Vulnerability Development: Re: Wonky Mail Filters from vuln-dev subscribers

[Su Wadlow <swadlow () UTDALLAS EDU>]

--On Tuesday, August 01, 2000 4:07 PM -0700 Dragos Ruiu <dr () DURSEC COM>
wrote:

> And my question is... what the hell could be sexually discriminatory
> about discussing snort crashes and bugs?
ROTFLMAO . . . .

I'd have to guess that it's "running those mail filters wound a
little tight" as you put it.  After I got done laughing, I reread
your posts (I'm not sure which one you're wondering about -- I got
two).  The subject matter and content is in no way sexually
discriminatory that I can see (and I think I should know :-), but an
overly, er, discriminatory mail filter could have picked on some of
the phrasing in one or the other I suppose . . . .

This is what I'd guess freaked out this particular mail server:

In the first post, entitled "Re: snort crash ... - Fixed":

+ The phrase "Snort-Users" used a couple of times -- although I'd
 have thought that would trigger some sort of "drug user"
 filter. ;-)
+ The phrase "braindead sparc compilers" -- sometimes women are
 referred to as braindead, I reckon?
+ The word "bitch" -- 'nuff said?  I think this would be the most
 guilty culprit (and used here might trigger some more filters, eh?).

In the post entitled "Re: [Snort-Users] Re: snort crash ... - Fixed":

+ The phrase "stripped off", although I personally think that's
 pushing it a bit . . . .

These particular words and phrases taken out of the context in which
they were written could be possibly misinterpreted, I guess.  Although
I sincerely hope that we wouldn't be forced to watch out for a few
harmless cuss words just to be able to get our message across . . . .
That's just plain silly.

--
Su Wadlow
swadlow () utdallas edu
   If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand . . . . :-)