McSummation
Mmmm, Zeebas Are Tastee.
Premium,MVM
join:2003-08-13
Round Rock, TX |  Old AVG issues
I used AVG v7 (before they released v8). One thing I didn't like was that it ran a full scan every night. Have they made that an option in v8?
Can the inbound email scanner in v8 be made to look at ports other than 110, as well as 110? |
|
pensioner
Premium
join:2005-02-20
Clarksville, TN | the daily scan is optional in v8; you can both set the time of a daily scan if you want one, or option the scan not to be done. Clueless ( in many ways ) about the email ports. |
|
McSummation
Mmmm, Zeebas Are Tastee.
Premium,MVM
join:2003-08-13
Round Rock, TX
 ·AT&T Southwest
| Maybe a little explanation about the email ports is due: AT&T/Yahoo requires us to use SSL, which uses ports 995 for POP and 465 for SMTP. So, I've had to set up stunnel to handle the SSL and strange port numbers to get the mail through my antivirus "in the clear" before/after it is encrypted/decrypted. |
|
Frodo
join:2006-05-05
Lees Summit, MO
| reply to McSummation
Poking around the AVG, I see that it can scan more than one port. It looks like you would have to set up a separate server for each port being checked, but it could be done. Also, AVG supports SSL. The connection configured in the picture worked. The local email client connects to AVG without using SSL. AVG then connects to AT&T using SSL. I have no idea how AVG would react if an invalid certificate was received. |
|
McSummation
Mmmm, Zeebas Are Tastee.
Premium,MVM
join:2003-08-13
Round Rock, TX | AVG being able to handle the SSL means I could get rid of stunnel and simplify my setup.
So, I guess I go back to AVG (from AVAST!) soon.
Thanks folks. It's good to get real data from the folks here at bbr/dslr. |
|
Frodo
join:2006-05-05
Lees Summit, MO
1 edit | There is no advantage to using stunnel, UNLESS, you also use stunnel to verify the certificate. In the case of AVG, whether you connect to pop.att.yahoo.com, or pop.sbc.att.com, or pop.sbcglobal.att.com, the connection will sail merrily through.
pop.att.yahoo.com's IP address is 68.142.198.12.
pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com's IP address is 68.142.198.12.
pop.sbc.yahoo.com's IP address is 68.142.206.14.
(certificate for this one - pop.mail.yahoo.com)
All of these connections worked on AVG. I'm inclined to believe that any valid certificate, such as any comodo certificate will be accepted by AVG. If the communication was redirected by a DNS problem or an entry in the host file to a rouge server that had any valid certificate, the ID and password would be passed along. So, I'll continue to use stunnel, not to encrypt so much as to ensure that the one and only certificate I want used for this communication is used. The day it doesn't work is the day I'll slow down and take an email outage while I check for problems. |
|
McSummation
Mmmm, Zeebas Are Tastee.
Premium,MVM
join:2003-08-13
Round Rock, TX
·AT&T Southwest
| I've now changed from Avast!/stunnel to AVG. Looks to be working OK. I simply told AVG I needed new POP and SMTP servers configured in SSL mode (for AT&T/Yahoo) and made the stated (by AVG) configuration in Thunderbird. My normal email through 1&1 didn't miss a beat and required no changes.
Now, to see if the other machine issues I've been having will go away. (Strange machine behavior started about the same time I went from AVG7 to Avast!. That's the reason for changing back to AVG.)
I was using stunnel because that was the only way I could get to Yahoo's SSL servers through Avast!. |
|
Graystoke
join:2006-03-24
Stockton, CA | reply to McSummation
I'm using AVG 8 Internet Security. I have POP 3 and SMTP ports set to 995 and 465 respectively. Since I'm with AT&T my host is att.yahoo.com, but I have POP and SMTP server set to Automatic in AVG. Seems to be working ok that way. |
|
CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County | reply to McSummation
I ran 7 for a long time - I don't remember they forced a everyday, full scan - I used to do them on demand till my PC's got fast enough that I ran them in the middle of the night. |
|
Thug21
Just Chillin'
Premium
join:2005-08-21
2 edits | If I remember right, a scan every day was enabled by default. I just unchecked it on my installs.
It was annoying.  |
|
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| reply to McSummation
I am still using AVG 7.5, it still works just fine, does not seem as bloated or slow as its successor, and yet it still gets fresh signature updates at leastevery day. (Thanks, Grisoft.)
The daily scan ("test plan in basic mode") in 7.5 is easily rescheduled or disabled completely, and as far as I recall always was.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
