 | | Re: Email Authentication - Why not make it optional?
|
|
(...) Which is still the really scary and unfortunate fact. KDJ ___...___ LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada (23 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: A possible enhancement idea
|
|
(...) Oh. Hmm. Yes, excellent idea. Or spool it into a processing queue that gets processed frequently and in a serial way. :-) -- Todd S. Lehman | LUGNET Admin <todd@lugnet.com> (23 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Email Authentication - Why not make it optional?
|
|
(...) but since you just sent two posts, you expected to get to auth messages... if you get one tomorrow morning, you'll probably be curious to see why... also, true, some people will automatically reply to auth messages sometimes... but if it's not (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Email Authentication - Why not make it optional?
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message . (...) browser (...) Excuse me for just suggesting this option in another mail. I don't agree. A very simple way is to make the header look like this: Message_id 54dfDF7_&2532))sdrt4325ds which still is readable (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Email Authentication - Why not make it optional?
|
|
Another idea? It is much faster just to reply to the sent message. Many mailinglists use this system. Opening a page takes quite some time, while sending the mail can be done in just a few seconds. Sonnich Brad Hamilton <bhamilto1@home.com> wrote in (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: A possible enhancement idea
|
|
(...) I agree that the web interface would be best for this. We're not trying to replace it completely, just to remove it as a step from each posting. If people had to fire up the browser whenever their key changes, I really don't think anyone would (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Email Authentication - Why not make it optional?
|
|
(...) Thanks for clarifying that. You're right. English has three common levels, here... "could" - meaning it's possible, no expression of preference, "should" - making a suggestion or expressing a preference "must" - the imperative in which you are (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Email Authentication - Why not make it optional?
|
|
(...) I think the issue with a reply is that, unless something specific was required to entered into the mail, it is too easy to put replies on automatic pilot by automating the reply with a rule in your mail program. As soon as you do that, you (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Email Authentication - Why not make it optional?
|
|
"Dan Boger" <dan@peeron.com> wrote in message news:20010620120544....ron.com... (...) there is (...) password. (...) but we (...) it (...) browsers? (...) So why not have the NNTP server check the id and password against the name and email address (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: A possible enhancement idea
|
|
(...) I like that idea, maybe something like you have on the browser interface in "brief" mode, but with a button to view the entire message if possible, just in case the brief version isn't enough. ROSCO (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
