Purpose of alt.comp.virus?

[Ed]

I subscribe to this alt.comp.virus as well as to alt.comp.anti-virus and
notice that there is quite a considerable degree of overlap or
cross-posting between the two groups. Often, a reply to a cross-posted
problem might only be sent to one group only, so I have to check both to
get the complete picture.

Could someone please clarify for me what the intended purpose of these
two groups was/is meant to be. Are they intended to address distinct
aspects of the fight against viruses?

Yours truly,
Ed

 

[Peter Seiler]

Ed - 19.01.2005 10:01 :

I subscribe to this alt.comp.virus as well as to alt.comp.anti-virus and
notice that there is quite a considerable degree of overlap or
cross-posting between the two groups. Often, a reply to a cross-posted
problem might only be sent to one group only, so I have to check both to
get the complete picture.

Could someone please clarify for me what the intended purpose of these
two groups was/is meant to be. Are they intended to address distinct
aspects of the fight against viruses?

you are right. Simply if the posters would set a "Fup2..." (as I do at
the end here) your described prob should a little bit solved. Especially
Newcomers (not only!) should first read some time in NG(s) before
writing and learn the basics of good usenet behavior (no TOFU
(topposting) right quoting only the necessary parts (learn to quote),
for example.

Fup2 alt.comp.anti-virus

 

[James Egan]

Could someone please clarify for me what the intended purpose of these
two groups was/is meant to be. Are they intended to address distinct
aspects of the fight against viruses?

acv existed first. It was for vx (pro) and (av) anti virus issues.

A few of the then regulars, notably Stalker Steve Sprague, decided
that a solely anti-virus group with its own charter was a good idea.
Others thought that it would just cause confusion and create a mirror
of acv (which it has).


Jim.

 

[Frederic Bonroy]

Ed a écrit :

I subscribe to this alt.comp.virus as well as to alt.comp.anti-virus and
notice that there is quite a considerable degree of overlap or
cross-posting between the two groups. Often, a reply to a cross-posted
problem might only be sent to one group only, so I have to check both to
get the complete picture.

Could someone please clarify for me what the intended purpose of these
two groups was/is meant to be. Are they intended to address distinct
aspects of the fight against viruses?

Alt.comp.virus was there first. Officially it's both pro- and anti-virus
though in practice it has always been an anti-virus group.

The creation of alt.comp.anti-virus was somewhat ideologically motivated
so as to have a purely anti-virus group where pro-virus material
wouldn't be welcome. In retrospect its creation wasn't a bad idea (some
people will disagree) though the world could definitely have lived
without it. Maybe you can find the discussion we had at the time.

Now that there are virtually no VX types left in alt.comp.virus, both
newsgroups are essentially the same. They are equally dull and boring so
it doesn't matter where people post.

 

[kurt wismer]

I subscribe to this alt.comp.virus as well as to alt.comp.anti-virus and
notice that there is quite a considerable degree of overlap or
cross-posting between the two groups. Often, a reply to a cross-posted
problem might only be sent to one group only, so I have to check both to
get the complete picture.

Could someone please clarify for me what the intended purpose of these
two groups was/is meant to be. Are they intended to address distinct
aspects of the fight against viruses?

alt.comp.virus was started by virus writers who were later 'displaced'
by anti-virus types... as such, alt.comp.virus's purpose is what the
majority of it's current participants say it is - and that's pretty
much the same as alt.comp.anti-virus' purpose...

i think alt.comp.anti-virus was created by someone who felt there were
still too many virus writers posting in alt.comp.virus and they wanted
a group that was just like alt.comp.virus except without the virus
writers... since the virus writers are pretty much gone from
alt.comp.virus it seems they could have gotten their wish just by
waiting...

 

[Ed]

acv existed first. It was for vx (pro) and (av) anti virus issues.

A few of the then regulars, notably Stalker Steve Sprague, decided
that a solely anti-virus group with its own charter was a good idea.
Others thought that it would just cause confusion and create a mirror
of acv (which it has).


Jim.

Yes, I agree it does cause confusion. To me it seems that I should only
subscribe to one and that is alt.comp.virus. I don't believe that
alt.comp.anti-virus has anything additional to offer. Unless I hear
otherwise?

Ed

 

[me]

Yes, I agree it does cause confusion. To me it seems that
I should only subscribe to one and that is alt.comp.virus.
I don't believe that alt.comp.anti-virus has anything
additional to offer. Unless I hear otherwise?

Ed

Otherwise.

J

 

[Sasquatch]

Since Bart saw fit to publicly denigrate me here, I thought I should
comment.

Im the "egotistical badge heavy deputy" that proposed ACA-V. The reason I
proposed ACA-V was so that people, like you, could come to usenet and have a
firm, definitive place to ask questions specifically regarding anti-virus
issues. ACV, at the time, had quite a mix of people..virus traders, virus
writers and others that sought to clean up their machines. I felt that this
did not lend itself to always being the best place for someone infected to
find information, thus I proposed the new group.

Anyway, to answer your question:

From the charter of alt.comp.anti-virus

"alt.comp.anti-virus is for topics related to the prevention and detection
of computer virus infections. Discussions of anti-virus software,
preventative measures, new virus warnings, virus hoaxes, disinfection
information and general security information related to viruses and other
malicious software are also welcome topics of discussion."

As for alt.comp.virus, I cant tell you what the original charter proposed,
but alt.2600 says calls it "an unmoderated forum for discussing viruses". A
look at the alt.comp.virus posting guidelines from March, 2000 (last date I
could find, sorry) says "The purpose of the alt.comp.virus newsgroup is to
provide a forum for discussion of computer virus issues".

Basically I wanted to create a group that would show, without a doubt, what
its intended purpose was. My goal was no ambiguity. I hope this answered
your question.

Steve

 

[David H. Lipman]

Thank Mr. Sprague. For both that response and this News Group.

I have been here since ~July of 2001 and it has been a good forum for discussion.

--
Dave




| Since Bart saw fit to publicly denigrate me here, I thought I should
| comment.
|
| Im the "egotistical badge heavy deputy" that proposed ACA-V. The reason I
| proposed ACA-V was so that people, like you, could come to usenet and have a
| firm, definitive place to ask questions specifically regarding anti-virus
| issues. ACV, at the time, had quite a mix of people..virus traders, virus
| writers and others that sought to clean up their machines. I felt that this
| did not lend itself to always being the best place for someone infected to
| find information, thus I proposed the new group.
|
| Anyway, to answer your question:
|
| From the charter of alt.comp.anti-virus
|
| "alt.comp.anti-virus is for topics related to the prevention and detection
| of computer virus infections. Discussions of anti-virus software,
| preventative measures, new virus warnings, virus hoaxes, disinfection
| information and general security information related to viruses and other
| malicious software are also welcome topics of discussion."
|
| As for alt.comp.virus, I cant tell you what the original charter proposed,
| but alt.2600 says calls it "an unmoderated forum for discussing viruses". A
| look at the alt.comp.virus posting guidelines from March, 2000 (last date I
| could find, sorry) says "The purpose of the alt.comp.virus newsgroup is to
| provide a forum for discussion of computer virus issues".
|
| Basically I wanted to create a group that would show, without a doubt, what
| its intended purpose was. My goal was no ambiguity. I hope this answered
| your question.
|
| Steve
|
|

 

[Sasquatch]

Thanks, David .

Steve

 

[Peter Seiler]

David H. Lipman - 25.01.2005 03:39 :

Thank Mr. Sprague. For both that response and this News Group.

I have been here since ~July of 2001 and it has been a good forum for
discussion.

right, but with the exception of some quoting behavior and their
possible results/aftereffects ;-) ;-) - as you can see what can be
happened in the thanks-response of Sasquatch.