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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
From: eckman at umn.edu (Brian Eckman)
Subject: Feeding Stray Cats (off-topic, but what isn't
 on this list?)

Anthony Clendenen wrote:
> Delete key works well also...
> 
> -Anthony
>  

It sure does. The point was, it saves time to have one person press the 
delete key as opposed to thousands of people doing such.

Paul's point about filters is a good one. However, I must say that if I 
took the time to determine who has sent or replied to off-topic posts, 
I'd bet it would be *everyone* on this list, including myself now, 
thanks to this BS. Trying to create a filter that sorted out legitimate 
posts based on content as opposed to author seems like it would be a 
logistical nightmare.

<perhaps a diamond in the rough called "this reply"?>
The remaining filtering-based solution appears to be a subject-based 
one, where only one bullshit message per thread has to come in, then, if 
you act *quickly*, you can filter all of the replies to it that keep the 
same string in the subject line. I think that might become my approach, 
if I decide to remain subscribed. Basically, put that subject in a 
procmail filter and leave it there for ~ 30 days. However, that still 
leaves searching the archives as a daunting task. And it still requires 
individual effort by everyone who wants to sort this crap out, as 
opposed to a moderator.
</perhaps a diamond in the rough called "this reply"?>

<raving rant>
If we all would act as professionals and use this list for its intended 
purpose, this would be a very beneficial tool. As this list stands now, 
it is practically worthless due to bullshit posts and pointless 
responses by a few people who seem to have nothing better to do all day 
than (insert whatever you choose here, I'll practice a _little_ 
restraint) while they are at work.

(And yes, I am cutting my lunch break 15 minutes short to make up for 
the time I *wasted* responding to this.
</raving rant>

So, I must say that I agree with the original post. Don't feed the stray 
cats, or for that matter, the trolls. The charter says "it is expected 
that the list will be largely self-policing". Well, we can all pitch in 
by ignoring stuff that belongs on security-basics type lists. Or better 
yet, kindly show them to the door, of a more appropriate forum for their 
question, that is.

Regards,
Brian (ducking and covering to avoid the crap that will get flung at me 
now for stating my opinion)

P.S. Unsubscribing works well also. But what the hell good does it do if 
we all unsubscribe?

P.P.S Thanks to "Stephen" and Adam Zabrocki for actually posting 
something on topic recently.  There were a *few* others that also did so 
last week, but not many, and I don't have time to go back and dig 
through everything to name them all.

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Schmehl, Paul L [mailto:pauls@...allas.edu] 
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 7:51 AM
> To: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
> Subject: RE: [Full-Disclosure] Feeding Stray Cats
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com 
>>[mailto:full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com] On Behalf Of 
>>Kenneth Ekdahl
>>Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 4:38 AM
>>To: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
>>Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Feeding Stray Cats
>>
>>One way to solve this could be to split this list into two; 
>>one moderated and one un-moderated. All mail gets sent to the 
>>un-moderated list, to avoid the suspicions of censorship that 
>>makes this list different from bugtraq, and those mail that 
>>pass moderation, or is sent from someone who is known from 
>>previous posts to be serious, will also be sent to the moderated list.
>>
> 
> One of the wonderous things about computing is the distributed nature of
> it.  By spreading the work across many hands, the job is easy to do.
> Yet, what you are suggesting is that Len et. al. do all the work, while
> the people who get bugged by certain posts do none.
> 
> A much better suggestion would be, "Learn how to use filters".  The
> people subscribed to this list are *assumed* to have at least a
> tangential interest in security.  Given that, one would *think* that
> they have at least enough capability to set up a simple mail filter
> (pick your poison, your choice of OS) that would eliminate the noise and
> still give them what they want.
> 
> Paul Schmehl (pauls@...allas.edu)
> Adjunct Information Security Officer
> The University of Texas at Dallas
> AVIEN Founding Member
> http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/ 
> 



-- 
Brian Eckman
Security Analyst
OIT Security and Assurance
University of Minnesota


"There are 10 types of people in this world. Those who
understand binary and those who don't."


Powered by blists - more mailing lists