rf> _Definitely_ not the same viruses, or you'd both get the
 rf> same results.
 rf> (TBAV and F-Prot both do a lot better in _your_ tests, don't
 rf> they ?)
TBAV and F-Prot are always both up in the >90% bracket.  The Secure Computing 
article says a lot of their viruses are not in the wild, which seems pretty 
stupid to me.  What's the point of reporting that a scanner doesn't detect a 
heap of viruses nobody has ever seen ?  ALL mine have been found in the wild, 
so obviously there's a substantial difference between the collections, and in 
my opinion, mine is the better collection for real world conditions.
 rf> > The topic is "The Best Antiviral Program".  The answer is "AVP".
 rf> AVP detected most viruses, but Secure Computing still named
 rf> Solly the
 rf> overall winner.
Come on Rod, I know you have to be "Fairer Than Fair" because you're the AVP 
distributor as well as the moderator, but don't you think you're carrying 
"Fair Play" to a ridiculous extreme ?
You know as well as I do, and probably better than I do, that AVP pisses all 
over Dr. Solomon from all directions in the real world of virus infection, so 
why don't you just come out and say so ?  Dr. Solomon OWNS Secure Computing, 
for fuck's sake, and they have no qualms about using snake oil to grease 
their own program to the top of the list!
Joe Wells does a good job, and his Wild list is fine AS A GUIDE, but not even 
Joe himself pushes it as the definitive virus test bed.  Every AV 
professional in the world, including you and me, has had to deal with plenty 
of viruses before they appeared (or which have never appeared) in the Wild 
List. Keeper.Lemming, which I'm sure you will remember only too well, cost 
the Australian Government millions of dollars in cleanup before Joe Wells 
even knew of its existence, let alone added it to the list.
Choosing "The Best Antiviral Program" based solely on Wild List detection is 
bullshit, and when you wipe away the snake oil, Secure Computing's tests 
prove that AVP is #1!
LuKE
---
---------------