Re: [Full-disclosure] Barack Obama <-- Not Appropriate

Nop, you spread yours.

Anyways ....

you got pwned, no doubt it's you, you have the same profile mofo, and in the
same situation you'll do the same.

Die in the same grave than n3td3v.

2009/1/22 Avraham Schneider <avri.schneider@xxxxxxxxx>

The fact that he bears the same name as me, does not mean it's me.

I don't spam propaganda - I invalidate yours.

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:16 AM, j-f sentier <j.sentiar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

which propaganda ?

you're spamming propaganda everytime you post.

But i understand why now :

"The footage also shows an Israeli soldier, believed by the military
police to be Corporal Avraham Schneider, picking up stones and participating
in the disturbance, instead of preventing it. "

Everything is clearer than ever.
2009/1/22 Avraham Schneider <avri.schneider@xxxxxxxxx>

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:35 PM, <A.L.M.Buxey@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I called for John Cartwright to setup a non-technical cyber security
political full-disclosure mailing list some time ago, nothing was

because he didnt want to - and theres no demand?

What are the solutions for splitting up full-disclosure into technical
and non-technical conversation unless two seperate mailing lists are

go off and create a yahoo or google mailing list for such drivel

I second that. If he wants to have a list for different types of
discussions, the best choice is to just open one yourself.

As for getting 'traffic' there, I doubt people would stop posting here
and start posting there (as nothing would stop them from posting it here).

and let FD go back to what it was a few years back - readable and

FD is un-moderated and as such people can post whatever they want
(security related or not).

Usually, people would avoid annoying others with non-security related
topics - but in the case of js-sentiner and co., one can expect some spam.

Sometimes, when they decide to attack others (either with propaganda, or
just because they are bored) , those attacked have two options - either a)
ignore it or b) respond with non-security related posts and defend
themselves (or oppose their propaganda).

As far as readibility is concerned, that can easily be accomplished by
either white or black list filters - i.e. if you only care about a certain
vendor's patch notifications, put a filter to get them and blacklist the
rest; if you care not to get any andrew wallase/avraham schneider/js
sentier/whatever/whoever conversations - set a filter for that - and you are
back with a readable FD.

Just keep in mind that your posts requesting FD to go back to being
readable, are not computer security related either (at least without
wickedly twisting the meaning of the phrase 'computer security').

So for the same reason you find it OK to post your request (and it is),
andrew finds it OK to posts his (and it is).

Not trying to defend n3td3v or anything - but there's some hypocricy


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

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

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