>After several repeats of the VIRUS ALERT message from several sources, this >came in on one of my mailing lists. The tone's a bit snippy, but the message >is useful, I think. > >----- Begin Included Message ----- > >Date: Sun, 4 Dec 94 19:03:43 PST >From: [log in to unmask] (Steve VanDevender) >Subject: VIRUS ALERT (fwd) >Content-Length: 1353 > >I'm sorry, but this kind of irresponsible distribution of a bogus >virus alert makes me really irate. > >Computer viruses are programs that propogate by attaching >themselves to other programs. They are by necessity very >system-specific, and must be executed to propogate themselves. >YOU CAN'T GET A VIRUS FROM DOWNLOADING OR READING A TEXT FILE. >Even if you have some kind of fancy mail program that >automatically decodes and executes programs sent to you by email, >you must have the specific kind of system that the virus is >designed to run on for it to work. If you have any commonly >available mail program, you can safely look at _any_ mail >message. > >I've seen this "virus warning" come around a couple of times, but >it always lacks the critical information that any real virus >warning should have -- information about the specific systems >that the virus is capable of propogating on, and the means by >which the virus propogates. In fact, it seems specifically >designed to scare the ignorant by using frightening terms without >providing concrete information. > >I've also never seen the purported email virus talked about in >the message. > >Please feel free to forward this back to whoever might have sent >you the bogus warning. > >I don't want to hear any "I have a friend who said he got hit by >this" stories -- they're the classic sign of urban legend.