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 / 6473
6472  |  6474
Subject: 
Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.general
Date: 
Wed, 26 Apr 2000 19:07:10 GMT
Viewed: 
2682 times
  
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
Thanks for the above data points.  How badly did it fail them by?

Pretty badly - I know they were all worthless.  I didn't really pay attention
to the numbers.  I think they were as low negatively, though, as the "first
leter from each word in a sentence" was positively, though.

Did you catch this post from Monday?--

  http://www.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=6459

Yep.

What threshold number was below the all the number returned for the ones you
tried that it failed?  Would a threshold of, say, 50 (instead of the current
100) pass all of the ones that it's currently failing?  Would a threshold of
-100?

I think they were all < -100.  Just tried one of them, and it was -138.



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
 
(...) Thanks for the above data points. How badly did it fail them by? Did you catch this post from Monday?-- (URL) threshold number was below the all the number returned for the ones you tried that it failed? Would a threshold of, say, 50 (instead (...) (25 years ago, 26-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

309 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

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