full-disclosure - Adminstrivia: Digest Limits/Netiquette

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu)
Subject: Adminstrivia: Digest Limits/Netiquette 

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:39:40 PDT, "Roy S. Rapoport" <full-disclosure@....inorganic.org>  said:

> added about seven lines

Of course,   sometimes it's nice to actually cite a *paragraph* so as to not
lose the context of the discussion.   If the original text is of the form "3
lines about factor A" followed by "3 lines about factor B", it's often useful
to leave the ENTIRE paragraph in there. (Yes, I intentionally excessively
trimmed the quote for effect - notice the total devastation of context.  I'd
have to have quoted *5* lines just to get the entire sentence).

This is particularly important for the people who are NOT subscribed at the
moment. Yes, everybody who is *on* the list has the context at hand because
they've been (presumably) following the thread.  The poor joker who will be
googling for "factor B" 2 years from now - you really want to leave HIM a hint
that your reply was really only regarding "factor A" in the special case where
"factor B" was involved too.