I want to chime in one more time about VistaPrint being blocked.

I went to your home page and read as much as I could about the immunization process, and really did not see a clear statement that SPYBOT would block a website based solely on somebodies interpretation of their business practices or E-Mail marketing strategy.

And you are certainly not the only ones who have a problem with VistaPrint. Cox, my ISP, was deleting all of their E-Mails until I investigated my SPAM settings and adjusted to only tag instead of deleting. But they tag every single VistaPrint E-Mail, as well of dozens of other legitimate companies.

And I wont deny that VistaPrint has a very aggressive E-Mail marketing campaign. However, I never received one E-Mail from them until I signed up.

But back to my original point about immunization.

Perhaps SPYBOT should consider immunization options.

I personally think that SPYBOT should not be blocking websites just because somebody thinks their business practices are not that good. Protect people from harmful downloads, fake security software, tracking products, privacy invaders, etc. That's it.

People like GopherJohn feel SPYBOT should act more aggressively.

SPYBOT needs to find a way to balance those conflicting ideas.

Some type of immunization option might be a good way to address that.

Another thing SPYBOT should consider is a pop-up that would indicate to people that the website that just got blocked or redirected to 127.0.0.1 was blocked or redirected by the SPYBOT immunization process.

Just in the thread I started, myself and one other person would have found that very useful.

I'll end this by reiterating something I said in several of my other posts.

I don't need SPYBOT to act like a self-appointed online Better Business Bureau. I have never asked that of SPYBOT, I never will. And I doubt I am the only one.