full-disclosure - (no subject)

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <46502.205.173.93.40.1087401573.squirrel@evendata.net>
From: bill at vcconsulting.biz (Bill Cerynik)
Subject: (no subject)

AMEN!!!  Preach it, brother!

Best regards,
Bill Cerynik
Managing Partner

VC Consulting LLC
973.616.8170
bill@...onsulting.biz
http://www.vcconsulting.biz

<Bringing open source solutions to the real world>


>Message: 12
>Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:52:11 -0400
>From: Len Rose <len@...sys.com>
>To: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
>Subject: [Full-Disclosure] Administrivia: Classical Rant
>
>ATTENTION LAMERS
>
> Speaking for myself only, something has to be done
> about the quality of the information, and the standards
> of netiquette on this list.
>
> We all don't need to see mindlesS banter, and other noise
> spewing back and forth. If you can, please try to not post
> this spewage to the list, but instead send mail to each other
> (after carefully cutting and pasting on your windows desktop)
>
> If you must send it to the list it must be in terms of
> technical content, whether it is of a real security issue
> and not if Yahoo will increase your disk space or what slashdorks
> posted about something that was known since 2 months ago.
>
> I use the word technical loosely as in my mind, anything
> security related is inherently technical even if it/is not
> actually dealing with code or networks or systems.
>
> I'm very sick of seeing the amount of lame crap on this list,
> and I imagine a great deal of others are too.
>
> Thanks for listening.
>
>  PS Unlike other "reputable" lists, we try not to censor
>     anyone if they at least subscribe and never hit the
>     queue. Lately we default to "delete" and try to approve
>     those people who insist on posting without subscribing,
>     or posting from a non-subscribed address. If "reputable"
>     means bugtraq or cert then beat me with a stick.