full-disclosure - Re: [FD] FD should block attachments

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: <235460000.1081181150@utd49554.utdallas.edu>
From: pauls at utdallas.edu (Paul Schmehl)
Subject: Re: [FD] FD should block attachments

--On Monday, April 05, 2004 09:04:36 AM -0500 Bart.Lansing@...ls.com wrote:

>
> Paul,
>
> Just a thought here...as 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 us...pay 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.
>
You make an interesting point, and it has some validity.

What immediately came to my mind when I read that was the spammers.  They 
expect to shift the cost of what they do to the recipients.  Is that what 
should be the standard for security researchers as well?

Paul Schmehl (pauls@...allas.edu)
Adjunct Information Security Officer
The University of Texas at Dallas
AVIEN Founding Member
http://www.utdallas.edu