phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Archives

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <874nh9icec.fsf@wolfjaw.dfranke.us>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:40:27 -0500
From: Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Archives

Alan Kaminsky <ark@...rit.edu> writes:

> On 02/18/2013 03:48 AM, Larry Bugbee wrote:
>> Not everybody will be monitoring all channels of communication.
>> Having too many channels will pretty much guarantee some important
>> conversations will not get shared.  Is that what you want?
>
> I second that. I do not use Twitter and I do not monitor IRC. The only
> discussion I will see or participate in is this mailing list. I think
> a lot of people from the academic side would say the same.

I think it's a matter of general netiquette that if you have something
to say [about an open source project, IETF document, etc.] that's of
enough substance that it should be preserved for posterity, then you
should say it on an archived mailing list. However, people *will*
violate this rule no matter what they're told, so we should do what we
can to be robust against those violations.