Mitchell Stoltz wrote: > My question is, is this a valid concern? If most of you think we should > use "[EMAIL PROTECTED]," then I'm fine with that, but I'd like to > hear opinions about this point.
I don't think it's an issue, and if "security group proposal" is specific enough to have not attracted any questions about our crypto stuff, I think we'll be fine. (I don't know of any other organizations that suffer unduly under the weight of misdirected stuff to security@, other that spam that doesn't care about security of _any_ sort. But my sample size so far is pretty small.) > The second mailing list is for discussion among security group members. > Having a very specific name is not so impotant in this case, and short > is good, but if we're going to use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for the bug > reports address, we'll have to pick another for the group discussion > address. [EMAIL PROTECTED] for the Mozilla security group, I say. Mike
