-=> Mocking Bill Clark to Kurt Wismer <=-
   
 BC> It seems that there is still not an agreed upon definition by the
 BC> experts. With the constantly changing technology and the definition
 BC> having to fit certain agendas it is a moving target.
i've seen the thread in a.c.v.... from what i gather though, the experts
do actually agree on what a virus is, they just have different ideas on
how to express that definition... dr. solomon had a fairly terse
definition which he gives unless he's trying to be really accurate,
frisk has something very much like a form responce (he quotes his own
documentation)... the only agendas i've personally seen would be
something akin to "egos"...
there is also a problem in deciding how general the definition should
be... the more general the definition, the better it is at meshing with
new technology, and the worse it is at getting the point across to
joe/jane public... i have a fairly general definition that hasn't really
changed much even after macro viruses came out, but a number of the
descriptive terms require definitions themselves to clarify the
context...
... think for us, pozo!...
--- Maximus 2.02
---------------