From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Reply-To: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com Message-ID: <50621D45.3090109@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:08:21 -0400 From: Corey Bryant MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <5060AB3F.5030400@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20120925040202.GA17983@openwall.com> <5061BE52.50808@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20120925180715.GA20237@openwall.com> In-Reply-To: <20120925180715.GA20237@openwall.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Linux security workgroup usage of kernel-hardening mailing list To: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com List-ID: On 09/25/2012 02:07 PM, Solar Designer wrote: > On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:23:14AM -0400, Corey Bryant wrote: >> Excellent, thanks! Should we tag our subjects with anything? I was >> thinking "lswg: ". > > It's your call, but I doubt that such tagging would be of much/any use. > The topics you have listed are some of what's supposed to be discussed > on this list, and some of the threads may proceed to other related > topics, which are not limited to the focus of lswg (but the tags would > remain). Similarly, postings by non-lswg folks may be relevant to you. > I think it'd be too difficult/unreasonable to keep the separation. > > Alexander > > > Ok we'll go without the tag then. Thanks again! -- Regards, Corey Bryant