Antivirus

[Ed Greshko]

Bart Silverstrim wrote:

>> Now, since my anti-virus was able to detect and eliminate the virus I did 
>> not pass it on.
> 
> Legit case there, definitely.
> 
> Although does OO.o not disable macros if you altered the spreadsheet 
> before re-sending it for compatibility reasons?

Probably, but it didn't get that far since I do run AV.  Besides, it 
wouldn't have helped if I forwarded it on, which I sometimes do, without 
first opening in myself.

Just too many variables to leave to chance.  Better safe than sorry, IMHO.

> 
>>> All the ones I had run across were from suspicious senders, with 
>>> attachments that had suspect names to them (.jpg.exe?), and the text 
>>> with them were just generic and ill-spelled and out of character for the 
>>> sender, if the sender was even a (spoofed) name I knew.
>> One should never assume that their interactions are the same as every ones 
>> else's.
> 
> I didn't assume it or I wouldn't have asked you about your situation. I 
> also interact with a number of others in technology and we tended to 
> have similar experiences.
> 
> Hence, why I asked for your case for clarification.

Just an passing observation for the general reading public.

> 
>>> Just curious what you were seeing that you'd have passed it on if not 
>>> for your AV.
>> Have I helped you to understand?
> 
> I just said above that it was a legit case you're citing...should we 
> start creating a shorthand for tone so as to keep from misinterpretation 
> of intentions, or should we just start flaming each other now?

Again, a simple question.  Maybe I should have left it at "Does that help?".

If you think my statements were "flames" it is time to dial back the 
sensitivity.  You haven't even seen an ember.  :-)



-- 
Insults are effective only where emotion is present.
		-- Spock, "Who Mourns for Adonais?"  stardate 3468.1