Subject:
|
Re: Email Authentication - Why not make it optional?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 20 Jun 2001 12:45:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1050 times
|
| |
|
|
while i understand the need for this system i think it would be easyer on
alot of people if it (maybe as an option") simply did a reply send to
verify the message instead of clikcing on a link, waiting for your browser
to open, reading the message, and clicking on the right button.
Kyle D. Jackson" <flightdeck@sympatico.deletethisspamblock.ca> wrote in
news:GF7AGD.GJq@lugnet.com:
> 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
--
Daniel Staudt <dstaudt@hotmail.com>
Lugnet NUT #872
I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message.
<http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/5404/>
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
