> I can understand how a virus is identified (and they are dozens of
> thousands already), but it is *very* difficult to me understand how
> someone can postulate that a virus *does not* exist just because it is
> not actually destroying zillions of computers files around.

Yes, of course.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  And it's
always possible for someone to create a virus after the fact that has same
name and similar behavior to one that has been described in a hoax.

The key to identifying a warning as a hoax is when it makes some other
claim that is testable.  One such claim in this one is that AOL and IBM have
announced something about it. Making an announcement sort of implies that
the announcer wants the announcement to be seen. While I know of no
official denial from AOL and/or IBM, it seems very unlikely that such
warnings, if they existed, would be so obscure that they fail to turn up in a
search of the web. This doesn't prove that it doesn't exist, but is enough to
make it suspicious.  Given the extent to which virus hoaxes outnumber
legitimate virus warnings, assuming it's a hoax until proven otherwise is
sensible.

As for being "better safe than sorry", this is simply a matter of taking
appropriate precautions against viruses/worms/trojans in general.  Like
using anti-virus software, not executing executable attachments, disabling
macros when opening documents with programs that have macro
languages, etc.  If you do these things, then you are already doing the right
thing and don't have to worry that an apparent hoax might turn out to be real.
For that matter, if you take appropriate measures and avoid bad habits,
even legitimate virus warnings are a waste of time and bandwidth unless the
malicious program has some special characteristic that can bypass the
normal precautions.


---
                                        Peace,
                                        William Kitchen
                                        bill@iglobal.net

The future is ours to create.