[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BABD158.7010206@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 22:10:48 +0100
From: Jonathan Brossard <endrazine@...il.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: CFPs and con invitations on the list
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
For what it worthes : I didn't expect to trigger such a debate on the
list. I merely posted here because:
1) I'd really like to see people from this list to the HES conference.
2) I saw a hibt post on this very list little time ago.
Sorry for the blatant inconvenience...
Best regards,
Jonathan-
Matthias Andree wrote:
> Am 25.03.2010 15:24, schrieb Josh Bressers:
> [...]
>> I think those headers bring up a good point. This is comparable to the old
>> days of cross posting to lots of gropus on usenet (for you young folks, it
>> was frowned upon). Perhaps we encourage messages DIRECTED at oss-security,
>> rather than shotgun announcements.
>
> Which will then be disassembled into a series of mail-merged individual
> invitations (aka. multi-posting, which was worse than cross-posting)? If that
> would happen, I'd object. I also object to "badly cross-posted" invitations.
>
>> 4) Approve posts from list memebers who've been on the list for > 1 month.
>> (I suspect this is the best solution)
>
> A "List member[...]" might be a lurker, might be an occasional contributor, or a
> regular contributor. As a pointed question: Would you allow spammers to dump
> their UCE here if they only were subscribers for four weeks?
>
> More seriously, what relevance has the duration of a subscription? My answer
> is: none whatsoever. There simply isn't any merit in being subscribed alone.
> I find that this criterion, while objective, says nothing about contributions of
> the subscriber to the list, and is therefore not useful.
>
> I acknowledge that finding objective criteria is hard, but #4 is IMO just a very
> bad loophole.
>
> FWIW, I'm getting spamvertisements for conferences directed at me personally,
> and I find that offensive and it should be a reason to prohibit the conference
> altogether, so as to have a real incentive not to spam.
>
> At the very least, conference advertisements, if allowed in moderation, should
> be tagged so that people can automatically filter them. Filter instructions
> could then be on the list's accompanying homepage.
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkur0VgACgkQK/YAm7PYybniugCgsGnNATn6j8+Ldlmfw10WEFka
N8QAoIXD46m7d8qdlmEOgvBlMPwvEEIz
=AM/1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
