To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.nntpOpen lugnet.admin.nntp in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / NNTP / 892
891  |  893
Subject: 
Re: Email Authentication - Why not make it optional?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general
Date: 
Sat, 23 Jun 2001 07:28:48 GMT
Viewed: 
4876 times
  
I see this now works.

Let me thank you Todd & Co.

Work much easier.

Sonnich

Sonnich Jensen <sonnich@hot.ee> wrote in message
news:GFAL9v.6qo@lugnet.com...
> 
> Larry Pieniazek  wrote in message .
> > In lugnet.admin.nntp, Daniel Staudt writes:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > 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 have the spoofhole again.
> > 
> > My thinking is the essence of this scheme is that it requires positive
> > action of some sort on your part to work.
> 
> 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 while answering the mail - and this id is • generated
> by lugned, then it is unique.
> (Re: Message_id 54dfDF7_&2532))sdrt4325ds)
> 
> I also noticed that I just sent 2 post - and got 2 mails - but I just
> clicked them without checking them for being my messages [bus still I sent • 2
> messages and got 2 answer - must be correct]
> So these kind of check will still fail now and them.
> 
> Secondly - by answering  to an email - that can be done offline giving • time
> to read it without the $$$ running.
> 
> I don't see anything bad in this checking, just want to make it easy to • use.
> 
> So maybe an option of HOW to check in stead of CHECK OR NOT.
> 
> Med venlig hilsen / Tervitades
> Sonnich
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



Message is in Reply To:
  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 (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general)

42 Messages in This Thread:



















Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR