[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0HE600C83K5R91@smtp2.clear.net.nz>
From: nick at virus-l.demon.co.uk (Nick FitzGerald)
Subject: Administrivia: Vacation Messages - Update
KF <dotslash@...soft.com> wrote:
> >So warning idiots of their grave lack of security clue is off-topic
> >for a "full disclosure" computer security mailing list?
> >
> I certainly don't think that was the point... I believe it was the fact
> that it has happened quite often and that it is unneccessary to cc the
> entire list every time this happens. There is a big difference between
> warning someone of "lack of security clue" and notifying the entire
> list. The last few auto responders I have seen simply turned into a
> shark like feeding frenzy on the individual that turned the auto
> responder on... there has been no benefit to the list in the discussions
> that occur. I believe they are only trying to decrease the amount of
> noise on the list.
The feeding-frenzy and noise issues are, like it or not, generally
part of the "joy" of unmoderated lists.
As for your suggestion that nothing useful or of value has come from
these discussions, I beg to differ. Recently there was a very
informative debate about the actual legal value of those (all too
common) automatically attached standard disclaimers. Not directly
security related in the sense that it disclosed a code vulnerability
some significant percantage of list members should know about, but
still security-relevant, at least in the big picture sense. Such
tidbits are very unlikely to be available in more heavily moderated
fora unless the moderators are especially insightful, which few
currently seem to be...
--
Nick FitzGerald
Computer Virus Consulting Ltd.
Ph/FAX: +64 3 3529854
Powered by blists - more mailing lists