full-disclosure - Re: Call for new mailing lists @ SecurityFocus (X-POST)

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: <CE83227C-3E34-4F69-B195-13E573419F88@unspecific.com>
Date: Tue Sep  6 04:36:31 2005
From: madhat at unspecific.com (MadHat)
Subject: Re: Call for new mailing lists @ SecurityFocus
	(X-POST)

On Sep 2, 2005, at 12:25 PM, Alex Prinsier wrote:
> MadHat wrote:
>
>> I am not sure if you were being sarcastic or not.
>>
> I was not.
>
>>
>> First, this is about securityfocus.com lists, not full- 
>> disclosure,  just
>> so we are clear.
>>
> Roger.
>
>>
>> The security focus lists are moderated.  Things they don't want   
>> people
>> to see don't go through.   Sometimes there may be delays,  maybe  
>> so that
>> other portions of the company can write scans or  signatures to be  
>> able
>> to ddetect and protect against what is being  announced?
>>
> Define the security focus lists... is
> "full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk" from security focus? :)
>
> Because you said security focus lists are moderated and this list
> clearly says it's unmoderated, this list isn't from securityfocus,  
> right? :)
>
> List-Id: An unmoderated mailing list for the discussion of security
> issues <full-disclosure.lists.grok.org.uk>

First, don't reply in pubic a private email.  Extremely rude.

Second, the question was not about this list.  The original was a  
message from SecuritFocus about their lists.   So pointing out this  
is an unmoderated list does not do anything.  You're the reason I  
replied in the first place.  You asked, and so conveniently removed  
from this reply:

"Do you mean symantec first checks every message which causes a delay?
And in the case they don't like the message they delete it? Or perhaps
censor some stuff?"

And my _private_ reply was to you saying, yes SecurityFocus lists are  
moderated and here are some reasons they might be, other than  
filtering out people like you.  The response was not about this list  
and I don't know what you are trying to say.  I don't really want to  
know either.

--
MadHat (at) Unspecific.com, C?ISSP
E786 7B30 7534 DCC2 94D5  91DE E922 0B21 9DDC 3E98
gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.us.pgp.net --recv-keys 9DDC3E98