 | | Re: Password checks (was: Re: LUGNET Memberships)
|
|
(...) I didn't plan for that. In the beginning, I honestly didn't think that anyone would ever forget their password (or at least not have it written down somewhere that they could find it). I'll have to come up with something. Since the pw's are (...) (26 years ago, 26-Sep-00, to lugnet.people, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Password checks (was: Re: LUGNET Memberships)
|
|
(...) But doesn't that make somebody have to log in again if they use *any* kind of non-static-IP connection -- i.e., a typical dial-up or DHCP connection -- and not limited only to shared proxy servers? If they're on a typical ISP dial-up PPP (...) (26 years ago, 26-Sep-00, to lugnet.people, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Password checks (was: Re: LUGNET Memberships)
|
|
(...) As is mine. Todd has one opinion of where that is. Some people think it is too strict. Some are happy. I wonder if any think it is too lenient? (...) I know it is affecting me. Todd sent me a new password and I set two more that hopefully I (...) (26 years ago, 26-Sep-00, to lugnet.people, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Password checks (was: Re: LUGNET Memberships)
|
|
(...) The BrickShelf uses the cookie returned *and* the ip address that the cookie was issued to for reauthenticate login. Nobody has complained about loosing login yet via multiple proxies (i.e. aol). Also, cookies can be made *much* more difficult (...) (26 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.people, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Password checks (was: Re: LUGNET Memberships)
|
|
(...) (URL) [...] On the other hand, a server could probably get around that by (...) I'm very tempted to head in that direction. Even not relaxing the strictness of the validator, I think it would be wise. (...) Cooking hacking is the logical place (...) (26 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.people, lugnet.admin.general)
|
