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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > > >> >> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:35 PM, <[email protected]> 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/
