Is there anyway to delete a secondary oe mail account when the pw is way beyond memory (mine)

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Camera, Aug 28, 2003.

  1. Camera

    Camera Guest

     
    Camera, Aug 28, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Camera

    fred Guest

    Re: Clarify - it is an identity. Re: Is there anyway to delete a secondary oe mail account when the pw is way beyond memory (mine)

    In article <UPc3b.134$>, Camera
    <> writes
    >
    >"Camera" <> wrote in message
    >news:sac3b.912$...
    >>

    If you write the question in the message body there is . . . .
    --
    fred
     
    fred, Aug 28, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Camera

    mto Guest

    Re: Identity P/W and Security question

    "Camera" <> wrote in message
    news:R0m3b.265$...
    <SNIP>
    > Now another novice question, in that XP has it's built in firewalls and
    > given the fact that I'm the only user, period, no guests even, and never,
    > ever open email attachments unless positive it's an expected delivery,

    what
    > security measures are generally considered keeping my drives safe from
    > outside and intentional corruption? There probably isn't a heck of a lot
    > about me that an outsider would find it worth their while to tap into
    > anyway. My finances are miniscule -- bad credit and all, etc.
    >


    It isn't what you've got - it is the free drive space to store illegal files
    on, the damage that can be done just for kicks or tracking every click you
    make around the net under the guise of "marketing."

    XP's built in "firewall" is about close to as bad as none at all, since the
    only "criteria" is either on or off. Zone Alarm Pro is an excellent choice
    and there is a free version, though the PRO is worth the $$ in ad stopping
    power alone. 30 day trial version available. Block ports 137-139 +445.
    Read user manual thoroughly as there are a wide variety of options.

    Other than that - depends on just exactly how secure you want to be.
    AdAware and SpyBot Search and Destroy definitely - also both free. Get
    both. Update both. Run both - what one misses the other will usually
    catch.

    Subscribe to alt.privacy.spyware and read through the archives for a few
    weeks back for more info -
     
    mto, Aug 28, 2003
    #3
  4. Camera

    mto Guest

    Re: Identity P/W and Security question

    "Frode" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > mto wrote:
    > >> Now another novice question, in that XP has it's built in firewalls and
    > >> given the fact that I'm the only user, period, no guests even, and
    > >> never, ever open email attachments unless positive it's an expected
    > >> delivery, what security measures are generally considered keeping my
    > >> drives safe from outside and intentional corruption?

    >
    > I'd still not trust Microsoft email clients to not autoexecute an incoming
    > mail without even having been clicked on tbh. It has a horrible track
    > record. So a virusscanner that checks mail before they're passed on to I
    > would consider a near essential if you use any of Microsoft's clients.


    One of the nicer features that is included in the XP version of Outlook/OE
    is the ability to block all attachments from executing. And of course one
    always has the option of receiving ALL mail as plain text rather than html -
    a wise choice in my book. Tools/Options/Read



    > > XP's built in "firewall" is about close to as bad as none at all, since
    > > the only "criteria" is either on or off.

    >
    > How is that bad? On = blocks all incoming connections = good, yes? It's
    > crap as far as having control over what's happening, true. But unless it
    > leaves ports open I don't see how the casual user that does little apart
    > from surfing needs more.


    That's just it - one has no clue whatever what incoming traffic it prevents
    or does not prevent. Obviously it cannot possibly block *all* incoming
    traffic because then one could not use email/web browser. There is no
    method to block ports either collectively or individually. And it does
    nothing whatever for outgoing but unwanted traffic. Further, there are no
    logs at all - and no notification whatever if someone is trying to access
    your machine.

    > When you start getting into adblocking et al I'd consider that a separate
    > item. The google toolbar or any other popup killer will accomplish the
    > same.


    Not by a long shot - having tried many of them. The ZA ad control features
    are not available in any program I've tried - lets you choose to block ads
    on a site by site basis, along with scripts, cookies and much more.
     
    mto, Aug 28, 2003
    #4
  5. Camera

    mto Guest

    Re: Identity P/W and Security question

    "Frode" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > mto wrote:
    > > One of the nicer features that is included in the XP version of
    > > Outlook/OE is the ability to block all attachments from executing.

    >
    > I am aware of that. But, like I said, I don't trust them. Thus my
    > recommendation.


    That is one feature my inbox says you can trust - and I get more attachments
    & html mail than you can shake sticks at :) One of the few things XP has
    really improved on. Note, though, that if you leave html mail enabled
    blocking attachments will not prevent nasty scripts from running.


    <SNIP> And, of course, also lacks the ability to configure for more
    > complex uses than just "block everything". It's very simple, no arguing
    > that. But for simple use that's all that's needed.


    But IS there such a thing as "simple use" anymore? Or a "simple" home
    system these days? 24/7 always on cable/DSL connections, home networks,
    etc.


    > > There
    > > is no method to block ports either collectively or individually.

    >
    > That's because they're all blocked as far as incoming traffic is

    concerned.
    > As far as blocking outgoing traffic that's not really in the scope of a
    > simple home firewall package (although, technically, it can be argued you
    > can't call it a firewall unless it can filter in both directions). That's
    > the domain of spyware busters and virus scanners.


    Spyware busters ie Spybot Search & Destroy and AdAware block or remove
    incoming malware but do nothing whatever to prevent outgoing communications
    from extant programming between runs.

    Far too many antivirus programs operate strictly on known virus definition
    patterns - spyware is not a "virus" thus no definitions are included. Even
    if you are using an antivirus program that utilizes decent heuristic
    scanning, malware nearly always escapes notice. And again, antivirus
    programs do not block the communication.

    But it's a nice added
    > feature packaged with many of the desktop firewalls because it is
    > convenient and handy. And, of course, it's added security if you should
    > manage to get a virus through email before your virus definitions got
    > updated to handle it.


    It is also a very nice way sometimes to prevent infection in the first
    place. Example - MBlaster. (Remember, your antivirus program will not have
    a definition available for a new virus until enough infections have been
    reported to ID the pattern.) It takes only a minute or so to pick through
    the info for a new virus that hasn't reached you yet and proactively combat
    it by blocking the port it uses or writing a message rule to deliver it to
    the trash.

    > I repeat, it's a very simple firewall. But for people just running around
    > the net surfing news sites or whatever it does the job.


    I have to *strongly* disagree with you on this one. The larger & higher
    traffic the website the more likely you are to get an unwanted delivery -
    advertisers like to maximize their exposure (biggest bang for the buck!) and
    most of the crap comes with the ads that a site delivers. Just about every
    nasty I've seen in the last year or so has come from a "safe" news site -
    msnbc, cnet, download.com, foxnews - all the places one would least expect.
    Some of these particular sites are so bad that I won't even visit them
    without everything disabled - no java, no scripts, no activeX, no nothing.

    > > Further, there
    > > are no logs at all - and no notification whatever if someone is trying

    to
    > > access your machine.

    >
    > That's not really a weakness. It's just a preference. If the firewall
    > blocks all incoming there's no need to know what it's blocking unless
    > you're of the curious nature and/or really enjoy looking at 200 daily
    > attempts at connection to port 80 to try to deposit some IIS worm.


    Whether or not you want to see the notification is a preference. When your
    machine no longer functions normally because you were innocent & trusting
    enough to think a "firewall" was keeping it safe (as it surely will sooner
    rather than later if you are just a "simple" user visiting news sites) then
    it can be a whole lot of work to trace a problem that a firewall log might
    have revealed almost immediately.

    > >> When you start getting into adblocking et al I'd consider that a
    > >> separate item. The google toolbar or any other popup killer will
    > >> accomplish the same.

    > > Not by a long shot - having tried many of them. The ZA ad control
    > > features are not available in any program I've tried - lets you choose

    to
    > > block ads on a site by site basis,

    >
    > Granted, I don't ever want to see popups so I have google's popup killer
    > active at all times. The same with Opera when I use that. However popups
    > can be allowed on a site basis easily enough. But why on earth would I

    want
    > to. :)


    No, no - ZAP doesn't just block pop-ups. It blocks ALL the ads. I
    literally never see an ad for anything except those rare few that are text
    ads. Once in a great while I *do* want the popup - sometimes sites put
    things that aren't ads in a small popup.

    > > along with scripts, cookies and much more.

    >
    > You can even set that in IE's security settings I believe.


    IE's cookie control is lousy. Very limited settings - accept all, reject
    all, ask (PITA in real short order) - no way to expire them sooner than 99
    years, no way to set them more adequately on a site-by-site basis.

    >Anyways, back to
    > my point. If a person wants to be safe from msblaster and similar, the XP
    > firewall will do fine, and a simple tool like the google toolbar will
    > prevent popups just fine. If you want something real fancy then yeah,

    sure,
    > other products is the way to go. Neither the XP firewall nor the google
    > tool are bloatware filled with features. If you need more features than
    > they provide then use other programs. However, for most casual users, the
    > XP firewall and toolbar popup blocking will suffice imo.


    If you access the Internet, you need more features than these two programs
    provide. If cost is a consideration, there are several decent firewalls
    available that are free to home users, ranging from user-friendly Zone Alarm
    to fairly complex programs that you can write your own rules for. And you
    might want to investigate that Google toolbar popup blocking - there are a
    number of reports that it in itself is spyware.
     
    mto, Aug 29, 2003
    #5
  6. Camera

    Frode Guest

    Re: Identity P/W and Security question

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    mto wrote:
    >> complex uses than just "block everything". It's very simple, no arguing
    >> that. But for simple use that's all that's needed.

    > But IS there such a thing as "simple use" anymore? Or a "simple" home
    > system these days? 24/7 always on cable/DSL connections, home networks,
    > etc.


    If all you use the permanent connection for is surfing, yeah. My family
    members are perfect examples. They use the net to send mail, chat, surf and
    not much else. They never use software that requires specific ports to be
    open/forwarded etc. A firewall that just blocks all incoming connections
    and a virus scanner to take care of the mail worms is all they've ever
    needed.

    > Spyware busters ie Spybot Search & Destroy and AdAware block or remove
    > incoming malware but do nothing whatever to prevent outgoing
    > communications from extant programming between runs.


    Agreed. However other measures are taken to prevent the programs from
    getting in in the first place. So if they block them that's sufficient.
    Also, if the mail is handled securely (html off, not executing
    attachments), the firewall is on and IE up to date, there aren't many ways
    left that common malware tries to get in through.

    > Far too many antivirus programs operate strictly on known virus
    > definition patterns - spyware is not a "virus" thus no definitions are
    > included.


    Aye. If you're the sort of person that install everything you find "just to
    test" you might want to run something that'll block outgoing connections
    from unapproved programs. If you show some prudence in what you install
    it's not really necessary however, is my point. The OP was quite clear on
    the subject of being careful so it ought not be an issue for him.

    > It is also a very nice way sometimes to prevent infection in the first
    > place. Example - MBlaster.


    It gets in by connecting to a port. A port it won't be able to connect to
    even through a simple firewall like XP's built-in one.

    > been reported to ID the pattern.) It takes only a minute or so to pick
    > through the info for a new virus that hasn't reached you yet and
    > proactively combat it by blocking the port it uses or writing a message
    > rule to deliver it to the trash.


    The default rule for any decent firewall = all ports blocked and you then
    open any you specifically need to let through (for virtually all casual
    users that equals 0).

    >> I repeat, it's a very simple firewall. But for people just running
    >> around the net surfing news sites or whatever it does the job.

    > I have to *strongly* disagree with you on this one.


    By all means. Would be boring if everybody agreed all the time :)

    > every nasty I've seen in the last year or so has come from a "safe" news
    > site - msnbc, cnet, download.com, foxnews - all the places one would
    > least expect. Some of these particular sites are so bad that I won't even
    > visit them without everything disabled - no java, no scripts, no activeX,
    > no nothing.


    Can you name an example of a virus or trojan that has propogated via ads on
    a major news site? Every nasty I've heard of for the past few years have
    virtually always been one of two: IIS exploit or Email worm. Can't remember
    any infecting major webpages and propogating that way. Curious about what
    you're referring to.

    > Whether or not you want to see the notification is a preference. When
    > your machine no longer functions normally because you were innocent &
    > trusting enough to think a "firewall" was keeping it safe (as it surely
    > will sooner rather than later if you are just a "simple" user visiting
    > news sites) then it can be a whole lot of work to trace a problem that a
    > firewall log might have revealed almost immediately.


    I don't follow your logic here. For one, I've never heard of a virus
    spreading via popups or otherwise from major news sites. Assuming that IS
    the case I fail to see how your firewall logs would show it since it would
    undoubtebly come in via packets you've requested (an ad or a script for
    example) and the firewall log would show nothing out of the ordinary since
    it would just be one of any number of legit packets from that site.

    > No, no - ZAP doesn't just block pop-ups. It blocks ALL the ads. I
    > literally never see an ad for anything except those rare few that are
    > text ads. Once in a great while I *do* want the popup - sometimes sites
    > put
    > things that aren't ads in a small popup.


    Ah, you're more picky than me then. I don't care about an ad in the margin
    of the window and stuff like that. I just don't look at them and they don't
    impede my browsing nor pop up to block what I want to look at. The few
    sites that do use ads that temporarily show up on top of the article text I
    visit so rarely it's not a bother to me either. Certianly not enough to
    make me install a program to avoid it.

    >> features than they provide then use other programs. However, for most
    >> casual users, the XP firewall and toolbar popup blocking will suffice
    >> imo.

    > If you access the Internet, you need more features than these two
    > programs provide.


    A few hundred million internet users would likely disagree. I have a
    hardware firewall that came with my adsl subscription so I don't run one on
    my main box, in addition to that a popup killer to make surfing liveable is
    all I really feel I absolutely need. Virusscanner is an added piece of
    security just in case I get a mail from someone I know with an attachment
    containing a virus.

    > If cost is a consideration, there are several decent firewalls
    > available that are free to home users, ranging from user-friendly Zone
    > Alarm to fairly complex programs that you can write your own rules for.


    No argument there. All I'm saying is that for most people they don't have a
    need for it. Assuming they follow a few simple rules. Firewall enabled.
    View HTML mail as plain text enabled. Don't open attachments. Keep IE
    updated (or use another, more secure, browser). Don't install every piece
    of crap software on the net without having some notion of what it is first.
    Chances are low it carries a virus payload but malware abounds.

    Follow that and chances are your virus scanner will never pick up a virus
    (unless it pops in as an attachment with a mail you wouldn't have opened
    anyways) and your spyware-firewall won't ever catch an unsolicited outgoing
    connection since no malware will have a way to get installed. Although
    installing one just to keep tabs on what programs access the net is of
    course a valid reason. Same for "just to be on the safe side" with every
    other product that's been mentioned. But essential? Not in my opinion.

    > And you might want to investigate that Google toolbar popup blocking -
    > there are a number of reports that it in itself is spyware.


    Yeah, I've heard that too. I fail to see how software that prior to
    downloading forces you to choose the version with "spyware" (reports your
    URLs to Google in order to provide page ranking display in the toolbar) or
    without, and also pops up a message box very clearly stating the privacy
    concerns if you enable it.


    - --
    Frode

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: PGP 8.0.2

    iQA/AwUBP09tkuXlGBWTt1afEQLNPACfWOiQva0s3ChcO0WJ6XNH1dUgNQYAoJ5Z
    O3sxY/tEK2FWWkwoXVZlZWBv
    =IeKD
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    Frode, Aug 29, 2003
    #6
  7. Camera

    mto Guest

    Re: Identity P/W and Security question

    "Frode" <> wrote in message
    news:3f4f6e2d$...
    > > every nasty I've seen in the last year or so has come from a "safe" news
    > > site - msnbc, cnet, download.com, foxnews - all the places one would
    > > least expect. Some of these particular sites are so bad that I won't

    even
    > > visit them without everything disabled - no java, no scripts, no

    activeX,
    > > no nothing.

    >
    > Can you name an example of a virus or trojan that has propogated via ads

    on
    > a major news site? Every nasty I've heard of for the past few years have
    > virtually always been one of two: IIS exploit or Email worm. Can't

    remember
    > any infecting major webpages and propogating that way. Curious about what
    > you're referring to.


    I wasn't actually referring to virii but to various and sundry
    spyware/malware programs that seem to be pretty prevalent lately as driveby
    downloads even at prominent sites (maybe I should say especially at
    prominent sites) that download, install and execute completely behind the
    scenes and without permission. I've found Avenue A a frequent offender at
    msnbc over the last several months - luckily Spybot S&D halted the download
    of that each time. During the same period my daughter (casual user much as
    you describe your family, new computer) managed to pick up so many BHO's
    (including a porn tool bar) that the browser window on a 21 inch monitor
    provided a 3 inch high viewing area and two different dialers that ran up
    phone bills in the many hundreds of dollars. Only after the first huge
    phone bill arrived did they agree to a real firewall and a little
    interference with their email LOL. Another daughter happens to work for a
    major large database company. They've had such problems in this line that
    she keeps AdAware and Spybot on disc to clean off the machines in the
    section that she supervises. (IT doesn't allow permanent install.)

    In every case that I have seen the problem really lies with the advertising
    being served on the site rather than the dot.com itself. In the one case I
    managed to track in the source code the spyware was being delivered using an
    img scr tag. Turning off automatic downloading does not seem to help.


    > > Whether or not you want to see the notification is a preference. When
    > > your machine no longer functions normally because you were innocent &
    > > trusting enough to think a "firewall" was keeping it safe (as it surely
    > > will sooner rather than later if you are just a "simple" user visiting
    > > news sites) then it can be a whole lot of work to trace a problem that a
    > > firewall log might have revealed almost immediately.

    >
    > I don't follow your logic here. For one, I've never heard of a virus
    > spreading via popups or otherwise from major news sites. Assuming that IS
    > the case I fail to see how your firewall logs would show it since it would
    > undoubtebly come in via packets you've requested (an ad or a script for
    > example) and the firewall log would show nothing out of the ordinary since
    > it would just be one of any number of legit packets from that site.


    Again, I am speaking more of spyware/malware infestation rather than virii,
    since this seems to be becoming far more of a problem than the various and
    sundry viruses. Get a decent antivirus program and keep it updated,
    download patches in a timely way and you're good to go in the virii
    department. Tracking down where your F11 key went or why you suddenly get
    dragged off to some page you've never seen is a little more of a problem.


    > > No, no - ZAP doesn't just block pop-ups. It blocks ALL the ads. I
    > > literally never see an ad for anything except those rare few that are
    > > text ads. Once in a great while I *do* want the popup - sometimes sites
    > > put
    > > things that aren't ads in a small popup.

    >
    > Ah, you're more picky than me then. I don't care about an ad in the margin
    > of the window and stuff like that.


    More likely the difference is that you are on an adsl line and I live in an
    area where that is not available and so I function on a dialup. You likely
    never notice just exactly how long those 12 ads on a typical msnbc page take
    to load but I most definitely do :)

    > impede my browsing nor pop up to block what I want to look at. The few
    > sites that do use ads that temporarily show up on top of the article text

    I
    > visit so rarely it's not a bother to me either. Certianly not enough to
    > make me install a program to avoid it.
    >
    > >> features than they provide then use other programs. However, for most
    > >> casual users, the XP firewall and toolbar popup blocking will suffice
    > >> imo.

    > > If you access the Internet, you need more features than these two
    > > programs provide.

    >
    > A few hundred million internet users would likely disagree. I have a
    > hardware firewall that came with my adsl subscription so I don't run one

    on
    > my main box,


    AHHHH - but if you had NOT gotten that hardware firewall with your adsl,
    would you then feel perfectly safe with just the XP firewall, the Google
    toolbar and a virusscanner? Bet not :) Remember - "most" people still
    function on dialup, no hardware firewall included.


    in addition to that a popup killer to make surfing liveable is
    > all I really feel I absolutely need. Virusscanner is an added piece of
    > security just in case I get a mail from someone I know with an attachment
    > containing a virus.
    >
    > > If cost is a consideration, there are several decent firewalls
    > > available that are free to home users, ranging from user-friendly Zone
    > > Alarm to fairly complex programs that you can write your own rules for.

    >
    > No argument there. All I'm saying is that for most people they don't have

    a
    > need for it. Assuming they follow a few simple rules. Firewall enabled.
    > View HTML mail as plain text enabled. Don't open attachments. Keep IE
    > updated (or use another, more secure, browser). Don't install every piece
    > of crap software on the net without having some notion of what it is

    first.
    > Chances are low it carries a virus payload but malware abounds.


    See - we agree perfectly :)
     
    mto, Aug 29, 2003
    #7
  8. Camera

    Frode Guest

    Re: Identity P/W and Security question

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    mto wrote:
    > I wasn't actually referring to virii but to various and sundry
    > spyware/malware programs that seem to be pretty prevalent lately as
    > driveby downloads even at prominent sites (maybe I should say especially
    > at prominent sites) that download, install and execute completely behind
    > the scenes and without permission.


    Strange. I regularly surf a lot of the larger US news sites without ever
    having such a thing happen to me. Even when surfing the more seedy places
    on the net I've never had anything install without IE popping up a dialog
    asking me if I wish to allow it to happen or not. I run Spybot once in a
    while to be on the safe side but never had it find a single piece of
    malware apart from Gator which I've left the registry entries for to keep
    DivX working (the Gator itself is disabled).

    > I've found Avenue A a frequent
    > offender at msnbc over the last several months - luckily Spybot S&D
    > halted the download of that each time.


    If it's not too much hassle, drop me an URL if you're able to isolate one
    at some point. I'm curious about this issue and whether it'd blast straight
    onto my disk as it apparently does on yours.

    > During the same period my
    > daughter (casual user much as you describe your family, new computer)
    > managed to pick up so many BHO's (including a porn tool bar) that the
    > browser window on a 21 inch monitor provided a 3 inch high viewing area
    > and two different dialers that ran up phone bills in the many hundreds of
    > dollars.


    My sister has several kids surfing like nuts and the only thing I've ever
    had to clean off her machine has been a toolbar that it turned out one of
    her daughters had installed. I've never once seen or heard of this behavior
    before so I'm very curious about a URL so I can check it out. Now that I
    think about it, I've had Norton Antivirus at times block files about to
    execute that would've exploited unfixed IE holes so that could be a way in
    for those not running antivirus I guess. I've never had that happen on
    "serious" sites though and extremely rarely on any category of sites. I've
    read warnings of the dialer programs before and the remedy has always been
    listed as "if infected, run xxx to remove it. If not infected, be very sure
    before you click 'yes' on anything that pops up to avoid infection" so an
    autoinstaller version of that too would be interesting.

    > virii department. Tracking down where your F11 key went or why you
    > suddenly get dragged off to some page you've never seen is a little more
    > of a problem.


    Not one I've ever had. Although allowing popups can pop up windows all over
    the place of course, including ones going fullscreen and refusing to back
    down without killing the task of the originating window etc. Not something
    I've ever had happen to me on anything but seedy sites either and never
    after installing a popup killer

    >> Ah, you're more picky than me then. I don't care about an ad in the
    >> margin of the window and stuff like that.

    > More likely the difference is that you are on an adsl line and I live in
    > an area where that is not available and so I function on a dialup. You
    > likely never notice just exactly how long those 12 ads on a typical msnbc
    > page take to load but I most definitely do :)


    Indeed. I count myself lucky not to be bandwidth challenged. I pay next to
    nothing for my 2mbit due to a corporate deal. The only bad thing is it
    becomes an addiction. I wouldn't even consider buying a house now unless it
    was in a broadband enabled area.

    >> A few hundred million internet users would likely disagree. I have a
    >> hardware firewall that came with my adsl subscription so I don't run one
    >> on my main box,

    > AHHHH - but if you had NOT gotten that hardware firewall with your adsl,
    > would you then feel perfectly safe with just the XP firewall, the Google
    > toolbar and a virusscanner? Bet not :)


    Actually, yes. In fact I did run with it as the only protection for a short
    while (a week or two). If the need should arise again I would probably take
    the time to run a few portscans and actually verify that MS hasn't decided
    to let a few select ports through though. The only thing the XP firewall
    doesn't do that my hardware firewall now does (and my Linux one in the past
    did) is allow me to setup forwarding rules that I require. In other words,
    it allows me to reduce the security. If I didn't need that it would be just
    fine. For the family members though I prefer installing something that
    alerts of outgoing port usage as well. That way they call me right away if
    something odd starts happening so I can clean them out before the box is so
    mucked up I have to spend an evening reinstalling. Adding the spybot
    immunization process to the list of to-dos for the family might be an idea
    though, just in case. They just love to click "yes" to way too much.




    - --
    Frode

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: PGP 8.0.2

    iQA/AwUBP1B94OXlGBWTt1afEQKylQCg5+ja3eNYmEkJyLX/tyw8IrDkZPkAoIpW
    WJYDly/AmFQVru2NPTxTnb/3
    =mdlg
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    Frode, Aug 30, 2003
    #8
    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. MBR
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    734
  2. Jason
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    10,864
    The Poster Formerly Known as Kline Sphere
    Apr 20, 2004
  3. Jimmy Dean
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    11,244
    Jimmy Dean
    Feb 6, 2004
  4. Jimmy Dean
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    800
    Jimmy Dean
    Sep 3, 2004
  5. M.L.
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,263
Loading...

Share This Page