Date: Sat May 20 03:24:45 2006
From: nocfed at gmail.com (nocfed)
Subject: Call for moderation

On 5/19/06, Andrew Smith <andrew.rse@...il.com> wrote:
> There are a lot of moderated lists.
>
> This isn't moderated.
>
> That is the point of this list.
>
> Don't be an idiot, just because there are a few idiots about doesn't mean
> that you should call for a fd->bugtraq change.
>
>
> On 5/19/06, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu > wrote:
> >
> On Fri, 19 May 2006 14:48:59 PDT, Daniel Veditz said:
> > Aaron Gray wrote:
> > > Heres a call for moderation before it gets too late.
> >
> > I've lost my chart, can anyone remind me how many drinks that rates on
> > the Full-Disclosure drinking game? Something like two, plus one for
> > every ten replies?
>
> At that rate, you're looking at a case, maybe a case and a half of tequila
> already.
>

And I quote, from
http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/2005-September/036962.html

"And if you want a moderated subset of this list you can go to:

https://lists.seifried.org/mailman/listinfo/security

And subscribe to my security list (includes BugTraq, Full-Disclosure,
multiple vendor lists).

-Kurt"

Kurt, at one time, had a list dedicated to only full-disclosure, which
was full-disclosure-moderated. That list was apparently merged into
his moderated security list. (
http://lists.seifried.org/mailman/listinfo/full-disclosure-moderated )

Now let's just end this thread and whomever wants a moderated version
can subscribe to the aforementioned list.  You will also note, that in
the moderated+combined list that this entirely useless and offtopic
thread is missing.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists