I think I might have mentioned this in passing, but I've spent a LOT of hours with Barclays and Kaspersky in the last few days.
Kasper, finally, were great. Exe file with a pre-release version that was written to cope with Firefoxe's erm, not add-ons, something I've written on one of the hundred pieces of crib sheets lying on my desk - along with the piece with the time written on it.
Sorry, Spike.
My battles was fought with Barclays, who finally sent me a letter from the . . . roll of drums . . . "Decision maker." How cool is that. A sub heading on that page is, Our Decision. Our? Wait, I've got a letter from the Decision maker, who are the other people in, 'Our'?
Now, here's where Flying Lawyer would have stood back and gasped in admiration. Well, perhaps not, but I think he might have grunted in approval. Without missing a beat, I put forward an assertive argument why Barclays, who give the program out, should be more proactive in working with their customers to resolve what are significant issues. I had been told, verbally and in a TXT message, that there was no problem with Kasper and I should resolve my issues with the software company.
Put it this way, today, I was told that in addition to the £25 that I was paid the other day, I was about to receive another £25 for . . . well, words to the effect, of effort put in, and inconvenience I'd suffered during this logged series of communications. I'll drink to that - with a better wine than I normally buy.
In simple terms: if a bank gives AV software to customers to guard their accounts, they should not pass the buck when it simply does not work with a leading browser. The failure to work was in a clear statement to me from Kaspersky.
It seems that FF's sudden change of programming technique, caught them off guard. A frank . . . not admission, because as they explained it, no one could have seen this coming.
I'm not quite sure I understand why FF didn't fully communicate with a world-leader AV company. I hope I'm not heading back to con-trail theory.