*IF* you were a user of Earthlink *AND* you knew about their provided
anti-spyware utility then it would be obvious by Alan's originating post
that he was talking about Earthlink's Spyware Blocker program. Just
saying that Earthlink couldn't help in no way identifies that the
program was Earthlink's. He's also asking here. Does that mean we all
provided the program? Or that it is a Microsoft product because it was
posted in a microsoft.* newsgroup? And how are we volunteers supposed
to know that "When trying to install spyware blocker ..." wasn't really
"When trying to install *a* spyware blocker ..."? Even I occasionally
misspell or omit a word. You usually see what you expect to see when
proofreading your own message.
If Earthlink cannot help in regards to their own product, then it's
probably not really their program and was coded by some external entity
under contract to Earthlink or a commercial product known by another
name and disguised as a solution from Earthlink (a bit of text probing
in the executable might reveal who really wrote it). Looks like it's
time to look to an anti-spyware product that actually can be installed,
like SpyBot, Ad-Aware, SpywareBlaster, or SpywareGuard. Pest Patrol
also has anti-spyware features but costs $40; I like free stuff when it
works well. I'm a bit surprised that Earthlink provides anti-spyware
since some scum are now pestering the anti-spyware makers with nuisance
lawsuits; the scum don't like to be identified as spyware proliferators
as it hurts their image and probably hurts their sales. GOOD! Wouldn't
it be great if the result of the lawsuits was a legal definition of
spyware so this scum could be countersued because of their frivolous
lawsuits.
Could also be that Alan isn't telling us the whole story and that his
logon is a limited account that doesn't allow installation of software.
Could be the download is corrupt and he needs to download it again from
http://www.earthlink.net/home/software/. At this point, what help he
got from Earthlink wasn't mentioned so we could end up duplicating a lot
of what Earthlink already tried.