InformAction Forums

GµårÐïåñ wrote:After the 30 day trial, it becomes a free tool which can only be used manually, much like the MalwareBytes Anti-Malware unregistered version. The difference is that while MalwareBytes only caught 78% of the threats, Emsisoft caught 100% and gives you a full 30 days of active protection as well and a reasonable pricing if you choose to purchase it and even if you don't, it becomes a free manually runable tool that is still as effective, minus the active protection. And unlike MBAM which will not auto update unless you register, even the free version of EAM will auto update on a regular basis, which again sets it apart.

You could have also mentioned that you can get the tool from Emisoft for free if you take part in their referral program like you apparently do.

dhouwn wrote:You could have also mentioned that you can get the tool from Emisoft for free if you take part in their referral program like you apparently do.

Should we ban GµårÐïåñ as a spammer?

(seriously -- the tens of thousands of hours he's worked behind the scenes with Giorgio on NS and others, plus his help here -- eh, let him have the free product. Sounds like it might actually be useful, so unless overruled by The Boss, I consider it a legit contribution to general security, which is the topic of this sub-forum.)

dhouwn wrote:You could have also mentioned that you can get the tool from Emisoft for free if you take part in their referral program like you apparently do.

I'd be careful making accusations before knowing something for a fact, it just makes you look silly. If there is such a program, then I wasn't aware of it. I was provided the link from the developer of MBAM no less, and I followed it, read up on the review and downloaded it. I used the same link I was provided to write the review. So if that benefits anyone, its sure as hell not me. I have written reviews before and I have NEVER posted anything here for my own gain, EVER. Not to mention reading what you linked, you don't get the software for free, apparently they only extend your free trial period. Get your facts straight.

Tom T. wrote:Should we ban GµårÐïåñ as a spammer?

If I am or was, then you are welcome to do so. It would certainly free up a huge load of time I don't have to spare helping people. I can actually do my own stuff.

(seriously -- the tens of thousands of hours he's worked behind the scenes with Giorgio on NS and others, plus his help here -- eh, let him have the free product. Sounds like it might actually be useful, so unless overruled by The Boss, I consider it a legit contribution to general security, which is the topic of this sub-forum.)

I don't expect special treatment and I wasn't aiming to gain anything. I have posted reviews before, where was all the outrage then? If dhouwn actually did what a bug buster does and evaluated the tool, instead of trying to think he is so smart as to accuse someone of something that's not true, we would have had a more beneficial discussion here.

The last mod/admin to read all replies, please delete this topic, apparently the target audience wasn't worth the effort. If I delete it, then dhouwn will accuse me of something else I am sure, so f-it.

GµårÐïåñ wrote:I'd be careful making accusations before knowing something for a fact, it just makes you look silly.

The links you posted (both) contain a referrer ID, that's why I made the assumptions, there is no way for me to check whether that ID belongs to you, I don't see why my assumption would have been "silly".

GµårÐïåñ wrote:Not to mention reading what you linked, you don't get the software for free, apparently they only extend your free trial period.

http://www.emsisoft.com/en/kb/articles/tec111020/ wrote:The number of free months is not limited. By winning 12 test version installations or 2 paying customers only per year, you will get Emsisoft Anti-Malware absolutely free.

GµårÐïåñ wrote:If dhouwn actually did what a bug buster does and evaluated the tool,

I didn't choose that title.

GµårÐïåñ wrote:instead of trying to think he is so smart as to accuse someone of something that's not true, we would have had a more beneficial discussion here.

What I pointed out had to do with the licensing of the tool.

Also, as to me not testing that tool, I am not very fond of signature- or behavioral-based scanners for myself, since they offer no reliable protection anyway. I prefer tools that give me an insight into my system, but there is a lot of free (and sometimes even open-source) stuff that is more than adequate in that regard out there.

dhouwn wrote:The links you posted (both) contain a referrer ID, that's why I made the assumptions, there is no way for me to check whether that ID belongs to you, I don't see why my assumption would have been "silly".

Again assumption making an ass out of u and me. It is silly indeed since you have no evidence that I am indeed benefiting from this and you make the claim none the less, you tell me what you call that? Not counting the legal definition of libel. The ID could very well be the PRODUCT ID, not an affiliate id, I have seen hundreds of large scale products who will send you to the download page with the software ID to limit the scope to that product. But you chose to make the most pessimistic assumption. That's called transference, he who has a guilty mind himself will assume all others do as well.

http://www.emsisoft.com/en/kb/articles/tec111020/ wrote:The number of free months is not limited. By winning 12 test version installations or 2 paying customers only per year, you will get Emsisoft Anti-Malware absolutely free.

Now had I been benefiting from this, rather than like you reading the fine print, shouldn't I have known that? I didn't.

I didn't choose that title.

Didn't see you objecting to it either.

What I pointed out had to do with the licensing of the tool.

NO what you did was directed at me and an attempt at a self deluded quip.

Also, as to me not testing that tool, I am not very fond of signature- or behavioral-based scanners for myself, since they offer no reliable protection anyway. I prefer tools that give me an insight into my system, but there is a lot of free (and sometimes even open-source) stuff that is more than adequate in that regard out there.

You could have either just said that or nothing, but the only thing you DID choose to say was insult me and accuse me. So again, either contribute something useful to the subject or keep shut, that's my point.

GµårÐïåñ wrote:

Tom T. wrote:Should we ban GµårÐïåñ as a spammer?

If I am or was, then you are welcome to do so. It would certainly free up a huge load of time I don't have to spare helping people. I can actually do my own stuff.

Chill, Brother! The LOL icon indicates "kidding".

GµårÐïåñ wrote: I don't expect special treatment and I wasn't aiming to gain anything. I have posted reviews before, where was all the outrage then? If dhouwn actually did what a bug buster does and evaluated the tool, instead of trying to think he is so smart as to accuse someone of something that's not true, we would have had a more beneficial discussion here.

No special treatment, just that IF dhouwn was correct, so what? -- so long as it's a legit product and not some scamware.
I've mentioned Sandboxie many times. I don't get a dang thing from them; I have no relationship with them. We're about security, and it's one more tool to *consider* adding to the arsenal -- as you also offered.

I wouldn't delete this thread (although I wish that you and dhouwn would take it down a few notches). It's getting views, and perhaps some viewers may find that the product suits their needs.

@ dhouwn:

As mentioned before, I suggested to Giorgio some manner of recognizing our frequent contributors. *All* titles were his sole idea -- I LOL'd at mine -- but if you don't like yours, PM Giorgio and ask him to change it to whatever suits you, or to delete it and just go with the generic "senior member". IMHO, "bug buster" is quite a compliment, but it's your choice. Thanks.

GµårÐïåñ wrote:The ID could very well be the PRODUCT ID, not an affiliate id, I have seen hundreds of large scale products who will send you to the download page with the software ID to limit the scope to that product. But you chose to make the most pessimistic assumption.

I checked before that it was indeed a referral ID, it is described on detail on their page: http://www.emsisoft.com/en/kb/articles/tec111020 (spam filter won't let me quote it )
Especially the number that was part of the the file name that got me interested in the first place, I was interested to see whether it wasn't just a version number. Interesting how they generate and sign (!) a file on-the-fly.

That's called transference, he who has a guilty mind himself will assume all others do as well.

I didn't considered you as being guilty of anything, in fact the forum rules seem not to be against referral links per se and neither am I:

Forum Rules point 3 wrote:[…] Posting to recommend other products will be presumed to be spam, unless they solve a legitimate issue here. The burden is on the poster to prove why it is not spam.

(highlight by me)
And concerning "transference", if in accordance with the to the forum rules, I certainly could see myself posting referral links too, so you might be somewhat right. (though I guess I would mention them being my referral links for reasons explained below)

NO what you did was directed at me and an attempt at a self deluded quip. [...] but the only thing you DID choose to say was insult me and accuse me.

Oh yes, I am an evil person…
But seriously, in case you are somewhat upset/enraged/riled up (yeah, pessimistic me again making such assumption about you ), please calm down. I really didn't mean to "insult" or proclaim you being "guilty" of anything; it was something I wanted to point out what since I thought was worth pointing out.
In fact, should this referral link have been really from you (which —I believe you— it wasn't, still odd that the developer provided you a referral link, guess it's for tracking purposes) then you might have benefited from me pointing it out, since persons interested in this product might have fully aware supported you for your review and made sure they used your link.
I am sorry you picked it up so negatively.

I grow tiresome of the battles against the spam filter.

Tom T. wrote:but if you don't like yours, PM Giorgio and ask him to change it to whatever suits you, or to delete it and just go with the generic "senior member". IMHO, "bug buster" is quite a compliment, but it's your choice.

Nah, like I said before I don't mind the title very much, in fact I feel complimented by the fact alone that I got a custom one, though I am not sure I like the idea of people deriving from it what I am "supposed" to do or not to do.

GµårÐïåñ wrote:If dhouwn actually did what a bug buster does and evaluated the tool, instead of trying to think he is so smart as to accuse someone of something that's not true, we would have had a more beneficial discussion here.

@Tom, I know you were kidding. I know you well enough to know when you have something to say to me, you will just say it without games. That's why we are such great friends, we don't lack transparency and honesty in all things - Thrawn included, he knows it, we have talked in private.

@dhouwn, I will take you at your word that it was not meant the way it was written but yes I took offense. I don't even provide ads or tracking of any kind on my blogs, forums or other sites that I manage because I follow the principle that if I am adblocking and trackblocking and analyticblocking everyone else, then why I should be doing it to others. Golden rule (do onto others and what not). So to assume for even a second that I would so blatantly try to profit from something that was actually told to me by the developer of MBAM, yeah I took offense.

Anyway if it needs me to concede first to let it die, then so be it, sorry for getting upset and I will take everyone at their word in good faith.

dhouwn wrote:I checked before that it was indeed a referral ID, it is described on detail on their page: http://www.emsisoft.com/en/kb/articles/tec111020 (spam filter won't let me quote it ) .... I grow tiresome of the battles against the spam filter.

If you need to quote something to make a contribution in good faith, try wrapping the entire quote in code tags. That may help.

If that doesn't work, and it's really important (IMHO, this isn't), PM it to a Mod who can post it for you. Not this time, please.

FWIW, a few days ago, I deleted 24 spam posts in one 9-minute period. I expect the total number of spams deleted per 24 hours, by all staff, is in the hundreds per day. Yes, this inconveniences all of us, but it keeps the board uncluttered. Please keep this in mind when we try to auto-filter as much as possible, thanks.

Thanks to both of you for de-escalating. Now, those who might find this product to be a useful addition to their defense-in-depth have a thorough discussion of it, which meets the purpose of this "extras" sub-forum.

Cheers all!

Maybe GµårÐïåñ *should* sign up for the referral program, and then we can all try it out and get him a year or two of the full version . I'd be up for it (we have a mostly-unused Windows machine lying around).

I too am glad that this has de-escalated, but in hindsight, I can see what the fuss was about. Moderators have a higher level of responsibility to the forum, being above the usual spam filtering, so although dhouwn's comment was likely well-meant, it actually amounted to a serious accusation that Guardian had an undisclosed conflict of interest and was abusing his trusted position. I can understand why Guardian was upset by that.

I only just thought of this, so I'm not surprised that dhouwn overlooked the implications of his comment. But in light of the above, it may have been more tactful to have drawn attention to the apparent referral IDs and questioned them, rather than jumping to a conclusion. I think Guardian isn't the only one who needs to apologise...

ETA: Clarified that 'he was upset' referred to Guardian.

Thrawn wrote:... I only just thought of this, so I'm not surprised that dhouwn overlooked the implications of his comment. But in light of the above, it may have been more tactful to have drawn attention to the apparent referral IDs and questioned them, rather than jumping to a conclusion. I think Guardian isn't the only one who needs to apologise...

Yes, asking politely is always more tactful than outright accusation.