XRJDM%SCFVM.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU (Joe McMahon) (11/09/89)
You may (or may not :-) remember the discussions we had here on the list about this. As far as I remember, there was never a specific demonstration that there was a virus involved. That doesn't mean that there wasn't; it just means that there were never quite enough facts presented to make a case either way. I'd leave it off for now, or mention it as a "rumored sighting" or whetever. Safest not to mention it, especially since it was never pinned down and analyzed. --- Joe M.
chrisj@cs.utexas.edu (Chris Johnson) (11/11/89)
XRJDM@SCFVM.BITNET (Joe McMahon) writes: >You may (or may not :-) remember the discussions we had here on the >list about this. As far as I remember, there was never a specific >demonstration that there was a virus involved. That doesn't mean that >there wasn't; it just means that there were never quite enough facts >presented to make a case either way. I'd leave it off for now, or >mention it as a "rumored sighting" or whetever. Safest not to mention >it, especially since it was never pinned down and analyzed. > > --- Joe M. I agree whole-heartedly! Please *do*not* mention this alleged virus - the paranoia the initial reports of this alleged virus have given way to is damage enough. There is still *no* evidence that this virus ever existed. Since my initial postings on this subject, I have received a couple of files that, it was thought, might have been infected by this alleged virus. I found no indication of any virus (or anything at all out of the ordinary) in those files. Once again, there is still *no* evidence that this virus ever existed. If new evidence surfaces, this disucssion can continue, but at the moment there's no evidence and, consequently, nothing to discuss. The end. "The onus of proof is on he who asserts the positive." Cheers, - ----Chris - ----chrisj@emx.utexas.edu