Email compromised?

Your story just changed.
No - it did not.

You are again exhibiting your lack of comprehension.
You also stated this

"...also, occasionally 'second opinion scans' (even Malwarebytes) and/or scans using bootable CDs from Avira and Kaspersky - none have ever found anything that any predecessors might have missed (which is what you are suggesting)."
Read carefully.

None found anything that others might have missed.

So...

1. AVs have occasionally encountered and blocked suspected malware.

2. Newer installations of AV do not find anything left behind/missed by previous AV.
Good By!

Morris
I suggest you step back a bit - and give up on your, rather tedious, failing attempts to win out.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61525044

You stated the viruses did not land though it was detected and blocked (no infection).
Yes - (notwithstanding whatever you actually mean by 'land' - as something has to get to the PC, at some level, to be detected).

So, what is the problem?
You are looping sir
You are the one who is 'looping'...

You claimed that my "...story just changed".

I just explained to you - fairly clearly - that it has not - there is/was no contradiction in what I wrote.

I had previously written...
... [that I had also used] ...'second opinion scans' (even Malwarebytes) and/or scans using bootable CDs from Avira and Kaspersky - none have ever found anything that any predecessors might have missed (which is what you are suggesting)."
...at which point you wrongly interpreted/wrongly assumed that I was saying that I had never encountered/detected malware e.g. you said...
LOL

It's great that you have not landed any detected viruses. Many are not as lucky
Whereas, in fact, all I had said was - that later AV installations did not find anything that had been missed by previous AV installations - and that does not actually touch upon whether or not my 'AV' had encountered/detected malware, although it was implied.

In response to your initial wrong interpretation/assumption - I subsequently stated/clarified...
Over all the years, my various AV have flagged up a number of malware encounters - mostly while on the web, and a few email attachments.
No 'changed story' - no contradiction.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61525044
Why are you just posting the same 'looping' back link - without any explanation, or any justification?

But perhaps you suffer from... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mild_cognitive_impairment ...and we should just make allowances?

You are one of those rude people that continue a conversation after someone says good by!
 
Your story just changed.
No - it did not.

You are again exhibiting your lack of comprehension.
You also stated this

"...also, occasionally 'second opinion scans' (even Malwarebytes) and/or scans using bootable CDs from Avira and Kaspersky - none have ever found anything that any predecessors might have missed (which is what you are suggesting)."
Read carefully.

None found anything that others might have missed.

So...

1. AVs have occasionally encountered and blocked suspected malware.

2. Newer installations of AV do not find anything left behind/missed by previous AV.
Good By!

Morris
I suggest you step back a bit - and give up on your, rather tedious, failing attempts to win out.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61525044

You stated the viruses did not land though it was detected and blocked (no infection).
Yes - (notwithstanding whatever you actually mean by 'land' - as something has to get to the PC, at some level, to be detected).

So, what is the problem?
You are looping sir
You are the one who is 'looping'...

You claimed that my "...story just changed".

I just explained to you - fairly clearly - that it has not - there is/was no contradiction in what I wrote.

I had previously written...
... [that I had also used] ...'second opinion scans' (even Malwarebytes) and/or scans using bootable CDs from Avira and Kaspersky - none have ever found anything that any predecessors might have missed (which is what you are suggesting)."
...at which point you wrongly interpreted/wrongly assumed that I was saying that I had never encountered/detected malware e.g. you said...
Whereas, in fact, all I had said was - that later AV installations did not find anything that had been missed by previous AV installations - and that does not actually touch upon whether or not my 'AV' had encountered/detected malware, although it was implied.

In response to your initial wrong interpretation/assumption - I subsequently stated/clarified...
Over all the years, my various AV have flagged up a number of malware encounters - mostly while on the web, and a few email attachments.
No 'changed story' - no contradiction.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61525044
Why are you just posting the same 'looping' back link - without any explanation, or any justification?

But perhaps you suffer from... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mild_cognitive_impairment ...and we should just make allowances?
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61525226

You are one of those rude people that continue a conversation after someone says good by!
Well, no - it's very plain to see that it is you that are the rude party here.

Your declaring (and incidentally, repeatedly misspelling) "Good by" is just a rude, and petulant, way of your trying to walk away from an argument you are unable to defend.

Will you ever learn?
 
Last edited:
Your story just changed.
No - it did not.

You are again exhibiting your lack of comprehension.
You also stated this

"...also, occasionally 'second opinion scans' (even Malwarebytes) and/or scans using bootable CDs from Avira and Kaspersky - none have ever found anything that any predecessors might have missed (which is what you are suggesting)."
Read carefully.

None found anything that others might have missed.

So...

1. AVs have occasionally encountered and blocked suspected malware.

2. Newer installations of AV do not find anything left behind/missed by previous AV.
Good By!

Morris
I suggest you step back a bit - and give up on your, rather tedious, failing attempts to win out.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61525044

You stated the viruses did not land though it was detected and blocked (no infection).
Yes - (notwithstanding whatever you actually mean by 'land' - as something has to get to the PC, at some level, to be detected).

So, what is the problem?
You are looping sir
You are the one who is 'looping'...

You claimed that my "...story just changed".

I just explained to you - fairly clearly - that it has not - there is/was no contradiction in what I wrote.

I had previously written...
... [that I had also used] ...'second opinion scans' (even Malwarebytes) and/or scans using bootable CDs from Avira and Kaspersky - none have ever found anything that any predecessors might have missed (which is what you are suggesting)."
...at which point you wrongly interpreted/wrongly assumed that I was saying that I had never encountered/detected malware e.g. you said...
LOL

It's great that you have not landed any detected viruses. Many are not as lucky
Whereas, in fact, all I had said was - that later AV installations did not find anything that had been missed by previous AV installations - and that does not actually touch upon whether or not my 'AV' had encountered/detected malware, although it was implied.

In response to your initial wrong interpretation/assumption - I subsequently stated/clarified...
Over all the years, my various AV have flagged up a number of malware encounters - mostly while on the web, and a few email attachments.
No 'changed story' - no contradiction.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61525044
Why are you just posting the same 'looping' back link - without any explanation, or any justification?

But perhaps you suffer from... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mild_cognitive_impairment ...and we should just make allowances?
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61525226

You are one of those rude people that continue a conversation after someone says good by!
Well, no - it's very plain to see that it is you that are the rude party here.

Your declaring (and incidentally, repeatedly misspelling) "Good by" is just a rude, and petulant, way of your trying to walk away from an argument you are unable to defend.

Will you ever learn?
So you also insult people with disabilities and continue to talk after conversation is over,

You don't like being correct, then be a nasty SOB

By
 
Your story just changed.
No - it did not.

You are again exhibiting your lack of comprehension.
You also stated this

"...also, occasionally 'second opinion scans' (even Malwarebytes) and/or scans using bootable CDs from Avira and Kaspersky - none have ever found anything that any predecessors might have missed (which is what you are suggesting)."
Read carefully.

None found anything that others might have missed.

So...

1. AVs have occasionally encountered and blocked suspected malware.

2. Newer installations of AV do not find anything left behind/missed by previous AV.
Good By!

Morris
I suggest you step back a bit - and give up on your, rather tedious, failing attempts to win out.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61525044

You stated the viruses did not land though it was detected and blocked (no infection).
Yes - (notwithstanding whatever you actually mean by 'land' - as something has to get to the PC, at some level, to be detected).

So, what is the problem?
You are looping sir
You are the one who is 'looping'...

You claimed that my "...story just changed".

I just explained to you - fairly clearly - that it has not - there is/was no contradiction in what I wrote.

I had previously written...
... [that I had also used] ...'second opinion scans' (even Malwarebytes) and/or scans using bootable CDs from Avira and Kaspersky - none have ever found anything that any predecessors might have missed (which is what you are suggesting)."
...at which point you wrongly interpreted/wrongly assumed that I was saying that I had never encountered/detected malware e.g. you said...
Whereas, in fact, all I had said was - that later AV installations did not find anything that had been missed by previous AV installations - and that does not actually touch upon whether or not my 'AV' had encountered/detected malware, although it was implied.

In response to your initial wrong interpretation/assumption - I subsequently stated/clarified...
Over all the years, my various AV have flagged up a number of malware encounters - mostly while on the web, and a few email attachments.
No 'changed story' - no contradiction.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61525044
Why are you just posting the same 'looping' back link - without any explanation, or any justification?

But perhaps you suffer from... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mild_cognitive_impairment ...and we should just make allowances?
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61525226

You are one of those rude people that continue a conversation after someone says good by!
Well, no - it's very plain to see that it is you that are the rude party here.

Your declaring (and incidentally, repeatedly misspelling) "Good by" is just a rude, and petulant, way of your trying to walk away from an argument you are unable to defend.

Will you ever learn?
So you also insult people with disabilities...
Not at all.

So, do you actually have a some disability, that we should take in to account?
...and continue to talk after conversation is over,
What you need to understand is - that you don't get to decide when someone else's side of the conversation ends.

You may end your side of the conversation any time you choose - but not mine, nor anyone else's.
You don't like being correct,
Oh, I do - but you evidently don't (a 'double entendre' if ever there was one).

I always 'like' and aim to be 'correct'.

And (unlike yourself) I will readily admit whenever I might be wrong.
...then be a nasty SOB
There you go again - such rudeness.
 
Your story just changed.
No - it did not.

You are again exhibiting your lack of comprehension.
You also stated this

"...also, occasionally 'second opinion scans' (even Malwarebytes) and/or scans using bootable CDs from Avira and Kaspersky - none have ever found anything that any predecessors might have missed (which is what you are suggesting)."
Read carefully.

None found anything that others might have missed.

So...

1. AVs have occasionally encountered and blocked suspected malware.

2. Newer installations of AV do not find anything left behind/missed by previous AV.
Good By!

Morris
I suggest you step back a bit - and give up on your, rather tedious, failing attempts to win out.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61525044

You stated the viruses did not land though it was detected and blocked (no infection).
Yes - (notwithstanding whatever you actually mean by 'land' - as something has to get to the PC, at some level, to be detected).

So, what is the problem?
You are looping sir
You are the one who is 'looping'...

You claimed that my "...story just changed".

I just explained to you - fairly clearly - that it has not - there is/was no contradiction in what I wrote.

I had previously written...
... [that I had also used] ...'second opinion scans' (even Malwarebytes) and/or scans using bootable CDs from Avira and Kaspersky - none have ever found anything that any predecessors might have missed (which is what you are suggesting)."
...at which point you wrongly interpreted/wrongly assumed that I was saying that I had never encountered/detected malware e.g. you said...
LOL

It's great that you have not landed any detected viruses. Many are not as lucky
Whereas, in fact, all I had said was - that later AV installations did not find anything that had been missed by previous AV installations - and that does not actually touch upon whether or not my 'AV' had encountered/detected malware, although it was implied.

In response to your initial wrong interpretation/assumption - I subsequently stated/clarified...
Over all the years, my various AV have flagged up a number of malware encounters - mostly while on the web, and a few email attachments.
No 'changed story' - no contradiction.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61525044
Why are you just posting the same 'looping' back link - without any explanation, or any justification?

But perhaps you suffer from... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mild_cognitive_impairment ...and we should just make allowances?
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61525226

You are one of those rude people that continue a conversation after someone says good by!
Well, no - it's very plain to see that it is you that are the rude party here.

Your declaring (and incidentally, repeatedly misspelling) "Good by" is just a rude, and petulant, way of your trying to walk away from an argument you are unable to defend.

Will you ever learn?
So you also insult people with disabilities...
Not at all.

So, do you actually have a some disability, that we should take in to account?
...and continue to talk after conversation is over,
What you need to understand is - that you don't get to decide when someone else's side of the conversation ends.

You may end your side of the conversation any time you choose - but not mine, nor anyone else's.
You don't like being correct,
Oh, I do - but you evidently don't (a 'double entendre' if ever there was one).

I always 'like' and aim to be 'correct'.

And (unlike yourself) I will readily admit whenever I might be wrong.
...then be a nasty SOB
There you go again - such rudeness.
I'm dyslexic sir! Yet for you D Nile is not just a river in Africa!

By
 
Last edited:
Your story just changed.
No - it did not.

You are again exhibiting your lack of comprehension.
You also stated this

"...also, occasionally 'second opinion scans' (even Malwarebytes) and/or scans using bootable CDs from Avira and Kaspersky - none have ever found anything that any predecessors might have missed (which is what you are suggesting)."
Read carefully.

None found anything that others might have missed.

So...

1. AVs have occasionally encountered and blocked suspected malware.

2. Newer installations of AV do not find anything left behind/missed by previous AV.
Good By!

Morris
I suggest you step back a bit - and give up on your, rather tedious, failing attempts to win out.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61525044

You stated the viruses did not land though it was detected and blocked (no infection).
Yes - (notwithstanding whatever you actually mean by 'land' - as something has to get to the PC, at some level, to be detected).

So, what is the problem?
You are looping sir
You are the one who is 'looping'...

You claimed that my "...story just changed".

I just explained to you - fairly clearly - that it has not - there is/was no contradiction in what I wrote.

I had previously written...
... [that I had also used] ...'second opinion scans' (even Malwarebytes) and/or scans using bootable CDs from Avira and Kaspersky - none have ever found anything that any predecessors might have missed (which is what you are suggesting)."
...at which point you wrongly interpreted/wrongly assumed that I was saying that I had never encountered/detected malware e.g. you said...
Whereas, in fact, all I had said was - that later AV installations did not find anything that had been missed by previous AV installations - and that does not actually touch upon whether or not my 'AV' had encountered/detected malware, although it was implied.

In response to your initial wrong interpretation/assumption - I subsequently stated/clarified...
Over all the years, my various AV have flagged up a number of malware encounters - mostly while on the web, and a few email attachments.
No 'changed story' - no contradiction.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61525044
Why are you just posting the same 'looping' back link - without any explanation, or any justification?

But perhaps you suffer from... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mild_cognitive_impairment ...and we should just make allowances?
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61525226

You are one of those rude people that continue a conversation after someone says good by!
Well, no - it's very plain to see that it is you that are the rude party here.

Your declaring (and incidentally, repeatedly misspelling) "Good by" is just a rude, and petulant, way of your trying to walk away from an argument you are unable to defend.

Will you ever learn?
So you also insult people with disabilities...
Not at all.

So, do you actually have a some disability, that we should take in to account?
...and continue to talk after conversation is over,
What you need to understand is - that you don't get to decide when someone else's side of the conversation ends.

You may end your side of the conversation any time you choose - but not mine, nor anyone else's.
You don't like being correct,
Oh, I do - but you evidently don't (a 'double entendre' if ever there was one).

I always 'like' and aim to be 'correct'.

And (unlike yourself) I will readily admit whenever I might be wrong.
...then be a nasty SOB
There you go again - such rudeness.
I'm dyslexic sir!
Really.

Well - in which case - that might explain why you muddled, and could not understand, my otherwise clear statements - despite them being clarified for you several times over.

However, it is not a good excuse for your continually contesting the matter - long after it has been clearly explained to you.

Neither does it excuse your petulance and rudeness.
Yet for you D Nile is not just a river in Africa!
That is your particular specialism - you 'own it'.
 
Last edited:
Your story just changed.
No - it did not.

You are again exhibiting your lack of comprehension.
You also stated this

"...also, occasionally 'second opinion scans' (even Malwarebytes) and/or scans using bootable CDs from Avira and Kaspersky - none have ever found anything that any predecessors might have missed (which is what you are suggesting)."
Read carefully.

None found anything that others might have missed.

So...

1. AVs have occasionally encountered and blocked suspected malware.

2. Newer installations of AV do not find anything left behind/missed by previous AV.
Good By!

Morris
I suggest you step back a bit - and give up on your, rather tedious, failing attempts to win out.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61525044

You stated the viruses did not land though it was detected and blocked (no infection).
Yes - (notwithstanding whatever you actually mean by 'land' - as something has to get to the PC, at some level, to be detected).

So, what is the problem?
You are looping sir
You are the one who is 'looping'...

You claimed that my "...story just changed".

I just explained to you - fairly clearly - that it has not - there is/was no contradiction in what I wrote.

I had previously written...
... [that I had also used] ...'second opinion scans' (even Malwarebytes) and/or scans using bootable CDs from Avira and Kaspersky - none have ever found anything that any predecessors might have missed (which is what you are suggesting)."
...at which point you wrongly interpreted/wrongly assumed that I was saying that I had never encountered/detected malware e.g. you said...
LOL

It's great that you have not landed any detected viruses. Many are not as lucky
Whereas, in fact, all I had said was - that later AV installations did not find anything that had been missed by previous AV installations - and that does not actually touch upon whether or not my 'AV' had encountered/detected malware, although it was implied.

In response to your initial wrong interpretation/assumption - I subsequently stated/clarified...
Over all the years, my various AV have flagged up a number of malware encounters - mostly while on the web, and a few email attachments.
No 'changed story' - no contradiction.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61525044
Why are you just posting the same 'looping' back link - without any explanation, or any justification?

But perhaps you suffer from... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mild_cognitive_impairment ...and we should just make allowances?
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61525226

You are one of those rude people that continue a conversation after someone says good by!
Well, no - it's very plain to see that it is you that are the rude party here.

Your declaring (and incidentally, repeatedly misspelling) "Good by" is just a rude, and petulant, way of your trying to walk away from an argument you are unable to defend.

Will you ever learn?
So you also insult people with disabilities...
Not at all.

So, do you actually have a some disability, that we should take in to account?
...and continue to talk after conversation is over,
What you need to understand is - that you don't get to decide when someone else's side of the conversation ends.

You may end your side of the conversation any time you choose - but not mine, nor anyone else's.
You don't like being correct,
Oh, I do - but you evidently don't (a 'double entendre' if ever there was one).

I always 'like' and aim to be 'correct'.

And (unlike yourself) I will readily admit whenever I might be wrong.
...then be a nasty SOB
There you go again - such rudeness.
I'm dyslexic sir!
Really.

Well - in which case - that might explain why you muddled, and could not understand, my otherwise clear statements - despite them being clarified for you several times over.

However, it is not a good excuse for your continually contesting the matter - long after it has been clearly explained to you.

Neither does it excuse your petulance and rudeness.
Yet for you D Nile is not just a river in Africa!
That is your particular specialism - you 'own it'.
You are the one that started calling names

You are the type that continues conversations after the other party attempts to end them

You are the type that must have the last word and it's a delight to not let that happen

If you don't like the way I treat you, then stop responding :-}
 
You are the one that started calling names
I disagree.

Scrolling back , and checking, you had said... "You are way too trusting." ...implying some naivety on the matter.

In response I said... "Quite the contrary - you are 'way too' ignorant." ...'ignorant' meaning lacking knowledge or awareness of what you were discussing.

Not what I would consider 'name calling'.
You are the type that continues conversations after the other party attempts to end them
Absolutely - as anyone is entitled to - the right to reply/respond.

And what's more - hypocritically, it is actually you that continues the conversation - long after your own purported attempt(s) to end - duh.

If you were smarter - you would know that the best way to end a conversation is actually to end your own participation in it - not to continue it yourself.
You are the type that must have the last word and it's a delight to not let that happen
LOL - again, you are contradicting and conflicting yourself there.

You've said you have been attempting to end the conversation - the next moment you are 'delighting' in continuing to attempt to have the last word.

Make your mind up.
If you don't like the way I treat you,...
Personally, your rudeness and petulance don't bother me.

But I will point them out, when you wrongly, and hypocritically, accuse me of rudeness .
...then stop responding :-}
When there is no longer any reason to respond.
 
Last edited:
You are the one that started calling names
I disagree.

Scrolling back , and checking, you had said... "You are way too trusting." ...implying some naivety on the matter.

In response I said... "Quite the contrary - you are 'way too' ignorant." ...'ignorant' meaning lacking knowledge or awareness of what you were discussing.

Not what I would consider 'name calling'.
You are the type that continues conversations after the other party attempts to end them
Absolutely - as anyone is entitled to - the right to reply/respond.

And what's more - hypocritically, it is actually you that continues the conversation - long after your own purported attempt(s) to end - duh.

If you were smarter - you would know that the best way to end a conversation is actually to end your own participation in it - not to continue it yourself.
You are the type that must have the last word and it's a delight to not let that happen
LOL - again, you are contradicting and conflicting yourself there.

You've said you have been attempting to end the conversation - the next moment you are 'delighting' in continuing to attempt to have the last word.

Make your mind up.
If you don't like the way I treat you,...
Personally, your rudeness and petulance don't bother me.

But I will point them out, when you wrongly, and hypocritically, accuse me of rudeness .
...then stop responding :-}
When there is no longer any reason to respond.
You have no longer had the last word
 
You are the one that started calling names
I disagree.

Scrolling back , and checking, you had said... "You are way too trusting." ...implying some naivety on the matter.

In response I said... "Quite the contrary - you are 'way too' ignorant." ...'ignorant' meaning lacking knowledge or awareness of what you were discussing.

Not what I would consider 'name calling'.
You are the type that continues conversations after the other party attempts to end them
Absolutely - as anyone is entitled to - the right to reply/respond.

And what's more - hypocritically, it is actually you that continues the conversation - long after your own purported attempt(s) to end - duh.

If you were smarter - you would know that the best way to end a conversation is actually to end your own participation in it - not to continue it yourself.
You are the type that must have the last word and it's a delight to not let that happen
LOL - again, you are contradicting and conflicting yourself there.

You've said you have been attempting to end the conversation - the next moment you are 'delighting' in continuing to attempt to have the last word.

Make your mind up.
If you don't like the way I treat you,...
Personally, your rudeness and petulance don't bother me.

But I will point them out, when you wrongly, and hypocritically, accuse me of rudeness .
...then stop responding :-}
When there is no longer any reason to respond.
You have no longer had the last word
You need to grow up.

Pause - just for a moment - and reflect on how childishly you are behaving.

What you fail to realise (along with everything else) is that I am not interested in who has the last word - especially when as vacuous as yours above.

This 'last word' notion of yours is, quite evidently, yet another of your own delusions.

But - do feel free... (and I may, or may not, respond - just as I see fit).
 
You need to change your password on everything you use, particular Banking, ecommerce and anything else financial or that would have identity theft risk.

The reason is once they own your email, they follow the trail in your email everywhere else. As they own your email, they can use the forgot password functions of other sites to change your password. They may also have added filters so that you don't get email notices after they take over.
Well - maybe.

I'm not sure whether/what evidence the OP has seen that the email account itself has been compromised.../...
He stated he gave up his password.
Where?

All I can see is a couple of statements along the lines of... 'email on my PC is hosed?' ...which isn't even clear whether it is a question or a statement.

They haven't stated whether they are using a mail client (like 'Microsoft Mail' etc) or are using webmail in a browser.

I would guess webmail access, based on access across different machines - but that doesn't explain how/why email might be 'hosed' on one machine, but not on another.

And what exactly do they mean by 'hosed' - what symptoms.
Once that happens, an alert goes to the perp who can grab all his email in a matter of minutes. All bets are off after this.
Emails themselves, don't give you access to accounts - the email account itself would generally need to be under the control of the hacker.

Change the email account password - then, in future, the hacker can't access the account.

That said - if the PC was compromised/infected then the hacker might still be able to get/use any new/changed password, so it is important to ensure the PC is clean/not compromised.
I've seen it happened to way to many people and the damages can be devastating.
I dare say - but it's really not at all clear what the situation is in this case.

Whether the OP might be overreacting to a detection/blocking of malware - or whether the email account, or PC, or both, is actually compromised/'hosed'.
He stated he followed the link to a fake site and entered credentials.
No - he did not say (and as yet, has not said anywhere) that he entered any 'credentials'.

He has only stated that he clicked on a link in an email.

Quote...

1Dx4me wrote:

3 nights ago, i
received an email from UPS and everything looked very authentic! so i opened it to see what is being delivered, to see that info, i have click on that long delivery code, so i did but i noticed the new page was saying something irrelevant, but before i click the code, my MS defender came on with a quick message that i didn't have time to read what it was saying!

...if you read everything more carefully - as I stated above - it is not at all clear whether or not either the email program/email account, the PC, or both, is actually compromised - or neither are.
Yep, that's vague
Quite clear that he had not said that he "gave up his password" or "entered his credentials" anywhere (as you had said).

But no matter - with my initial advice along with Patco's help in navigating MS Defender, the OP seems to be on the right track.
 
Last edited:
You are the one that started calling names
I disagree.

Scrolling back , and checking, you had said... "You are way too trusting." ...implying some naivety on the matter.

In response I said... "Quite the contrary - you are 'way too' ignorant." ...'ignorant' meaning lacking knowledge or awareness of what you were discussing.

Not what I would consider 'name calling'.
You are the type that continues conversations after the other party attempts to end them
Absolutely - as anyone is entitled to - the right to reply/respond.

And what's more - hypocritically, it is actually you that continues the conversation - long after your own purported attempt(s) to end - duh.

If you were smarter - you would know that the best way to end a conversation is actually to end your own participation in it - not to continue it yourself.
You are the type that must have the last word and it's a delight to not let that happen
LOL - again, you are contradicting and conflicting yourself there.

You've said you have been attempting to end the conversation - the next moment you are 'delighting' in continuing to attempt to have the last word.

Make your mind up.
If you don't like the way I treat you,...
Personally, your rudeness and petulance don't bother me.

But I will point them out, when you wrongly, and hypocritically, accuse me of rudeness .
...then stop responding :-}
When there is no longer any reason to respond.
You have no longer had the last word
You need to grow up.

Pause - just for a moment - and reflect on how childishly you are behaving.

What you fail to realise (along with everything else) is that I am not interested in who has the last word - especially when as vacuous as yours above.

This 'last word' notion of yours is, quite evidently, yet another of your own delusions.

But - do feel free... (and I may, or may not, respond - just as I see fit).
Tag, you are it
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top