-=> Mocking Paul Walker to Kurt Wismer <=-
   
 KW> no other scanner that i know of, or developer for that matter, makes
 KW> any mention of exact identification (and you know how they are with
 KW> new technology, they advertise it a LOT)...
 PW> Not even AVP, the scanner that's been given plenty of free advertising
 PW> in  here lately? 
 
not to the best of my knowledge, no... everyone's got their own thing
though... ibmav, for instance, claim some degree of neural net
technology...
 KW> (further, a scanner has to provide some kind of information about
 KW> which method it's using or debugging it would be a lot harder for the
 PW> Not really - debugging should be done before it's released not, after.
it is, but i don't think they bother going to the trouble of changing
the program just in order to release it...
further, some debugging (of sorts) is done over the phone with end
users... why do you think all those unadvisable switches are there to
begin with?
for instance, say someone is using f-prot and they find a virus that by
all rights shouldn't be there, it's not in the wild, it's not a viable
virus, that sort of thing... you'd think (and so would i) that it's
probably a false alarm, but if you have to support the product you need
to know more about how to judge such a likelyhood (especially with
products that use more than one scanning technique) so you need to be
able to get the program to display information about which method it's
using to identify the virus... if it had shown up as an exact
identification, no matter how rare or flakey the virus, it's almost
certainly not a false alarm (depending on the implementation)...
 PW> Besides, you can always have an option to turn debugging info on -
 PW> most of  my programs do.
that depends on what you're talking about with respect to debugging...
... i am behaving myself, this is just like me...
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v2.0
---------------