Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: Re: Noise on the list
From: "Micheal Espinola Jr" <michealespinola () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:25:42 -0500
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 () hotmail 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/
Current thread:
- Re: FW: Noise on the list, (continued)
- Re: FW: Noise on the list Michael Tewner (Mar 21)
- Re: FW: Noise on the list n3td3v (Mar 21)
- RE: FW: Noise on the list Grant Rietze (Mar 21)
- Re: FW: Noise on the list Alexander Hristov (Mar 21)
- Re: FW: Noise on the list Bob Hacker (Mar 21)
- Re: FW: Noise on the list Alexander Hristov (Mar 21)
- Re: Noise on the list Dave Korn (Mar 21)
- Re: Re: Noise on the list GroundZero Security (Mar 21)
- Re: Re: Noise on the list Jeff Rosowski (Mar 23)
- Re: Re: Noise on the list Micheal Espinola Jr (Mar 21)
- Re: Re: Noise on the list Sol Invictus (Mar 21)
- Re: Re: Noise on the list Micheal Espinola Jr (Mar 21)
- Re: Re: Noise on the list n3td3v (Mar 21)