full-disclosure - a call for full-disclosure to become a

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Thu Dec 15 14:35:22 2005
From: xyberpix at xyberpix.com (Xyberpix)
Subject: a call for full-disclosure to become a

I have to agree on this one that I don't think that moderation is the way to go.
This is a damn good list, with a load of really intelligent people on it, who
really contribute a lot to the entire community.
Just because a few of us got outta hand taking the piss out of n3td3v, it's no
need to moderate the list. I know that I am guilty on this count, but seriously
anyone who hasn't had a good laugh in regard to the whole n3td3v saga recently,
probably doesn't have a sense of humor.

Maybe when taking the piss out of idiots we should come up with some sort of
fronting for the subject? Kinda like [OT], or maybe in this case [n3td3v], that
way people can easily setup procmail filters and the like to filter out the stuff
that the don't want to. If we all agree on some sort of format, this could really
work. This way the list will stay unmodded, people will get out of it what they
want, and we can still take the piss?

Thoughts, comments, etc?

xyberpix

On Thu Dec 15 14:27 , 'Todd Towles' <toddtowles@...okshires.com> sent:

> 
>> it seems to me that without a moderator (since there is the 
>> apparent absence of people who are moderate, or even 
>> civilized), this list will continue its degeneration into a 
>> never-ending pissing contest.
>
>True, but it has always been that way....you must be new ;) In the last
>month has it been getting worse, I agree.
>
>> (some people don't seem to think that the social compact one 
>> accepts when joining a list applies to them.
>
>Some people don't think...
>
>> how many people who actually find value in this list (which i 
>> have, since len rose set it up quite a long time ago) agree 
>> with this position?
>
>Member banning should always be an option, but this list might as well
>become Bugtraq...if you want moderation. The openness of the list is
>what makes it a different list. Why change FD, when there are at least a
>hundred moderated security list, you can join? Even a moderated FD list
>already exist, I think. I think you would be in the minority on this
>call..
>
>> if you think there's a compelling reason for no moderation, 
>> i'd like to hear it.
>
>Moderation slows and restricts information. If you rather a moderator
>pick what is important to you and your company..there are list you can
>join.
>
>-Todd
>_______________________________________________
>Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/