4 ms·

Snippets from the mailing list charter[0] and listinfo[1] which simply say briefly: About Full-Disclosure Unlike bugtraq, this list serves no one exce

by nly 13y ago

Snippets from the mailing list charter[0] and listinfo[1] which simply say briefly: About Full-Disclosure Unlike bugtraq, this list serves no one except the list members themselves We don't believe in security by obscurity, and as far as we know, full disclosure is the only way to ensure that everyone, not just the insiders have access to the information we need to survive. We will try to operate this list without moderation, as we feel moderation is an impediment to communication. Any information pertaining to vulnerabilities is acceptable, for instance announcement and discussion thereof, exploit techniques and code, related tools and papers, and other useful information. and, forebodingly: Politics should be avoided at all costs. There's also the original announcement on the SuSE Linux security mailing list[2] and a follow-up by Mr Cartwright with some further rationale[3]. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20050306210635/http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html https://web.archive.org/web/20050306210635/http://lists.nets... [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20041205194605/http://lists.netsys.com/mailman/listinfo/full-disclosure/ https://web.archive.org/web/20041205194605/http://lists.nets... [2] http://marc.info/?l=suse-security&m=102639105014466&w=2 http://marc.info/?l=suse-security&m=102639105014466&w=2 [3] http://marc.info/?l=full-disclosure&m=102965261426089&w=2 http://marc.info/?l=full-disclosure&m=102965261426089&w=2

goldfeld 13y ago
Given the list's modus operandi and goals, wouldn't it work well under a format such as the blockchain? No moderation and no chance to delete what's been posted, since the decentralization means it would by then be replicated across lots of machines.
- nly 13y ago
  You then can't filter or delete spam, which far outweighs legitimate mail.
  - Aqueous 13y ago
    You need to pay BTC in order to store in the blockchain(i.e. you can't send 0.00BTC transaction to someone.) That should go pretty far in eliminating spam. Then again it might be too high a barrier for legitimate posters.
- maxerickson 13y ago
  You don't need the complexity of a unified ledger to have a distributed message passing system. The ledger could provide some assurances that others have had access to a given set of messages, but that really only helps with the boring sort of arguments.
- bbanyc 13y ago
  Wouldn't that just be Usenet? And how would it avoid the problems that eventually made Usenet worthless as a discussion medium?
alukima 13y ago
> We will try to operate this list without moderation, as we >feel moderation is an impediment to communication. I feel like everyone wants to hate moderation but it's one of those things, that when used correctly, make a community good. I'm on several mailing lists that have grown significantly over 3-7 years. I, along with most other founding members, left lists that didn't have any moderation as they inevitably grew into a community similar to what's described in this announcement. But the mailing lists/forums that had moderate moderation, removing furry porn for example, have continued to grow and continue their initial cause. Good moderation is not censorship, I would even say that people disrupting the core purpose of a community censor more than a good moderator by burying worthwhile content below shit posts.

by nly 13y ago

goldfeld 13y ago

Given the list's modus operandi and goals, wouldn't it work well under a format such as the blockchain? No moderation and no chance to delete what's been posted, since the decentralization means it would by then be replicated across lots of machines.

nly 13y ago
You then can't filter or delete spam, which far outweighs legitimate mail.
- Aqueous 13y ago
  You need to pay BTC in order to store in the blockchain(i.e. you can't send 0.00BTC transaction to someone.) That should go pretty far in eliminating spam. Then again it might be too high a barrier for legitimate posters.
maxerickson 13y ago
You don't need the complexity of a unified ledger to have a distributed message passing system. The ledger could provide some assurances that others have had access to a given set of messages, but that really only helps with the boring sort of arguments.
bbanyc 13y ago
Wouldn't that just be Usenet? And how would it avoid the problems that eventually made Usenet worthless as a discussion medium?

alukima 13y ago

> We will try to operate this list without moderation, as we >feel moderation is an impediment to communication. I feel like everyone wants to hate moderation but it's one of those things, that when used correctly, make a community good. I'm on several mailing lists that have grown significantly over 3-7 years. I, along with most other founding members, left lists that didn't have any moderation as they inevitably grew into a community similar to what's described in this announcement. But the mailing lists/forums that had moderate moderation, removing furry porn for example, have continued to grow and continue their initial cause. Good moderation is not censorship, I would even say that people disrupting the core purpose of a community censor more than a good moderator by burying worthwhile content below shit posts.