From owner-freebsd-security Thu Jul 13 16:16:39 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from neo.bleeding.com (neo.bleeding.com [209.10.61.250]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF1DD37B628 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 16:16:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jjwolf@bleeding.com) Received: from localhost (jjwolf@localhost) by neo.bleeding.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA38873 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 16:16:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 16:16:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Justin Wolf To: security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Displacement of Blame[tm] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > tried to say something at the time, but I think people were so > tired of the debate of WHETHER to do advisories that I don't > think anyone wanted another debate of what exact format the > subjects should be in. sounds like a good job for a sub-commitee, but i digress... On the topic of subject lines: They're getting too long. I only see the first 40 characters of a subject anyway, so making it 100 characters long just to avoid any confusion on subject alone also doesn't work. I think as long as it contains the words "FreeBSD", "ports", and "[port-name]" somewhere in the header, we're fine. Adding words (i.e., "Security Advisory") and numbers (i.e., bug tracking information) aside from that should go after the important things so those of us with little brains and smaller terms can still get the message without having to read the body. As for abreviations in the subject, if we can't get people to understand the message, how is abbreviating something to 'SA' going to help matters? -justin To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message