Re: Administrivia: Discussion - Making this list subscriber-only
From: Mark Murray (mark@grondar.za)
Date: 08/28/02
- Next message: Perry E. Metzger: "Re: 1024 bit key considered insecure (sshd)"
- Previous message: Dave Taira: "Re: 1024 bit key considered insecure (sshd)"
- In reply to: Peter C. Lai: "Re: Administrivia: Discussion - Making this list subscriber-only"
- Next in thread: Trish Lynch: "Re: Administrivia: Discussion - Making this list subscriber-only"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: peter.lai@uconn.edu Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:51:05 +0100 From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za>
> A better comparison would be freebsd-stable. Every and any problem
> that people have they will send there as long as uname -r says
> xxx-STABLE. This includes things like 'i can't do foo anymore after
> upgrading' to debugging of a kernel. The SNR of that list is much
> lower than here. Some questions typically get drowned out
> by other ones that people on this list would deem off-topic.
> I don't see discussions there about appropriate content either.
> If you are lamenting about SNR, propose to make this list
> technical and not general. Furthermore, you can also set an example
> by not group-replying to mail you think is off-topic. It all
> comes down to the mentality of the subscribers. If people here
> habitually digress, then that is the nature of this list.
Very nicely put!
HOWEVER, this list is _supposed_ to be technical and not general
already. My efforts are now aimed towards enforcing this.
> There is a "charter" but all it says is:
> "FREEBSD-SECURITY
> Security issues
>
> FreeBSD computer security issues (DES, Kerberos, known security
> holes and fixes, etc). This is a technical mailing list for which
> strictly technical content is expected."
Once we conclude this discussion, I will fix this :-)
> Well, at least it says that chatter is discouraged (such as complaining
> about spam) but it doesn't limit what 'technical' questions are being asked.
> "I can't implement foo in IPSEC. Has someone done 'foo' with IPSEC before,
> and how?" seems to be a legitimate technical question to me.
Point taken. When the time comes, I will propose a replacement for the
above charter and see what you folks think.
> Yes, telling people to RTFM where there is no FM to read is silly
> (or if you need to be Jordan Hubbard to understand it).
Quite. Remember that FreeBSD is a community project; this is folks'
chance to contribute! With a bit of leadership (which I am attempting
to provide), useful FMs for folks to read should be available. :-)
M
-- o Mark Murray \_ O.\_ Warning: this .sig is umop ap!sdn To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
- Next message: Perry E. Metzger: "Re: 1024 bit key considered insecure (sshd)"
- Previous message: Dave Taira: "Re: 1024 bit key considered insecure (sshd)"
- In reply to: Peter C. Lai: "Re: Administrivia: Discussion - Making this list subscriber-only"
- Next in thread: Trish Lynch: "Re: Administrivia: Discussion - Making this list subscriber-only"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
