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: Avraham Schneider <avri.schneider_at_nospam>
Date: Thu Jan 22 2009 - 23:05:06 GMT
To: j-f sentier <j.sentiar@gmail.com>


The fact that he bears the same name as me, does not mean it's me.

I don't spam propaganda - I invalidate yours.

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:16 AM, j-f sentier <j.sentiar@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/