Subject:
|
Re: I'm back...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 29 May 2001 13:06:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4328 times
|
| |
|
|
On Fri, 25 May 2001, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > yikes... what I'd like to see is a setup that we can use pgp signed
> > messages, to athunticate posts... but that would require a fair bit of
> > coding, and it doesn't seem that Todd has much time now...
>
> Authenticating posting means putting security against all the mechanisms
> used to post, nntp, mail, and web, no?
With only guessing at the way lugnet works internally, I can't say for
sure. But here's one way things might work:
A post is accepted, in some form - web, smtp or nntp. This post can then
be processed, before actually being moved to the backend, where it's
available for reading. It is during this processing, that a pgp/gpg
signature can be verified, for the members who have activated this
feature.
Just my guesses...
Dan
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: I'm back...
|
| (...) One problem with any kind of opt-in security or member-only security, is that it does not protect the *community*. While spoofing someone's id does damage to that one person, it also damages the entire community. And if anyone can be spoofed, (...) (25 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: I'm back...
|
| (...) Authenticating posting means putting security against all the mechanisms used to post, nntp, mail, and web, no? It might take less time and effort to provide a way to web cancel posts if you authenticate that you are who you say you are. This (...) (25 years ago, 25-May-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
23 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
|
|
|
|
