Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!prodigal.psych.rochester.edu!kellogg
From: kellogg@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Lars Kellogg-Stedman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Disinfectant 2.0 vs SAM vs ?
Message-ID: <8898@ur-cc.UUCP>
Date: 10 Aug 90 12:59:12 GMT
References: <53318215MES@MSU> <90221.1412203XMQGAA@CMUVM.BITNET> <1990Aug9.221406.14913@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
Reply-To: kellogg@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu.UUCP (Lars Kellogg-Stedman)
Organization: University of Rochester, New York
Lines: 16

Personally, I consider Disinfectant itself THE best virus
detection/disinfection program written.  To me, at least, it appears
to be much better written than SAM, and it works wonderfully under
MultiFinder.  As for the INIT - well, it's not configurable, but it
can detect the same viruses as Disinfectant.  

The fact that Disinfectant is free is simply an added incentive to use it.

Doesn't John Norstrad have plans to implement search strings in
Disinfectant, like SAM and Virus Detective?

Lars
~ ~ | Lars Kellogg-Stedman                 | "Software rots if not used"
O-O | kellogg@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu |        - The Tao of Programming
 |  +--------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
-=- |   I'm rarely responsible for what I say, do you think anybody else is?