Home page logo

fulldisclosure logo Full Disclosure mailing list archives

OT: Re: Re: Administrivia
From: Jason <security () brvenik com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:20:36 -0500

John.Airey () rnib org uk wrote:

-----Original Message-----

>> ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc1855.txt
Except I would add that the quoted RFC (which is informational, not
mandatory) does say that signatures should be kept short:

While only informational, some on this list should be forced to digest the printed text and understand _why_ there was ever a need for it.

That .sig and disclaimer used as many bytes as the actual content and offered more value. It actually made me ponder deleting the message completely instead of writing a reply.


I won't even mention the number of evil remailers out there that are
resending messages to this list and bugtraq like it's going out of business!

Multiple lists are not required. I have received an extra copy of the mail from Frank on this thread, one to me, one to the list, and another to me.


*I* still prefer to be a named recipient and it does not violate RFC 1855 recommendations like those horrendous .sigs

If we eliminated most of the legal disclaimers from the mails we send we would have plenty of time to read duplicated mail since we would no longer have to pass the bar to know if we are even allowed to read mail.

Then again, perhaps the person owning the address disclosure () sheepwoolstudios net felt it apropos to remail the message


Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]