Large messages
Jack Gostl
incredibly slow, sometimes for minutes. Screens don't repaint. Even bringing
up the Task Manager takes forever.
There is probably more than one thing, but it looks like messages with large
attachments cause trouble. In this case an Excel spreadsheet coming in
through hotmail that was around 3mb seemed to cause alot of problems until
it finally came all the way in.
Has anyone else observed this?
Gary VanderMolen
http://thundercloud.net/infoave/tutorials/email-scanning/index.htm
--
Gary VanderMolen, MS-MVP
"Jack Gostl" <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:05AF5FC4-726A-4D98...@microsoft.com...
Jack Gostl
"Gary VanderMolen" <Ga...@NoMail.invalid> wrote in message
news:OVHXikEu...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Make sure your antivirus isn't configured to scan email.
But isn't that the whole point of the anti-virus?
Sir_George
"Jack Gostl" <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eT03AeGu...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Hi there,
Visit the following site for some helpful information about scanning email;
http://thundercloud.net/infoave/tutorials/email-scanning/index.htm
--
Sir_George
Gary VanderMolen
--
Gary VanderMolen, MS-MVP
"Jack Gostl" <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eT03AeGu...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
...winston
delivery to a local client or web UI Inbox.
--
...winston
ms-mvp mail
"Jack Gostl" <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eT03AeGu...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Jack Gostl
> also if an isp provides scanning on incoming prior to delivery to a local
> client or web UI Inbox.
Are you saying that hotmail does its own AV scanning?
Jack Gostl
"Gary VanderMolen" <Ga...@NoMail.invalid> wrote in message
news:u5TNmfHu...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
rober...@bellsouthnospam.net
detecting
viruses when they escape from the email, and this only takes a little longer
while avoiding the problems caused by email scanning.
A virus still in the email message doesn't cause problems.
Some, but not all, email providers perform an antivirus check on the
messages
before they deliver them to you, and usually refuse to pass on those which
contain viruses. This means you are less likely to get a virus you need to
detect.
"Jack Gostl" <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uaWTkcI...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
...winston
Read for yourself....
http://get.live.com/mail/overview
Security by Microsoft
See at a glance if an e-mail seems to be suspicious
Destroy junk e-mail with a single click
Powerful virus scanning and cleaning
http://hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/dasp/ua_info.asp?pg=virusprotect&_lang=EN
And for quite some time..
From a press release in 2004
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2004/jun04/06-24hotmailupgrade2004pr.mspx
"MSN remains committed to making MSN Hotmail one of the most protected free Web e-mail services in the world. The new advanced
anti-virus service announced today will automatically scan and clean e-mail messages and attachments without requiring action from
customers. This move builds on ongoing efforts to provide MSN consumers with comprehensive online protection."
Note: I did not say or suggest to discontinue use of a local AV client but that email scanning locally is redundant to protection
already provided by an isp or web source and by a local AV client.
--
...winston
ms-mvp mail
"Jack Gostl" <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uaWTkcI...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Gary VanderMolen
That logic has been widely accepted among technical gurus,
and even by Symantec (the originator of the email scanning
concept):
http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/nav.nsf/d4578f66d8f00a0188256d4e006aaa94/4ba5fc8ef939c44c88256c7500723cf0?OpenDocument&src=bar_sch_nam
--
Gary VanderMolen, MS-MVP
"Jack Gostl" <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OgEEzgIu...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Urbane.Tiger
argument.
Many folks have little respect for Symantec's Norton Security stuff - see
exchange below titled Problems "With Mail Live already. Is it a Norton
Issue?", it's typical of what I see all the time on the 'net. And its not
just the techs, I've seen end users in tears due to Norton Security induced
difficulties.
--
TUT
__________________________________
"Gary VanderMolen" <Ga...@NoMail.invalid> wrote in message
news:#96G8mJu...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Urbane.Tiger
I have experienced similar problems to those you describe, on two
"occasions".
The first was due to some a Trojan Horse downloader, so I rebuilt my system
onto a newly formatted hard disk.
The second time I could detect no parasites and the problem was not 'full
on", i.e. if nothing else a system restart would resolve. I had been
"playing" around with various protection options to try to assure that the
problem caused by the Trojan Horse downloader could not repeat itself.
So I tore down all the protection stuff, including resetting the router back
to factory defaults.
I then made sure than all my drivers were up to date (Driver Agent is the
site I use), they weren't but they are now.
I then reinstalled, updated and reconfigured all the "protection" software,
firewalls, virus, rootkit, spyware, spam and adware scanners. I did it one
step at a time in a sequence that I perceived to be right, essentially from
the outside to the inside (i.e. router first, browser extensions last).
All emails and their attachments now get scanned both at the post office and
at my front gate. Knowing that I don't hesitate to launch attachments from
within emails, e.g. I'll unzip a compressed file, because I know my front
gate scanner would have scanned the contents at the front gate. Obviously
the contents are decompressed to a disk drive, and the scanners will
scanners kick in again because its a new file system object.
I now have what many might regard as an over protected system that mixes too
many vendors. However it's quick, as an E6600 with 3GB RAM on a P965
chipset motherboard should be quick; and I believe it's well protected from
the black hats, might not pass DoD muster but its better than most systems
I've seen in the corporate world.
So the problem could be your virus scanners etc, but not because the fact
that they exist but because they are in some sort of conflict with one
another, if you've put your shields together in a somewhat piecemeal fashion
as I did, you might want to consider reinstalling them in a coherent
manner - it worked for me.
--
TUT
__________________________________
"Jack Gostl" <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:05AF5FC4-726A-4D98...@microsoft.com...
Gary VanderMolen
Norton security software is problematic. That's not the same
thing as asserting that every statement they make is suspicious
or a lie.
--
Gary VanderMolen, MS-MVP
"Urbane.Tiger" <viking....@live.com.au> wrote in message
news:fLGdnZwURMZNLbLV...@giganews.com...
C.B.
"Urbane.Tiger" <viking....@live.com.au> wrote in message
news:mIydnd09cP3dJLLV...@giganews.com...
I did not renew my subscription to DriverAgent for several reasons. I
was offered driver updates that were older than the most recent release, I
was not offered the latest driver release when it became available and I was
offered incorrect drivers (they did not apply to my hardware).
I decided to dump DriverAgent when they failed to respond to several of
my queries concerning the out of date and incorrect drivers. A company's
product is no better than the support behind it and I determined the
DriverAgent support department to be nonexistent.
I found it to be much better to go directly to the vendor's website and
get the latest drivers myself and then only if I was having a problem with
the current driver or needed the updated driver for another reason. If I'm
not experiencing a problem with a driver I don't update it. I have never had
any problems or conflicts due to not updating my drivers. When I do decide
to update a driver I do so only after reading the description of and changes
included in the new driver.
I'm not criticizing your decision to use DriverAgent. I'm simply saying
I don't trust them to be up to date and/or accurate in their offerings. I
hope you don't experience the same problems.
C.B.
--
It is the responsibility and duty of everyone to help the underprivileged
and unfortunate among us.
Urbane.Tiger
I think the performance issues on my desktop system were resolved via
reconstruction of the security layers in a coherent fashion. I doubt the
update of drivers had much, if anything, to with resolving those issues.
Regarding Driver Agent I view them as just another source of information, MS
is another, as of course are the likes of Intel, Nvidia etc, but in the
final analysis its my responsibility. I have drivers from 20+ originators
on my two computers, and that's not counting BIOS components, so I need all
the help I can get. Interestingly I've found DA to be very helpful in
resolving anomalies; on the two occasions I've had cause to ask for their
assistance they've been most helpful - much more so that the originators.
Also I find their FAQs to be relevant, accurate and concise.
Is your system still wedging?
--
TUT
__________________________________
"C.B." <notreally...@windowslive.com> wrote in message
news:7FDD0926-BA8B-44E8...@microsoft.com...
Urbane.Tiger
I never meant to imply that Symantec lies or that its statements ought be
viewed with suspicion.
What I wanted to convey to you is, the name Symantec does not carry the same
cachet as it may have done a decade or more ago. Such is the disregard in
which the names Symantec and Norton are now held that quoting them as an
authority might actually weaken your argument within both the tech and user
communities.
--
TUT
My perception is my reality
__________________________________
"Gary VanderMolen" <Ga...@NoMail.invalid> wrote in message
news:eXzawLUu...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...