full-disclosure - Just a suggestion

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]

Message-ID: <200208281549.00687.steve@videogroup.com>
From: steve at videogroup.com (Steve)
Subject: Just a suggestion

On Wednesday 28 August 2002 12:34 pm, Snow, Corey wrote:
> Uniformity of enforcement is difficult (impossible?) to achieve on any
> moderation policy that is content-based.
>

Clearly written policies are easy to follow. F.ex:

Msg intended to disrupt the list with threats and degrading comments are not 
to be let through. Conversly you could replace any four letter words with 
"[bleep]" 
Others where the same message is sent repetitively (twice or more) seemingly 
from the same, or not, address should be stopped.

It's easy to tell what belongs and what does not. If the indended purpose is 
to have an outlet for security holes and liabilities, then a discussion about 
someone being an a[bleep] is OT. (Of course a discussion list could have all 
that for those who don't mind.)

I've not really read the list description to write the policies, but I bet if 
I did I could write ones that could not be misinterpreted and would be 
supported by 80%. Assuming 20% is just trying to create trouble.

These simple rules would drop the noise level a lot, and letting all sec 
related posts through, without lowering the value of the list.
-- 

Steve Szmidt
V.P. Information Technology
Video Group Distributors, Inc.