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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

From: joel at helgeson.com (Joel R. Helgeson)
Subject: Re: Full-Disclosure digest, Vol 1 #1052 - 29 msgs

#2
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Arthur Corliss" <corliss@...italmages.com>
To: <full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 3:11 PM
Subject: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Full-Disclosure digest, Vol 1 #1052 - 29 msgs


> > Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 10:43:02 -0700
> > From: Chris Cappuccio <chris@...dia.net>
> > To: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
> > Subject: [Full-Disclosure] Subject prefix changing! READ THIS! SURVEY!!
> >
> > Hey folks,
> >
> > ALL LIST MEMBERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO RESPOND AND MAKE A CHOICE AS TO HOW
> > THEY WANT THIS BASIC FUNCTION OF THE LIST TO CONTINUE OPERATING.
> >
> > 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
> >
> > 1. The first choice is preferable for me and, I would hope, for most
folks.
> > Len says he didn't really want it when he started the list anyways.  So
we are
> > actually going to change it now.
> >
> > 2. Choice two may be preferable for people who can only filter their
incoming
> > messages based on the subject prefix.  So, if you WANT there to continue
> > to be a subject prefix, SPEAK UP!!!
> >
> > 3. Choice three sucks and if anyone wants this SPEAK UP so we know just
> > how many people want this.  This is the least preferrable as it clutters
> > the Subject header and makes the list harder to read through for those
of us
> > using a text based e-mail client.
>
> 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.
>
> --Arthur Corliss
>   Bolverk's Lair -- http://arthur.corlissfamily.org/
>   Digital Mages -- http://www.digitalmages.com/
>   "Live Free or Die, the Only Way to Live" -- NH State Motto
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
>