full-disclosure - RE: Administrivia

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: ka at khidr.net (Ka)
Subject: RE: Administrivia

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

At Donnerstag, 19. September 2002 22:24 chickenshitter@...hmail.com wrote:
> It seems certain people has an agenda ruin the full-disclosure list and
> force everybody back to Symantec's list. I wonder who is behind that
> movement?

Dear chickenshitter,

I don't know who is behind _your_ movement, but be assured, that
behind _my_ movements (regarding this list that is) is only me.

May I kindly ask you NOT to leave this list?

The list wouldn't be that funny without the complaints.
Allthough I must say that the complaints to noise ratio
is rather high for my feeling, and I have often to skip
thru a rather large amount of complaints before getting
to a real good advisory, I'm ready to pay that price
after todays's important advisories. .o)

> Don't bother asking for the spam and fighting to stop, it will not. If a
> system CAN be abused, it WILL be abused. Unmoderated lists have this
> inherant flaw.

While moderated lists are not read (or at least not read as the first
list of choice). Your posting prooves that you _read_ the list
and answered it at about 6:30 am local time.

And speaking about usage/abusage - how one uses the list and what one
correspondingly defines as abusage is up to the posters and subscribers.
I use the list to learn. You don't, you seem to know allready.

> All these great minds on this list and you are not able to stop a few pea
> brains? Let's find a solution that is more solid than asking them to stop.
> At this point I see filtering on your own client as the only solution.

That's true basic security reasoning - rule #1 - "What you don't do yourself,
is not done."

But in light of this rule bugtraq is not a list for true security
but rather a list for the security industry and their clients
- - or in my words luser-support-industry and lusers.

> I want the REAL GOBBLES back! He was coo with me

A wonder whose posts will bring him back, yours?

rule #2:

"Don't expect them to play according to your 
wishes or rules. Create facts."

Ka
- -- 
No exit before you know who you are.
No longing for exit afterwards.
http://www.khidr.net/users/ka/pgpkey.asc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE9iyh+72vu22ltWBERApOLAJ4zsCdCsniTFzw5fD2JUDm5rZvGWwCdFFyT
7JukShmIkX2ZJ08jM/HmOhg=
=qYYb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----