>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.