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  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]
From: Bart.Lansing at (
Subject: Re: [FD] FD should block attachments


Just a thought you're right, having some modicum of 
consideration for those who have cost issues with bandwidth (I'll content 
that we are not spoiled, and that we...ok...most of for the 
bandwidth we use...TANSTAFL).  However, you are assuming that anyone who 
wishes to potentially send a file along here can just as easily host  one. 
 Not, I think, a valid assumption...and one which, for many...would cost 
money.  So, who gets to pay?  Either someone is paying to download, if 
they are on a  pay-as-you go model, or someone is going to pay to 
host...either way, it's not quite as simple as you've made it out to be.

Bart Lansing
Manager, Desktop Services
Kohl's IT wrote on 04/02/2004 05:41:24 PM:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: 
> > [] On Behalf Of 
> > morning_wood
> > Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 4:33 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: [FD] FD should block attachments
> > 
> > am i missing something here?
> >  because i realy do not see the issue.
> >
> Yes, you are.  As I pointed out earlier, for some people who subscribe
> to FD, it's a cost issue.  They pay by the byte or by the amount of time
> they're online, and attachments *cost* them money.  If people provided
> URLS and an explanation of the file, then those folks for whom this is a
> cost issue could decide *before* they are forced to download the file
> (by simply checking their mail), whether or not they actually wanted a
> copy.  The suggestion to not subscribe to the list if you're in that
> position was a rather ill-considered one, if you ask me.  This shouldn't
> be an either or choice for them.
> Now *that* doesn't seem too hard to understand, to me, but unfortunately
> far too many of US are spoiled, with high bandwidth connections that
> don't add any additional cost for downloading large files so we're
> blinded to other people's dilemmas.
> I personally could care less if the attachments or sent to the list or
> not, but I *do* think one ought to at least *consider* the fact that
> it's a cost issue for some folks.  And I'm willing to bet that most of
> those folks are smart enough that they don't really need our help
> figuring out whether a file is safe to download or not (or how to
> download it safely if you want to put it that way.)
> It would certainly rid the list of the irritation factor for those
> people who get "surprised" by the attachments and then flood the list
> with complaints.  (Yes, I know all about filtering, yada, yada, yada.
> This isn't about *me*.)
> Paul Schmehl (
> Adjunct Information Security Officer
> The University of Texas at Dallas
> AVIEN Founding Member
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter:

This is a transmission from Kohl's Department Stores, Inc.
and may contain information which is confidential and proprietary.
If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution or use of the contents of this message is expressly prohibited.
If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy it and notify us immediately at 262-703-7000.

Internet and e-mail communications are Kohl's property and Kohl's reserves the right to retrieve and read any message created, sent and received.  Kohl's reserves the right to monitor messages by authorized Kohl's Associates at any time
without any further consent.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

Powered by blists - more mailing lists