A Revolution is the Solution
Un-fxxxing believable! 
Lop was my first spyware infection years ago and I'm still mad about it.
Well I for one will be giving serious reconsideration of acknowledging any re-awarding of this status as it pertains to myself personally.
I may just remove my name from submission altogether.
It's sickening.
WTF has this jerk offered the online community anyways?
Are they gone completely insane over at Microsoft?! This is making a fool out of us who fight against the crap on the net .
Franthy
DK
Some serious rethinking needs to go on at MS.
They need more than a rethink. Just when you think you've heard it all..... I hope whomever makes these choices better investigates that individual.
Lop is one of the most annoying of that type of Malware i really think Microsoft have lost the plot somewhere or was it that they simply didnt bother to check ....
This cheapens the award that so many have worked so hard for.
It really makes no sense.
So, let's slam all the bigshots at MS into the ditch, too, eh?
Submit this article to slashdot ftw!
:P
Wow. Just.. wow.
Makes me glad I _didn't_ get re-awarded this time around, because I'd be sorely embarassed to be associated with a spyware pusher in any way.
A couple of other MVPS have expressed that they wouldn't give up being considered for re-award because they worked so hard to attain the recognition. Well I for one, certainly didn't get into this to get any awards from anyone, and will have no trouble removing my name when it comes time for re-evaluation.
I did fine without the MVP status and I'll do fine without it.
They said many times, now is more secure....Naaaahhhh.....I don't know if 
))) or scream angry....
And just think of all the millions of trusting souls who are going to trust their PC Security to MS under Vista and OneCare. As Mr. T would say "I Pity the Fool!"
If you're not one of them and want to see what I recommend for a "Layered Defense" using entirly FREE programs than visit BigGeekDaddy.com
That pic from Virustotal is Priceless.
Thanks Paperghost
Thanks to all the MVP's out there that do deserve the award.
TD
Paperghost, PLEASE remove BBD's comment. He posted the same exact message I used on SunbeltBlog.
I guess he thinks he's being funny or something.
For those who wanted MVP status i think this is a kick in the teeth, To those who dont care about such things nothing really changes MS are going to have to learn some hard lessons,
And the lesson for Today is End Users rule the net Not you
You're all tools.
i'm also in the windows live group (mvp since 2004), because of this i will choose to remain anonymous, and i won't be openly associating my status with my name anywhere. when i was first awarded, there were a few others i was also surprised to receive it as well. this latest one is just taking the piss. there's also another one that has appeared in the directory which has worsened the blow for me.
goodbye mvp value.
actually, with some of the new awardees this year, it seems to me people are taking advantage of the nominations and nominating their community friends, when there are clearly far more deserving people out there.
the windows live community is pretty dry for mvp material, so it doesn't surprise me. i'm starting to wonder if i should have nominated some. i had faith in selection process, but not anymore.
i think Anon is possibly Right looking round the groups it seems that Some people are putting up friends for MVP status because they are(a good guy)if this Continues the award will mean nothing at all
..............
Well thats my opinion
Note to Paperghost: I posted the following on Alex's blog:
"Careful Alex - TNT and BBD are each accusing the other of the same thing. The other comment post was already deleted, so I cannot tell who was really first.
Of course, it IS possible that two people would have the exact same reaction. I've seen it happen before, but only a few times."
FYI.
Paperghost, if you checked the date and time of the posting you would see I was the one who posted if first. 
Yeah, I already killed it off. At first I didn't realise they'd duplicated your post.
Thanks Paperghost for your support in fighting this new and dangerous type of threat, the "xerox troll".
No problem, I'm starting to lose track of the severed-head count at the moment what with all this internet related excitement
Have you guys ever read how hard it is to get into Microsoft and the constant weird tests they are given? You would think they would have their crap straight. But not really a surprise. This remindes me of the article were wav files on a fresh xp install were found to be made by pirated software. More on it is here...
http://techrepublic.com.com/
5208...ssageID=1765547
Ironic that MS picked it up as a threat in its scanner.
Cyril has made far more MSNM users happy with Messenger Plus! than have been annoyed by the (now, at least) very tame adware, which uninstalls completely when asked from add/remove and is very very responsive to user complaints (see Sandi's blog). He started the whole MSNM add-on community, he helps many many other developers with add-ons even if they're in competition with his own, and he genuinely believes he has a right to earn from his product with advertising - as do Microsoft, Google, and many others. As for a history of "deceptive installs", the original "optional" dialog was very similar to the one used in the actual MSN setup to install the MSN toolbar and change your homepage to that - except the latter defaults to on, and I've been asked by friends to remove that many times. That the anti-spyware bloggers continue to malign LOP so viciously when they're one of the few companies that does give a crap and responds quickly to queries and complaints (*especially* if there are any uninstall problems or malicious popups), and genuinely does try to "improve" to suit users' opinions, says a lot about this community; after all, unhappy people don't click ads, especially if they uninstall. The whole justice system is based on people being able to move on from past "crimes" (not that LOP has ever been found in the courts of doing anything illegal). You should really at least entertain the possibility that the LOP people are not evil puppykillers, but genuinely decent people who just happen to believe that advertising and adware is acceptable - and are therefore able to converse intelligently about it (again, as with through Sandi) when people aren't being quite as dramatic as "shoot[ing] puppies in the face" or "kicking bad guys right in the pants". The world is a little less black and white than you seem to believe.
"Cyril has made far more MSNM users happy with Messenger Plus! than have been annoyed by the (now, at least) very tame adware, which uninstalls completely when asked from add/remove and is very very responsive to user complaints (see Sandi's blog)."
Yeah, I guess all those piles and piles of complaints about the programs original behaviour and the piles of complaints that still persist don't count anymore because he suddenly became a digital jesus. In conclusion = act however you want, then recant on your deathbed and make it all better.
sorry, must try harder.
Lop = tame? Yeah, so tame it displays characteristics of pieces of Malware (going beyond the bog-standard definition of adware) and also serves up completely unnaceptable adverts that shouldn't be seen by its target audience. oh, and lets not forget about the crappy fake virus removal tools. does msn plus let me use fifty foot high rolling eye smileys?
"The world is a little less black and white than you seem to believe."
Nope, I'm right.
Yes, but piles and piles stack up to far less than the millions of users with no problems, who recommend it to their friends and honestly don't care about popups. The original behaviour has always been to uninstall, and was only ever "more annoying". There's no murder here - it was always legal, as far as I'm aware. And Plus is hardly on its deathbed; ever at the height of WinDefender and so detecting it (and not just the installer/sponsor) it was gaining users - and by word of mouth, there are very few, if any, adverts for Plus around. How many people complain about the ads in MSNM itself and go hunting for patches to remove it at mess.be and so on?
"characteristics of pieces of Malware"? It hides from detection using technological measures rather than cowtowing to an industry that's content to hate it; as long as it removes itself when asked, what's the problem? It's never used any exploits, or deliberately damaged anything/anyone that tries to remove it. The flip of the coin is, why should anti-adware companies be allowed to make money by removing legitimately installed software? As for the unacceptable adverts, it doesn't directly choose its advertisers (agencies do, as for most sites/etc), so complain to support@lop.com and pornographic/activex ads will be removed (and to be nitpicky - it's msgplus, not msn plus, btw).
At least try to see things from another point of view!
"Yes, but piles and piles stack up to far less than the millions of users with no problems, who recommend it to their friends and honestly don't care about popups."
it wasn't always "just" popups though, was it? and in its current state its hardly brilliant, either. hey kids, enjoy your adultfriendfinder adverts. doh.
plus, comparing numbers of happy users VS numbers of people who were unhappy is a baseless comparison. if just ONE person feels your application screwed them over, you have a problem. its like saying your keylogger isn't a problem because only ten people said it sucked. or like AOL claiming the recent pipeline worm wasnt a "big deal" because they said they'd "fixed it" and only limited numbers were infected.
yeah great, i guess those people who had their data stolen shouldn't care then because the numbers were low.
in conclusion, numbers = irrelevant. its the potential for damage that counts in all cases, and LOP has done more than its fair share of harm. Patchous distribution of LOP has contributed to that issue. as a side question, did you yourself accept the sponsor agreement in the current version? if not, why not? did you run his app in the old days and enjoy the non disclosed, extra fun happy version of the so-called "sponsor"? because you seem to be painting an altogether rosy version of msgplus' past behaviour and it doesn't fit with what we know to be the actuality of what was installed.
"And Plus is hardly on its deathbed"
....never said it was. Deathbed used as metaphor for the act of doing deeds that could be frowned upon, then claiming youre all better now so it doesn't matter anymore. lame excuse.
msnplus - mistype.
unaccectable adverts - wait, why do people have to keep contacting them to have them change it? could patchou not simply select ad suppliers who DONT serve up crap and be done with it? or do they not pay out as highly?
seems more like reluctant heel dragging than active improvements to the application to me.
and dont forget there was originally NO disclosure that seven shades of crap would be installed on your PC - as far as I'm aware, this was fixed only after much complaining. again.
do i see a pattern here or what?
in conclusion, i don't have to justify my stance on this because i havent pushed numerous varieties of ad/malware with my programs through the years. patchou did, and now you're surprised that people who actively combat this stuff are amazed that MS handed him an MVP award? too bad.
No, it was a toolbar and searchbar thing (and still icons/favourites). More annoying than popups, as I say, but not keyloggers - definitely not sacrificing people's privacy or opening their computers to exploits.
And people complaining being a problem - it's natural with advertising that people will complain. As far as I'm concerned, if they can opt-out and they can uninstall, there's no problem. If I complain about your blog will you take it down?
There was always disclosure that a sponsor would be installed - I don't remember if there was always the EULA. But again, is that illegal? Is it really a problem if it's removeable?
The point about improvement is contingent on the fact that LOP believes they have never done anything wrong by installing these things with Messenger Plus, but they have *still* decreased the amount of annoying stuff. Never anything illegal, never anything to sacrifice privacy. They're not recanting, they're not admitting they've done something wrong, they're compromising between what they believe is acceptable and what people like you do.
As I understand it, it is up to the adware supplier to choose the adverts based on the conditions Patchou supplies (no pornography, no activex, etc). The ad agencies also know this, and campaigns sometimes slip through from them. It's part of the system of advertising that problem ads slip through - that they have a system to deal with such things rather than ignoring them is what's important. I don't know the details of their system, so I can't comment on that more, but it's not easy to control what you're passed with a system as big as that.
In response to your conclusion (you edited it in!): I'm not surprised, I'm merely trying to explain a different point of view so that we can all get along, evolve, and get the hell off this planet. And it's my opinion that every stance should be justified
Thank you, incidentally, for allowing this discussion to take place.
"As I understand it, it is up to the adware supplier to choose the adverts based on the conditions Patchou supplies (no pornography, no activex, etc)."
...so why are they continually served up? there are plenty of reputable ad networks that DON'T serve up porno ads and fake antivirus apps. Yet Patchou sticks with the boobery...
"The ad agencies also know this, and campaigns sometimes slip through from them."
seems like pretty much all the time in this case.
"but it's not easy to control what you're passed with a system as big as that."
I refer you to my first answer.
use reputable ad supplier = no problems
use ad supplier that serves up constant porn and fake antivirus apps = problems
as for the conclusion, it should have been in the original post but the system borked - just thought it was neater than inserting another post.
i have no problems with the debate taking place - i also don't attack patchou himself or his character. my beef is merely with the application, its history and its history of bundling something that simply should not allow the creator to recieve an mvp award. we can all agree that his program is clever - however, i cannot reconcile the "good" he has done with the "bad" he has done via LOP. for someone working in security, its not something I can concede any ground on for obvious reasons, though I realise it might come across as unrelentingly harsh. Sadly, thats just the way it has to be.
Well, as I mentioned, I doubt Patchou has any choice himself over the ads chosen; and contractual obligations probably prevent him from unbundling LOP. I don't know. But if they did end up dumping any suppliers that had ever displayed constant (really? I only seemed to get mortgage/casino ones when I tried) porn/etc ads, it seems you'd still not give any ground because they didn't do that initially! So why should they bother?
As for good/bad... I guess that comes down to opinion. I think the good he has done for the MSNM community which I myself enjoy outweighs it - and having turned him down before for an MVP and actually giving it to him this time it seems very harsh to take it away again - surely they should have simply vetoed before the choice was made, like last time? Shrug.
Interesting that you should mention security though - why is it that this type of adware comes under security? There are no exploits/security holes involved with LOP!
Must get back to something useful - will return later if there is more to reply to.
"Interesting that you should mention security though - why is it that this type of adware comes under security? There are no exploits/security holes involved with LOP!"
because adware usually arrives in the form of a hijack, or poor disclosure or numerous other things. therefore, we tackle them and will continue to tackle them in all their varied forms. adware companies have shown time and time again that they cannot police themselves, usually because they'd rather have a nicer slice of the money pie than act responsibly, so if they can't do it themselves, we'll do it for them and ensure that everybody knows about their dubious practices. by the way, i'm being fairly lenient on lop by calling them adware - lop displays numerous qualities of malware, and many security vendors class them as a trojan and various other wonderful things.
as for lop having no involvement with security issues, thats not true. not so long ago the FTC were holding workshops about them - you've REALLY got to mess up to attract their attention. in addition, there are numerous variants of Lop out there, many of which pose as such stupid things as "mp3 finders" and other garbage. you only have to go googling for a while to see the many, many problems LOP, its variants and its related websites / affiliates / whoever have caused down the years.
Lop has never has any security issues at all. You continue to make hollow arguments. SHOW ME SOME FACTS!!!
You can say "because adware usually arrives in the form of a hijack, or poor disclosure or numerous other things."
BUT YOU CANNOT SHOW ONE BIT OF PROOF THAT LOP HAS EVER DONE THIS.
WHY?
BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXIST.
You cannot accept the fact that some adware companies CAN and DO play by the rules.
Just because there are bad guys out there in the adware industry doesn't mean everyone is.
Funny how I got hardly any warning with a pre checked box to install the google toolbar along with my Sun Java package the other day.
PRE CHECKED BOX TO INSTALL GOOGLE TOOLBAR ON A SUN PACKAGE@@
HELLO!!!
Take a look at The msg plus install process and tell me if you see any pre checked boxes.. hell no..
oh and one other thing..
how about terms and conditions? Plus has them on the SAME PAGE AS THE ACCEPT BUTTON.. lop.com HAS ALWAYS DONE THIS ON ALL SOFTWARE..
what about google? oh you have to click a link to a separate page to read the terms to what you are agreeing too..
you people complaining about lop.com on plus are the biggest bunch of idiot fear mongers I have ever seen...
go complain to google and yahoo because their install practices on software bundles are a LOT WORSE THAN LOP.COM OR PLUS
what is with your arm chair warriors anyway? You need some cause to crusade to?
ohh ohh stop the evil adware.. (as long as it's not MAIN STREAM ADWARE)
right ok morons..
fear fear fear...
you idiots have destroyed the PC market by peddling your FAKE FEAR to pc users..
got mac?
...I really wish all you people filing over from the msgplus forums or wherever it is that youre coming from would call yourselves something other than anonymous, because you're nothing like the last person that posted here. they actually used the awesome power that is reasoned debate. you're just screeching.
fwiw, i lost all interest when you resorted to TALKING IN CAPS, LOL. take it outside, hysteria boy.
lol
that is your best response?
see you have nothing
no malicious action on the part of msg-plus or lop.com (his sponsor) at all
nothing..
nadda..
show me the proof buddy...
you say oh they MUST be bad cause teh FTC has a spyware workshop "about them" ohh about them hugh? it was about lop.com specificly was it? Really?
Why do you spread lies and misinformation?
you think because you can pull up a few websites that are full of lies and speculations that proves your argument that lop or plus is bad?
well it does not!
so lets see that brain power of yours and SHOW ME SOME PROOF that lop.com has ever ONCE been installed in a deceptive manner..
what? can't do it?
what about plus?
show me some how where plus has ever tricked ANYONE install installing the sponsor?
what's wrong can't do it?
oh right I must just be hysterical..
lol you have NOTHING but LIES
why?
jealous?
hate to see patchou with some money for all his hard work?
don't be a hater..
wait - who are you again? oh yeah, some random guy on the internet. sorry, i just remembered i don't have to "prove" anything to you because there's plenty of information available via Google. If you can stop mashing the keyboard with your face, I suggest you use it.
I'm sure all information available via a google search must be true
god help us if you are the best Microsoft has to offer
"you say oh they MUST be bad cause teh FTC has a spyware workshop "about them" ohh about them hugh? it was about lop.com specificly was it? Really?"
first, learn to spell. second, a few other companies besides your pals at Lop were also mentioned during the course of the main workshop. Enjoy the links, assuming your ability to read is somewhat better than your ability to type:
http://www.spywarewarrior.com/ui...ftc-
spyware.htm
oh that's right you are the self proclaimed adware / spyware warrior..
I guess it would be kind of hard for you to swallow an MVP who was smart enough to make a living with advertising software in a legitimate manner while you have been wasting your time on some personal crusade to satisfy your fragile nerd like ego..
lol
fight the good fight brother..
fight the good fight...
rest assured while you may pressure people into your way of fear based thinking so that you can be deemed their 'savior' from the evil adware ... (in your dirty little apartment)
patchou will be sleeping well in his million dollar house guilt free knowing he has never done anything immoral in the creation and marketing of his award winning add-on software.
I guess that really must upset you?
being too stupid to earn a decent living for yourself that is?
oh right it must be your moral high ground that "all advertising on the internet is evil"
I guess you feel you should just be entitled to everything for free?
oh well done! you worked out that you were posting in the wrong section. good thing that, because i was getting a little bored of cutting and pasting everything from here
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...60056269554262/
...lmao.
its the same every time. you bad mouth Patchou? his forum children will come attack you inflatable baseball bats.
don't worry dudes, Sean O'Driscoll has revoked the award upon reviewing it yesterday. it sounds like it was a case of him slipping through the cracks in the selection process
Here is my response to ANY trolls who come to offer their undying support to messenger plus 3:
1. Do you have the sponsor installed on your comuputer?
2. Can you find a sane person on the world that would purposefully WANT spyware on their computer?
wng
"but it's not spyware! it's sponsorware!"
:P
http://dictionary.reference.com/...rowse/
Euphemism
I am Christopher Boyd, Microsoft Security MVP and Director of Malware Research for FaceTime Security Labs. You've probably seen me online, under the guise of Paperghost. If you're a bad guy, you'd best fear me. Or I'll slam you in a ditch, Kung-Fu style and then brag about it on this website.
okay .
this dude has a MAJOR conflict of interest.
#1) he busts malware
#2) he BRAGS ABOUT IT
#3) he gets exposure for himself/his sites by inflaming people
this guy is trash.
oh my, shocking.
.....you done yet?
Wow.
1) You haven't made yourself known yet.
2) Anyone with braincells can see PG's point
3) Did you install the sponser option? If so, I hear Zango may want to employ you!
pg fucking pwns ass.
The reason thsoe guys from MessPLus don't use their real nics, like most of us do in sec comm, is they are ashamed of themselves and of the product they so strongly seem to support.
If they had any balls, they would use the same names they use at the MessPlus forums.
Typical of someone with something to hide.
All of you folks pimping for Patchou are just making him look worse by your behavior here -- don't you realize that?
If the "sponsor" isn't badware, why to the AV companies call it a trojan? Lop has *many* trojan behaviors. It injects code into Internet Explorer and causes 2 instances of IE to run continually even when the user doesn't have IE open. Any attempt to terminate those processes triggers a resuscitator that restarts IE. The "sponsor" takes away control from the user -- that's trojan behavior. Lop also uses random file names in an attempt to evade detection by anti-malware software. Lop's transmissions to it's home servers are encrypted -- why? That's suspicous.
http://www.bitdefender.com/
VIRUS...Swizzor.EM.html
http://vil.nai.com/vil/content/v...nt/
v_136491.htm
"This trojan was originally detected as Adware-Lop. Due to stealthing and obfuscation mechanisms it uses and the very large number of new variants released in recent weeks, the classification has been changed. "
Yes, installing the "sponsor" is optional, but the target audeince of Plus is teenagers under 18 who cannot legally give consent, and likely can't make sense of the EULA even if they read it. Not to mentions the ads displayed by Lop are inappropriate for the under 18 group.
Patchou is an officer of the company that owns Lop, so he has double interest in getting people to install the "sponsor".
I understand that Patchou needs to make a living like everyone else, but he made a bad choice by partnering with Lop and now he's paying for it. There are plenty of other ways he could have funded his program.
As the original Anon -
Personally I choose to be anonymous because last time I posted pro-adware comments I had a "vigilante" work out my private e-mail address and sign me up for some hideous spam. PaperGhost - you can work out who I am from my IP hostmask, and feel free to contact me outside this. I would hope (and thank you PG for the compliment) that I'm presenting a decently thoughtout and mature point of view here Suzi, even if you don't agree with it.
The AV companies call it a trojan because of what it does to hide, but if it didn't hide they'd detect it as adware/spyware. LOP can't win that way, so they take technological measures. Some AVs even detect the uninstaller as a trojan when it is utterly clean and doesn't even communicate, which stopped users uninstalling the adware at all for a while!
Suzi, what do you mean "takes control away from the user"? Many AV engines stop you killing their processes too, and it's for the same reason - software being malicious against it. AVs attacking the adware is against the EULA after all!
From what I've seen, the names of what is being communicated are plaintext, but the contents is encrypted for *privacy* reasons. Some proof that it should be considered a trojan or a virus would be that it does something *harmful* to the system (and don't argue that it's using up some memory or marginally slowing systems down; that could be applied to almost any program) or uses exploits, neither of which LOP has ever done as far as I'm aware.
There seems to be a lot of misinformation on google about what LOP does and causes - take it with a pinch of salt instead of treating it as hard evidence without investigating. Let's keep it logical!
As for teenagers under 18 not being able to legally give consent - I don't think EULAs have been proven that well. I'm not a lawyer, I don't know anything about that point; but check out this link: http://www.msghelp.net/statistic...s.php?
page=ages - not so many Plus users are under 18 as you might think! As for ads being inappropriate - frankly I was rebel enough as a child to think that kids are capable of dealing with what's presented to them, but that's not really a discussion for here - I do understand that mothers might be somewhat against that argument! But as I mentioned before, report any pornographic ads (do you want your children to learn about mortgages? might be helpful!), and see what happens.
I'm not sure the ownership arguments are totally accurate... corporate tactics in general are far more complicated than I think anyone outside the field can totally follow.. but Cyril is certainly one of the most moral people I know, and has taken many many cuts in his package to make users happy (is it possible that LOP could be hated any more than now? if they had kept the toolbar and were using hardcore porn ads and so on, they'd be making more money; would anything worse have happened to stop them than the complaining and hatred now? I don't think so...) which have cost him money.
The arguments about "other ways" to fund the program have been debated before - donationware didn't work, shareware I don't think would have worked (the mIRC author doesn't work full time on it, does he? that's a question - i'm not sure). But a "bad choice" - why ideologically shouldn't someone support their software with advertisements (and to wng - that's why people install it, to fund the development, without it Plus wouldn't exist, and many people enjoy its existance; and I have it installed!)?
Personally, I think that the MVP programme should reward Cyril for his contribution to the *messenger* community, and PaperGhost and others for his to the *security* community - I don't see a problem with that. Are there really no conflicts of interest with other areas of MS with any of the other MVPs? I just think it's very sad that it was given to Cyril and revoked - I feel the place for debate was beforehand and that having been made the decision should have been stuck with.
Peace everyone.
"Are there really no conflicts of interest with other areas of MS with any of the other MVPs?"
As a security MVP I have not seen conflicts of interest, as such, but have certainly seen conflicts with MVPs in other areas over how to accomplish a desired result. Yes, sometimes we fight these out among ourselves without resolution simply because we are both correct in our own area. That is no different than any professional arena. Still, we are all basically committed to the same end goals.
"I just think it's very sad that it was given to Cyril and revoked - I feel the place for debate was beforehand and that having been made the decision should have been stuck with."
Yes, very sad! I do not personally believe that there have been any winners in this sad episode. The individual didn't win as he was stripped of an honor; MS didn't win because they came off looking rather foolish for honoring someone whose appliction they detect as a threat; the MVP community didn't win either because we have better things to do with our time than things like this.
The bottom line is that MS made a mistake and corrected it. We need to put measures in place to ensure that it doesn't happen again and then move on.
clean, "make a living with advertising software in a legitimate manner" ?
Since when has exploiting the weak and ignorant been a legitimate way of making a living?
Society frowns on this kind of behavior for good reasons... those that fail to grasp basic human mores have no conscience and are considered dangerous predators by the "rest of us".
Educating the "children of computing" to protect themselves is a mostly thankless task that usually comes from a sense of social responsibility, not that you or your ilk would understand this.
Those that selfishly exploit others for self enrichment have drank from the cup of insanity and are beyond reason.
This madness causes you to swagger in public with no shame, bragging about the "millions" made taking candy from babies.
The day is coming when we will finish connecting the dots between corrupt commercial entities and the criminal enterprises behind them and heads will roll.
Thanks Paperghost, for taking out the trash.
"Yes, but piles and piles stack up to far less than the millions of users with no problems, who recommend it to their friends and honestly don't care about popups."
Your comment only goes to prove one thing... there's no shortage of ignorance on the internet.
Addendum : Quote of the day.
"Hypocrisy is little more than a style issue to be painted over with better lies."
Max
[QUOTE]
Yeah, it now gives you an option as to whether you want to install it or not - but that's hardly the point, is it? There's a long history here of potentially deceptive installs and the standard, yawntacular MsgPlus apologist line of "It doesn't do it anymore, so you have to let him off the hook, lol" is the kind of (amazingly poor) thinking that companies such as Direct Revenue are using to avoid legal smackdowns.
[/QUOTE]
You're an MVP.... I'd expected a little more research from an MVP than that.....
1) it has ALWAYS given you the choice of installing it or not, from day 1 the sponsor was included.
2) many MS products install adware WITHOUT your confirmation, show ads all over the place, or do not give you such a CLEAR choice of opting out.
To "the original Anon", your reply to my comment was nicely done. You wrote:
"Suzi, what do you mean "takes control away from the user"? Many AV engines stop you killing their processes too, and it's for the same reason - software being malicious against it. AVs attacking the adware is against the EULA after all!"
There is a difference in *intent* of the AVs and the intent of adware. That makes a difference. Obviously the AV is protecting the user, the adware is displaying ads. If the "sponsor" is a good thing to have, why hide it? Why make it difficult to detect and remove? Whose interests are being protected? Certainly not the user's. It becomes "sneakware" when it hides. That puts in into the same league as nastyware like Look2Me, Qoologic, Direct Revenue, etc.
Btw, I installed Messenger Plus! with the "sponsor", to test it, so my observations of its behavior are from personal experience, not just reading about it on the AV sites.
"From what I've seen, the names of what is being communicated are plaintext, but the contents is encrypted for *privacy* reasons."
Whose privacy is bing protected? The user's or the makers of the sponsor? The Privacy Policy in the EULA states:
"• Your Software ID is a numeric identifier that is generated by the Software and the Time and Date that you accepted this Agreement and Privacy Policy. This Software ID does not include any personally identifiable information, such as name, age, address, telephone number or e-mail address."
If no PII is being transmitted, why encrypt the transmissions? IMO, that is not protecting the user and is suspicious. Adware companies like WhenU do not encrypt the transmissions from the user to the home servers.
I could also make an arguement that the information collected, as stated in the privacy policy in the EULA, could well become personally identifiable, but I won't elaborate on that here.
Regarding this statement:
"AVs attacking the adware is against the EULA after all."
Yes, I read that. IANAL, but from my reading, I suspect that would not hold up on a court of law, *especially* when you have under 18s consenting to a EULA that they don't understand and are't legally able to consent to.
"or uses exploits, neither of which LOP has ever done"
My first experience with spyware was having Lop installed though a security hole, but that was in 2003. Lop's history isn't pretty, and those of us who've been involved in the anti-spyware scene for several years won't easily forget that.
In my experience and observation, Lop's behavior is far more obnoxious that some other adware I've installed and tested. Jut the fact that it uses Internet Explorer constantly poses a certain security risk to the user. Many have gone to alternative browsers to avoid the risks of IE. And there have been any number of documented instances of ad servers putting out poisoned ads, ads that use exploits, like the WMF exploit. Recent example:
http://computer_security.fresh-h....net/
43113.html
At any rate, IMO there is no adware supported application that I think is a good enough value to endure pop-ups, although I think there is other adware that's far less obnoxious than Plus's "sponsor".
Regarding Patchou's MVP award, I think it was a mistake on Microsoft's part to award him, as it would be a mistake to award anyone in the adware business.
"1) it has ALWAYS given you the choice of installing it or not, from day 1 the sponsor was included."
Patchou now does a better job of notification than the appliction USED to do (better...but not perfect), but you have to have your head in the sand to not realise the "sponsor" (what a great way of saying LOP!) deal was poorly disclosed and had many issues. After all, the main reason so many people got angry was precisely *because* they felt the original disclosure was pretty hopeless considering the "adware" you were getting in return (and lets not forget, it was a MUCH more full on version of LOP than you have now).
Seriously, this is old news. There's more than enough historical evidence of stupidity where forms of "disclosure" are concerned here:
http://inetexplorer.mvps.org/ans.../answers/
45.htm
I've always liked this about the install:
"I refuse to give my support".
Nothing like a little guilt!
/ rolls eyes
oh, and while I'm at it, a quote from the man himself:
"Of course, if things are better for my users, it won't be good for my own salary but if it's not so bad, I'll keep it that way"
Now it gets a little confusing, but from the content of the article I linked to above, Patchou is referring to "improving" his disclosure of the sponsor stuff. so in essence, the above statement is openly admitting that things will only be "better for his users" if the disclosure is improved. In other words, he is begrudgingly admitting things could be better, but then has a whine about it affecting his income. Well, boohoo. A programmer who had real concern for his users wouldn't even contemplate such a "dilemma" if they cared about them....they'd just go do it, or accept that their concience couldn't live with the current method of income and go try something else instead (like ditching Lop). Again - all I see is heel dragging, and having to chase Patchou round by having to send complaint emails to get things changed, rather than him being proactive and fixing all the problems everyone and their uncle knows about anyway.
Then this, from Sandi:
"A new version of MsgPlus (3.21) with several new versions of the Sponsor Window is due out on October 10th (today). I don't know when the version with the 'winner' Sponsor Window will be released with MP version 3.25. Because the various installers are distributed randomly, its going to be very hard, if not impossible, to check out the various ones. I'm not inclined to download and install over and over and over again to try and spot an unknown number of different Sponsor Windows, but we'll see how things develop."
Awesome! Rather than set up some kind of REAL testing, he is instead putting out numerous versions of his software with differing EULAs to the public AT THE SAME TIME. So wait, which EULA in the wild is valid? Which isn't? How am I supposed to know what one I'm agreeing to? If I'm unlucky enough to get the "poor" disclosure agreement, do I have recourse to be justifiably angry about it and take some action? Putting numerous versions of an agreement to install something at the same time is just dumb, dumb, dumb.
Sorry, not impressed.
Hey, if you are going to bring me into this, I have a right of reply.
Yes, Patchou has removed the toolbars and the home page change, and improved disclosure BUT his sponsor program still distributes lop.com adware.
You want proof that lop is a security risk? Here you go:
The advertisements generated by the lop.com adware are a direct security risk, distributing malware such as winfixer which *will* infect older system, or systems with reduced security settings. Patchou seems unable to stop this from happening, yet is unwilling to forgo the income that the advertising generates.
When push comes to shove Patchou said, and I quote, "if no one installs the sponsor with the new agreement window, I'll change it back, sorry".
His software is used by *kids* yet he does not or can not stop the gambling, dating and age inappropriate advertising.
Some sites that his sponsor program direct users to are a security risk; the sponsor program advertisements promote adware, they promote betrayware, they promote sites that in and of themselves are risky to visit.
Cite:
http://msmvps.com/blogs/spywares...4/07/
89691.aspx
http://msmvps.com/blogs/spywares...2/05/
78084.aspx
"There's no murder here - it was always legal, as far as I'm aware. And Plus is hardly on its deathbed; ever at the height of WinDefender and so detecting it (and not just the installer/sponsor) it was gaining users"
Actually, I listened to a podcast this morning wherein Patchou said that he lost around 30% of his users during the WinDefender episode. Do a Google Blog search for Patchou and you'll find the podcast, which I've saved for posterity.
So what about yourself Christopher? You should know what crap google-ads shows :p
...and I maintain a constantly updated blocklist of known rogue advertisers.
That has no relevance to someone installing LOP via their software and is a poor deflection at best :P
Good morning everyone.
"If no PII is being transmitted, why encrypt the transmissions?"
One of the fields returned is "idle"... assuming that's idle time, which is nonPII, should anyone able to monitor someones connection, be it upstream or network sniffer, and with whom the user hasn't signed a privacy agreement (no matter how much you think LOP will ignore it or whatever!) really be able to see how long the user has been idle for?
"Why make it difficult to detect and remove? Whose interests are being protected?"
I don't disagree that it is the in the interest of LOP that it hides, but they make it difficult to detect and remove because automated AV/AS scans will remove it otherwise without asking, and scare the user into thinking they have something *truly* malicious on their system. They don't consider that fair.
"My first experience with spyware was having Lop installed though a security hole"
I'd be interested to hear more about that... but if that was before they became involved with MsgPlus then it's before I was paying attention.
As for IE security holes and bad ads... meh, I think that's probably more MS's responsibility. For the "malware" sites it links to, I agree they should be removed. I don't buy them using IE as a "fault".
Cyril has the adware at all to pay his salary; as I've said before he thinks it is a fair way to fund the project, so of course there are compromises between his pocket/user "annoyance". But just because some users can be annoyed when the majority really are not (as for calling them ignorant - ignorance is bliss) doesn't make it wrong. And R Morris - don't be so dramatic, displaying adverts to people is far less "exploiting the weak and ignorant" than smoking companies manipulating kids to smoke, and many other examples which are totally legal. Idealism is all well and good, but there are two sides to every coin.
From his point of view it is not heel dragging, because he doesn't think the choices he is making are between wrong and right, but between right and right; more annoying but okay and less annoying but okay. And I would imagine if LOP aren't stupid that it would be very difficult and costly if not downright illegal for him to break his contract with LOP.
Those multiple setups are long gone; they were an experiment to see how people reacted. I don't know if it was just the layout of the screens that was different or if some actually had no/different EULA but I suspect the former.
30% user loss - sorry, my bad phrasing; I mean it was still getting a considerable number of new users, even if old ones were down the pan
"At any rate, IMO there is no adware supported application that I think is a good enough value to endure pop-ups, although I think there is other adware that's far less obnoxious than Plus's "sponsor"."
Well, that's your opinion... but do you really feel that strongly enough that you think it should be illegal to do so?
"His software is used by *kids* yet he does not or can not stop the gambling, dating and age inappropriate advertising."
Again... my personal opinions on this are that kids should be taught to cope with these things rather than avoiding them, but anyway: gambling can't do much harm unless they can get a credit card, dating they have a million influences about in pop culture beyond popups, and if you're referring to pornographic ones, then I agree they should be removed.
I noticed this morning that this individual's profile no longer appears on the list of Windows Live Developers. https://
mvp.support.microsoft.com...+Live+Developer
I must say i have enjoyed Watching this Row Evolve from something about Addware to A Row about who runs the Net to My mind there is no such Thing as Good/Clean Addware sponserware foistware to be frank,
I dont even Like Shareware to my mind it you got a Good version Sell it dont Use Other people to Sort out your Beta version and make them pay into the bargain, In the End no Matter what the Corporate Types think End users run the internet not them.....
Please do continue
"you idiots have destroyed the PC market by peddling your FAKE FEAR to pc users"... ahahahahah... that's a good one... destroyed the PC market, oh sure. I see, that's Unix OpenBSD on Intel is so strong right now (boosting a 90% of market share), because Windows users (who are almost completely gone) were constantly afraid of getting malware and building botnets (which, mind you, don't exist, they're just an urban legends put out by Eugene Kaspersky and Bruce Schneier).
Oh yeah, also "I guess you feel you should just be entitled to everything for free" no, not at all. That's why I always want to use the GPL and BSD-licensed software, because it says it's free but secretly spies on be and occasionally might even draw some money from my bank account.
Gosh, you adware/spyware/malware writers really have no shame (and no brain either, if you think we can take the kind of bullshit you poor troll are saying and shut up).
Paperghost,
You get away with words pretty well, as useuall (and like your fellow anti-adware posé like Sandi). People who twist and turn everything around and use quotes and NOT-researched (aka GUESSED) stuff to make their point... For starters, and what has been very clear from all the posts from people like you, you say you are experts in adware and experts in knowing what a certain adware product does (in this case 'LOP'.. -and as a sidenote to those so called experts: the company isn't called LOP anymore since a long time-) however you people do not make a distinction between the MANY versions of LOP and the very different categories they offer their sponsorship. Another proof is that so called "Patchou is chairmen in the LOP company" bussiness. Again a nice example of how you twist around stuff and NOT doing research (despite your MVP status and/or other status in the security bussiness).
[QUOTE]
"Then this, from Sandi: 'A new version of MsgPlus (3.21) with several new versions of the Sponsor Window is due out on October 10th (today). I don't know when the version with the 'winner' Sponsor Window will be released with MP version 3.25. Because the various installers are distributed randomly, its going to be very hard, if not impossible, to check out the various ones. I'm not inclined to download and install over and over and over again to try and spot an unknown number of different Sponsor Windows, but we'll see how things develop.'"
[/QUOTE]
Not only is this VERY OLD stuff, it is also not correct.
1) It was very well possible to check out the few versions (and if she/you know her/your stuff, like you claim and which I WANT to believe!! but which is another proof of how you people are simply lazy and do NOT research things in DETAIL) it was extremely easy to get those versions.
2) What Sandi says is (again as usuall) very exaggerated. It is like she is telling there are almost a random number of various install-, sponsor- and eula-windows all randomly showed and what not. Thus... FAR from the actuall truth.
[QUOTE]
"Awesome! Rather than set up some kind of REAL testing, he is instead putting out numerous versions of his software with differing EULAs to the public AT THE SAME TIME. So wait, which EULA in the wild is valid? Which isn't? How am I supposed to know what one I'm agreeing to? If I'm unlucky enough to get the "poor" disclosure agreement, do I have recourse to be justifiably angry about it and take some action? Putting numerous versions of an agreement to install something at the same time is just dumb, dumb, dumb. Sorry, not impressed."
[/QUOTE]
And, OF COURSE, you take the already out of context stuff from Sandi, and pull it out of context even more...
1) This was REAL testing. Do you know what was tested before those very few (I believe it were 5, and with only very MINOR GUI differences) installers were released to the public? I do not think so. So don't claim that you do either!!!!!!
2) There was NO poor, rich, nice, good, whatever difference. The difference was in how the windows looked. Even your 'poor' version was EXTREMELY clear in its setup.
3) ALL eulas were EXACTLY the same!
4) Again, THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE in agreements/EULAs at all...
You people claim you know the Holy Grale of security... Well start acting like it and do some RESEARCH before claiming stuff. And research is investigating stuff yourself and using your knowledge and common sense (which you claim to have about this subject) and not bluntly copying stuff from your buddy MVP and even twisting things further than they already are. So, sorry, but you (and others like you and Sandi) are a VERY POOR excuse for an MVP (on this subject!). But because you people have a very good way in words and because people are easly scared these days you have your followers.
--------------------------------------------------
-
Sandi,
[QUOTE]
"BUT his sponsor program still distributes lop.com adware. You want proof that lop is a security risk?"
[/QUOTE]
First proof to everybody else that there are NO different lop.com packages/degrees in adware and what not. (instead of ALWAYS putting everything on one heap and generalizing)
[QUOTE]
"Patchou seems unable to stop this from happening, yet is unwilling to forgo the income that the advertising generates. His software is used by *kids* yet he does not or can not stop the gambling, dating and age inappropriate advertising."
[/QUOTE]
IF something like adult material or whatever comes thru it is up to Patchou to inform his sponsor about it so they can take action. And he WILL inform his sponsor asap and his sponsor WILL take actions. Read what Anon has written about this. He is dead on.
Patchou can NOT directly stop this from happening; he does NOT control the ads directly. It is the sponsor which controls which is included in the package and what not (of course and very obviously; again something you can know when doing DETAILED research instead of generalizing everything).
..for someone who went on about me using "generalisations" until my ears bled, you did a pretty good job of...doing just that.
"however you people do not make a distinction between the MANY versions of LOP and the very different categories they offer their sponsorship."
...except I've mentioned many times that Msgplus comes with a cutdown version of Lop. Next.
"Another proof is that so called "Patchou is chairmen in the LOP company" bussiness. Again a nice example of how you twist around stuff and NOT doing research (despite your MVP status and/or other status in the security bussiness)."
...except I never said anything about Patchou being a chairman of Lop. So rather than accuse me of it, go bitch at someone else about it. Doh.
"1) This was REAL testing. Do you know what was tested before those very few (I believe it were 5, and with only very MINOR GUI differences) installers were released to the public? I do not think so. So don't claim that you do either!!!!!!"
I didn't you boob, that's why I said
"Now it gets a little confusing, but from the content of the article I linked to above, Patchou is referring to "improving" his disclosure of the sponsor stuff."
I am clearly inferring that the above may be incorrect, but it *looks* to be right based on the rest of the content on that page. If it IS incorrect, its down to Sandi to change it. Yet strangely it hasn't been, despite the fact that Patchou no doubt has gone over her site with a fine toothcomb.
That's why sites have a comments section, so people can debate everything they know to be true and those things they could reasonably construe to be true, but might not be. You getting all shouty about some random semi-questioning statement on a comments section of a personal weblog is your own problem.
From a brief glance at everything else you attempted to write, all of your points have already been pulled to pieces by others so I won't bother regurgitating old material.
TNT,
you *beep* have certainly destroyed common sense with your fake fear to pc users....
You wanna talk about misinforming people????? Start with the stuff you defend first. Extremely many so called 'security software' messes things more up than fixing anything. And together with that they also INDEED do make the common pc user more afraid.
You wanna talk annoyances? Talk about all those virus scanners and what not which conflict with eachother, which claim the pc is infested with stuff and needs cleaning, and in doing so the user must pay for the full version so he downloads yet another one, etc etc...
Talk about all those millions of people who have 3, 4 or even 5 anti-virus softwares, internet security packages, double/triple firewalls and what not, all because people think they do need them all (instead of simply one good package with a PROPER setup).
"You wanna talk annoyances? Talk about all those virus scanners and what not which conflict with eachother, which claim the pc is infested with stuff and needs cleaning, and in doing so the user must pay for the full version so he downloads yet another one, etc etc..."
LMAO - what, like THE PROGRAMS THAT ARE PUSHED AS A RESULT OF INSTALLING THE LOP SPONSOR PROGRAM?
http://www.sunbelt-software.com/
...cafee_thumb.jpg
Oh look, there's one there!
And let's not forget the Winfixer popups, and ActiveX installers that are known to install Rootkits.
I think you should go now before you boob things up again.
paperghost,
except I said "an example" and not "you said". Read better...
And if that is all you could reply to it then fine, but "pulled to pieces by others"??... yeah right, others with the same level of knowledge about this subject as you you mean?
Again, you and your posé are a VERY POOR excuse for people who claim to know everything in detail about Plus! and its sponsor.
You might well be the king (and queen) of security for all I care and be good at it, but about the subject of Plus! and its sponsor you people show a VERY biased opinion because your eyes are so shut/focussed on generalizations and what not.
And another thing: on many of YOUR points, Microsoft does even worse than what Plus! does... (not to mention the many other BIG companies) Were are the rants against those things. eg: thinking about its ads (and NOT all very friendly to children, including casino ads and stuff), toolbars, browser homepage change, all in messenger?????? Or is it maybe because you even don't DARE to go against the company which reconizes you (and/or your posé) as experts in the field?
Were are you rants against the FORCED ads on tv to name something randomly???
So either you people are a joke too, or either Patchou and its software is far from what you people claim it to be (not saying it is the most saint software as it does contain optional adware of course)....
"except I said "an example" and not "you said". Read better..."
Wait, you said (with key word emphasised in caps courtesy of myself):
Another proof is that so called "Patchou is chairmen in the lop company" bussiness. Again a nice example of how *YOU* twist around stuff and not doing research (despite *YOUR* mvp status and/or other status in the security bussiness)
Uh, who ELSE are you addressing there if not me? The word "example" is meaningless and irrelevant, the key words are in caps.
"I am clearly inferring that the above may be incorrect, but it *looks* to be right based on the rest of the content on that page. If it IS incorrect, its down to Sandi to change it. Yet strangely it hasn't been, despite the fact that Patchou no doubt has gone over her site with a fine toothcomb."
ROFLOL... oh yeah, sure, she will change it in a blink of an eye. Sorry, but she is obviously not going to change it, even if it is explained in detail why it is wrong or even inaccurate for that matter. FYI, been there done that, and yes even in a very polite manner (which I know can't be said from my posts here). Even a extremely polite mail to her was replied in a offensive manner... sure she's going to change it... don't make me laugh...
"That's why sites have a comments section, so people can debate everything they know to be true and those things they could reasonably construe to be true, but might not be. You getting all shouty about some random semi-questioning statement on a comments section of a personal weblog is your own problem."
And you're here too aren't you?
Paperghost, the more I see you post the more you actually proof my point that all you can do is generalizing stuff and copying stuff, instead of looking things up for yourself and only then making a judgement (and not basing it on what someone elses, very biased, says)...
....so GTFO already and stop taking up valuable interweb space.
You might want to take your half-assed assumptions and faulty logic (along with your glorious post about "fake and conflicting virus scanners" which is actually something LOP excels at spewing out adverts for, when its not LEAVING ICONS FOR SUCH PROGRAMS ON THE DESKTOP) with you on the way out.
Oscar, please point me out WHERE THE HELL I defended "anti-virus softwares, internet security packages, double/triple firewalls that claim the PC is infested"... another one of your unsupported claims, huh?
I am constantly pointing out that most paid scanners for Windows do a very poor job at detecting and *especially at preventing* the stuff that *YOU* are putting out.
"Instead of simply one good package with a PROPER setup" oh yeah, like a good Open Source Linux/BSD Unix... I would actually be happy if people switched to that en masse yeah -- but mainly for one reason, because there is no life for adware writers in open source. With open source, you'll be exposed for what you are: lousy coders pretending to offer "free stuff" when your REAL GOAL is only "screw morals" personal gain.
"Paperghost, the more I see you post the more you actually proof my point that all you can do is generalizing stuff and copying stuff, instead of looking things up for yourself and only then making a judgement (and not basing it on what someone elses, very biased, says)..."
Wow -- look whose talking.
/rolling eyes
to "the first anon",
You wrote:
"One of the fields returned is "idle"... assuming that's idle time, which is nonPII, should anyone able to monitor someones connection, be it upstream or network sniffer, and with whom the user hasn't signed a privacy agreement (no matter how much you think LOP will ignore it or whatever!) really be able to see how long the user has been idle for?
I wasn't referring to the actual Plus transmissions, I was referring to the "sponsor" transmissions. I never logged into MSN Live Messenger on the machine with Plus and the "sponsor". I did log some of the transmissions of the "sponsor", though. Everytime I opened a browser window, the log showed these:
http://ads.dns-look-up.com/tba/cm?
http://ads.dns-look-up.com/tba/cu?
They were Posts, too, not Gets. I also got these:
http://ayb.dns-look-up.com/abt?
d...7B52B6D60BE8901
So why is that data encrypted? That's not protecting my privacy -- it's not doing anything to help me.
More encrypted transmissions:
http://
admedia.xmlsearch.findwha...Al0FalTDnRtPcae
Findwhat.com is a pay-per-click search engine.
"I'd be interested to hear more about that... but if that was before they became involved with MsgPlus then it's before I was paying attention."
That was in 2002 as I recall. I went to a site recommended by a friend, not knowing what to expect, and was bombarded with pop-ups, which I closed as fast as I could but somehow Lop got in and when it was all over, I had the Lop toolbar and my homepage changed. At that time, I'd never heard of Messenger Plus!, but I've never forgotten Lop.
"As for IE security holes and bad ads... meh, I think that's probably more MS's responsibility."
That's like saying if I forgot to lock my front door, it's ok for my neighbors to come in when I'm not around and help themselves to anything they find. Sorry, but that argument doesn't cut it.
"Cyril has the adware at all to pay his salary"
He *could* find other ways to support his software. Adware isn't the only option.
"Well, that's your opinion... but do you really feel that strongly enough that you think it should be illegal to do so?"
If adware is clearly disclosed and the user is 1) over 18, and 2) fully understands how the adware functions, including the impact on their computer and 3) understands the privacy implications, then I don't think adware should be illegal. In the case of Plus's "sponsor", the disclosure has improved, but it's not great still. Then there's the little phrase added to make the user feel guilty if they don't install the sponsor. That isn't OK, IMO.
"Again... my personal opinions on this are that kids should be taught to cope with these things rather than avoiding them."
I'm guessing you aren't a parent. Would you want your 11 or 12 year old to see Adult Friend Finder pop-ups? Would you be prepared to explain the implications of those ads to a 12 year old that doen's have the capacity to comprehend it? Kids already have too many adult things to cope with at a young age. They don't need more from adware that serves inappropriate ads.
Suzi i agree with you those popups are not for young eyes and from what i have read on here Mr Anon needs his attitude firmly changed possibly with the aid of a cricket bat,
Come on this Row/fight/crap storm is not about Patchou any more,
PG from what i have seen is one of the Good guys and it appears that most of the unknown posters are not Patchou's friends .........
You have to be retarded if you don't see the option not to install the Spyware. If you don't then you deserve every pop-up.
It is money grabbing that he does include it, but the addin is quite a good one, and again, you are stupid if you don't see the option to not install the 'Sponsor' (nice term for spyware I guess).
You guys are idiots. Patchou does an excellent work in providing a FREE addon for MSN/WLM used by millions of people worldwide. The thirdparty app is there so raise revenue so Patchou gets a little back. And yet there's people here criticising him without realising what he has accomplished and trusting the opinion of the bimbo who wrote this crap. If you're stupid enough to install the app even when it's idiotproof (unless you're an idiot and don't read when installing apps) then you deserve to have the adware. And please...don't get all dramatic about it...it's not hard to remove...and it's not nearly as serious as spyware.
Jexel, congratulations on filling up this thread with yet another laughable post that illustrates why the so-called "supporters" of Patchou can seemingly only defend his application through namecalling, insults and using the word "cock" a lot. I'm particularly thinking of the emo kid from the msgplus forums with regards to the penile references, he's spectacular. With regards to yourself, you just earned the first permaban of this entire debate. A winner is you.
Im Assuming he was calling you a Bimbo and not me PG because if he was i have that Cricket bat to hand right now ...
[QUOTE]
"Then this, from Sandi: 'A new version of MsgPlus (3.21) with several new versions of the Sponsor Window is due out on October 10th (today). I don't know when the version with the 'winner' Sponsor Window will be released with MP version 3.25. Because the various installers are distributed randomly, its going to be very hard, if not impossible, to check out the various ones. I'm not inclined to download and install over and over and over again to try and spot an unknown number of different Sponsor Windows, but we'll see how things develop.'"
[/QUOTE]
***
Not only is this VERY OLD stuff, it is also not correct.
1) It was very well possible to check out the few versions (and if she/you know her/your stuff, like you claim and which I WANT to believe!! but which is another proof of how you people are simply lazy and do NOT research things in DETAIL) it was extremely easy to get those versions.
2) What Sandi says is (again as usuall) very exaggerated. It is like she is telling there are almost a random number of various install-, sponsor- and eula-windows all randomly showed and what not. Thus... FAR from the actuall truth.
***
I don’t care what you think it is “like” I am telling you. Just for once I wish you sycophants would stick to what I actually said. After a lot of work I was able to gather *all* of the different designs that Patchou was testing and posted screenshots as you will see here:
http://inetexplorer.mvps.org/ans...answers/
44.html
The distribution of test sponsor agreement windows WAS random as Patchou stated in this thread:
http://www.msghelp.net/
showthrea...15831#pid315831
“Hello everybody,
as I wrote in a recent post, I'm currently working on anupdate of the sponsor agreement window. I'm trying my best to find a good balance between "sponsor installs" and "happy users" and in order to do that, I will test several variantsof the installer when version 3.21 will be released. If I manage to find something good, I'll publish another version soon after 3.21 with the new agreement available for everyone. Meanwhile, I'll just make my server send different versions of the setup randomly and I'll check the stats accordingly.”
You do realize what “random” means, yes? It means you can’t control what version you will get. Of *course* it was possible to get all versions, but it was NOT easy.
I'm waiting for the inevitable - someone to turn up and accuse you of creating the screenies in Photoshop or something. I wish I could get me some of these brainwashing pills people seem to be taking...
It actually just sounds like a lot of you are jealous. If not jealous-what? What's the problem here? Yeah, he has a sponsor program (LOP). You can CHOOSE to install it or not.
What they were looking at was the program itself. They were impressed, and if you are jealous of that and you're only defence is that Patchou has an optional sponsor program, well, go make a myspace about it.
How stupid can you get??? Microsoft has adware in their damn programs too. *cought* MSN Search toolbar and shit liek that. They're included with installers just like In Messenger Plus by Patchu. But what makes it even worse is that in for example Win Live Messenger the toolbar is allready checked so if someone would just click Next, Next they would defenetly install it.. While in Messenger Plus it stops you and asks IF you want to install the sponsor program...
quote (you're only defence is that Patchou has an optional sponsor program, well, go make a myspace about it.) PG dont need a myspace page he has this
Fair enough but no reason to complain...just hope if he removed it he'll get his MVP Status back!!
He's making money from this sponsor and if he cared so much about Messenger Plus! he shoul