| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <44207F70.60307@haveyoubeentested.org> Date: Tue Mar 21 22:35:07 2006 From: sol at haveyoubeentested.org (Sol Invictus) Subject: Re: Noise on the list This list is unmoderated just like the entire Internet. If we're going to moderate this list, why not the entire Internet? It's the way Al Gore would have wanted it! Everyone on the Internet carries the responsibility to secure the machines under their control. It's the same here. If people can't control themselves, then one must take the necessary steps to protect themselves. Sol. Micheal Espinola Jr wrote: >No he shouldn't. Because if people cannot moderate themselves from >childish behavior, and if this list is the target of repeated abuse, >it needs some sort of check. > >I don't think anyone here wants to see actual content moderation - and >I don't think that's the answer to the problem anyways. And certainly >no one wants the possibility of information not freely flowing. But >this list NEEDS a filter of some sort. A content/SPF filter of some >perhaps? > >On content: Perhaps the list can go un-moderated without allowing >profanity - thus filtering out a lot of needless bitch sessions [and >continued retribution] ? Certainly there are words that have no place >in Full-Disclosure. > >On SPF: Perhaps some of the bogus impersonation posts would get >caught/blocked by a simple SPF check? > >I don't need a public spanking for posting this. I'm only trying to >think of a way that we can do something about what is becoming the >serious decline of the list. I can ignore and filter my email just >fine - but I know what's going on and I just want to see things get >better. They seem to continuously get worse. > >On 3/21/06, Dave Korn <davek_throwaway@...mail.com> wrote: > > >>Edward Pearson wrote: >> >> >>>I shouldn't have to get the fucking spamfilter involved when we're >>>talking about a mailing list. >>> >>> >> Yes, you fucking should. This is a NON-moderated list. There are plenty >>of perfectly good moderated lists out there which you won't have to filter. >>But /this/ list is a non-moderated list, on which every individual >>subscriber is handed the full responsibility for and control over what they >>do or do not see. That's the whole point. >> >> In short, exactly what you want is perfectly easily available, but you'd >>rather complain about something else not being it. That's like filling your >>car with diesel when it takes unleaded, complaining that your tank is now >>full of crap that you didn't want in it, and when someone points out that >>the other pipe on the same pump gives you unleaded you just stand there, >>waving the diesel hose and complaining about how *this* one ought to give >>unleaded as well because that's the one you want it to come out of. >> >> Go elsewhere and you will be happy. Go to bugtraq, where you *will* be >>spoonfed the prefiltered predigested pap that appears to be what you want. >> >> cheers, >> DaveK >>-- >>Can't think of a witty .sigline today.... >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. >>Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html >>Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ >> >> >> > > >-- >ME2 > >_______________________________________________ >Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. >Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html >Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > > >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists