-=> Quoting Richard St. John to Rick Collins <=-
-=> FidoMail to 1:163/215, please.-=<
RSJ> @MSGID: 1:100/205 32d9dcc5
-=> My computer told me that Rick Collins said to Richard St. John
rc> The point is the tests done can be as well done and comprehensive
rc> as possible, but the data gleaned from the tests is useful
rc> _only_ in the test scenario itself, and it is unwise and perhaps
rc> foolish to extrapolate those test results to the "real world". 
rc> Unfortunately, that is _exactly_ what the casual reader of those
rc> tests does. 
rsj> Actually the point is that they have subjected X number of virus
rsj> scanners to the same series of tests. They then presented how
rsj> the tests were performed and the information gleaned from those
rsj> tests in numbers. Their testing may not have sent EVERY virus
rsj> against these scanners, but in the test sequences {that they
rsj> posted along with the kind/number of each virus} you can
rsj> determine how each virus scanner reacted to the test scenerio.
rsj> These test results are readily available on the net for anyone
rsj> to view. 
And it tells them _only_ the results obtained under the conditions of
the test - extrapolating that to what the individual _user_ might
expect in _his_ environment is the problem.
rsj> My company, in our evaluations of 10 scanners last year did
rsj> basically the same thing, but we shot a larger amount of
rsj> infected files at it and came up with some pretty interesting
rsj> results. This information is for company internal use only and
rsj> is NOT available on the web, therefore I don't mention it as us
rsj> having done the work. 
And did the results differ from the "published" results you've spoken
of?  I'd suggest they did, and that alone proves my point.
rsj> Virus Bulletin has done the work, and has put the results out on
rsj> the web ALONG with the testing methods used. People can then
rsj> see the results and how the tests were run. 
Yes, but do they infer from that what the best product would be in
_their_ environment?  And how, pray tell, do they analyse _their_
environment to determine how close it is to the published test
conditions?
TTFN. Rick.
Ottawa, ON 13 Jan 19:38 
--- Blue Wave/DOS v2.20
---------------