Is there an antivirus that does not slow you down?

Brett, I wasn't aware there were keyword filtering protocol based on word or phrase frequency in junk mail nor any other tagging protocol. Behind the curve as I have never experienced problems be it junk mail or any problem that requires protective software. However, I have become concerned since installing DSL.

Intuitively, it seems to me the problems with word/phrase filtering for junk mail would out weigh the benefits. As it has never been a problem for me I can't relate to those user that experience heavy volume. Thanks for the info.


BillyBob, Thanks for the link and your time.

Bill, you have answered my question well. Thanks.

 

KenKeith

That is something to be concerned about. That is where the Firewall comes into play as you are on line full time.

Of course Virus protection should be full time concern no matter what tpye of connection is being used with or without a Firewall.

I am on Cable. Before I installed the Router, ( just had a Hub before ) Norton was working overtime ( on all three machines ) to the point that it became a concen as to whether it could handle all of the incoming traffic. Now that I have the Router ( hardware Firewall ) it ( the Router ) blocks the incoming attempts pretty well. And takes quite a load off of Norton. But of course Norton is still needed to control what goes out. Which the Router will not do.

You are welcome.

BillyBob

 

Your input is always appreciated.

 

Referring to keyword filtering for junk mail.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With that procedure, good email could also be rejected!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brett provides an example:

"Indeed it could; especially if one is in the habit of circulating (free!) hair restoration formulae amongst one's friends "

A humorous and accurate example but to make my point, drop the word "free ", and I am relatively sure it would not be rejected. Spammers should/would know the keywords to avoid as easily as a filtering program writer would know what words to include!

 

Maybe, maybe not. UCE marketers probably realise that people who filter mail would be extremely unlikely to buy from a junk mailing (in fact, such people are probably the most likely to file abuse reports!) and so would make no attempt to evade the filters.

That said, I don’t particularly like the idea of filtering due to the risk of non-UCE mails being mislabelled. Nor am I enamoured with the idea of previewing mails which strikes me as being only a slight improvement over actually downloading the junk. IMO, it’s much better to avoid UCE completely by staying of the spammers lists which is actually quite easy to do. For quite some time, I have used a service called Sneakemail. What it does is allow you to create a disposable address whenever you want - for example, if you’re subscribing to a newsletter or a BBS, etc - and all mail sent to one of those addresses is forwarded on to your usual address. If and when one of the disposable addresses begins to attract spam, you can simply delete that address. This obviously keeps your usual address out of the public domain. It works quite well!

 

Good point. Didn't know there were available anti-spam procedures to censure advertisers via a bureaucratic agency. I can't think of the legal grounds unless it can be considered a nusiance to the extent that it is disruptive and interferes with the regular course of a going concern. The burden would be on the complainant.

Sneakemail provides the solution! Thanks.

 

Lots of information to be found here and here..

More often than not spammers are not breaking any laws. They are, however, invariably breaching the TOS of the providers through which they route the spam.

 

The case could be made that junk email crowds out finite memory space, and as a consequence there is a loss of resources available for beneficial purposes. The crowding out can be indentified and quantified by an ISP to a financial loss in theft of service terms. The loss is passed on to subscribers who doesn't have any control or a legal recourse for the inherent price increase. Not unlike the shopper taking a five- finger discount and the merchandiser passing on the expense of the loss to all shoppers with higher prices.