Subject:
|
Re: Are that many people really glad about the security stuff?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 20 Jun 2001 10:32:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
455 times
|
| |
|
|
There are some problems I have with your arguments:
1. The person who caused all of this, I believe his name was Matthew
Moulton, would still be joyfully spoofing everyone the moment he found
someone with this feature turned off.
2. Todd would be backlogged so far into cancel requests and spoofing alerts
that the only thing he could really anyway do would be to set it the way it
is now. This way, if someone spoofs someone, Todd only has a few easily
canceled posts to worry about not hundreds or thousands.
3. Do you really want to see Mr. Moulton again? If so, find a news server
that doesn't block him out and post there, I for one am sick and tired of
killing off threads using names of people he has spoofed under, and I gather
it's not easy to killfile either. There are probably quite a few people who
are relieved that they do not have to do this as well - however, since I am
not the 'quite a few people', I shall let themselves speak if they wish, I
am merely stating it for argument's sake.
4. Todd is the administrator of this server, and he has taken the measures
that he sees fitting the criteria needed to block Mr. Moulton out. As far
as I know, it is his server, and he can block anyone out for any reason, or
for no reason at all - if you have a problem with that, I'm sure it's better
to email your arguments to him, and not discuss it here.
--
Cheers ...
Geoffrey Hyde
"Pete" <XvRiscvX@aol.com> wrote in message news:GF7pHu.1Lp@lugnet.com...
> Well personally I'm a bit ticked. How many people are really glad about
> these new security features. Is this really necessary? As far as i see
> Brad's idea was the best, keep it optional, if someone feels that they are
> being "cloned" as I believe the term is, than they can switch on the
> feature, and voila, the dude can't bother that person. However for the • other
> thousands and thousands of websurfers out there, is this whole mess
> required? The key thing here is to make it optional, because there are so
> many out there that are probably thinking this a con, rather than a pro. • So
> generally I'm trying to rally some support against this absolute pain in • the
> arse. Of course in the event that you people out there decided to be too
> timid to complain, or actually like this, I suppose I'll have to yield, • but
> don't expect me to cower down, I'm a very perserverant person. Err....
> Random on...
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
11 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
