full-disclosure - Re: full disclosure?

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.4.44.0209111605520.1324-100000@hexeris.mine.nu>
From: aliver at hexeris.mine.nu (Aliver)
Subject: Re: full disclosure?

On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, CybrSpy wrote:
> I vote for killing threads like this reather than banning folks.

	Don't kill the thread, and don't ban/kick them, either. Just
ignore what you don't like unless it puts your life, liberty, or property
in jeopardy.  It's a skill that many modern Americans need to learn to
develop (yes, I'm American).
	What I do is create a couple of "folders" to save my mail into.
One is called "ignore_by_subject" and the other is "ignore_by_sender".
Then I have a small script that pulls the appropriate field out mangles it
a bit with some regexp's and adds it to a procmail filter. It took about
10 minutes or so to setup, and I didn't have to whine to someone else
about my lack of ability to tolerate something.

aliver
--
Question: Is it better to abide by the rules until
they're changed or help speed the change by breaking them?