OT: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Administrivia

[Jason <security@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

John.Airey@xxxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx felt it apropos to remail the message

</:-)>

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