full-disclosure - Administrivia (was: RE: Re: Microsoft Secu rity, baby steps ? )

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <9B66BBD37D5DD411B8CE00508B69700F05ADDE55@pborolocal.rnib.org.uk>
From: John.Airey at rnib.org.uk (John.Airey@...b.org.uk)
Subject: Administrivia (was: RE: Re: Microsoft  Secu
	rity, baby steps ? )

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nick FitzGerald [mailto:nick@...us-l.demon.co.uk]
> Sent: Friday, 19 March 2004 02:31
> To: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
> Subject: Re: Administrivia (was: RE: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Microsoft
> Security, baby steps ? )
> 
> 
> madsaxon <madsaxon@...ecway.com> wrote?
> 
> > >Also, when sending messages to multiple lists (say F-D and 
> Bugtraq), it
> > >seems you may slightly reduce the multiple message spew that often
> > >results on F-D because of the above by putting all the 
> addresses in the
> > >To: header, rather than one in the To: and the other(s) in CC:.
> > 
> > Why is that, do you think?
> 
> Because, from a rather cursory look at several such multiple mails, 
> _some_ of those braindead "I'll forward it to every address I 
> can find 
> in the message headers even though it did not originate on-site" re-
> posters only seem to do this with messages that have CC: headers.
> 
Actually, it's still happening even with posts to the to: field.

A case in point is the message I sent to Bugtraq and Full-Disclosure
yesterday where all the entries were in the to line. Some of the bounce
messages I received (not the copious out of office messages which I delete
anyway) were saying that they were unable to deliver to full-disclosure or
bugtraq, which they shouldn't have been doing anyway.

One of these faulty remailers appeared to belong to Microsoft.

- 
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