I was planning on running Kapersky antivirus (not security suite) +
comodo free on an XP Pro machine, but a colleague tells me that Kapersky
comes up with a message saying it won't install if comodo is already
there. Is this true, as I can't find any evidence in google about it
--
Mike News

On 14/06/2007 8:36 am, Mike wrote:

> I was planning on running Kapersky antivirus (not security suite) +
> comodo free on an XP Pro machine, but a colleague tells me that Kapersky
> comes up with a message saying it won't install if comodo is already
> there. Is this true, as I can't find any evidence in google about it
It may be true for Kaspersky Internet Security (basically KAV with
firewall and other components) but I'm pretty sure not for KAV. You
could enquire at the Kaspersky home user forum
(http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showforum=4)
where you get fantastic responsive help from users, beta testers and
Kaspersky employees alike.

--
Wilf

Mike wrote:
> I was planning on running Kapersky antivirus (not security suite) +
> comodo free on an XP Pro machine, but a colleague tells me that Kapersky
> comes up with a message saying it won't install if comodo is already
> there. Is this true, as I can't find any evidence in google about it
I'm running KAV 6.0.2.621 with Comodo
2.4.18.184 with no problems at all. They seem to
compliment each other just fine.

In message <207MPhB6$OcGFwG7 [at] turnpike.home>
at 08:36:26 on Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Mike
<turnpike_user [at] turnpike_REMOVEuser.THIScomANDTHIS> wrote
>I was planning on running Kapersky antivirus (not security suite) +
>comodo free on an XP Pro machine, but a colleague tells me that
>Kapersky comes up with a message saying it won't install if comodo is
>already there. Is this true, as I can't find any evidence in google
>about it
>
I finally got round to testing this last night.
KAV will not install if Comodo Firewall Pro is installed
--
Mike News

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:07:45 +0100, Mike
<turnpike_user [at] turnpike_REMOVEuser.THIScomANDTHIS> wrote:

>In message <207MPhB6$OcGFwG7 [at] turnpike.home>
>I finally got round to testing this last night.
>KAV will not install if Comodo Firewall Pro is installed

Install KAV first, then Comodo.

dale [at] nowhere.not wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:07:45 +0100, Mike
> <turnpike_user [at] turnpike_REMOVEuser.THIScomANDTHIS> wrote:
>
>> In message <207MPhB6$OcGFwG7 [at] turnpike.home>
>> I finally got round to testing this last night.
>> KAV will not install if Comodo Firewall Pro is installed
>
> Install KAV first, then Comodo.


And then uninstall both, unless you want your system to get hosed.
(And then cease your Usenet existence, your stupid address fakers!)

In message <5ea640F37j5k6U2 [at] mid.dfncis.de>
at 17:42:47 on Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Sebastian G. <seppi [at] seppig.de> wrote
>(And then cease your Usenet existence, your stupid address fakers!)
>
You like spam then?
--
Mike News

In message <1bov73p8homm40hlpimgcs553bp7aosa51 [at] 4ax.com>
at 09:38:53 on Mon, 25 Jun 2007, dale [at] nowhere.not wrote
>>In message <207MPhB6$OcGFwG7 [at] turnpike.home>
>>I finally got round to testing this last night.
>>KAV will not install if Comodo Firewall Pro is installed
>
>Install KAV first, then Comodo.
>
I had thought of that, but there must be a reason for it saying that.
Now I've got a bit more time, I will find the KAV forums and find out
why
--
Mike News

Mike <turnpike_user [at] turnpike_REMOVEuser.THIScomANDTHIS> wrote in
news:2l8c7MBX0PgGFwXg [at] turnpike.home:

> In message <5ea640F37j5k6U2 [at] mid.dfncis.de>
> at 17:42:47 on Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Sebastian G. <seppi [at] seppig.de> wrote
>>(And then cease your Usenet existence, your stupid address fakers!)
> >
> You like spam then?


Not that I'm defending Sebastian per se (he's currently in my
killfile)...

Non-fake email addresses and spam are linked, how?? With easy access to
email accounts it is fairly simple to set up an email address for use
with Usenet alone. The addition of a sig file with a simple "pass
phrase" and one filter in your email client and you can easily bypass all
of that spam.


--
Rick Simon rsimon [at] cris.com

Include "spam(trap)key" somewhere in the
body of any email to avoid spam filters.

In message <Xns995B575E9A2F4rlsomewhere [at] 69.28.186.121>
at 12:35:27 on Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Rick <rsimon [at] cris.com> wrote
> Non-fake email addresses and spam are linked, how??
>
Don't spambots pick up new from addresses on newsgroup posts within
about a day of posting? I accidentally posted with the wrong id once,
and seemed to get spam fairly soon


>With easy access to
>email accounts it is fairly simple to set up an email address for use
>with Usenet alone.
>
Fair point - I forgot about that
--
Mike News

Mike wrote:

> In message <5ea640F37j5k6U2 [at] mid.dfncis.de>
> at 17:42:47 on Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Sebastian G. <seppi [at] seppig.de> wrote
>> (And then cease your Usenet existence, your stupid address fakers!)
> >
> You like spam then?


1. Who says that you actually have to read anything sent to the provided
address? You're only supposed to provide a mail box, thus an e-mail address
which correctly receives mail. You're perfectly free to discard every mail.

2. The solution against spam are spam filters, not avoiding any
communication. If you'd do the latter, then the spammers have succeeded
ruining your e-Mail communication as well.