full-disclosure - Spam sent via spambots?

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <41863BFF.12575.3E2A066E@localhost>
From: nick at virus-l.demon.co.uk (Nick FitzGerald)
Subject: Spam sent via spambots?

n3td3v to me:

> > In another thread Hugo van der Kooij wrote:
> 
> Well why didn't you reply to the comment on the thread topic it was
> post on, instead of splitting it into two, to further clog up the list
> with a similar thread.

You must be a troll...

First, you don't know what "419 scam" spam is, and now you ask a 
banally moronic question about list ettiquette...

Anyway, in case you genuinely want to know (in which case I'm surprised 
your mommy helped you get subscribed to the list) I started a new 
thread because my question is actually about something quite unrelated 
to the original thread topic, _AND_ "your" thread was so stupid that 
most of those whose input I'd like in answer to my questions are likely 
to have stopped reading "your" thread.

Before you make a chronically inane response to this message, think a 
little about who will see it, how much Email bandwidth will be wasted 
transmitting it to the whole list and what, on-balance the benefit of 
your comment will be.  (Here's a tip to help you out -- had you Emailed 
me directly and asked why I forked a new thread, rather than sent your 
question to the whole list, it would have been obvious you were not a 
moron, but simply someone new to such lists and interested in how 
things work.  In that case I'd have given you a much nicer reply...)

Regards,

Nick FitzGerald