full-disclosure - Administrivia (was: RE: Re: Microsoft Security, 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>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <405B1216.25654.BE9A8AF@localhost>
From: nick at virus-l.demon.co.uk (Nick FitzGerald)
Subject: Administrivia (was: RE: 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.

Regards,

Nick FitzGerald