full-disclosure - Re: [FD] FD should block attachments

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: phased at mail.ru ("phased" )
Subject: Re: [FD] FD should block attachments

what about the wasted time/bandwidth for messages like this?

-----Original Message-----
From: "Mike Smith" <mike@...e.com>
To: "Luke Norman" <luke@...manonline.co.uk>,<full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 19:36:50 -0400
Subject: RE: [Full-Disclosure] Re: [FD] FD should block attachments

> 
> >
> >>am i missing something here?
> >> because i realy do not see the issue.
> >>
> >
> >Yes, you are
> >As far as I can see from the numerous postings on the list, the issue 
> >isn't really recieving virii or anything else, it's the wasted 
> >time/bandwidth etc etc that comes from attatchments, and the costs that
> 
> >places on users who pay by the minute or by the megabyte. I personally 
> >don't think attatchments should be stopped, but I believe that's the 
> >argument for their filtering?
> >Luke
> 
> 	Having followed this list for the previous year, I can not say
> that any and all possible attachments waste any more time than some of
> the conversations that take place.  It gets ridiculous...  For me, it's
> down to about 1 of every 10 threads and 1 of every 25 posts that holds
> any interest of useful information...  Those are approaching my unusable
> limits....
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
>