full-disclosure - Re: Will the spammer please stop!

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]

Date: Fri Jun 23 03:49:09 2006
From: degeneracypressure at gmail.com (Eliah Kagan)
Subject: Re: Will the spammer please stop!

On 6/22/06, Randal T. Rioux wrote:
> The words "best solution" should NEVER be used in the same sentence as
> "sender verification," unless "not" separates them. It is obnoxious and
> places the burden of your lack of effort or knowledge onto the sender.

I second this. In addition to being obnoxious, implementing sender
verification on FD will prevent FD subscribers from receiving
legitimate advisories and information sent by people who are
justifiably unwilling to cooperate with sender verification.

I would suggest that making a significant avenue of full disclosure
(the FD list) more difficult to use by treating people who submit
advisories like Microsoft treats people who activate Windows over the
phone (i.e. by assuming they are miscreants) does not encourage full
disclosure, and is consequently unsuitable for this list.

-Eliah