Re: Norton personal firewall.
From: Joseph V. Morris (jvmorris_at_erols.com)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:28:20 -0500
I'm lost as to whether you guys are talking about Ad Blocking or Web Content
filtering at this point.
Up through NIS 2002, I believe that you are correct: Ad Blocking required
the acquisition of NIS rather than NPF. It looks as if that situation has
now changed, however.
"NeoSadist" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
> Nomad wrote:
> > On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:01:25 -0700, NeoSadist <email@example.com>
> > wrote:
> > In response to NeoSadist:
> > I believe you're confusing NPF's program rules and its web content
> > filtering.
> Nope, I'm not. NPF does NOT have web content filtering (except
> activex/https/java allow/block options in the settings). You're thinking
> of NIS. Either that, or they've revamped the thing since I've used it,
> since NPF was always "only a firewall" while NIS was "NPF with content
> filtering/adware/spyware/spam stuff with NAV".
> > I don't, and have never, used Kazaa but NPF installs with
> > the Kazaa site listed in Options|Web Content with certain ads allowed.
> > Certainly you could set a program rule as you describe, but it is far
> > simpler to change the Web Content panel to block those ads. Your
> > statement that "its job is to filter network traffic, not filter
> > content" is true for a traditional firewall, but is not true for NPF
> > as it does both. That's one of the reasons I chose it over other
> > firewalls that didn't include any web filtering/ad blocking as I
> > wanted an integrated approach from one program rather than having to
> > run multiple programs to do the same jobs.
> No, like I said, you all must be thinking of NIS, since, like I said, NPF
> was firewall only software. Also, NPF hasn't been offered on its own any
> more recently, since they moved to an integrated NIS. So, therefore, it's
> NPF that I'm describing. I know that NIS has those other features, etc...
> > In response to bassbag:
> > I have no idea why those sites were listed by default other than to
> > have some examples present to illustrate how the Web Content panel
> > functioned. To my knowledge, there is no mention in the helpfiles of
> > why these sites were included. IMHO, it was incredibly poor judgement
> > to have included any of those sites with certain ads allowed. My
> > advice would be to delete all the sites and add in sites as you browse
> > that need additional functionality over the default limits set
> > elsewhere in NPF. I yearn for the days before Peter Norton sold out
> > to Symantec.
> You are only young once, but you can stay immature indefinitely.