 | | Re: Enhanced verification (was: Re: What the F.......)
|
|
(...) 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.......)
|
|
(...) 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.......)
|
|
(...) 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.......)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
