Hi Rod,
rod fewster to Paul Walker, 17 Jan 98 09:00.
 >> I actually found it missed some of the ones I gave it, but... what
 >> I would like to know is, if AVP is so good, why
 rf> Which other scanner(s) detected these missed viruses ?
Um. Bearing in mind this was about 4-6 months ago, ISTR that F-Prot detected 
quite a few of them, as did Dr Solomon's. TBAV detected most of them, but 
missed at least one (although that one did do tricks specifically for 
TBAV/heuristics).
 rf> AVP rejects a lot of crap which other scanners tag as live viruses.
 rf> Are you 100% certain they ARE viruses ?)
99.9%. :) Reasoning is that all of them were given exact identification by 
at least one scanner, apart from the one of them I'd written myself, to be 
sure that they weren't relying *solely* on scan strings.
 rf> Why don't you send them to AVP for inclusion in the next update ?
Could do, but I don't (usually) get viruses from unusual sources - if I have 
a virus on here, then it's usually available to everyone, from somewhere.
(With the obvious exception of the one I wrote.)
 rf> #2 was Dr Solomon's at 94% ... which means it missed over 200 viruses.
 rf> Does "200 misses" mean you reject Solly's out-of-hand ?  :)
Nope. :) Having just used all of them to scan a virus, I can say that the 
new Win95 interface really irritates me - I can put up with most GUI 
aspects, but when something's designed for the point'n'drool brigade, it 
bugs.
(Incidentally, TBAV and AVP missed this one, while F-Prot and Dr Solly's 
both got it - Grog.2825, COM infector.)
  Paul              (p.r.walker@warwick.ac.uk)                 
... Blood in the Saddle - By the Kotex Kid.
--- FMail/386 1.22
---------------