 | | Re: Enhanced verification (was: Re: What the F.......) —Eric Kingsley
|
| | | <snip> (...) I like this idea although I don't understand how it would help in terms of the issue we are currently discussing. Would this require someone to sign in once a day the first time they go to LUGNET? If so does that mean you would be using (...) (25 years ago, 14-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Enhanced verification (was: Re: What the F.......) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) It would allow Brad to say to the system, "Hey, don't let anyone post to the system using From: Brad Justus <legodirect@lego.com> unless it was actually Brad Justus (as verified by his ID & password). (...) No. (...) No, not unless you wanted (...) (25 years ago, 14-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Enhanced verification (was: Re: What the F.......) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) To clarify: Yes on the cookie, no on the temporary part. Could be temporary or permanent, hence the lack of requirement on it being temporary. --Todd (25 years ago, 14-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Enhanced verification (was: Re: What the F.......) —Eric Kingsley
|
| | | | | | (...) OK I think I am getting this now. Actually it tripped another synapse :-) and I got another idea that might be bad and it might not. Actually it might even be similar to some of the ideas you have allready mentioned. How about if durring (...) (25 years ago, 14-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Enhanced verification (was: Re: What the F.......) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) I think you might be onto something there. Ignoring for the moment the issues of someone possibly wanting to change their code word later or needing their memory refreshed, what you're suggesting is quite feasable. (...) Hmm, if the code word (...) (25 years ago, 14-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Enhanced verification (was: Re: What the F.......) —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | | | (...) I just did a little test with sending a Distribution: header via Agent, and it gets stripped off the mail (somewhere). Presumably because Distribution: is only defined for NNTP, and not SMTP. I was actually thinking of using the Approved: (...) (25 years ago, 15-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Enhanced verification (was: Re: What the F.......) —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | (...) How about a bit of perl that checks for @lego.com, gets the IP, and cross-references it with the RIPE whois database to make sure it is a legitimate lego address? (ie, registered to the person who does the registering for lego - which seems to (...) (25 years ago, 14-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
