20, Bob Campbell wrote:
> On 1/23/19 7:16 PM, David B. wrote:
>> On 24/01/2019 00:12, Bob Campbell is yet *ANOTHER PLONKER*!
>>
>>> On 1/23/19 7:03 PM, David B. wrote:
>>>
>>>>> there's a lot you don't understand.
>>>>
>>>> *PLONK*!
>>>
>>> Clearly, Plonk is yet another thing that The Village Idiot does not
>>> understand, as he has PLONKed you twice.

He does not know anything. He is so dim that he does not know that he
does not know anything. He advertises how little he knows with his every
post. He is so dim that he does not know that his every post shows just
how dim he is. He has said that he deliberately tries to post to make
himself look dimmer than he really is. He is so dim that he does not
know that it is impossible to be dimmer than he really is.

>>>
>>> It is to laugh.
>>
>> Like you, he's forever whining, *PLONKER*!
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk_(wine)
>
> Giggle.    Snort.   BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
>
> Look. The Village Idiot thinks he knows what PLONK means.
>
> You are truly a fucking moron.

That he is.

[jeremy]

In article <gb0q4g...@mid.individual.net>, jolly...@pobox.com
says...

>
> jeremy <jerem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > At the risk of fanning the flames...
> >
> > I installed ClamXAV back in November I think on my macbook on which I am
> > running Mojave and parallels 14 (and within which I run Win10)
> >
> > I have been having serious issues with my Win10 - slow program loading
> > times, lacklustre performance, really slow to "sort itself out" after
> > opening the lid when on battery power (I always simply shut the lid - no
> > hibernate or other options used).
>

> But you didn?t attempt to figure out why? The proper thing to do is take

> diagnostic steps such as looking at what the system is doing at the time of
> the problem, such as which processes are consuming the most CPU, RAM, and

> storage activity. Since you haven?t mentioned any details it sounds like

> you were completely unaware of the cause of your problem, which could have
> been many things unrelated to ClamXAV.
>

I understand all that but, frankly, I was just relieved that removing a
piece of software for which I didn't really have a need resulted in the
symptoms I described disappearing - I am not in a position to state that
ClamXAV was responsible (and my motivation for removing it wasn't
because I had any suspicions that it was impacting performance - i could
see nothing on Activity Monitor for example indicating it was eating all
the CPU for example) - just that, after its removal, my system was back
to its happy self.

> > I couln't find out how to prevent it from
> > running automatically on bootup of Mojave and couldn't find out how to
> > deinstal it either.
>
> Both are easy to do, and the steps to do so are readily available with
> simple web searches.
>

Yeah I did those things - one of the first things it said was
(paraphrasing) quit ClamXAV - but the options to kill it didn't exist (I
clicked on its icon and it offered me options such as "update virus
definitions" (not sure exactly what it said) but nothing to ay quit.
When I used activity monitor to try and kill the process - i.e. double
click, up pops a window with one of the options being "force quit" - I
would select this, it would kill the process and (I kid you not) the
bloody thing would just start running again - I assume this is some kind
of property associated with something "higher" in the hierarchy -
perhaps I was killing a child process and its owner simply spawned a new
one - hence why I gogled for other ways to remove an app.

>
> You can simply drag ClamXAV.app to the trash; after a few seconds you?ll

> see a message asking if you would also like to uninstall the scanning

> engine. If this doesn?t happen or it doesn?t appear to have worked, you can

> download the uninstaller and run it manually. The uninstaller will remove

> the scanning engine, preferences and any schedules you?ve got set up. But
> we?ll be sorry to see you go.?
>
Oh just remembered - looking at the list of Applications within Finder - alphabetically arranged - I couldn't see it listed - so perhaps it was impropery installed in the first place.

> > I ran a trial version of App Cleaner on Monday - it removed ClamXAV
> > successfully.
>
> App cleaners are not needed on macOS, and often cause more problems than

I hope not in my case :)

--
jeremy

[jeremy]

In article <UJG2E.17954$oQ1....@fx03.fr7>, "David B"@nomail.afraid.org
says...

> >>
> >> At the risk of fanning the flames...
> >>
> >> I installed ClamXAV back in November I think on my macbook on which I am
> >> running Mojave and parallels 14 (and within which I run Win10)
> >>
> >> I have been having serious issues with my Win10 - slow program loading
> >> times, lacklustre performance, really slow to "sort itself out" after
> >> opening the lid when on battery power (I always simply shut the lid - no
> >> hibernate or other options used).
> >

> > But you didn?t attempt to figure out why? The proper thing to do is take

> > diagnostic steps such as looking at what the system is doing at the time of
> > the problem, such as which processes are consuming the most CPU, RAM, and

> > storage activity. Since you haven?t mentioned any details it sounds like

> > you were completely unaware of the cause of your problem, which could have
> > been many things unrelated to ClamXAV.
>
> That's true - just like most computer USERS!
>
>

You don't need to uppercase the word users - it looks a little
hysterical.

But you're right - most of the time we are just grateful that thing we
spend 11 hours every working day tapping away on is doing what we ask of
it - so a problem remedied (even if apparently only and temporary) is
often a great relief.

I am s/w developer of old; nowadays I spend my life on email,
spreadsheets, documents as a user and have little interest in what's
going on under the hood.

--
jeremy

[David B.]

On 25/01/2019 18:16, jeremy wrote:
> In article <UJG2E.17954$oQ1....@fx03.fr7>, "David B"@nomail.afraid.org
> says...
>>>>
>>>> At the risk of fanning the flames...
>>>>
>>>> I installed ClamXAV back in November I think on my macbook on which I am
>>>> running Mojave and parallels 14 (and within which I run Win10)
>>>>
>>>> I have been having serious issues with my Win10 - slow program loading
>>>> times, lacklustre performance, really slow to "sort itself out" after
>>>> opening the lid when on battery power (I always simply shut the lid - no
>>>> hibernate or other options used).
>>>
>>> But you didn?t attempt to figure out why? The proper thing to do is take
>>> diagnostic steps such as looking at what the system is doing at the time of
>>> the problem, such as which processes are consuming the most CPU, RAM, and
>>> storage activity. Since you haven?t mentioned any details it sounds like
>>> you were completely unaware of the cause of your problem, which could have
>>> been many things unrelated to ClamXAV.
>>
>> That's true - just like most computer USERS!
>>
>>
>
> You don't need to uppercase the word users - it looks a little
> hysterical.

Maybe you're right, but some of the folk on Usenet groups consider
themselves technical experts, not simply users of computers.

> But you're right - most of the time we are just grateful that thing we
> spend 11 hours every working day tapping away on is doing what we ask of
> it - so a problem remedied (even if apparently only and temporary) is
> often a great relief.

I know exactly what you mean!

> I am s/w developer of old; nowadays I spend my life on email,
> spreadsheets, documents as a user and have little interest in what's
> going on under the hood.

It's been a refreshing change to 'talk' to you, Jeremy! :-)

My wife can drive a car satisfactorily yet has no idea at all what goes
on under the bonnet! It doesn't make her any less of a woman.

--
David B.

[David B.]

On 25/01/2019 19:37, Jolly Roger wrote:

> On 2019-01-25, David B. <"David B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>
>> Someone needs to suggest to Mark Allan that he should come here to
>> Usenet to support his position.
>

> Creating software that scans for malware threats isn't a "position",
> which means there's nothing to defend. The software does what is
> advertised. There's nothing untoward about it. And the only person here
> I see attacking him is you. I see no need for him to come here to defend
> himself against irrational attacks. The rest of us (many who know a lot
> more about software than you) don't have beef with him or his software.

I'm sure you recognise that Mark Allan could be here under a pseudonym
or just lurking!

>> I'd do that myself but he refuses to correspond with me.
>

> Attacking people irrationally tends to have that effect. Whether you'll
> ever learn from that life experience is in question.

I still have a copy of all my original correspondence with him. Would
you care to review it? (it's in PDF format)

>>> <https://www.clamxav.com/support/faqs/>
>>>
>>> “How do I uninstall ClamXAV completely?
>>>
>>> You can simply drag ClamXAV.app to the trash; after a few seconds you’ll
>>> see a message asking if you would also like to uninstall the scanning
>>> engine. If this doesn’t happen or it doesn’t appear to have worked, you can
>>> download the uninstaller and run it manually. The uninstaller will remove
>>> the scanning engine, preferences and any schedules you’ve got set up. But
>>> we’ll be sorry to see you go.”
>>
>> *What if that isn't, actually, true*?
>

> Prove it isn't true. I'll wait. Until then, you're blowing hot air.

YOU have refused to search your computer with EasyFind. You therefore
cannot be sure there are no remnants residing on your relevant machine.

>>>> I ran a trial version of App Cleaner on Monday - it removed ClamXAV
>>>> successfully.
>>>
>>> App cleaners are not needed on macOS, and often cause more problems than
>>> they solve. You mention it removed ClamXAV, but don’t mention any other
>>> things it removed - other things that have as much or more potential to
>>> cause your problem.
>>
>> As an everyday USER how could he possibly know WHAT the cleaner does?!!
>

> Thanks for supporting my point about Mac cleaner apps being ill-advised.

>
>> I can't recall the detail now, but I used a facility from the Apple App
>> store called EasyFind to scour my old iMac for any file which was in any
>> way connected with ClamXAV - I'm 99% sure that I found some! (and
>> deleted all of them!) Try it for yourself and see for yourself.
>

> Nah. No need.

Yes, there *IS* a need. Otherwise, you will NEVER be sure! ;-)

--
David B.

[YK]

On 1/25/19 11:23 AM, David B. wrote:
> Someone needs to suggest to Mark Allan that he should come here to
> Usenet to support his position. I'd do that myself but he refuses to
> correspond with me.

Why? You seem to be the only one here obsessed with his product. No
wonder he doesn't correspond with you. I personally don't expect any
developer to come to this group to get abused by one person who doesn't
trust their product.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[David B.]

On 26/01/2019 02:06, YK wrote:
> On 1/25/19 11:23 AM, David B. wrote:
>> Someone needs to suggest to Mark Allan that he should come here to
>> Usenet to support his position. I'd do that myself but he refuses to
>> correspond with me.
>
> Why? You seem to be the only one here obsessed with his product. No
> wonder he doesn't correspond with you. I personally don't expect any
> developer to come to this group to get abused by one person who doesn't
> trust their product.

Abused? Whatever do you mean? If the product is 'fine and dandy' then he
should come here and say so. There would then be no doubt after hearing
the truth from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

'Jolly Roger' is the only one who posts in these groups who has said
that he uses it. I find that somewhat intriguing as I'm sure he's told
me that anti-malware software is unnecessary on an Apple device or computer.

Do YOU use ClamXAV?

--
David B.

[jeremy]

In article <gb17nr...@mid.individual.net>, jolly...@pobox.com
says...

> > I understand all that but, frankly, I was just relieved that removing
> > a piece of software for which I didn't really have a need resulted in
> > the symptoms I described disappearing - I am not in a position to
> > state that ClamXAV was responsible
>

> For some reason, I got the impression that's exactly what you were
> implying.
>

Well - the action I took was removing ClamXAV - and afterwards my system
was quick & stable again. I had no evidence before that made me suspect
ClamXAV; it was just a happy outcome. Maybe the install was bad in some
ways (hence why I was unable to stop it from running / deinstal
according to the instructions I found on the 'net).

> It's very likely other things were removed by the app cleaner as well.
> I point that out to say that you can't legitimately claim ClamXAV
> was the cause.
>

Could well be - I have no way of knowing though.

> <https://i.imgur.com/SG0Dp9s.png>

I didn't have that option - that's the first thing I looked for.

I also didn't have options to disable Sentry - it surprised me I have to
say. I am tempted to resinstall it and see if I am (a) being fair and
(b) misremembering.

--
jeremy

[jeremy]

In article <MPG.36b6634f8...@news.individual.net>, jeremy0505
@gmail.com says...

> I am tempted to resinstall it and see if I am (a) being fair and
> (b) misremembering.
>
>

Temptation got the better of me

Re-downloaded (v3.0.9), ran the installer

As I was on a trial before, it wouldn't allow me to execute now as the
trial period expired.

It was visible in Finder under Applications - when I sent it to Trash I
was prompted if I wanted to uninstall - I OK'd that and then received
message that it had been successfully removed.

Whatever mess it was in before was, I guess, of my own doing. Just not
sure how.


--
jeremy

[David B.]

You're a man after my own heart, 'jeremy'! :-)

Now, the next step! From the App Store, install EasyFind

Then search the whole of your computer for, say, "Clam" and see what you
find. I'll be most interested to hear what you find (or don't find!)

It might take a while if you have a large hard drive.

--
David B.

[nospam]

In article <w8N2E.18144$kn2....@fx24.fr7>, David B. <

B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

>
> YOU have refused to search your computer with EasyFind. You therefore
> cannot be sure there are no remnants residing on your relevant machine.

it doesn't matter if there is or not. remnants are *inert*.

[nospam]

In article <d0Z2E.63350$7S2....@fx08.fr7>, David B. <

B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

> Now, the next step! From the App Store, install EasyFind

do not do this

> Then search the whole of your computer for, say, "Clam" and see what you
> find. I'll be most interested to hear what you find (or don't find!)

it's none of your fucking business what's on his hard drive.

[David B.]

That isn't true.

--
David B.

[David B.]

On 26/01/2019 14:25, nospam wrote:

> In article <d0Z2E.63350$7S2....@fx08.fr7>, David B. <
> B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>> Now, the next step! From the App Store, install EasyFind
>
> do not do this

I've already done it! :-)

>> Then search the whole of your computer for, say, "Clam" and see what you
>> find. I'll be most interested to hear what you find (or don't find!)
>
> it's none of your fucking business what's on his hard drive.

What are YOU bothered about? Frightened he might uncover the truth?

--
David B.

[nospam]

In article <yj_2E.95190$Rl6....@fx10.fr7>, David B. <

B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

> >> Now, the next step! From the App Store, install EasyFind
> >
> > do not do this
>
> I've already done it! :-)

nobody cares what you do to your own computer.

telling others to do worthless stuff is not acceptable.

> >> Then search the whole of your computer for, say, "Clam" and see what you
> >> find. I'll be most interested to hear what you find (or don't find!)
> >
> > it's none of your fucking business what's on his hard drive.
>
> What are YOU bothered about? Frightened he might uncover the truth?

the only truth is that you're an idiot.

[nospam]

In article <uh_2E.95189$Rl6....@fx10.fr7>, David B. <

B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

> >> YOU have refused to search your computer with EasyFind. You therefore
> >> cannot be sure there are no remnants residing on your relevant machine.
> >
> > it doesn't matter if there is or not. remnants are *inert*.
>
> That isn't true.

it absolutely is true.

ancillary files do nothing by themselves except take up a tiny amount
of space. they can be ignored.

[André G. Isaak]

Finding files which include 'Clam' in their name tells you nothing
whatsoever about which program originally installed them (Some versions
of Mac OS Server, for example, install clam, and it's quite possible
some email clients might also).

And if ClamXAV really were some conspiracy to install something Evil™ on
your computer, do you really think they'd call it something along the
lines of Clam-Evil™-Thing or anything else with 'clam' in the name?

EasyFind is a very useful program. Just not for what you are doing.

André

[David B.]

On 26/01/2019 14:44, nospam *THE TROLL* said ...

> In article <yj_2E.95190$Rl6....@fx10.fr7>, David B. <
> B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>>>> Now, the next step! From the App Store, install EasyFind
>>>
>>> do not do this
>>
>> I've already done it! :-)
>
> nobody cares what you do to your own computer.

I most certainly hope not!

> telling others to do worthless stuff is not acceptable.

WTF? This is Usenet. :-)

>>>> Then search the whole of your computer for, say, "Clam" and see what you
>>>> find. I'll be most interested to hear what you find (or don't find!)
>>>
>>> it's none of your fucking business what's on his hard drive.
>>
>> What are YOU bothered about? Frightened he might uncover the truth?
>
> the only truth is that you're an idiot.

*YOU* are not competent to judge!

*Truth*! ........

X-Received: by 10.152.88.70 with SMTP id be6mr5315849lab.1.1413905206061;
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 08:26:46 -0700 (PDT)
Path:
xd10ni94992lbb.1!nntp.google.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!feed.xsnews.nl!fbe002.ams.xsnews.nl!ecngs!feeder.ecngs.de!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.bt.com!news.bt.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:26:45 -0500
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:26:44 +0100
From: ~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.politics.scorched-earth,microsoft.public.test.here,alt.2600
Subject: Re: Was: Scan result - BD's 'puter is fuxed up!!
References: <m1m6nt$718$1...@dont-email.me> <m1m88g$cj3$1...@dont-email.me>
<FYudncVQboQANqPJ...@bt.com>
<i4m44a9hqp2ian5pc...@Osama-is-dead.net>
<RKWdnYf844pd79_J...@bt.com>
<XnsA3CBE3A71E15BC9...@192.254.233.145>
<6Zidnakd59gzjNjJ...@bt.com>
<XnsA3CC7836CDAF5C9...@192.254.233.145>
<JJqdnZTukplXB9jJ...@bt.com>
<XnsA3CCDEFE2C8F4C9...@192.254.233.145>
<ka6dncUwMJySjtvJ...@bt.com>
<m25eke$cdb$1...@news2.open-news-network.org>
<tPidndHlbLfb89vJ...@bt.com>
<m25r5k$l58$1...@news2.open-news-network.org>
In-Reply-To: <m25r5k$l58$1...@news2.open-news-network.org>
Message-ID: <oMKdnWQ5ltqo5tvJ...@bt.com>
Lines: 75
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-AuthenticatedUsername: NoAuthUser
X-Trace:
sv3-beKgID3pzatIV83CfgFa80jFKXKBX6abzunxpFdTI3TsQ3UBASNO5nf6bBbG0osuLU4vwi94P2IaOO/!B3jSBT2UmNDD+E3KIywdaK8AEYT/L+dW9T/mD+yZHrMxUXZbz4gzalbLe2p3/UT+YUGmmTRvNQk=
X-Complaints-To: ab...@btinternet.com
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: ab...@btinternet.com
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4518
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 21/10/2014 15:38, FromTheRafters wrote:
> ~BD~ explained on 10/21/2014 :
>> On 21/10/2014 12:04, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>> ~BD~ explained :
>>>> NewsReader : Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0)
>>>> Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
>>>> Author : ~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org>
>>>> Newsgroups :
>>>> alt.politics.scorched-earth,microsoft.public.test.here,alt.2600
>>>>
>>>> On 21/10/2014 02:53, Dustin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Regarding the 'SwissArmyKnife' file
>>>>
>>>>> If you hadn't of been such a prick towards me, I'd just tell you what
>>>>> it is and what it does and why Malwarebytes uses it. You chose to
>>>>> make me an enemy though.. So...
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds to me, like you have a few options.
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) Use one of your other accounts to post on the forum. You've
>>>>> previously admitted to having atleast one additional one that isn't
>>>>> banned. Making your excuse in both cases, lame. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> (2) Create a new account (It's criminal computer trespass, but laws,
>>>>> pesky little things haven't stopped you before. You've already
>>>>> demonstrated that you believe the laws are written for everyone else,
>>>>> but you)
>>>>>
>>>>> (3) try to con somebody else with the required knowledge and
>>>>> skillsets to tell you what the file is and what it's doing. :)
>>>>
>>>> I have found this!
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> I found this, and it is much shorter.
>>>
>>> http://www.tldp.org/LDP/lpg/node6.html
>>>
>>> ...of course, neither is relevant to this discussion.
>>
>> Your right! :-)
>
> That should be "your left, your left, your left-right-left..."

Duh! :-( You're right again!!! ;-)

It's probably Dustin's influence over the years! Regardless, I apologise
for my mistake.

>> Do YOU use the Malwarebytes product, FTR?
>
> Not the active scanner, but I do sometimes use the malware removal free
> version. Well, I've used it twice to remove a self-inflicted FBI
> ransomware thing. Both times I got a free trial of the active part and
> didn't really use it.

Have you uninstalled MBAM? Then checked to see what's left behind?

"This tool was created to completely remove all traces of the program
from your computer."

https://helpdesk.malwarebytes.org/hc/en-us/articles/201861636-How-do-I-uninstall-Malwarebytes-Anti-Malware-

I used the 'removal' tool - and a straightforward 'search' for 'mbam'
afterwards *still found a number of files*. Try it and see!

>> I'd appreciate you telling me why you do - or you don't - use it as
>> the case may be.
>
> It is unnecessary as are many other 'solutions'.

OK - I seem to manage quite well without it too!

==

The files left behind were later discovered to be to there specifically
to prevent a user from having more than one 'free trial'.

The statement made in respect of the MBAM removal tool was a lie.

From what 'jeremy' has said, ClamXAV *MUST* do something similar.

--
David B.

[nospam]

In article <R4%2E.63351$7S2....@fx08.fr7>, David B. <

B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

>
> > telling others to do worthless stuff is not acceptable.
>
> WTF? This is Usenet. :-)

usenet does not give anyone permission to tell people to do stupid shit.

in the event someone does, they will be called out on it.

[nospam]

In article <q2huet$i6e$1...@dont-email.me>, André G. Isaak

<agi...@gm.invalid> wrote:

> >
> > Then search the whole of your computer for, say, "Clam" and see what you
> > find. I'll be most interested to hear what you find (or don't find!)
>
> Finding files which include 'Clam' in their name tells you nothing
> whatsoever about which program originally installed them (Some versions
> of Mac OS Server, for example, install clam, and it's quite possible
> some email clients might also).

it's also possible that users could have their own files with 'clam' in
the name, perhaps a recipe for clam chowder. deleting those would be
bad.

> And if ClamXAV really were some conspiracy to install something Evil on
> your computer, do you really think they'd call it something along the
> lines of Clam-Evil -Thing or anything else with 'clam' in the name?
>
> EasyFind is a very useful program. Just not for what you are doing.

he has no idea what he's doing.

[David B.]

On 26/01/2019 14:44, nospam *THE TROLL* says ...

> In article <uh_2E.95189$Rl6....@fx10.fr7>, David B. <
> B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>>>> YOU have refused to search your computer with EasyFind. You therefore
>>>> cannot be sure there are no remnants residing on your relevant machine.
>>>
>>> it doesn't matter if there is or not. remnants are *inert*.
>>
>> That isn't true.
>
> it absolutely is true.

You are wrong - *AGAIN*!

> ancillary files do nothing by themselves except take up a tiny amount
> of space. they can be ignored

MBAM leaves files which prevent one from having more than one free
trial. I've been led to believe that other software does so too.

--
David B.

[André G. Isaak]

On 2019-01-26 8:38 a.m., nospam wrote:
> In article <q2huet$i6e$1...@dont-email.me>, André G. Isaak
> <agi...@gm.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Then search the whole of your computer for, say, "Clam" and see what you
>>> find. I'll be most interested to hear what you find (or don't find!)
>>
>> Finding files which include 'Clam' in their name tells you nothing
>> whatsoever about which program originally installed them (Some versions
>> of Mac OS Server, for example, install clam, and it's quite possible
>> some email clients might also).
>
> it's also possible that users could have their own files with 'clam' in
> the name, perhaps a recipe for clam chowder. deleting those would be
> bad.

Not necessarily. Accidentally deleting that recipe today might prevent
that tragic accident a month from now when you neighbor dies of
anaphylaxis after forgetting to tell you about their shellfish allergy.

So it's probably best to just delete everything, just to be on the safe
side.

[David B.]

On 26/01/2019 15:38, nospam wrote:
> In article <q2huet$i6e$1...@dont-email.me>, André G. Isaak
> <agi...@gm.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Then search the whole of your computer for, say, "Clam" and see what you
>>> find. I'll be most interested to hear what you find (or don't find!)
>>
>> Finding files which include 'Clam' in their name tells you nothing
>> whatsoever about which program originally installed them (Some versions
>> of Mac OS Server, for example, install clam, and it's quite possible
>> some email clients might also).
>
> it's also possible that users could have their own files with 'clam' in
> the name, perhaps a recipe for clam chowder. deleting those would be
> bad.

Nobody has suggested that 'jeremy' deletes ANYTHING!

>> And if ClamXAV really were some conspiracy to install something Evil on
>> your computer, do you really think they'd call it something along the
>> lines of Clam-Evil -Thing or anything else with 'clam' in the name?
>>
>> EasyFind is a very useful program. Just not for what you are doing.
>
> he has no idea what he's doing.

Did you hear that? "*EasyFind is a very useful program*."

It is! :-)

--
David B.

[nospam]

In article <q2hvp9$q71$1...@dont-email.me>, André G. Isaak

<agi...@gm.invalid> wrote:

> >>> Then search the whole of your computer for, say, "Clam" and see what you
> >>> find. I'll be most interested to hear what you find (or don't find!)
> >>
> >> Finding files which include 'Clam' in their name tells you nothing
> >> whatsoever about which program originally installed them (Some versions
> >> of Mac OS Server, for example, install clam, and it's quite possible
> >> some email clients might also).
> >
> > it's also possible that users could have their own files with 'clam' in
> > the name, perhaps a recipe for clam chowder. deleting those would be
> > bad.
>
> Not necessarily. Accidentally deleting that recipe today might prevent
> that tragic accident a month from now when you neighbor dies of
> anaphylaxis after forgetting to tell you about their shellfish allergy.

good point.

do you have any suggestions for anti-allergy apps?

> So it's probably best to just delete everything, just to be on the safe
> side.

if only david b. would do that.

or maybe he should eat shellfish.

[nospam]

In article <Jo%2E.134043$Yn2....@fx26.fr7>, David B. <

B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

> >>> Then search the whole of your computer for, say, "Clam" and see what you
> >>> find. I'll be most interested to hear what you find (or don't find!)
> >>
> >> Finding files which include 'Clam' in their name tells you nothing
> >> whatsoever about which program originally installed them (Some versions
> >> of Mac OS Server, for example, install clam, and it's quite possible
> >> some email clients might also).
> >
> > it's also possible that users could have their own files with 'clam' in
> > the name, perhaps a recipe for clam chowder. deleting those would be
> > bad.
>
> Nobody has suggested that 'jeremy' deletes ANYTHING!

why else to search for them?

> >> And if ClamXAV really were some conspiracy to install something Evil? on

> >> your computer, do you really think they'd call it something along the

> >> lines of Clam-Evil?-Thing or anything else with 'clam' in the name?

> >>
> >> EasyFind is a very useful program. Just not for what you are doing.
> >
> > he has no idea what he's doing.
>
> Did you hear that? "*EasyFind is a very useful program*."
>
> It is! :-)

but not for the purpose you describe.

[nospam]

In article <1l%2E.133610$Yn2.1...@fx26.fr7>, David B. <

B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

> >>>> YOU have refused to search your computer with EasyFind. You therefore
> >>>> cannot be sure there are no remnants residing on your relevant machine.
> >>>
> >>> it doesn't matter if there is or not. remnants are *inert*.
> >>
> >> That isn't true.
> >
> > it absolutely is true.
>
> You are wrong - *AGAIN*!

nope.

> > ancillary files do nothing by themselves except take up a tiny amount
> > of space. they can be ignored
> MBAM leaves files which prevent one from having more than one free
> trial. I've been led to believe that other software does so too.

those aren't in any way harmful, and deleting them to get another free
trial is theft.

[David B.]

On 26/01/2019 15:58, nospam *THE TROLL* lied again...

You claimed they were "inert" - they are not. You *LIED* - *AGAIN*!

--
David B.

[nospam]

In article <jB%2E.59733$fn2....@fx12.fr7>, David B. <

B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

> >>> ancillary files do nothing by themselves except take up a tiny amount
> >>> of space. they can be ignored
> >> MBAM leaves files which prevent one from having more than one free
> >> trial. I've been led to believe that other software does so too.
> >
> > those aren't in any way harmful, and deleting them to get another free
> > trial is theft.
>
> You claimed they were "inert" - they are not. You *LIED* - *AGAIN*!

they are inert.

[David B.]

They prevent a procedure - just like a *Rootkit*!

--
David B.

[nospam]

In article <5H%2E.61005$fn2....@fx12.fr7>, David B. <

B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

> >>>>> ancillary files do nothing by themselves except take up a tiny amount
> >>>>> of space. they can be ignored
> >>>> MBAM leaves files which prevent one from having more than one free
> >>>> trial. I've been led to believe that other software does so too.
> >>>
> >>> those aren't in any way harmful, and deleting them to get another free
> >>> trial is theft.
> >>
> >> You claimed they were "inert" - they are not. You *LIED* - *AGAIN*!
> >
> > they are inert.
>
> They prevent a procedure - just like a *Rootkit*!

nonsense.

[André G. Isaak]

On 2019-01-26 8:58 a.m., nospam wrote:
> In article <q2hvp9$q71$1...@dont-email.me>, André G. Isaak
> <agi...@gm.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>> Then search the whole of your computer for, say, "Clam" and see what you
>>>>> find. I'll be most interested to hear what you find (or don't find!)
>>>>
>>>> Finding files which include 'Clam' in their name tells you nothing
>>>> whatsoever about which program originally installed them (Some versions
>>>> of Mac OS Server, for example, install clam, and it's quite possible
>>>> some email clients might also).
>>>
>>> it's also possible that users could have their own files with 'clam' in
>>> the name, perhaps a recipe for clam chowder. deleting those would be
>>> bad.
>>
>> Not necessarily. Accidentally deleting that recipe today might prevent
>> that tragic accident a month from now when you neighbor dies of
>> anaphylaxis after forgetting to tell you about their shellfish allergy.
>
> good point.
>
> do you have any suggestions for anti-allergy apps?

You mean apps that tell you what to do when someone is going into
anaphylaxis? That might *seem* like a good thing which one shouldn't
delete, but consider the following: What if someone brings a paper copy
of the recipe (remember, wisely deleted the digital copy), your neighbor
nearly, dies, but thanks to your anti-allergy app, you manage to save them.

Seems like a good thing, no? But what if it turns out that you neighbor
is some sort of weird Christian Scientist who opposes all modern
medicine. Sure, you've saved them, but now they hate you and you have
loads of lawsuits to deal with which might leave you destitute. Would
you rather die destitute, or have your neighbor die an idiot?

As I said. Delete *everything*. It's the only safe solution.

[David B.]

The user of the computer has no idea that files have been left on their
machine. Such files COULD do all kinds of nefarious things and the user
would never know anything about it.

--
David B.

[nospam]

In article <S%%2E.92518$am2....@fx14.fr7>, David B. <

no.

if you think a rootkit is in any way comparable to limiting free trials
to only once and preventing people from stealing software, an activity
you clearly have no issues in doing, then you have no morals or ethics
and are dumber than originally thought (which already is pretty low).

[nospam]

In article <q2i229$8vg$1...@dont-email.me>, André G. Isaak

the app comes with its own insurance policy for that very reason.

> As I said. Delete *everything*. It's the only safe solution.

if only david b. would do that.

or just eat clams. preferably raw.

[YK]

On 1/26/19 3:59 AM, David B. wrote:
> On 26/01/2019 02:06, YK wrote:
>> On 1/25/19 11:23 AM, David B. wrote:
>>> Someone needs to suggest to Mark Allan that he should come here to
>>> Usenet to support his position. I'd do that myself but he refuses to
>>> correspond with me.
>>
>> Why? You seem to be the only one here obsessed with his product. No
>> wonder he doesn't correspond with you. I personally don't expect any
>> developer to come to this group to get abused by one person who
>> doesn't trust their product.
>
> Abused? Whatever do you mean? If the product is 'fine and dandy' then he
> should come here and say so. There would then be no doubt after hearing
> the truth from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
>
> 'Jolly Roger' is the only one who posts in these groups who has said
> that he uses it. I find that somewhat intriguing as I'm sure he's told
> me that anti-malware software is unnecessary on an Apple device or
> computer.
>
> Do YOU use ClamXAV?

Answered you once, No.



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[David B.]

On 26/01/2019 17:05, Jolly Roger wrote:

> On 2019-01-26, David B. <"David B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>> On 26/01/2019 02:06, YK wrote:
>>> On 1/25/19 11:23 AM, David B. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Someone needs to suggest to Mark Allan that he should come here to
>>>> Usenet to support his position. I'd do that myself but he refuses to
>>>> correspond with me.
>>>
>>> Why? You seem to be the only one here obsessed with his product. No
>>> wonder he doesn't correspond with you. I personally don't expect any
>>> developer to come to this group to get abused by one person who
>>> doesn't trust their product.
>>
>> Abused? Whatever do you mean?
>

> Your constant insinuations that his software isn't trustworthy on
> multiple forums constitutes abuse - especially considering your claim is
> completely baseless. You're very obviously stalking him everywhere you
> can to do this. Grow up.

I don't understand this 'stalking' accusation. There is a website which
anyone can review.

>> If the product is 'fine and dandy' then he should come here and say
>> so.
>

> He isn't obligated to change your mind. Everyone who knows anything at
> all already knows your shitty little claims that ClamXAV is somehow
> untrustworthy are invalid.

What I want to know is if it *IS* trustworthy. *YOU* say AV software
isn't required on an Apple computer yet now claim you have it installed
on your Mac (or ONE of yours. I have no idea why you have MANY and you
have never explained)

>> There would then be no doubt after hearing the truth from the horse's
>> mouth, so to speak.
>

> That's a lie. You are on a campaign to harass him by spreading Fear,
> Uncertainty, and Doubt about ClamXAV, because you obviously have a stick
> up your ass.

Me, harass HIM? He's a computer guru. I'm just a regular user asking
questions which are never answered.

>> 'Jolly Roger' is the only one who posts in these groups who has said
>> that he uses it. I find that somewhat intriguing as I'm sure he's told
>> me that anti-malware software is unnecessary on an Apple device or
>> computer.
>

> The fact that I have it installed doesn't mean I use it often at all, or
> that I allow it to scan my system constantly in the background. It sits
> in my Applications folder largely unused. I may have used it once to
> scan some file I was curious about, for instance, and then left it alone
> for years.

It sounds very much as if you aren't using the current version. What
version DO you have in your Applications folder?

--
David B.

[Alan Baker]

Which are the very definition of inert.

Those files (if they exist) do nothing.

If you install a new trial, the software that you install does something.

[Alan Baker]

They are inert.

The software that looks for their presence is the actor.

[Alan Baker]

Nope.

A program sees their presence and acts according to the way it was
designed by refusing to run further.

You're saying the equivalent of claiming a stop sign is actively doing
something when drivers choose to stop because of it.

[nospam]

In article <FT23E.44426$0C....@fx02.fr7>, David B. <

B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

> >>>> Someone needs to suggest to Mark Allan that he should come here to
> >>>> Usenet to support his position. I'd do that myself but he refuses to
> >>>> correspond with me.
> >>>
> >>> Why? You seem to be the only one here obsessed with his product. No
> >>> wonder he doesn't correspond with you. I personally don't expect any
> >>> developer to come to this group to get abused by one person who
> >>> doesn't trust their product.
> >>
> >> Abused? Whatever do you mean?
> >
> > Your constant insinuations that his software isn't trustworthy on
> > multiple forums constitutes abuse - especially considering your claim is
> > completely baseless. You're very obviously stalking him everywhere you
> > can to do this. Grow up.
>
> I don't understand this 'stalking' accusation.

of course you don't. you don't understand much of anything.

> There is a website which
> anyone can review.

you've done a lot more than 'review' his website.

> >> If the product is 'fine and dandy' then he should come here and say
> >> so.
> >
> > He isn't obligated to change your mind. Everyone who knows anything at
> > all already knows your shitty little claims that ClamXAV is somehow
> > untrustworthy are invalid.
>
> What I want to know is if it *IS* trustworthy.

you've been told the answer to that countless times.

if you don't think it's trustworthy, then don't use it. simple.

> *YOU* say AV software
> isn't required on an Apple computer yet now claim you have it installed
> on your Mac (or ONE of yours. I have no idea why you have MANY and you
> have never explained)

many people have more than one computer and it's none of your fucking
business why they do or how many they have.

> >> There would then be no doubt after hearing the truth from the horse's
> >> mouth, so to speak.
> >
> > That's a lie. You are on a campaign to harass him by spreading Fear,
> > Uncertainty, and Doubt about ClamXAV, because you obviously have a stick
> > up your ass.
>
> Me, harass HIM? He's a computer guru. I'm just a regular user asking
> questions which are never answered.

you are in no way a 'regular user' and your (ignorant) questions have
been answered, often more than once.

repeatedly asking the same questions over and over serves no purpose
other than to annoy people, at which point they choose to not answer
you anymore and instead tell you to fuck off.

> >> 'Jolly Roger' is the only one who posts in these groups who has said
> >> that he uses it. I find that somewhat intriguing as I'm sure he's told
> >> me that anti-malware software is unnecessary on an Apple device or
> >> computer.
> >
> > The fact that I have it installed doesn't mean I use it often at all, or
> > that I allow it to scan my system constantly in the background. It sits
> > in my Applications folder largely unused. I may have used it once to
> > scan some file I was curious about, for instance, and then left it alone
> > for years.
>
> It sounds very much as if you aren't using the current version. What
> version DO you have in your Applications folder?

it's none of your fucking business what people have in their
applications folder or what versions they might be.

[YK]

On 1/26/19 2:52 PM, David B. wrote:
> On 26/01/2019 17:05, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2019-01-26, David B. <"David B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>> On 26/01/2019 02:06, YK wrote:
>>>> On 1/25/19 11:23 AM, David B. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Someone needs to suggest to Mark Allan that he should come here to
>>>>> Usenet to support his position. I'd do that myself but he refuses to
>>>>> correspond with me.
>>>>
>>>> Why? You seem to be the only one here obsessed with his product. No
>>>> wonder he doesn't correspond with you. I personally don't expect any
>>>> developer to come to this group to get abused by one person who
>>>> doesn't trust their product.
>>>
>>> Abused? Whatever do you mean?
>>
>> Your constant insinuations that his software isn't trustworthy on
>> multiple forums constitutes abuse - especially considering your claim is
>> completely baseless. You're very obviously stalking him everywhere you
>> can to do this. Grow up.
>
> I don't understand this 'stalking' accusation. There is a website which
> anyone can review.

It's really more of an obsession, from what I have observed.

>>> If the product is 'fine and dandy' then he should come here and say
>>> so.
>>
>> He isn't obligated to change your mind. Everyone who knows anything at
>> all already knows your shitty little claims that ClamXAV is somehow
>> untrustworthy are invalid.
>
> What I want to know is if it *IS* trustworthy. *YOU* say AV software
> isn't required on an Apple computer yet now claim you have it installed
> on your Mac (or ONE of yours. I have no idea why you have MANY and you
> have never explained)
>
>>> There would then be no doubt after hearing the truth from the horse's
>>> mouth, so to speak.
>>
>> That's a lie. You are on a campaign to harass him by spreading Fear,
>> Uncertainty, and Doubt about ClamXAV, because you obviously have a stick
>> up your ass.
>
> Me, harass HIM? He's a computer guru. I'm just a regular user asking
> questions which are never answered.

Sure. Being a computer guru means you can question them anytime or in
any manner. Besides, who said he is a "computer guru"? Is that your
impression because he is a software developer?

>>> 'Jolly Roger' is the only one who posts in these groups who has said
>>> that he uses it. I find that somewhat intriguing as I'm sure he's told
>>> me that anti-malware software is unnecessary on an Apple device or
>>> computer.
>>
>> The fact that I have it installed doesn't mean I use it often at all, or
>> that I allow it to scan my system constantly in the background. It sits
>> in my Applications folder largely unused. I may have used it once to
>> scan some file I was curious about, for instance, and then left it alone
>> for years.
>
> It sounds very much as if you aren't using the current version. What
> version DO you have in your Applications folder?
>

[David B.]

Thank you. I'm learning every day! :-)

Now then - what looks for the presence of any OTHER files, those which
may *not* be inert?

In other words, who/what checks the AV software once it has been
voluntarily installed?

*Who checks the checker*?

--
David B.

[nospam]

In article <9m33E.50866$4r2....@fx25.fr7>, David B. <

B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

> >>>>> ancillary files do nothing by themselves except take up a tiny amount
> >>>>> of space. they can be ignored
> >>>> MBAM leaves files which prevent one from having more than one free
> >>>> trial. I've been led to believe that other software does so too.
> >>>
> >>> those aren't in any way harmful, and deleting them to get another free
> >>> trial is theft.
> >>
> >> You claimed they were "inert" - they are not. You *LIED* - *AGAIN*!
> >>
> >
> > They are inert.
> >
> > The software that looks for their presence is the actor.
>
> Thank you. I'm learning every day! :-)

you very definitely are not.

> Now then - what looks for the presence of any OTHER files, those which
> may *not* be inert?

there aren't any, because the user deleted the non-inert app.

> In other words, who/what checks the AV software once it has been
> voluntarily installed?
>
> *Who checks the checker*?

yep, you haven't learned a thing.

[David B.]

On 26/01/2019 20:19, YK wrote:
> On 1/26/19 2:52 PM, David B. wrote:
>> On 26/01/2019 17:05, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> On 2019-01-26, David B. <"David B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>> On 26/01/2019 02:06, YK wrote:
>>>>> On 1/25/19 11:23 AM, David B. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Someone needs to suggest to Mark Allan that he should come here to
>>>>>> Usenet to support his position. I'd do that myself but he refuses to
>>>>>> correspond with me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why? You seem to be the only one here obsessed with his product. No
>>>>> wonder he doesn't correspond with you. I personally don't expect any
>>>>> developer to come to this group to get abused by one person who
>>>>> doesn't trust their product.
>>>>
>>>> Abused? Whatever do you mean?
>>>
>>> Your constant insinuations that his software isn't trustworthy on
>>> multiple forums constitutes abuse - especially considering your claim is
>>> completely baseless. You're very obviously stalking him everywhere you
>>> can to do this. Grow up.
>>
>> I don't understand this 'stalking' accusation. There is a website
>> which anyone can review.
>
> It's really more of an obsession, from what I have observed.

It's good to know that you are following along. :-)

>>>> If the product is 'fine and dandy' then he should come here and say
>>>> so.
>>>
>>> He isn't obligated to change your mind. Everyone who knows anything at
>>> all already knows your shitty little claims that ClamXAV is somehow
>>> untrustworthy are invalid.
>>
>> What I want to know is if it *IS* trustworthy. *YOU* say AV software
>> isn't required on an Apple computer yet now claim you have it
>> installed on your Mac (or ONE of yours. I have no idea why you have
>> MANY and you have never explained)
>>
>>>> There would then be no doubt after hearing the truth from the horse's
>>>> mouth, so to speak.
>>>
>>> That's a lie. You are on a campaign to harass him by spreading Fear,
>>> Uncertainty, and Doubt about ClamXAV, because you obviously have a stick
>>> up your ass.
>>
>> Me, harass HIM? He's a computer guru. I'm just a regular user asking
>> questions which are never answered.
>
> Sure. Being a computer guru means you can question them anytime or in
> any manner. Besides, who said he is a "computer guru"? Is that your
> impression because he is a software developer?

Mark Allan has a degree in Computer Science from the University of St,
Andrews - at least, that's what it says in his LinkedIn profile.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mark-allan-5164b16a/

To me, that makes him a guru!

Mind you, NOBODY has given him a 'Recommendation' on his profile.

>>>> 'Jolly Roger' is the only one who posts in these groups who has said
>>>> that he uses it. I find that somewhat intriguing as I'm sure he's told
>>>> me that anti-malware software is unnecessary on an Apple device or
>>>> computer.
>>>
>>> The fact that I have it installed doesn't mean I use it often at all, or
>>> that I allow it to scan my system constantly in the background. It sits
>>> in my Applications folder largely unused. I may have used it once to
>>> scan some file I was curious about, for instance, and then left it alone
>>> for years.
>>
>> It sounds very much as if you aren't using the current version. What
>> version DO you have in your Applications folder?

HTH

--
David B.

[David B.]

On 26/01/2019 17:13, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2019-01-26, David B. <"David B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

> Nonsense. Preferences files are not executable. They will do *nothing*
> while they exist on the system.

I'll accept what you say about them.

> If it's installed, ClamXAV will read
> them. That's it. Nothing nefarious is going on in this scenario. You
> have a stick up your ass regarding ClamXAV. Your petty, little childish
> attacks on it are obvious and lame.

I don't believe you have any clue what ClamXAV may have put ON to your
machine, nor know - for sure - what it may leave behind if you you use
it's uninstall tool to remove it.

I'll listen if you'd like to explain *WHO* or *WHAT* actually DOES check
to see.

--
David B.

[nospam]

In article <UI33E.18090$oQ1....@fx03.fr7>, David B. <

B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

> >>> That's a lie. You are on a campaign to harass him by spreading Fear,
> >>> Uncertainty, and Doubt about ClamXAV, because you obviously have a stick
> >>> up your ass.
> >>
> >> Me, harass HIM? He's a computer guru. I'm just a regular user asking
> >> questions which are never answered.
> >
> > Sure. Being a computer guru means you can question them anytime or in
> > any manner. Besides, who said he is a "computer guru"? Is that your
> > impression because he is a software developer?
>
> Mark Allan has a degree in Computer Science from the University of St,
> Andrews - at least, that's what it says in his LinkedIn profile.

and the stalking continues...

> To me, that makes him a guru!

compared to you, anyone with a double-digit iq is a guru.

millions of people have computer science degrees, many of whom have no
idea what they're doing. it's actually rather shocking. i've seen many
people fail to answer basic questions in interviews.

very few people are gurus, some of whom don't even need to get a degree
because they know more than the faculty does.

[nospam]

In article <cX33E.92615$am2....@fx14.fr7>, David B. <

B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

> >>>>>>>>> ancillary files do nothing by themselves except take up a tiny
> >>>>>>>>> amount
> >>>>>>>>> of space. they can be ignored
> >>>>>>>> MBAM leaves files which prevent one from having more than one free
> >>>>>>>> trial. I've been led to believe that other software does so too.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> those aren't in any way harmful, and deleting them to get another free
> >>>>>>> trial is theft.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You claimed they were "inert" - they are not. You *LIED* - *AGAIN*!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> they are inert.
> >>>>
> >>>> They prevent a procedure - just like a *Rootkit*!
> >>>
> >>> nonsense.
> >>
> >> The user of the computer has no idea that files have been left on their
> >> machine. Such files COULD do all kinds of nefarious things and the user
> >> would never know anything about it.
> >
> > Nonsense. Preferences files are not executable. They will do *nothing*
> > while they exist on the system.
>
> I'll accept what you say about them.

except that you don't.

> > If it's installed, ClamXAV will read
> > them. That's it. Nothing nefarious is going on in this scenario. You
> > have a stick up your ass regarding ClamXAV. Your petty, little childish
> > attacks on it are obvious and lame.
>
> I don't believe you have any clue what ClamXAV may have put ON to your
> machine, nor know - for sure - what it may leave behind if you you use
> it's uninstall tool to remove it.

i'm pretty sure jolly roger knows quite well what was put on and left
over by any app and how to check exactly what that might be.

> I'll listen if you'd like to explain *WHO* or *WHAT* actually DOES check
> to see.

that's a complete waste of time since you wouldn't understand a word of
it.

[David B.]

On 27/01/2019 00:17, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2019-01-26, David B. <"David B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

[....]

>> It sounds very much as if you aren't using the current version. What
>> version DO you have in your Applications folder?
>

> Irrelevant.

No, it's *absolutely* relevant!

If you didn't PAY for your version we're not singing from the same hymn
sheet.

That would, of course, mean that you haven't 'tested' the current
version at all - ever!

--
David B.

[David B.]

On 27/01/2019 00:20, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2019-01-26, David B. <"David B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>> On 26/01/2019 17:13, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>
>>> Nonsense. Preferences files are not executable. They will do
>>> *nothing* while they exist on the system.
>>
>> I'll accept what you say about them.
>>
>>> If it's installed, ClamXAV will read them. That's it. Nothing
>>> nefarious is going on in this scenario. You have a stick up your ass
>>> regarding ClamXAV. Your petty, little childish attacks on it are
>>> obvious and lame.
>>
>> I don't believe you have any clue what ClamXAV may have put ON to your
>> machine
>

> You're wrong. It's not hard to figure out.

Check!

>> nor know - for sure - what it may leave behind if you you use it's
>> uninstall tool to remove it.
>

> Wrong again. That's also not hard to figure out.

Then CHECK!

>> I'll listen if you'd like to explain *WHO* or *WHAT* actually DOES
>> check to see.

Please answer the question!

Can you not see that your head is buried in the sand?

> I don't care whether you listen or not. Stay stupid for all I care.
> You're clearly not going to stop your harassment campaign regardless of
> what anyone says. You're pathetic.

Sorry :-(

https://i.imgur.com/ehnp4m0.jpg

--
David B.

[jeremy]

In article <MPG.36b5240da...@news.individual.net>, jeremy0505
@gmail.com says...
> At the risk of fanning the flames...
>
>

... which it appears was the outcome.

I'll make one final statement on this - for clarity, I wasn't endorsing
anyone's opinions, merely sharing a single isolated experience.

--
jeremy

[David B.]

*DID* you search with EasyFind 'jeremy'?

--
David B.

[David B.]

On 26/01/2019 15:58, nospam wrote:
> In article <Jo%2E.134043$Yn2....@fx26.fr7>, David B. <

> B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>>>>> Then search the whole of your computer for, say, "Clam" and see what you
>>>>> find. I'll be most interested to hear what you find (or don't find!)
>>>>
>>>> Finding files which include 'Clam' in their name tells you nothing
>>>> whatsoever about which program originally installed them (Some versions
>>>> of Mac OS Server, for example, install clam, and it's quite possible
>>>> some email clients might also).
>>>
>>> it's also possible that users could have their own files with 'clam' in
>>> the name, perhaps a recipe for clam chowder. deleting those would be
>>> bad.
>>

>> Nobody has suggested that 'jeremy' deletes ANYTHING!
>
> why else to search for them?

To confirm that nothing has been left behind.

>>>> And if ClamXAV really were some conspiracy to install something Evil? on
>>>> your computer, do you really think they'd call it something along the
>>>> lines of Clam-Evil?-Thing or anything else with 'clam' in the name?
>>>>
>>>> EasyFind is a very useful program. Just not for what you are doing.
>>>
>>> he has no idea what he's doing.
>>
>> Did you hear that? "*EasyFind is a very useful program*."
>>
>> It is! :-)
>
> but not for the purpose you describe.

Even the best of the bad guys makes mistakes. We'll never know unless
someone takes a look, will we?

--
David B.

[Alan Baker]

Do you make this same complaint about all software...

...or just about one particular AV package by an author you are
attempting to harass?

That was a rhetorical question.

[David B.]

On 25/01/2019 18:10, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2019-01-25 7:24 a.m., David B. wrote:
>> On 25/01/2019 13:48, jeremy wrote:
[.....]

>>> At the risk of fanning the flames...
>>>
>>>

>>> I installed ClamXAV back in November I think on my macbook on which I am
>>> running Mojave and parallels 14 (and within which I run Win10)
>>>
>>> I have been having serious issues with my Win10 - slow program loading
>>> times, lacklustre performance, really slow to "sort itself out" after
>>> opening the lid when on battery power (I always simply shut the lid - no
>>> hibernate or other options used).
>>>
>>> I had installed ClamXAV as a trial - wasn't sure I wanted it but know
>>> that Clam is a well-regarded AV product so that I'd give it a whirl.
>>>
>>> As it wa a trial, it quickly became out of date - it kept prompting to
>>> download latest AV defintions (a good thign of course!) but as had no
>>> subscription I didn't bother. I couln't find out how to prevent it from
>>> running automatically on bootup of Mojave and couldn't find out how to
>>> deinstal it either.
>>>
>>>
>>> I ran a trial version of  App Cleaner on Monday - it removed ClamXAV
>>> successfully.
>>>
>>> Since rebooting directy after, I have had none of the issues of
>>> performanc that I was experiencing before (and have caused me a lot of
>>> lost time & frustration over the last couple of months). This was on
>>> Monday - I thought "give it a few days to make sure" - as I use this
>>> machine extensively every day I think I have probably proven a point -
>>> that (in my isolated case) ClamXAV was causing signifcant issues.
>>>
>>> I don't want to "feed the trolls" and have no idea if this is linked to
>>> the OP's assertions that the product should be avoided (and clearly, if
>>> they cannot have a good Facebook page they probably aren't deserving of
>>> anyone's custom, I can see that completely [1]) but thought it might be
>>> worth sharing.
>>>
>>> [1] this is where you might insert a smiley - you, dear reader, can
>>> decide [2]
>>> [2] As [1]
>>
>> An interesting tale, Jeremy - thanks for sharing.  :-)
>>
>> My friend...
>
> You mean yourself under another pseudonym.

You need to listen to the POTUS!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wFKKxcFxwY&t=49s

>> ...has asked this question on the Apple Developers site but, as you
>> can see, made no progress.
>>
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/ni5cbv6kv4rgkil/Screenshot%202019-01-25%2015.05.43.png?dl=0
>>
>>
>> Can anyone suggest how the question should be modified?

I feel saddened that no one here has sufficient experience of how best
to satisfy the 'Moderator' in the Developers Forum :-(

--
David B.

[Lewis]

In message <85q3E.29140$kn2....@fx24.fr7> David B. <"David B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> I feel saddened

Not as saddened as we are to see you posting your stalker drivel shit in
these groups.

David B is basically a toddler that shits on the kitchen floor, smears
it on all the cupboards, and then shows off his achievement.

I think it's time to add you to the "Arlen" kill file.

--
TO CHANGE THE FATE OF ONE INDIVIDUAL IS TO CHANGE THE WORLD. I REMEMBER
THAT. SO SHOULD YOU. Death still hadn't turned to face her. 'I don't
see why we shouldn't change things if it makes the world better,' said
Susan. HAH. 'Are you too scared to change the world?' Death turned.
The very sight of his expression made Susan back away. He advanced
slowly towards her. His voice, when it came, was a hiss. YOU SAY THAT
TO ME? YOU STAND THERE IN YOUR PRETTY DRESS AND SAY THAT TO ME? YOU? YOU
PRATTLE ON ABOUT CHANGING THE WORLD? COULD YOU FIND THE COURAGE TO
ACCEPT IT? TO KNOW WHAT MUST BE DONE AND DO IT, WHATEVER THE COST? IS
THERE ONE HUMAN BEING ANYWHERE WHO KNOWS WHAT DUTY MEANS? --Soul Music

[Alan Baker]

I really don't.

>
>>> ...has asked this question on the Apple Developers site but, as you
>>> can see, made no progress.
>>>
>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/ni5cbv6kv4rgkil/Screenshot%202019-01-25%2015.05.43.png?dl=0
>>>
>>>
>>> Can anyone suggest how the question should be modified?
>
> I feel saddened that no one here has sufficient experience of how best
> to satisfy the 'Moderator' in the Developers Forum :-(

I feel saddened that people like you waste the time of others and
actually stalk and harass people without getting your face punched...

...but we all have these little disappointments, don't we?

[nospam]

In article <hbk3E.63359$7S2....@fx08.fr7>, David B. <

B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

> >>>>> Then search the whole of your computer for, say, "Clam" and see what you
> >>>>> find. I'll be most interested to hear what you find (or don't find!)
> >>>>
> >>>> Finding files which include 'Clam' in their name tells you nothing
> >>>> whatsoever about which program originally installed them (Some versions
> >>>> of Mac OS Server, for example, install clam, and it's quite possible
> >>>> some email clients might also).
> >>>
> >>> it's also possible that users could have their own files with 'clam' in
> >>> the name, perhaps a recipe for clam chowder. deleting those would be
> >>> bad.
> >>
> >> Nobody has suggested that 'jeremy' deletes ANYTHING!
> >
> > why else to search for them?
>
> To confirm that nothing has been left behind.

once again, it doesn't matter if anything has been left behind because
it's *inert*.

> >>>> And if ClamXAV really were some conspiracy to install something Evil? on
> >>>> your computer, do you really think they'd call it something along the
> >>>> lines of Clam-Evil?-Thing or anything else with 'clam' in the name?
> >>>>
> >>>> EasyFind is a very useful program. Just not for what you are doing.
> >>>
> >>> he has no idea what he's doing.
> >>
> >> Did you hear that? "*EasyFind is a very useful program*."
> >>
> >> It is! :-)
> >
> > but not for the purpose you describe.
>
> Even the best of the bad guys makes mistakes. We'll never know unless
> someone takes a look, will we?

you're assuming the bad guys will name the malicious files with an
obviously malicious name. they're smarter than that.

[David B.]

On 28/01/2019 03:44, nospam wrote:
> In article <hbk3E.63359$7S2....@fx08.fr7>, David B. <
> B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Then search the whole of your computer for, say, "Clam" and see what you
>>>>>>> find. I'll be most interested to hear what you find (or don't find!)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Finding files which include 'Clam' in their name tells you nothing
>>>>>> whatsoever about which program originally installed them (Some versions
>>>>>> of Mac OS Server, for example, install clam, and it's quite possible
>>>>>> some email clients might also).
>>>>>
>>>>> it's also possible that users could have their own files with 'clam' in
>>>>> the name, perhaps a recipe for clam chowder. deleting those would be
>>>>> bad.
>>>>
>>>> Nobody has suggested that 'jeremy' deletes ANYTHING!
>>>
>>> why else to search for them?
>>
>> To confirm that nothing has been left behind.
>
> once again, it doesn't matter if anything has been left behind because
> it's *inert*.

That's simply untrue.

You really do need to educate yourself. You may find this Wikipedia
article helpful in understanding the Rootkit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootkit

>>>>>> And if ClamXAV really were some conspiracy to install something Evil? on
>>>>>> your computer, do you really think they'd call it something along the
>>>>>> lines of Clam-Evil?-Thing or anything else with 'clam' in the name?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> EasyFind is a very useful program. Just not for what you are doing.
>>>>>
>>>>> he has no idea what he's doing.
>>>>
>>>> Did you hear that? "*EasyFind is a very useful program*."
>>>>
>>>> It is! :-)
>>>
>>> but not for the purpose you describe.
>>
>> Even the best of the bad guys makes mistakes. We'll never know unless
>> someone takes a look, will we?
>
> you're assuming the bad guys will name the malicious files with an
> obviously malicious name. they're smarter than that.

No, I'm not assuming anything. As far as I can tell, nobody has EVER
reviewed what is installed by ClamXAV - or what may be left behind when
it is removed.

"Once installed, it becomes possible to hide the intrusion as well as to
maintain privileged access. The key is the root or administrator access.
Full control over a system means that existing software can be modified,
including software that might otherwise be used to detect or circumvent it.

Rootkit detection is difficult because a rootkit may be able to subvert
the software that is intended to find it. Detection methods include
using an alternative and trusted operating system, behavioral-based
methods, signature scanning, difference scanning, and memory dump
analysis. Removal can be complicated or practically impossible,
especially in cases where the rootkit resides in the kernel;
reinstallation of the operating system may be the only available
solution to the problem.[2] When dealing with firmware rootkits, removal
may require hardware replacement, or specialized equipment."

HTH

--
David B.

[nospam]

In article <LYz3E.18998$dm2....@fx22.fr7>, David B. <

B"@nomail.afraid.invalid> wrote:

> >>>
> >>> why else to search for them?
> >>
> >> To confirm that nothing has been left behind.
> >
> > once again, it doesn't matter if anything has been left behind because
> > it's *inert*.
>
> That's simply untrue.

it's not untrue. you have *no* understanding of what's going on or how
anything works. everyone else does.

> You really do need to educate yourself.

that would be you.

i know quite well what goes on internally on macos and ios, having
written countless apps on both (and other) platforms.

> You may find this Wikipedia
> article helpful in understanding the Rootkit.

rootkits have absolutely nothing to do with deleting an app.

>
> >>>>
> >>>> Did you hear that? "*EasyFind is a very useful program*."
> >>>>
> >>>> It is! :-)
> >>>
> >>> but not for the purpose you describe.
> >>
> >> Even the best of the bad guys makes mistakes. We'll never know unless
> >> someone takes a look, will we?
> >
> > you're assuming the bad guys will name the malicious files with an
> > obviously malicious name. they're smarter than that.
>
> No, I'm not assuming anything.

yes you most certainly are and as usual, it's wrong.

> As far as I can tell, nobody has EVER
> reviewed what is installed by ClamXAV - or what may be left behind when
> it is removed.

plenty of people have.

> "Once installed, it becomes possible to hide the intrusion as well as to
> maintain privileged access. The key is the root or administrator access.
> Full control over a system means that existing software can be modified,
> including software that might otherwise be used to detect or circumvent it.
>
> Rootkit detection is difficult because a rootkit may be able to subvert
> the software that is intended to find it. Detection methods include
> using an alternative and trusted operating system, behavioral-based
> methods, signature scanning, difference scanning, and memory dump
> analysis. Removal can be complicated or practically impossible,
> especially in cases where the rootkit resides in the kernel;
> reinstallation of the operating system may be the only available
> solution to the problem.[2] When dealing with firmware rootkits, removal
> may require hardware replacement, or specialized equipment."
>
> HTH

quoting random stuff you don't understand means nothing.

clamxav is in no way a rootkit.

[David B.]

On 28/01/2019 16:41, nospam wrote:
> In article <LYz3E.18998$dm2....@fx22.fr7>, David B. <
> B"@nomail.afraid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>> why else to search for them?
>>>>
>>>> To confirm that nothing has been left behind.
>>>
>>> once again, it doesn't matter if anything has been left behind because
>>> it's *inert*.
>>
>> That's simply untrue.
>
> it's not untrue. you have *no* understanding of what's going on or how
> anything works. everyone else does.

Maybe you're right. Everyone else is out of step, eh?

>> You really do need to educate yourself.
>
> that would be you.

I suspect that I've been learning for far more years than you have.

> i know quite well what goes on internally on macos and ios, having
> written countless apps on both (and other) platforms.

I'll only ever believe that you are a developer once you tell us WHICH
Apps you have written and under what real-life name.

>> You may find this Wikipedia
>> article helpful in understanding the Rootkit.
>
> rootkits have absolutely nothing to do with deleting an app.

Nobody claimed they do have.

>>>>>> Did you hear that? "*EasyFind is a very useful program*."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is! :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> but not for the purpose you describe.
>>>>
>>>> Even the best of the bad guys makes mistakes. We'll never know unless
>>>> someone takes a look, will we?
>>>
>>> you're assuming the bad guys will name the malicious files with an
>>> obviously malicious name. they're smarter than that.
>>
>> No, I'm not assuming anything.
>
> yes you most certainly are and as usual, it's wrong.

Explain WHAT you think I'm assuming.

>> As far as I can tell, nobody has EVER
>> reviewed what is installed by ClamXAV - or what may be left behind when
>> it is removed.
>
> plenty of people have.

Another untruth I suspect.

*Who* did and, more importantly, WHY did they?

>> "Once installed, it becomes possible to hide the intrusion as well as to
>> maintain privileged access. The key is the root or administrator access.
>> Full control over a system means that existing software can be modified,
>> including software that might otherwise be used to detect or circumvent it.
>>
>> Rootkit detection is difficult because a rootkit may be able to subvert
>> the software that is intended to find it. Detection methods include
>> using an alternative and trusted operating system, behavioral-based
>> methods, signature scanning, difference scanning, and memory dump
>> analysis. Removal can be complicated or practically impossible,
>> especially in cases where the rootkit resides in the kernel;
>> reinstallation of the operating system may be the only available
>> solution to the problem.[2] When dealing with firmware rootkits, removal
>> may require hardware replacement, or specialized equipment."
>>
>> HTH
>
> quoting random stuff you don't understand means nothing.
>
> clamxav is in no way a rootkit.

I've never suggested nor claimed that it is.

You, though, have not yet demonstrated that it doesn't LEAVE one on an
Apple computer when the App is uninstalled.

--
David B.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-01-28 9:15 a.m., David B. wrote:
> On 28/01/2019 16:41, nospam wrote:
>> In article <LYz3E.18998$dm2....@fx22.fr7>, David B. <
>> B"@nomail.afraid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> why else to search for them?
>>>>>
>>>>> To confirm that nothing has been left behind.
>>>>
>>>> once again, it doesn't matter if anything has been left behind because
>>>> it's *inert*.
>>>
>>> That's simply untrue.
>>
>> it's not untrue. you have *no* understanding of what's going on or how
>> anything works. everyone else does.
>
> Maybe you're right. Everyone else is out of step, eh?

Not everyone... ...you.

>
>>> You really do need to educate yourself.
>>
>> that would be you.
>
> I suspect that I've been learning for far more years than you have.

Being old doesn't guarantee you actually learned anything.

Witness the fact that you washed out as a pilot.

>
>> i know quite well what goes on internally on macos and ios, having
>> written countless apps on both (and other) platforms.
>
> I'll only ever believe that you are a developer once you tell us WHICH
> Apps you have written and under what real-life name.

I'll only believe that's a good idea when hell freezes over.

>
>>> You may find this Wikipedia
>>> article helpful in understanding the Rootkit.
>>
>> rootkits have absolutely nothing to do with deleting an app.
>
> Nobody claimed they do have.

You just did.

>
>>>>>>> Did you hear that? "*EasyFind is a very useful program*."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is! :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but not for the purpose you describe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even the best of the bad guys makes mistakes. We'll never know unless
>>>>> someone takes a look, will we?
>>>>
>>>> you're assuming the bad guys will name the malicious files with an
>>>> obviously malicious name. they're smarter than that.
>>>
>>> No, I'm not assuming anything.
>>
>> yes you most certainly are and as usual, it's wrong.
>
> Explain WHAT you think I'm assuming.

That you can tell what a program might have left behind by looking for
files with the text of the name in their file names.

>
>>> As far as I can tell, nobody has EVER
>>> reviewed what is installed by ClamXAV - or what may be left behind when
>>> it is removed.
>>
>> plenty of people have.
>
> Another untruth I suspect.
>
> *Who* did and, more importantly, WHY did they?

Since you're only asking in order to harass and annoy the developer of
ClamXAV, I'm not interested in asking.

>
>>> "Once installed, it becomes possible to hide the intrusion as well as to
>>> maintain privileged access. The key is the root or administrator access.
>>> Full control over a system means that existing software can be modified,
>>> including software that might otherwise be used to detect or
>>> circumvent it.
>>>
>>> Rootkit detection is difficult because a rootkit may be able to subvert
>>> the software that is intended to find it. Detection methods include
>>> using an alternative and trusted operating system, behavioral-based
>>> methods, signature scanning, difference scanning, and memory dump
>>> analysis. Removal can be complicated or practically impossible,
>>> especially in cases where the rootkit resides in the kernel;
>>> reinstallation of the operating system may be the only available
>>> solution to the problem.[2] When dealing with firmware rootkits, removal
>>> may require hardware replacement, or specialized equipment."
>>>
>>> HTH
>>
>> quoting random stuff you don't understand means nothing.
>>
>> clamxav is in no way a rootkit.
>
> I've never suggested nor claimed that it is.
>
> You, though, have not yet demonstrated that it doesn't LEAVE one on an
> Apple computer when the App is uninstalled.

You have not yet demonstrated that you care about this for ANY OTHER
APPLICATION.