full-disclosure - Re: Full-Disclosure digest, Vol 1 #1052

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <BF9651D8732ED311A61D00105A9CA3150EEA8906@berkeley.gci.com>
From: lsawyer at gci.com (Leif Sawyer)
Subject: Re: Full-Disclosure digest, Vol 1 #1052 - 2
	9 msgs

Fellow Alaskan Arthur Corliss responded to:
>> From: Chris Cappuccio whom exclaimed: 
>>
>> The subject header is going to change.
>>
>> This is a survey to see whether people want:
>>
>> 1. To have no subject prefix, that is, we remove [Full-Disclosure]
>> or
>> 2. To shorten the subject prefix from [Full-Disclosure] to [FD]
>> or
>> 3. Do nothing
>>
> 
> For what it's worth, I vote for #3.  I don't really pay that 
> close attention to sender address, and having the prefix in the
> subject makes it really easy to identify list mail for direct
correspondence.
>  I suppose I could live with #2 if I had to.


In what is fast becoming a trend, I once again agree with Arthur an
astonishing 100%.


Heh.  Hey Art, heard you and Mike are having fun.  TTYL..



Leif
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 2208 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20030821/d0a1fb9f/smime.bin