To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.generalOpen lugnet.admin.general in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / General / 3647
3646  |  3648
Subject: 
Re: Enhanced verification (was: Re: What the F.......)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.general
Date: 
Tue, 14 Dec 1999 20:33:50 GMT
Viewed: 
314 times
  
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
If so does that mean you would be using some sort of temporary cookie?

No, not unless you wanted to.

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.


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 sign-up there were an additional field for a "code word"
or "password" if you are more comfortable with that term although I don't think
this is a complicated as a "password".  In this case if that field were left
blank things would work as they do today and people could post using a
news-reader or the web interface.  If something were entered however this value
would be stored in the cookie and would be needed to post so if someone were to
use a different PC (that didn't already have a cookie) they would have to enter
this "code word" as well in order to post.

Of course this would require posting via the web interface but I think your
solution also had this requirement.  This would also not deal with the issue of
someone using Brad's PC and posting as Brad but I think that is the least
problematic of all the problems.  It seems to me that the big issue is someone
posting from their computer as Brad, as was demonstraited earlier.  The other
benifit of using this type of approach would be that membership would not be
required.

This may be oversimplified but it was a thought and I am sure that you (Todd)
being the expert here has a much clearer view of the situation and the
solutions then I would.


Eric K.

The New England LEGO Users Group
http://www.nelug.org/



Message has 1 Reply:
  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)

Message is in Reply To:
  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)

7 Messages in This Thread:


Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR