full-disclosure - Re: Administrivia

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <9B66BBD37D5DD411B8CE00508B69700F05ADDE53@pborolocal.rnib.org.uk>
From: John.Airey at rnib.org.uk (John.Airey@...b.org.uk)
Subject: Re: Administrivia

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason [mailto:security@...enik.com]
> Sent: Friday, 19 March 2004 01:08
> To: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
> Subject: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Administrivia
> 
> 
> Nick FitzGerald wrote:
> 
> > John.Airey@...b.org.uk wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>And please guys, stop cc'ing me. I'm on the list and have 
> been almost
> >>since it started!
> > 
> > 
> > Indeed.
> > 
> > First, it is actually _rude_ to CC responses to messages from "self-
> > moderating" lists (such as Full-Disclosure) to the poster 
> and the list 
> > because, by definition, the poster is on the list and will see your 
> > reply.
> > 
> 
> Perhaps a read over RFC 1855 would be in order for a few?
> 
> ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc1855.txt
> 
> but *I* prefer to be in the recipient list if I have joined in on the 
> discussion, it is clearly a discussion I am interested in or 
> felt like 
> chiming in on. I have filters... they filter... they filter 
> differently 
> if I am a named to or cc... discussions I am participating in 
> by default 
> float to my attention.
> 
Except I would add that the quoted RFC (which is informational, not
mandatory) does say that signatures should be kept short:

    - If you include a signature keep it short.  Rule of thumb
      is no longer than 4 lines.  Remember that many people pay for
      connectivity by the minute, and the longer your message is,
      the more they pay.

The observant will note that mine breaks this advice (although it doesn't if
you ignore the extra bit that I put in. It usually offends at least one
person). The RNIB disclaimer is outside my control, except that I have
pointed out that it can lead to our own email being classed as SPAM and
suggested a link to a web page would be better.

Anyway, it follows logically from this that most people wouldn't like to
receive more than one copy either.

I won't even mention the number of evil remailers out there that are
resending messages to this list and bugtraq like it's going out of business!

- 
John Airey, BSc (Jt Hons), CNA, RHCE
Internet systems support officer, ITCSD, Royal National Institute of the
Blind,
Bakewell Road, Peterborough PE2 6XU,
Tel.: +44 (0) 1733 375299 Fax: +44 (0) 1733 370848 John.Airey@...b.org.uk 

Shameless movie plug - go see the Passion of the Christ!

- 
DISCLAIMER: 

NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is 
confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended 
recipient you should not use, disclose, distribute or copy any of the 
content of it or of any attachment; you are requested to notify the 
sender immediately of your receipt of the email and then to delete it 
and any attachments from your system. 

RNIB endeavours to ensure that emails and any attachments generated by 
its staff are free from viruses or other contaminants. However, it 
cannot accept any responsibility for any  such which are transmitted.
We therefore recommend you scan all attachments. 

Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email and 
any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily represent 
those of RNIB. 

RNIB Registered Charity Number: 226227 

Website: http://www.rnib.org.uk