full-disclosure-uk January 2009 archive
Main Archive Page > Month Archives  > full-disclosure-uk archives
full-disclosure-uk: Re: [Full-disclosure] Barack Obama <-- No

Re: [Full-disclosure] Barack Obama <-- Not Appropriate

From: j-f sentier <j.sentiar_at_nospam>
Date: Thu Jan 22 2009 - 22:16:24 GMT
To: Avraham Schneider <avri.schneider@gmail.com>, full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk


which propaganda ?

you're spamming propaganda everytime you post.

But i understand why now :

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1049327.html

"The footage also shows an Israeli soldier, believed by the military police to be Corporal Avraham Schneider, picking up stones and participating in the disturbance, instead of preventing it. "

Everything is clearer than ever.
2009/1/22 Avraham Schneider <avri.schneider@gmail.com>

>
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:35 PM, <A.L.M.Buxey@lboro.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/
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>



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