Using the the latest freeware edition with latest updates. Win 2K Pro.
I thought I’d set the log to not include this type of report:
“Result: Unable to scan: Skipped to to exclusions settings.”
But it IS included many times in the log, making up 99% of the log.
Is there a way to exclude this result type? I have searched the forums here but found nothing.
If you set the report to just include the infected files, will it have these entries?
Right click the ‘a’ blue icon and choose Program Settings then Report tab of settings.
Thanks for the fast reply!
In Settings > Report File, I un-checked all but “Infected files”
I still get lots of “Result: Unable to scan: Skipped to to exclusions settings.”
Dugie
FWIW, my previous settings before sending my first message were:
Current checked settings: Task start, Task stop, Hard errors, Infected files.
Current unchecked settings: Ok files, Soft errors, Skipped files.
Log is text file fommat.
Sorry, I’ve thought that unchecking the “Skipped files” option will do the trick… Strange isn’t it?
Maybe someone from Alwil could comment this, please.
Dugie, are you seeing maybe the summary report that pops up at the end of a scan, rather than the log? Typically that’s all my summary shows too, a list of skipped files/folders corresponding to my Ignore list.
I don’t think there’s any options for that summary, other than possibly (Tech would be the expert on this) to disable it entirely.
I must say I’m slightly confused now… your avast! seems to be working differently from mine.
Unchecking the “Skipped files” option in Settings / Report File should prevent the “skipped” items from being stored in the report. And, I don’t have any skipped items in the final summary (I mean the “Skipped due to exclusion settings” items; I do have items like “Password protection archive” though).
Can you post a screenshot of the summary window, please?
Well, it’s not an issue, just that it seems that the custom exclucions are displayed in the final result window, whereas the default “engine exclusions” are not.
I must say I don’t know if this is an omission or by design… I’ll see.