Xref: utzoo comp.protocols.tcp-ip:5389 comp.unix.questions:10242 comp.unix.wizards:12496 news.admin:4008 news.sysadmin:1529 news.groups:6234
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!hubcap!gatech!galbp!wittsend.UUCP!mhw
From: mhw@wittsend.UUCP (Michael H. Warfield (Mike))
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.wizards,news.admin,news.sysadmin,news.groups
Subject: comp.security - LET'S DO IT!  CALL FOR VOTES
Message-ID: <6514@galbp.LBP.HARRIS.COM>
Date: 16 Nov 88 23:24:59 GMT
Sender: news@galbp.LBP.HARRIS.COM
Reply-To: mhw@wittsend.LBP.HARRIS.COM (Michael H. Warfield (Mike))
Distribution: na
Organization: Harris/Lanier Network Knitting Circle
Lines: 69


     I am posting this to multiple groups because there are discussion threads
in most of them on the same topic and seemingly oblivious to each other.  The
topic, of course, is the hot one of the day, SECURITY.  As best I can figure
out, there are two security lists announced in news.sysadmin.  The groups
in comp.what-ever are unaware of these groups and are asking me for information
on how to join them.  The various discusions interrelate but seem to be going
off on different tangents.  All would benefit from a co-ordinated discussion.
I have heard all the reasons for "not" forming a comp.security group (some
are valid, most are bullsh*t).  I agree with the principles behind the two
mailing lists having different validation levels.

     Proposal:

     1) Create comp.security for INTELLIGENT discussion of REASONABLE security
issues.  i.e. - no articles of the "I found this and I can't fix it" sort.
Assume that you don't broadcast sensitive information on an unsecure channel!
That's what the two mailing lists should be for and we are supposed to be
semi-intelligent individuals.

     2) Administrators for the two mailing lists in news.sysadmin
	- Please cross post to:
		comp.protocols.tcp-ip
		comp.unix.questions
		comp.unix.wizards
	Cross posting doesn't cost that terribly much and you have a large
	legitimite clientele there.

     3) Posters - same thing as 2

     Security issues cross many topic boundries.  They apply not only to
sysadmins or to unix or to wizards and certainly affect more than tcpip.  Until
we have a central spot to discuss these issues, make sure your articles get to
the people who can benefit by them.

     Security is being discussed right now on many of these groups.
Creating a new group will not compromise the integrity of the discussions any
more than where they are taking place right now.  If some of you are still
antsey about a group airing security issues then MODERATE the damn thing but
let's get the show on the road.  Let's vote on a new group and whether it
should be moderated.  We can discuss what is appropriate for the group and
for the two mailing lists IN THE NEW GROUP.  BUT LET'S VOTE!

     Finally, if we can move the security issues to their own group, we will
not only get the information in one spot and treat it uniformly, but we
might even cut down on the NOISE level in the other groups so all of us can
get back to the non-security topics in those groups.  It's getting harder
to see the forest through the brush in some spots!

     If no one else wants to stick their head above the barricades, then I'll
tally.  Send me the votes.  I ain't fansey.  I don't have anything on hand
to do the job automatically.  I'll count them by hand an post interesting ones
so EMAIL don't post unless you want to discuss.  Anyone else rather handle it
then that's just fine too.

     EMAIL:

	if( domain_supported )
		to = "mhw@wittsend.UUCP"
	else
		to = "...gatech!galbp!wittsend!mhw"

     Thank You.

----
Michael H. Warfield  (The Mad Wizard)	| gatech.edu!galbp!wittsend!mhw
  (404)  270-2123 / 270-2098		| mhw@wittsend.LBP.HARRIS.COM
An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds.
A pessimist is sure of it!