 | | Re: Signature Image Abuse —Dan Boger
|
| | | (...) it will allow a different kind of abuse. If I put an image in my sig, I can track who's reading my posts - just like doubleclick.net. Not sure if people are worried about the privacy implecations. Dan (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Signature Image Abuse —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | (...) Hmm interesting. I can't think of anything really evil to do with that info though... is it a big deal if others know if you read their LUGNET posts? -Tim (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Signature Image Abuse —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | (...) You can do that now by putting an image in you post --Orion (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Signature Image Abuse —Dan Boger
|
| | | | (...) right - that was my point. The fact that you could put it in a sig is the same thing, only easier. Just wanted to point out something to consider when allowing inline images. Dan (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Signature Image Abuse — Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Of course in practice it wouldn't be a very effective way for someone to snoop because of image caching in clients. They'd log a few hits here and there but not likely enough for any meaningful tracking. --Todd (21 years ago, 31-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| | | | |
