What to do about it? It's not moderated? Just ignore stuff and use the often used key called delete. Simple as that =)
// rancor Den 12 apr 2011 21.16 skrev "Steve Pinkham" <steve.pink...@gmail.com>: > On 04/12/2011 09:04 AM, phil wrote: >> Just keep that simple, the post hit the non acceptable content. >> >> "Gratuitous advertisement, product placement, or self-promotion is >> forbidden." >> >> >> >> My opinion, but if the product could be free, like it was, then I don't >> mind seeing those kind of post, but for anything commercial FD is not >> there for that. >> > > I agree, but think that intuition should be inscribed in more precise > language. > > That whole sentence starts out with "Gratuitous", which to me seems to > be unclear to both native and non-native speakers alike. IMHO It's just > too easy to justify to yourself that what you are doing is does not > violate wording of the charter, and therefore I think the charter should > be more explicit. > > When would it be OK(non-gratuitous) to mention a tool? When it comes > with a new vulnerability class? When it was used to find a particular > flaw? When it shows a novel way of finding flaws of a particular class? > When the tool is Open Source, such that the tool is an embodiment of > knowledge being shared? > > This whole issue with INSECT Pro show a lack of consensus on what > advertisement means, and what kicked it off was a disagreement about > what the definition of a "free" product is. > > I'm coming around to the idea that the rules should be based on > knowledge transfer. My intuition is that only projects with OSI > approves licenses should be allowed(as Tim argued), unless you are > releasing a tool of any sort along with a new class of vulnerability. > Also, announcements of more then 1 per six months should be forbidden > for any project. This would serve as a sort of default deny rule to > keep the most annoying types of announcements at bay. > > Any other thoughts? > > The other posibility is the current wording sufficient as a simple > "Don't be a dick" kind of rule, and more specific rules would be lost on > those who have no problem with being a dick. I would argue that more > guidance in the charter on this issue might be worthwile for the > majority of people who do not in fact want to break Wheaton's law. > > >> >> -phil >> > -- > | Steven Pinkham, Security Consultant | > | http://www.mavensecurity.com | > | GPG public key ID CD31CAFB | >
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
