Thus spake Jon Hart ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [28/10/03 14:05]: > I've also seen issues where posts that are 100% legitimate and on-topic > are returned to the original poster because, according to the list > daemon, the moderator failed to act on the post. > > Its bad enough when posts are delayed, but its equally bad when > perfectly legit posts (in response to an on-going thread) are dropped on > the floor because the moderators of verious securityfocus lists are > non-existant or too slow to act.
Even though I'm speaking to a pretty biased crowd... I've found that [EMAIL PROTECTED] to be one of the best moderated lists I've come across. The moderator is incredibly quick, and any post that I've had returned has come back with an accurate description as to why it was returned. I can't speak for the other SF lists, but incidents@ I find just as useful today as I did before Symantec took it over. > Security is a 25 hour a day, 8 day a week business. Its too bad many of > the securityfocus lists have deteriorated into a forum that is > oftentimes many days delayed or driven by corporate bullying and > brown-nosing. And I think that's a key term: 'many of the securityfocus lists'. Bear in mind that just because bugtraq@ has its issues, its moderator doesn't moderate every SF list. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
