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: <173b01c40e98$4d36c770$897ba8c0@cm333814lt> From: frankdewit at home.nl (Frank de Wit) Subject: NEVER open attachments you win, happy now? but i'll bite in this one ;-) I follow this list and the ones before this one @securityfocus since about ?6 yrs? daily, and bugtraq before that etc the only ones posting messages as attachments here are: krafft, knobbe, stover and a handfull more (max 1% of all the messages here and elsewhere...?) so please make it easy on everyone and just don't do it; i don't like to open attachments and i don't like to scroll i want to see&read it all in a few seconds... and: no one only follows fulldisclosure alone; i subscribe to (let's count) 26 other sec-lists... that makes it very difficult to miss something the shit is that i get redhat vuln-mails about 4 times hahaha we both made our point clear i think, let's stop this thread and read things that really matter ! cheers! Frank ----- Original Message ----- From: "Etaoin Shrdlu" <shrdlu@...ddrop.org> To: <full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 3:09 PM Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists