Re: [Full-disclosure] fear mongering and utter BS from secnap

very well said :)

I guess bullshit and made up stats are acceptable since everyone else is
doing it.

On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 10:49 PM, don bailey <don.bailey@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hash: SHA1

Robert McGuire wrote:
| I don't believe remaining anonymous invalidates comments, just seems
unnecessary, much like FUD.
| Can't argue with reepex, FUD is unnecessary and utterly transparent so
you have to wonder why every company in the "industry" perpetuates it.
It's counterproductive in fact, makes my job more difficult so were it
up to me it wouldn't be a part of our message.
| If either of you have better insight regarding the impact, cost,
effect of spam please share.

Well now that you're admitting that FUD is part of your business model
I'm saddened that this e-mail isn't to a public mailing list. I'm sure
many professionals would be interested in your ethics. Blaming other
companies in the security industry is child's play and only serves
to make you look foolish.

I find it extremely laughable that you are attempting to redirect this
discussion to "the impact, cost, effect of spam". Our focus is your
company's blatant use of fake "facts" to push your product. Do you
really think you're talking to adolescents? I'm not distracted by
your shiny nickel. Either stay on topic or end the conversation.


Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)


Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia -