Subject:
|
Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.suggestions
|
Date:
|
Fri, 30 May 2003 19:18:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1982 times
|
| |
|
|
On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 05:23:13PM +0000, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Dan Boger wrote:
> > On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 02:20:53PM +0000, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > > Also, with a signature feature implemented, people will probably be
> > > more inclined to use that than paste in each time. If it's not
> > > convenient for them to store more than x lines, they won't. So that
> > > will deter abuse as it is.
> >
> > 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.
>
> You can do that now by putting an image in you post
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
--
Dan Boger
dan@peeron.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
41 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
|
|
|
|
