On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Antony Stone wrote: > The problem here is that it's only possible to measure "prevalence" once > there's been quite a lot of it under the old name...
I agree with this in principle, but I think this is a special case. There's no denying that this is one of the most "popular" differently-named worms ClamAV has ever dealt with. I think it deserves re-examination at this point, as it continues to be an issue. Other viruses/worms have been renamed in the past, and while I recognize that there'd be issues with renaming this one at this time, NOT renaming it continues to create nuisances. My personal take on the situation is that renaming would eliminate more issues than it would create, although I could be completely wrong. Jeffrey Moskot System Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click _______________________________________________ Clamav-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clamav-users
