RF>LK> I'm a firm believer in "Buy Australian", but only if the
RF>LK> Australian product does the job as well as foreign products
RF>LK> for around the same price.
RF>
RF> I go along with this ... my wife and I drive German cars for that
RF> very reason.  If Australia produced a car which represented the
RF> same value for money, I'd buy it.
   [and in a separate message...]
RF> Yeah ... I remember the Lemming ... it paid for my Ferrari.  :)
   OK... come clean.  What kind of car do you really drive ?
RF> In reality there's can never be a "best" scanner in the true sense
RF> of the word ... no scanner can be #1 all the time ... but if I had
RF> to choose one on pain of death then it would have be the scanner
RF> which recognized the most known viruses (not just those in the Wild
RF> List) most often and which heuristically tagged the most new/unknown
RF> viruses most often.  Kinda narrows the field, doesn't it ?
   [small exaggeration alert]
   That should be inscribed on the bezel of each and every monitor sold!
   I understand your position WRT AVP.  Nevertheless, I would appreciate
   your best shot at ranking AVP, Dr. Solomon's, F-Prot, TBAV and
   McAfee's VirusScan on those capabilities.  Specifically, which of
   them does best (and second best, etc.) insofar as the following:
      1) Which recognizes the most known viruses (not just those in the
         Wild List) most often?
      and
      2) Which heuristically tags the most new/unknown viruses most often?
   BTW, I feel you should add the qualifier "typically" before the word
   "best" as detection rates can be expected to vary somewhat over time,
   in part because these programs are not produced 'in sync' but are
   tested that way and thus the most recently updated program at the
   time of (each) testing will have a slight advantage.
   Clearly, capability #1 is more important than #2... the probabilities
   at this time simply favor being hit by a known virus.  And just as
   clearly, you believe that a heuristic capability is important.  Do
   you feel that scanners which don't offer heuristic scanning are
   fundamentally flawed and thus unacceptable or just not ideal?
   Also, please identify which scanners do not have heuristic
   capabilities and which, if any programs you would class with the
   above "short list"... not that McAfee belongs there....  Thanks!
BobW
---
 * SLMR 2.1a #1414 * Someone who does not make a mistake usually makes 
thing
--- JMailQWK 2.80/BETA
---------------