Nick FitzGerald will probably have the last word on this after the
debilitating blow delivered thus by his over-achieving intellect:
Ah, but Nick, I *DO* have omniscient access to the non-mythical IP-to-user
mapping list -- and so do you. ...
No, we don't.
It then can post from that machine
PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [inbox] Re: Fwd: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Administrivia:
Binary Executables w/o Source
Jason Coombs [EMAIL PROTECTED], whose input is usually
intelligent, considered and well-reasoned, chose to fall from his
pedestal thus
PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [inbox] Re: Fwd: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Administrivia:
Binary Executables w/o Source
Jason Coombs [EMAIL PROTECTED], whose input is usually
intelligent, considered and well-reasoned, chose to fall from his
pedestal thus
PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [inbox] Re: Fwd: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Administrivia:
Binary Executables w/o Source
Jason Coombs [EMAIL PROTECTED], whose input is usually
intelligent, considered and well-reasoned, chose to fall from his
pedestal thus
Curt Purdy opined:
FWIW I disagree with any moderation at all.
The point is, this is a FREE forum, one of the few left in the world.
I agree completely. The sobig spam is valuable -- it shows us who we should
not trust to operate a computer.
It also reveals the identity of people who have us
Jason,
I agree completely. The sobig spam is valuable -- it shows us
who we should not trust to operate a computer.
That's NOT the case. These are forge addresses, you don't even know the
real sender (OK, some header analysis could help... But very limited).
If you sent mail to someone who
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 09:25:38AM -1000, Jason Coombs wrote:
Curt Purdy opined:
FWIW I disagree with any moderation at all.
The point is, this is a FREE forum, one of the few left in the world.
I agree completely. The sobig spam is valuable -- it shows us who we should
not trust to
Its invaluable to be able to get access to some of
these binaries, for development of IDS sigs and so forth,
to give just one example.
I would hate to see a blanket ban, however if it were possible
to have attachments stored on a website and the email
attachment replaced with a link to the binary
FWIW I disagree with any moderation at all. If I have to put up with all of
the stupid fat on here to get the meat that does come, I can take care of
myself with executables. If someone is afraid of getting hacked, they have
no business on this list. The only downside I see is network bandwidth
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Administrivia: Binary Executables w/o Source
Date: August 18, 2003 08:28 pm
From: Stephen Clowater [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- -BEGIN PGP SIGNED
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:12:42 -0300, Stephen Clowater [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Personally,I think FD should bounce back any message with a binary
attachement to the poster. This is not a 0day exploit list, if you cant
compile it yourself, you shouldnt have the binary :)
OK. Who on the list
11 matches
Mail list logo
