 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: A possible enhancement idea
|
|
Hello Todd, thanks for outlining a bit of your current thinking: (...) One additional thought for that: Would it be necessary to show the full article? For me, just the title and the first and last few lines would be enough to know whether or not it (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Email Authentication - Why not make it optional?
|
|
(...) Yeh, that's a problem with Germanic languages other than English--zullen/sollen/etc are modals that correspond to "should" yet "should" also has the meaning of kunnen/koennen/etc. But to make matters even cloudier, you *can* use "should" in (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Email Authentication - Why not make it optional?
|
|
"Ray Sanders" <rsanders@svic.net> skrev i meddelandet news:GF8x71.8n7@lugnet.com... (...) slow (...) As you can see in my post above, MMV (12 minutes). Although I think 4.5 minutes is also quite a large amount of time to spend on one (or two) (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Email Authentication - Why not make it optional?
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> skrev i meddelandet news:GF8s97.GDF@lugnet.com... (...) Might be a language issue, then. The first Swedish translation that came to mind was not *suggesting*, but quite a bit more imperatoresque (word?). (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Email Authentication - Why not make it optional?
|
|
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, (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: E-mail authentication during posting
|
|
(...) solution (...) I think that the current solution works fine, I was just thinking of how to make it even better. I often use pine for email (mostly at work), so I wouldn't want to do away with the current email that is sent. Can't email be sent (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: E-mail authentication during posting
|
|
(...) This would help a few (maybe a lot) more people, but some people still use mail clients which don't support HTML, so they would need a text-based solution as well. Probably better to try & get a useable text-based solution first, and add HTML (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: E-mail authentication during posting
|
|
What if the email message that was sent contained HTML, so rather than having to reply or go to an URL, those of us with HTML capable email clients could just click a submit button? The email could have the same choices the confirmation page has. (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Email Authentication - Why not make it optional?
|
|
Daniel Crichton wrote in message ... (...) Me too! I can't afford to use the Web interface with my messed up hands, NNTP is 10 times less painful for me, and if I could authorise via NNTP that would be excellent. Kevin ---...--- Craftsman Lego Kits (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: A possible enhancement idea
|
|
(...) can't just fork the job to the background, say "It's done!", so the user can go on it's way, and the server take it's sweet (niced :) time posting the articles? (23 years ago, 20-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
