full-disclosure - Re: Barack Obama <-- Not Appropriate

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: <cd51a8c60901221358x2bb26c7cg798d7ee9f35e5426@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:58:53 +0200
From: Avraham Schneider <avri.schneider@...il.com>
To: A.L.M.Buxey@...ro.ac.uk
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk, "Castigliola,
	Angelo" <ACastigliola@...m.com>,
	"andrew.wallace" <andrew.wallace@...ketmail.com>
Subject: Re: Barack Obama <-- Not Appropriate

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:35 PM, <A.L.M.Buxey@...ro.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hi,
> > I called for John Cartwright to setup a non-technical cyber security
> > political full-disclosure mailing list some time ago, nothing was
> > setup.
>
> because he didnt want to - and theres no demand?
>
> > What are the solutions for splitting up full-disclosure into technical
> > and non-technical conversation unless two seperate mailing lists are
> > created?
>
> go off and create a yahoo or google mailing list for such drivel

I second that. If he wants to have a list for different types of
discussions, the best choice is to just open one yourself.

As for getting 'traffic' there, I doubt people would stop posting here and
start posting there (as nothing would stop them from posting it here).

>
> and let FD go back to what it was a few years back - readable and useful!

FD is un-moderated and as such people can post whatever they want (security
related or not).

Usually, people would avoid annoying others with non-security related topics
- but in the case of js-sentiner and co., one can expect some spam.

Sometimes, when they decide to attack others (either with propaganda, or
just because they are bored) , those attacked have two options - either a)
ignore it or b) respond with non-security related posts and defend
themselves (or oppose their propaganda).

As far as readibility is concerned, that can easily be accomplished by
either white or black list filters - i.e. if you only care about a certain
vendor's patch notifications, put a filter to get them and blacklist the
rest; if you care not to get any andrew wallase/avraham schneider/js
sentier/whatever/whoever conversations - set a filter for that - and you are
back with a readable FD.

Just keep in mind that your posts requesting FD to go back to being
readable, are not computer security related either (at least without
wickedly twisting the meaning of the phrase 'computer security').

So for the same reason you find it OK to post your request (and it is),
andrew finds it OK to posts his (and it is).

Not trying to defend n3td3v or anything - but there's some hypocricy here.

>
> ala
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>

Content of type "text/html" skipped

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/