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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <405C50A7.F3B1E71D@deaddrop.org> From: shrdlu at deaddrop.org (Etaoin Shrdlu) Subject: NEVER open attachments Frank de Wit wrote: > > just ignore a major part of the world who don't use your mailer... > and they will ignore your emails... simple > just ask yourself what is more important to you > you emailing, or people reading your emails ;-) Well, now, this is this a pissing contest, or an IQ test? Either way, you are going to lose. It might be true, in some sort of corporate structure, that using Outlook as a mailreader holds some sort of majority. However, on this list, or any security list, using such a creature is a fool's errand. First of all, if someone posts here, and signs a message, it's more likely that YOU (i.e. Frank de Wit & Co) need to read what "they've* said. Do folk posting security related messages care whether or not people who insist on using the virus vector from Redmond (aka Outlook) can read those posts? My guess would be no, not at all. I realize that english is not your first language, I saw the smiley, but you still need to get a clue. I don't personally sign messages, because I'm not making any statements here that you need to check on. If something shows up from Redhat, or Suse, or Cisco, and it's a security warning about something you need to patch, it's going to be signed. If you miss it, tough for you. Do they care? Nope. The messages is a courtesy from them (and we appreciate it). It's important that it be verified, hence it is signed, and in a manner appropriate for most of us. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nico Golde" <nion@....net> > To: <full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com> > Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 11:56 AM > Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] NEVER open attachments > > i think the philosophy of never open attachments is only true if your mailer > sucks. > regards nico While this is true (and it is), more importantly, it is foolish to read a mailing list populated by such a wide range of security folk, and expect *them* to change their mailing agents to please the "less educated" (or perhaps I should say "less aware of security") newcomers. Just because (for example) someone like Paul Schmehl makes posts about securing Windows (and I believe that he is successful in his methodology), doesn't meant that he's foolish enough to read this list using Outlook. In fact, I notice he's on MacOS X (at least lately), which makes sense to me (best of both worlds, if you must live in an environment that has to cooperate with MS). If you're here, and you're new (and you've read this far), remember that the old adage of lurking for a while, before posting, holds true here as well as anywhere else. -- Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI
Powered by blists - more mailing lists