 | | Re: posting varification, ug! —Dean Husby
|
| | | (...) That's only if you are using the WEB interface. I think most of us use the NNTP or Email interface. My NEWS reader supports Authenticated posting, can we use that to prove who we are and not have to verify each post? We are loosing a lot of (...) (23 years ago, 10-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: posting varification, ug! —David Eaton
|
| | | | | (...) Really? I had kind of assumed that the web interface was the primary interface used... Although my guess is that that's changed since LUGNET's inception when it was most likely primarily NNTP... I dunno... (...) I think the point was mentioned (...) (23 years ago, 10-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: posting varification, ug! —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | (...) PGP keys are unrelated to nntp - and they could be used to verify that a user is who he says he is. However, there's a development cost to setting this up (trust me, I tried working on a script to do just that!), and PGP will not be a good (...) (23 years ago, 10-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: posting varification, ug! —Jennifer L. Boger
|
| | | | | | | (...) is who he says he is. However, there's a development cost to setting this up (trust me, I tried working on a script to do just that!), and PGP will not be a good solution for all (most?) users - users who like posting from multiple machines, (...) (23 years ago, 10-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: posting varification, ug! —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) Yep. I guess the question I have is, to what extent can they be tied into the various interfaces? For NNTP and email, I'd imagine they're fairly easy. For web, it'd be more difficult I assume. (...) I guess my inclination (in a perfect world) (...) (23 years ago, 13-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: posting varification, ug! —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | (...) but if you're a member, and you're posting via the web, LUGNET already knows who you are... no need for pgp there... unless you mean as a way to post without being logged in? (...) heh, why make users choose? if you're a member, you _can_ (...) (23 years ago, 13-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: posting varification, ug! —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) Well, as in you're not logged in because you are either not a member, you're not accepting cookies, or something else. (...) Oh? So PGP authorization is currently in effect for members who have uploaded their PGP key and post with NNTP/SMTP? (...) (23 years ago, 13-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: posting varification, ug! —Dan Boger
|
| | | | (...) true that that's only for the web interface. However, I don't know the distribution of users between web/nntp/smtp. Do you have any data? (...) Authenticated posting only makes sure you're allowde to access the server - it does not (without (...) (23 years ago, 10-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: posting varification, ug! —Dean Husby
|
| | | | | (...) I know I've slowed down greatly. It's a pain to bang off a quick message now. I've seen several postings of "By all This is the last post I'll be posting but I'll still be reading" type of post. The traffic to the robotics areas seems like (...) (23 years ago, 10-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: posting varification, ug! —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | (...) I'll speak as one of the opposite: The verification thing has actually made my rate of posting go *up*. I now log in, read, and post back at will. Before I was still trying to cling to NNTP, which I don't find as intuitive anymore. I may be in (...) (23 years ago, 11-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: posting varification, ug! —Jeromy Irvine
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I don't like to write "me too" posts, but I think it's worth saying again in this case. I find myself in exactly the same situation as LFB - my rate of posting (and reading, for that matter) has increased since I switched to the web interface (...) (23 years ago, 12-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: posting varification, ug! — Suzanne D. Rich
|
| | | | | | (...) You can have a look at some very basic info here: (URL) (23 years ago, 11-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: posting varification, ug! —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) I'm willing to bet that the distribution of posting has shifted toward the Web interface since the authentication has gone into effect. At least among LUGNET *members*. (...) If members are spoofing posts, there's a real problem. I'd think (...) (23 years ago, 13-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: posting varification, ug! —Dan Boger
|
| | | | (...) nod - that does make sense. I know Jennifer and I still don't use the web interface, but we're special :) (...) since anyone can become a member, if a malicious user wanted to spoof Suz, for instance, all he had to do is fork out $10... (...) (23 years ago, 13-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: posting varification, ug! — Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Ya, this is somewhat of a loophole (but a known one, and mentioned when the authentication mechanism was announced) and it needs closing. On the other hand, if someone were to try this, their Member ID would appear in the NNTP headers of the (...) (23 years ago, 14-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
