F-Prot for Dos not scanning all files

Hugo Trebl · External Since: Jun 10, 2006 Posts: 5

Hi all
I want to use F-Prot for Dos under Windows XP as a secondary on-demand
scanner. I like F-Prot for dos for its low overhead.

However, when scanning a whole disc or a large directory, F-Prot will
usually not scan all files (even with /dumb option) but will stop after
scanning some files and report it is finished.

For example, when scanning the system drive, F-Prot will stop after 74
files and report no infections and no errors.
The last file scanned is
C:\DOKUME~1\ADMINI~1\LOKALE~1\ANWEND~1\MICROS~1\WINDOW~1\9.0\WMSDKNS.XML

The problem persists on NTFS and on FAT32 discs

I searched the net and found several mentions of this behaviour:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.comp.virus/msg/0045d264e0636079?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.comp.virus/msg/352b7aa1e9c6b669?hl=en&
http://help.lockergnome.com/security/dos-scanning-program-iles-dir-fto...t1428.h

However, I found no solution so far.
Is there a solution or workaround available for this program?

Hugo Trebl · External Since: Jun 10, 2006 Posts: 5

Art wrote:
> No, only a far better alternative. See my web site for my KAVDOS32
> utilities.
>
> Art
> http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

Thanks, it looks promising
However, don't take this personally, but I usually hesitate to run
executables from strangers, even after scanning them.
I already have unzip and wget, and I dont need askme.exe if i modify
the batch file , but I cannot find an official source for kavdos32.exe.
Kaspersky Lab does not seem to offer it. Could you tell me an official
source or a way to obtain a checksum for it?
Also, are there any recent reviews available for this scanner?

Hugo Trebl · External Since: Jun 10, 2006 Posts: 5

Art wrote:
> Well, that proves you're a newby here Smile

I've been one of the strongly
> anti-virus/malware posters here for many years.

That just shows you are dedicated. You could still be malicious too -
the most dangerous sort Smile

> >Also, are there any recent reviews available for this scanner?
>
> I highly doubt that. My own tests using varioous kinds of malware
> always showed that KAVDOS32 compares identically in detection to
> recent Windows versions of KAV. Much of the detection capability is in
> the data bases you update. KAV is much better than F-Fprot in several
> respects. I've quit offering F-Prot for DOS updaters/emergency disks,
> etc. since KAVDOS32 is so much better.

I'm worried that it might miss something that is not obvious at first
glance.
I doubt that it can scan the new rar format without an engine update
for example.

But anyway, as a third scanner it can't hurt, I will probably test it
out in vmware first thought.

Art · External Since: Aug 13, 2006 Posts: 437

On 10 Jun 2006 13:50:45 -0700, "Hugo Trebl" <singalong.DeleteThis@dodgeit.com>
wrote:

>Hi all
>I want to use F-Prot for Dos under Windows XP as a secondary on-demand
>scanner. I like F-Prot for dos for its low overhead.
>
>However, when scanning a whole disc or a large directory, F-Prot will
>usually not scan all files (even with /dumb option) but will stop after
>scanning some files and report it is finished.
>
>For example, when scanning the system drive, F-Prot will stop after 74
>files and report no infections and no errors.
>The last file scanned is
>C:\DOKUME~1\ADMINI~1\LOKALE~1\ANWEND~1\MICROS~1\WINDOW~1\9.0\WMSDKNS.XML
>
>The problem persists on NTFS and on FAT32 discs
>
>I searched the net and found several mentions of this behaviour:
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.comp.virus/msg/0045d264e0636079?hl=en&
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.comp.virus/msg/352b7aa1e9c6b669?hl=en&
>http://help.lockergnome.com/security/dos-scanning-program-iles-dir-ftopict1428.html
>
>However, I found no solution so far.
>Is there a solution or workaround available for this program?

No, only a far better alternative. See my web site for my KAVDOS32
utilities.

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

Art · External Since: Aug 13, 2006 Posts: 437

On 10 Jun 2006 15:05:43 -0700, "Hugo Trebl" <singalong.TakeThisOut@dodgeit.com>
wrote:

>Art wrote:
>> No, only a far better alternative. See my web site for my KAVDOS32
>> utilities.

>Thanks, it looks promising
>However, don't take this personally, but I usually hesitate to run
>executables from strangers, even after scanning them.

Well, that proves you're a newby here Smile

I've been one of the strongly
anti-virus/malware posters here for many years.

>I already have unzip and wget, and I dont need askme.exe if i modify
>the batch file , but I cannot find an official source for kavdos32.exe.
>Kaspersky Lab does not seem to offer it.

It hasn't been available for sale anywhere I could find for quite some
time.

>Could you tell me an official
>source or a way to obtain a checksum for it?

No. I found build 135 in a KAVDOS32.RAR package somewhere on
the internet. Google them up. You'll likely find they're all the same,
for what that's worth .... which is nothing.

>Also, are there any recent reviews available for this scanner?

I highly doubt that. My own tests using varioous kinds of malware
always showed that KAVDOS32 compares identically in detection to
recent Windows versions of KAV. Much of the detection capability is in
the data bases you update. KAV is much better than F-Fprot in several
respects. I've quit offering F-Prot for DOS updaters/emergency disks,
etc. since KAVDOS32 is so much better.

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

Hugo Trebl · External Since: Jun 10, 2006 Posts: 5

Art wrote:

> If you choose to be totally paranoid rather than learn whom to trust
> and whom not to trust, you're going to be at a great disadvantage.

As I said, please don't take it personally. It is just that "regular
poster in a group about viruses" rang some alarm bells.

> >I'm worried that it might miss something that is not obvious at first
> >glance.
> >I doubt that it can scan the new rar format without an engine update
> >for example.
>
> Which "new" RAR format is that? I'll check it out.

It is not that new, a few years old, so you probably know it already.
Introduced with Winrar 3.00. Since old versions of winrar cannot
extract it, I presumed that scanners cannot either without update.

> I can tell you that KAVDOS32 is by far the best DOS scanner I've ever
> tested when it comes to handling various compressed and packed
> files ... especially those which are multiply packed with various
> different and unusual packers the bad guys use to confuse av
> scanners. It even handles scanning "within" many Setup and
> Install files.

It is impressive, I admit. It found an (apparent) trojan that Grisoft
AVG, Mcafee, Avast and Clamwin missed, only BitDefender 8 found it
too.(Am currently trying out a couple of scanners in vmware)

> BTW, when is the last time Frisk did any work on the F-Prot for
> DOS scan engine? I remember him posting here saying that it
> hasn't been updated in years.

Cannt comment, I presumed since it is still offered for downlaod, it
still receives updates.

> In putting effort into my utils for KAVDOS32 I'm fully aware
> that I'm dealing with something that is short-lived. DOS scanners
> are going the way of the Dodo bird. Yet, there is now and there
> will be for some time in the future very good and useful purposes
> for a top notch DOS scanner such as KAVDOS32 build 135. But
> F-Prot for DOS has become practically useless in comparison.

I'd be happy with a true on-demand scanner for windows, one that does
not load anything on startup, even for updates. But those seem to be
nearly extinct too.

Art · External Since: Aug 13, 2006 Posts: 437

On 10 Jun 2006 18:29:33 -0700, "Hugo Trebl" <singalong.RemoveThis@dodgeit.com>
wrote:

>Art wrote:
>> Well, that proves you're a newby here Smile

I've been one of the strongly
>> anti-virus/malware posters here for many years.
>
>That just shows you are dedicated. You could still be malicious too -
>the most dangerous sort Smile

If you choose to be totally paranoid rather than learn whom to trust
and whom not to trust, you're going to be at a great disadvantage.

>> >Also, are there any recent reviews available for this scanner?
>>
>> I highly doubt that. My own tests using varioous kinds of malware
>> always showed that KAVDOS32 compares identically in detection to
>> recent Windows versions of KAV. Much of the detection capability is in
>> the data bases you update. KAV is much better than F-Fprot in several
>> respects. I've quit offering F-Prot for DOS updaters/emergency disks,
>> etc. since KAVDOS32 is so much better.
>
>I'm worried that it might miss something that is not obvious at first
>glance.
>I doubt that it can scan the new rar format without an engine update
>for example.

Which "new" RAR format is that? I'll check it out.

I can tell you that KAVDOS32 is by far the best DOS scanner I've ever
tested when it comes to handling various compressed and packed
files ... especially those which are multiply packed with various
different and unusual packers the bad guys use to confuse av
scanners. It even handles scanning "within" many Setup and
Install files.

BTW, when is the last time Frisk did any work on the F-Prot for
DOS scan engine? I remember him posting here saying that it
hasn't been updated in years.

In putting effort into my utils for KAVDOS32 I'm fully aware
that I'm dealing with something that is short-lived. DOS scanners
are going the way of the Dodo bird. Yet, there is now and there
will be for some time in the future very good and useful purposes
for a top notch DOS scanner such as KAVDOS32 build 135. But
F-Prot for DOS has become practically useless in comparison.

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

Art · External Since: Aug 13, 2006 Posts: 437

On 10 Jun 2006 18:29:33 -0700, "Hugo Trebl" <singalong RemoveThis @dodgeit.com>
wrote:

>I'm worried that it might miss something that is not obvious at first
>glance.
>I doubt that it can scan the new rar format without an engine update
>for example.

I just downloaded a trial of the DOS version of Winrar. It's Version
3.60 Beta 4. I compressed a RAR archive of files using it. KAVDOS32
had no problem scanning all the files "within" the RAR archive.

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

Dustin Cook · External Since: Jun 27, 2006 Posts: 48

Art <null.TakeThisOut@zilch.com> wrote in news:vkvn8216g9upe58h5lpj79uigknm9rup9q@
4ax.com:

> If you choose to be totally paranoid rather than learn whom to trust
> and whom not to trust, you're going to be at a great disadvantage.

Art,

His paranoia with not accepting executables from strangers is a sound
one. Smile

Getting files from the vendor itself whenever possible is always
the preferred method, Although that isn't totally safe either.

> I can tell you that KAVDOS32 is by far the best DOS scanner I've ever
> tested when it comes to handling various compressed and packed
> files ... especially those which are multiply packed with various
> different and unusual packers the bad guys use to confuse av
> scanners. It even handles scanning "within" many Setup and
> Install files.

The dos scanner as I recall is slow.... extrememly slow... has this
improved?

> BTW, when is the last time Frisk did any work on the F-Prot for
> DOS scan engine? I remember him posting here saying that it
> hasn't been updated in years.

The engine hasn't, no.

> In putting effort into my utils for KAVDOS32 I'm fully aware
> that I'm dealing with something that is short-lived. DOS scanners
> are going the way of the Dodo bird. Yet, there is now and there

Which is a pita. Either we need mobile windows apps able to run outside
of being installed, access to the local registry, etc... Or, we still
need dos apps able to run from a bart environment for fixing things when
windows will no longer boot, at all.

--
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
BugHunter MalWare Removal Tool

Art · External Since: Aug 13, 2006 Posts: 437

On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 23:34:33 GMT, Dustin Cook
<bughunter.dustin.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:

>Art <null.RemoveThis@zilch.com> wrote in news:vkvn8216g9upe58h5lpj79uigknm9rup9q@
>4ax.com:
>
>> If you choose to be totally paranoid rather than learn whom to trust
>> and whom not to trust, you're going to be at a great disadvantage.
>
>Art,
>
>His paranoia with not accepting executables from strangers is a sound
>one. Smile

Obviously! Learning whom to trust and whom not to is also sound. Hell,
if those of us offering free sw aren't to be trusted, we might as well
quit ... and that includes you!

>> I can tell you that KAVDOS32 is by far the best DOS scanner I've ever
>> tested when it comes to handling various compressed and packed
>> files ... especially those which are multiply packed with various
>> different and unusual packers the bad guys use to confuse av
>> scanners. It even handles scanning "within" many Setup and
>> Install files.
>
>The dos scanner as I recall is slow.... extrememly slow... has this
>improved?

It's not really slow when you consider its thoroughness. For example,
F-prot for DOS skips over .CHM files (and issues misleading "OK"
messages) whereas KAVDOS32 scans the jillions of files "within"
them. That aspect no doubt fools a lot of users into thinking other
scanners are much faster when actually they may not be much
faster at all. And it's not just .CHM files ... it's many other files
such as Setup and Install files that may still be on a machine.
Most scanners will skip them with a "OK" message while KAVDOS32
will spend time taking them apart and scanning all the "innards"
(in many or most cases). Or many packed and archived files
that KAVDOS32 rips apart that other scanners just say are
"OK" without scanning "inside them" at all. Pisses me off Smile

I'm fed up with the BS from other scanners so much I could
scream! Smile

Not that KAVDOS32 doesn't pull the same horseshit
when it can't scan a archive. It will also issue a "OK" instead
of being honest. But by forcing it to put out "OK" messages
on every file scanned, at least through experience with it
I can tell whether or not it's actually scanning innards in may
cases.

>> BTW, when is the last time Frisk did any work on the F-Prot for
>> DOS scan engine? I remember him posting here saying that it
>> hasn't been updated in years.
>
>The engine hasn't, no.
>
>> In putting effort into my utils for KAVDOS32 I'm fully aware
>> that I'm dealing with something that is short-lived. DOS scanners
>> are going the way of the Dodo bird. Yet, there is now and there
>
>Which is a pita. Either we need mobile windows apps able to run outside
>of being installed, access to the local registry, etc... Or, we still
>need dos apps able to run from a bart environment for fixing things when
>windows will no longer boot, at all.

Yes, well I haven't investigated other approaches than DOS much at
all. DOS would really be nice to use. I wish av vendors, and
particularly Kaspersky, would change their ways and reconsider
offering DOS scanners suitable for formal scanning the drives of
modern OS ... and include NTFS capability.

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

kurt wismer · External Since: Jul 04, 2003 Posts: 1496

Art wrote:
[snip]
> Obviously! Learning whom to trust and whom not to is also sound. Hell,
> if those of us offering free sw aren't to be trusted, we might as well
> quit ... and that includes you!

i don't know if you've heard but there are now quite a number of 'rogue'
security apps out there these days... offering free software on it's own
isn't enough to prove trustworthiness...

if he wants to get an impression of how trustworthy you are then he's
going to have to google you... you could get him started with a link to
a google search... you might also disclose any professional/commercial
affiliations you might have (if you have any) as an indicator that
you're not some creep lurking in the shadows of the internet...

--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"

Dustin Cook · External Since: Jun 27, 2006 Posts: 48

Art <null RemoveThis @zilch.com> wrote in news:0vbp82tnsk15st6ssdmo02e4li0jj78mn7@
4ax.com:

>>Art,
>>
>>His paranoia with not accepting executables from strangers is a sound
>>one. Smile

>
> Obviously! Learning whom to trust and whom not to is also sound. Hell,
> if those of us offering free sw aren't to be trusted, we might as well
> quit ... and that includes you!

It's not the software he mistrusts, necessarily. We are not known to him
currently, so it's us he doesn't trust. Smile

I'm surprised your not in agreement with it. Once he reads more posts,
and/or responses to his original post he may go and try your recommended
software. He's just practicing safe hex.

> It's not really slow when you consider its thoroughness. For example,
> F-prot for DOS skips over .CHM files (and issues misleading "OK"
> messages) whereas KAVDOS32 scans the jillions of files "within"

I know, hence the slowness. It tries to take everything apart. 4+ hours
typical scan time for a machine with many types of files on it. Sad

> Yes, well I haven't investigated other approaches than DOS much at
> all. DOS would really be nice to use. I wish av vendors, and
> particularly Kaspersky, would change their ways and reconsider
> offering DOS scanners suitable for formal scanning the drives of
> modern OS ... and include NTFS capability.

A BartPE disc is a handy resource. If you haven't already got one in your
toolkit, I'd recommend you give it a try.

It's not always wise to assume the machine is still operational. Sad

If
you can't boot into safe mode, another OS in charge (booting clean) is
really the only choice you have.

--
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
BugHunter MalWare Removal Tool

Art · External Since: Aug 13, 2006 Posts: 437

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 00:49:25 GMT, Dustin Cook
<bughunter.dustin DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:

>It's not the software he mistrusts, necessarily. We are not known to him
>currently, so it's us he doesn't trust. Smile

Again, why state the obvious?

>I'm surprised your not in agreement with it. Once he reads more posts,
>and/or responses to his original post he may go and try your recommended
>software. He's just practicing safe hex.

Sure, and I'm simply telling him to take the time to learn whom to
tust. Is that so hard to understand?

>> It's not really slow when you consider its thoroughness. For example,
>> F-prot for DOS skips over .CHM files (and issues misleading "OK"
>> messages) whereas KAVDOS32 scans the jillions of files "within"
>
>I know, hence the slowness. It tries to take everything apart. 4+ hours
>typical scan time for a machine with many types of files on it. Sad

Try my K-BOOT. You might be surprised at the high scan speeds
in plain DOS you get with KAVDOS32 using it. Or make a bootable
CD based on the diskette it creates.

>> Yes, well I haven't investigated other approaches than DOS much at
>> all. DOS would really be nice to use. I wish av vendors, and
>> particularly Kaspersky, would change their ways and reconsider
>> offering DOS scanners suitable for formal scanning the drives of
>> modern OS ... and include NTFS capability.
>
>A BartPE disc is a handy resource. If you haven't already got one in your
>toolkit, I'd recommend you give it a try.

I don't use XP. I use Win 2K. Besides that, I don't need or want a
Bart PE. In case I can't fix something I simply boot up into my
bootable cloned drive and reclone the main drive from it. That
way I'm covered for the the event of h.d. failure as well.

>It's not always wise to assume the machine is still operational. Sad

If
>you can't boot into safe mode, another OS in charge (booting clean) is
>really the only choice you have.

That's why I created K-BOOT.

Art

Shane · External Since: Sep 13, 2005 Posts: 108

> A BartPE disc is a handy resource. If you haven't already got one in
> your toolkit, I'd recommend you give it a try.
>

Need XP or later though to build it, eh. Hey, Art, I'll send you a copy of
my XP if you want it! Microsoft are seriously pissing me off these days
treating us guilty until proven innocent, so it'd be a pleasure. More so if
they got to hear about it Smile

Shane

Art · External Since: Aug 13, 2006 Posts: 437

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 02:01:36 +0100, "Shane" <shanebeatson DeleteThis @gmail.com>
wrote:

>> A BartPE disc is a handy resource. If you haven't already got one in
>> your toolkit, I'd recommend you give it a try.
>>
>
>Need XP or later though to build it, eh. Hey, Art, I'll send you a copy of
>my XP if you want it! Microsoft are seriously pissing me off these days
>treating us guilty until proven innocent, so it'd be a pleasure. More so if
>they got to hear about it Smile

Thanks but no thanks. I want XP and a Bart PE like I want a hole in
the head Smile

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

Hugo Trebl · External Since: Jun 10, 2006 Posts: 5

Art wrote:
> On 10 Jun 2006 18:29:33 -0700, "Hugo Trebl" <singalong.RemoveThis@dodgeit.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >I'm worried that it might miss something that is not obvious at first
> >glance.
> >I doubt that it can scan the new rar format without an engine update
> >for example.
>
> I just downloaded a trial of the DOS version of Winrar. It's Version
> 3.60 Beta 4. I compressed a RAR archive of files using it. KAVDOS32
> had no problem scanning all the files "within" the RAR archive.

I stand corrected.

As for the other thread, I did find another version of kavdos32 and
compared the exe and dll, and it did not show any suspicious behaviour
in vmware, so I'll have no choice but to trust you from now on Smile

I made a simple batch file for the %username%\sendTo folder for win
2000/XP, in case anyone is interested:

@echo off
:LOOP
for %%a in (%1) do c:\tools\kavdosnt\kavdos32 /* /a- /u- /MD- /MP- /b
/p /m %%~fsa & pause
SHIFT
IF '%1' == '' GOTO END
GOTO LOOP
:END

Art · External Since: Aug 13, 2006 Posts: 437

On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 23:40:16 -0400, kurt wismer <kurtw.DeleteThis@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

>Art wrote:
>[snip]
>> Obviously! Learning whom to trust and whom not to is also sound. Hell,
>> if those of us offering free sw aren't to be trusted, we might as well
>> quit ... and that includes you!
>
>i don't know if you've heard but there are now quite a number of 'rogue'
>security apps out there these days

Guess you don't read my posts. I've sure talked about them often
enough.

.... offering free software on it's own
>isn't enough to prove trustworthiness...

Why is it people feel compelled to state the obvious?

>if he wants to get an impression of how trustworthy you are then he's
>going to have to google you...

Yep. That's my point. And lurk here awhile.

>you could get him started with a link to
>a google search...

Sure. But I didn't choose to do any spoon feeding.

>you might also disclose any professional/commercial
>affiliations you might have (if you have any) as an indicator that
>you're not some creep lurking in the shadows of the internet...

Someone might bring up such weak indicators if they are inclined
to. I wouldn't be inclined to.

For the record and at the risk of repeating what I've stated here in
the past, I'm a retired EE with no current professional or
commercial affiliations (other than that Kaspersky Affiliate
thing you see at my web site. I'm still waiting for the first
penny from that Smile

)

I assumed (wrongly so far) that several users and testers of my
past and current free utils and programs would speak up. That's
the strong and far more convincing indicator I hoped for.

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

»Q« · External Since: May 16, 2004 Posts: 17

This message is not archived

Clay · External Since: Mar 07, 2004 Posts: 54

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:29:44 GMT, Art <null.DeleteThis@zilch.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 23:40:16 -0400, kurt wismer <kurtw.DeleteThis@sympatico.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>Art wrote:
>>[snip]
>>> Obviously! Learning whom to trust and whom not to is also sound. Hell,
>>> if those of us offering free sw aren't to be trusted, we might as well
>>> quit ... and that includes you!
>>
>>i don't know if you've heard but there are now quite a number of 'rogue'
>>security apps out there these days
>
>Guess you don't read my posts. I've sure talked about them often
>enough.
>
>... offering free software on it's own
>>isn't enough to prove trustworthiness...
>
>Why is it people feel compelled to state the obvious?
>
>>if he wants to get an impression of how trustworthy you are then he's
>>going to have to google you...
>
>Yep. That's my point. And lurk here awhile.
>
>>you could get him started with a link to
>>a google search...
>
>Sure. But I didn't choose to do any spoon feeding.
>
>>you might also disclose any professional/commercial
>>affiliations you might have (if you have any) as an indicator that
>>you're not some creep lurking in the shadows of the internet...
>
>Someone might bring up such weak indicators if they are inclined
>to. I wouldn't be inclined to.
>
>For the record and at the risk of repeating what I've stated here in
>the past, I'm a retired EE with no current professional or
>commercial affiliations (other than that Kaspersky Affiliate
>thing you see at my web site. I'm still waiting for the first
>penny from that Smile

)
>
>I assumed (wrongly so far) that several users and testers of my
>past and current free utils and programs would speak up. That's
>the strong and far more convincing indicator I hoped for.

Hi Art,
I'll certainly "speak up" in your behalf. But I totally agree with the
OP and "his" reluctance to download and run software from a stranger.
I think its great that someone new to this group and unfamiliar with
its "regulars" would have a clue. Even if "he" "knew" you, its still
correct to question the activity for the benefit of other "newbies".
No?

IMO, you're both "right" so no problem with either stance or POV. The
dialogue should serve to promote understanding for all - no need argue
the obvious.

--
Clay mania dot com

Shane · External Since: Sep 13, 2005 Posts: 108

>> if he wants to get an impression of how trustworthy you are then he's
>> going to have to google you...
>
> Yep. That's my point. And lurk here awhile.
>
>> you could get him started with a link to
>> a google search...
>
> Sure. But I didn't choose to do any spoon feeding.
>

Me neither, Art. I was going to point him to Claymania.

>> you might also disclose any professional/commercial
>> affiliations you might have (if you have any) as an indicator that
>> you're not some creep lurking in the shadows of the internet...
>
> Someone might bring up such weak indicators if they are inclined
> to. I wouldn't be inclined to.
>

Hear, hear! Means nothing, does it. Except, perhaps, the willingness of
whoever it's aimed at to compromise the principles they otherwise seek to
uphold.
>
> I assumed (wrongly so far) that several users and testers of my
> past and current free utils and programs would speak up. That's
> the strong and far more convincing indicator I hoped for.
>

See #top!

Shane