Subject:
|
Re: Email Authentication - Why not make it optional?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Jun 2001 23:26:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
924 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Brad Hamilton writes:
>
> Since this has happened, I've seen one reply of the nature "Great - I'm so
> happy you did this!" post and a huge number of "This is such a hassle, why
> are we doing this" posts. Presumably, the one positive post is from the one
> person (or maybe there were two) that had this problem.
Well allow me to say that I am glad that Todd implemented this
measure. Mostly because since it has been implemented, we have
gotten rid of the annoying clone. And it will continue to
help LUGNET remain a very nice friendly place that I actually
enjoy coming to. To me that is worth the small hassle people have
to go through to post. I still think the easiest way to post is
via the web while logged in to LUGNET, so it hasn't affected me
at all. I know there are people can't use the web to post, and that
is unfortunate.
> Why are we punishing the whole community for a problem that only one or two
> people had? This is even more annoying given that this is the first time
> I've heard about this happening (so presumably, the likilihood of this
> happening again is low as well).
We had been getting attacked by that same troll/flamer for about
a year. And that was one person. In my opinion we've been
extremely lucky that we haven't had more.
> Why can't this authentication be an optional feature? Why not let the one
> or two people who are actually worried about being spoofed turn it on and
> let everyone else post without authorization???
Because it still allows an unauthorized person to post to LUGNET.
The point wasn't to protect people who didn't want to be cloned. It
was to keep out people who weren't authorized to post. In our most
famous case, we have a person who had been banned from LUGNET, but
continued to post here, disrupting things, attacking other users,
and making outright threats. If authentication were optional that
person could continue to post.
> I personally believe that the spoofing that went on was probably an isolated
> case by one individual. Are we going to let that one attack stifle the life
> out of LUGNET???
I believe it will help preserve LUGNET's life, not stifle it. Compare
the "quality of life" here on LUGNET with that of Usenet.
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
42 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
|
|
|
|
