Lately it has been getting very... busy with all of n3td3v's ramblings however I have anything with his name in it go into a separate folder so as to not distract me from the list as a whole. From: full-disclosure-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:full-disclosure-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of TJ Sent: 15 September 2008 22:22 To: full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] [RFC] Very Low Signal to Noise Ratio on FD I dunno, lately it is going beyond amusing and straight past the 90% mark of "distractions / useless garbage / possibly imbalanced ramblings" . might be time to fire up a filter, sadly. /TJ From: full-disclosure-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:full-disclosure-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stack Smasher Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 4:38 PM To: Od Orf Cc: full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] [RFC] Very Low Signal to Noise Ratio on FD I would never think of filtering FD, the colorful comments are what make this list classic! Filtering it out would be a tragedy and a crime against humanity. On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Od Orf <mr0d0rf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Dear All, I've been reading Full Disclosure for quite some time and, for the most part, value the content I find here. It helps me with my work and helps me keep abreast of developments in the wonderful worlds of network and application security. In this post, I seek to spark some discussion as to how this unmoderated list might improve it's effectiveness with regard to "self-policing" and how subscribers might employ methods to filter extraneous content whilst retaining that which is truly valuable. On a personal level, I have tried in the past to filter out posts which fail to meet certain criteria using both blacklists and whitelists of content keywords. I've found these to be ineffective in so much as either filtering the signal or not filtering the noise to varying degrees. I've tried blacklisting email addresses where the content is often of little value, but again this is not very effective at filtering out noise (although it usually has very little negative impact on the signal). These methods have taken-up far too much time to implement and manage for their levels of effectiveness and perhaps exceed the time spent manually reviewing posts to determine their worth. Many of you would no doubt agree that the dissatisfaction with the level of noise is oft expressed (which often generates further noise). One possible solution which would require consensus might to be apply lessons learned by parents and other adults with responsibility for children. When dealing with a child displaying anti-social or otherwise undesired behaviour, one should not engage the child at that same level. For example, one should not retort as this implies permission and complicity. Instead a clear indication should be given that the behaviour of the child does not meet the required level of desirability. This should be done in a non-threatening, but authoritative response and delivered in an articulate and consistent manner. The key is to set clear boundaries. Failure to stay within clearly defined boundaries carries a penalty, such as a child time-out (naughty-chair) where the child is removed to an area where they are unable to participate but can observe the continuation of normal activity. Obviously I am not comparing any FD users to children nor suggesting they be treated as such, but I think that an approach similar to this may have some merit for dealing with the phenomenon of noise escalation which often occurs in response to a noisy event. If, for example, a message was posted to the list which was perceived to be undesirable, disrespectful or otherwise noisy it might help a great deal if firstly the poster were gently chided with respect to their post and secondly the post elicited no other response and certainly none which might be perceived as undesirable. The latter I think is most important because without such responses, there is a) less noise generated and b) less fuel for those who repeatedly post trivial and useless or inflammatory material. Finally, I should say that I am acutely aware that this post may itself be construed as noise, but I hope humbly that it is received in the spirit with which it is meant. I welcome your ideas and recommendations. Sincerely, Iain O'Dorf _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ -- "If you see me laughing, you better have backups"
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/