Subject:
|
Re: I'm back...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 30 May 2001 15:23:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
635 times
|
| |
|
|
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Steve Bliss wrote:
> 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, then the community remains at risk.
>
> For this particular problem, a low-security password facility that
> everyone is required to use would be better than a high-security system
> that's optional or limited.
>
> By 'low-security', I mean that the posting system (email, web and nntp)
> would require a userid and password, but the set of acceptable passwords
> would be much larger than the current member passwords.
good point - guess web posting is easy to put a password on... nntp should
be doable, though I've never played with it... as for email, guess the
authorization email back to the sender method would work...
Dan
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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, (...) (23 years ago, 30-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
|
|
|
|
