From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [h-e-w] Emacs 24.0.93 Pretest Windows Binaries published Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 12:31:06 +0200 Message-ID: <83zkd0dx91.fsf@gnu.org> References: <4F25FA2F.2010401@gmail.com> <8362fofi8h.fsf@gnu.org> <87zkd0z11q.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1328265203 23941 80.91.229.3 (3 Feb 2012 10:33:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:33:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rmh@temple.edu, cschol2112@googlemail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 03 11:33:19 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RtGSF-00007R-FT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:33:19 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56764 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RtGSE-0001YW-JL for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 05:33:18 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:43988) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RtGS6-0001Xn-Ej for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 05:33:16 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RtGS1-0007br-VW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 05:33:10 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:48168) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RtGS1-0007bT-PI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 05:33:05 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LYT00200BVBPO00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 12:33:03 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.124.37.111]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LYT0021CBZ1OS10@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 12:33:03 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <87zkd0z11q.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 80.179.55.166 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:148143 Archived-At: > From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" > Cc: "Richard M. Heiberger" , > cschol2112@googlemail.com, > emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:03:29 +0900 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > You are right: this is a false alarm. Let Symantec people know about > > it, and ask them to get their act together. > > That's hopeless, especially since we're now up to about 3 maybe 4 such > false alarms (ie, from different Wolf-Crying Peter companies). > > (1) They'll say "better safe than sorry," and guess what? they're > right! (as far as that goes, see (2)). > > (2) It's impossible for anybody but Microsoft to truly get the act > together, because the 3rd party virus checkers have to look for > "signatures" in the content. This is so that software whose whole > selling point is "you don't need to know squat to use this because > it's all automatic" can continue to oh-so-conveniently > automatically run pretty much anything you download off the > InterSewer. False positives are pretty much inevitable with this > technology. Is all this based on facts or on assumptions? IOW, did you ever report such problems to Symantec, and got the above as response? I don't know about Symantec (don't use their products), but with AVG it works as expected: you submit the offending file for their analysis, via the GUI of the antivirus program, and get an email notification, usually within hours, saying that it's a false alarm; and the virus database is updated within a couple of days accordingly. So if Symantec is really behaving like you describe, their users should simply find a better product.