Getting the attention of spyware & adware perpetrators

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by revenger, Mar 2, 2005.

  1. Jim Watt wrote:
    > On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:24:00 -0500, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Your stats are skewed. <g>

    >
    > Trust me - I have no shares in M$
    >
    > Heres another site's stats;
    >
    > Netscape 5.x 1.00%


    My point was this unknown version of Netscape. There never was a
    version 5. If your stat program is reporting this, it probably is
    messing up other things as well.

    > Netscape 2.x 2.54%


    Two and a half percent still using NS2? <g>

    --
    -bts
    -This space intentionally left blank.
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Mar 3, 2005
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. revenger

    Jim Watt Guest

    On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 15:56:39 -0500, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
    <> wrote:

    >My point was this unknown version of Netscape. There never was a
    >version 5.


    Uhhh Yes there was, sure I ran it but it was trouble.

    However the stats reflect whatever the browser reports

    There is always

    Mozilla/4.x (TuringOS; Turing Machine; 0.0)

    However, I suspect its interpreting Mozilla as Netscape
    as one might expect a lot of Firefox out there.
    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
     
    Jim Watt, Mar 3, 2005
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. Jim Watt wrote:
    > On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 15:56:39 -0500, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> My point was this unknown version of Netscape. There never was a
    >> version 5.

    >
    > Uhhh Yes there was, sure I ran it but it was trouble.


    This page says v5 was canceled.
    http://sillydog.org/netscape/kb/communicator5.html

    --
    -bts
    -This space intentionally left blank.
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Mar 4, 2005
    #23
  4. revenger

    Jim Watt Guest

    Jim Watt, Mar 4, 2005
    #24
  5. Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    > Leythos wrote:
    >> ...
    >> In general we don't do anything less than 800x600, and if the
    >> target is mostly 1024x768 we will use that, but try and comply with
    >> 800x600 users - it's really based on the target audience.

    >
    > All we need to do is _not_ specify pixel based sizes for layout. <g>
    > There is a knack to that, though... liquid design...


    Ugh - what's this doing in here? I subscribe to c.s.f. to get away from
    the madness of the the web groups ;)

    Note for site developers: If I need your site in a hurry, I'm probably
    using my Sony Ericsson P910.

    --
    William Tasso
     
    William Tasso, Mar 6, 2005
    #25
  6. Trinity wrote:
    > On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:48:53 GMT, Leythos <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>Most commercial web designers will test their work using IE 5 and then 6,
    >>FireFox and one of the Netscape browsers. They will test on Windows 98SE,
    >>Windows XP, and then on Apple and a Linux variant in order to make sure
    >>their pages are fully browser compliant. They will also test at 800x600,
    >>1024x768, and sometimes at 640x480, although 640x480 is becoming very rare
    >>these days.

    >
    >
    > What about Lynx? If it don't look good on Lynx it ain't worth shit.


    http://browsers.evolt.org

    --
    William Tasso
     
    William Tasso, Mar 6, 2005
    #26
  7. revenger

    Mark Randall Guest

    Jim wins the away for the best comeback of 2005 to date.

    - MR

    "Jim Watt" <_way> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 00:07:22 -0500, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>This page says v5 was canceled.
    >>http://sillydog.org/netscape/kb/communicator5.html

    >
    > This one says aliens have landed
    > http://www.christianseparatist.org/briefs/sb3.16.html
    >
    > However, it seems that Firefox reports as Mozilla 5
    > and its likely that the version of the program I run
    > missinterprets the ID as Netscape. I'd ask for my
    > money back except it was free.
    > --
    > Jim Watt
    > http://www.gibnet.com
     
    Mark Randall, Mar 6, 2005
    #27
  8. Mark Randall wrote:

    > Jim wins the away for the best comeback of 2005 to date.


    Yeah, that was pretty funny. :)

    --
    -bts
    -This space intentionally left blank.
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Mar 6, 2005
    #28
  9. revenger

    Jim Watt Guest

    On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 00:20:21 -0500, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
    <> wrote:

    >Mark Randall wrote:
    >
    >> Jim wins the away for the best comeback of 2005 to date.

    >
    >Yeah, that was pretty funny. :)


    Thanks guys

    As we are now thoroughly off topic, I'll mention my site on
    the Mary Celeste, which is a pre Y2K design so no comment
    on the HTML but highlights how much nonsense is reported
    about that particular event. A lot of the inaccuracies are
    reproduced on the net.

    http://www.maryceleste.net

    The statistics came from other sites, and were produced
    using weblog lite from

    http://www.weblogexpert.com/

    Perhaps I should get a newer version or buy the full
    product. However, for a freebie its very good.

    With so many good things available for free what the OP
    is spendng $600 a month remains a mystery.


    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
     
    Jim Watt, Mar 6, 2005
    #29
  10. revenger

    YoKenny Guest

    typed:
    > In article <>,
    > Trinity <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:48:53 GMT, Leythos <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Most commercial web designers will test their work using IE 5 and
    >>> then 6, FireFox and one of the Netscape browsers. They will test on
    >>> Windows 98SE, Windows XP, and then on Apple and a Linux variant in
    >>> order to make sure their pages are fully browser compliant. They
    >>> will also test at 800x600, 1024x768, and sometimes at 640x480,
    >>> although 640x480 is becoming very rare these days.

    >>
    >> What about Lynx? If it don't look good on Lynx it ain't worth shit.

    >
    > what about Mosaic? if it don't look good on Mosaic it ain't worth shit.
    >
    > what about Cyberdog? if it don't look good on Cyberdog it ain't worth
    > shit.
    >
    > what about AOL Browser? if it don't look good on AOL Browser it ain't
    > worth shit


    Your advice is worth about 10LBs of dog shit
    --
    Keep your security software up to date by reading the announcements at
    Calendar of Updates http://www.dozleng.com/updates/calendar.html
    YoKenny
     
    YoKenny, Oct 30, 2005
    #30
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    512
    Big Will
    Mar 3, 2005
  2. Hugh Sutherland

    popup adware spyware and spam

    Hugh Sutherland, Jul 20, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    537
    Hugh Sutherland
    Jul 20, 2003
  3. Shane

    Adware and Spyware on system

    Shane, Oct 3, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    630
    Brian H¹©
    Oct 4, 2003
  4. SW
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    693
    Bill Schowengerdt
    Dec 6, 2003
  5. Katie
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    624
    °Mike°
    Dec 29, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page