• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Poutnik

  • Rank
    New Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    Czech Republic
  1. PS: It is great to redefine XP user profiles according to Vista/W7 pattern, or to have \bin32 \bin64 \sys32 \sys64 pointers
  2. thanks d for communication. I did not want to act as complainer, but rather feedback. In fact, I do myself prefer Junctions, That one was in place from historical reasons. From more places I heard Junctions bring less problems, unless it crosses Junctions local or absolute path funtionality limit. In future, if people learn relative paths and remote functionality of symlinks, it could be bigger issue.
  3. This was possibly misunderstanding, it was intended as detection of redirections, not as option not to follow redirections.
  4. Category of SW is irrelevant, it was illustration od principle. Concept of ignore lists is the same for all software. I will try the Spycar, but the result will not change the fact this could be written in MBAM in better way. I am not sure if the approach fix only what bothers many users is the right one.
  5. But this looks to me MBAM rather believes it is scanning C. If it knows it is scanning E, but pretends to me it is scanning C, it is de facto cheating me, ignoring exclusion list.
  6. And, Cathy is very fast. MBAM can test folder, if it is symlink, and if it is, if target is in exclusion list.
  7. E.g. latest version of catalogue software Cathy does not follow scanning junctions nor symlinks, as previous versions did, as well as NTFS Autocompress utility offers option if it should follow junctions/symlinks.
  8. If MBAM does not see it as C, why it is scanning c:\users\user\downloads and why does not ignore E:\downloads ? Is E:\downloads that MBAM gets from explorer to exclude different to E:\downloads that MBAM is said to see if scanning ? You know, I need not to solve it for myself, but at least in business version it should be addressed.
  9. E.g. One would like to paste copied folder pathname, but clipboard content is useless, if he has to pick it up by Explorer. Even editing of the full exclusion list as a text would be useful.
  10. What if we are able to put manually to the exclude list c:\users\user\downloads ? It would be useful even for normal folder cases. Many KBD oriented people do not like Explorer way of picking folders.
  11. That still does not explain why MBAM in one case see E and in other case C.... What if there was manual option to exclude folders ?
  12. Hmm, is not it exactly the opposite ? If Explorer reports it as C:\Users\User\Downloads, would not MBAM add C:\Users\User\Downloads to the list ? And, when scanner reads the location as E:\downloads, should not check it against the exception list ?
  13. It brings another question : Let suppose folder A is scanned by the scan Let suppose folder J is junction to A Let suppose folder S is folder symlink to A Both J and S are in otherwise scanned folders Is scanned just A, or J a/o S as well ?
  14. No, it does not, it scans c:\users\user\downloads. What I do not understand why MBAM acts differenctly at exception addition and at scanning. Should not it see either c:\users\user\downloads. either e:\downloads in both cases ? Cannot be the issue during eception addtition the target is provided to MBAM by Window pick up dialog, while during scan the original symlink is used directly by MBAM ?
  15. Hm, I understand this as MBAM would see it as c:\users\user\downloads in case of Junction, but as E:\downloads in case of symlink. But why than it does not honour the exception ?