 | | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) You remember totally wrong. Anyone, member of lugnet or not, can/could sign up for posting. The only difference is that 'real' (paying) members don't have to reply to the confirmation email for each post they do. Which isn't a hassle at all, (...) (14 years ago, 31-Oct-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) Except that, for most, the web interface is the way they use LUGNET. In addition, I use a separate email client and newsreader so I'm sure there are others like me. The bottom line is that I feel that the authentication emails are an undo (...) (14 years ago, 31-Oct-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) Hi Anders, We've established this was just a difference in terminology - Scott was calling the "posting setup" a membership as well, which it sort-of is, but us anal geeks want everyone to use the terminology we're used to (that was used by (...) (14 years ago, 1-Nov-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) The authentication emails have NOTHING whatsoever to do with NNTP. A properly configured NNTP server uses usernames and passwords for authentication. (And lazy b******s circumvent the authentication emails with an intelligent autoreplier.) So (...) (14 years ago, 2-Nov-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) People have been asking for change for years with no visible effort being put into this. I'm tired of waiting. Maybe you can try? -Orion (14 years ago, 2-Nov-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) That's a fair request. I'll get in touch with our friendly system administrators. Play well, Jacob (14 years ago, 2-Nov-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) As I recall, the NNTP engine for LUGNET wasn't something that Todd custom-wrote (like the web interface), but was a build of some already-existing implementation, which could be why it's a little less accessible. I remember hunting around for (...) (14 years ago, 2-Nov-10, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) I would expect that any old NNTP server can be plugged in instead, if the one Todd originally selected doesn't support access by username and password. (...) Why should that be necessary? Shouldn't it be enough to hook the password checker of (...) (14 years ago, 3-Nov-10, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
Hi all, I have taken a bit of time to follow the discussion as this is about a subject that René and I have been talking over on some occasions but without any final decisions yet. (...) Actually, the NNTP server in use is a fairly old but very (...) (14 years ago, 3-Nov-10, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) Good to know. (Personally I only have experience with running INN.) (...) How many security holes have been found in CNEWS (or INN for that matter) over the last 10 years? I don't believe it is a likely point of entry for hackers. (...) Should (...) (14 years ago, 3-Nov-10, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) Apologies, I wasn't talking about totally overhauling the NNTP system, I was talking about using what's available-- IE, the member passwords, which are the only passwords currently on the LUGNET interface to my knowledge. If you're talking (...) (14 years ago, 3-Nov-10, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) I took a look at the archives of the debian-security-announce mailing-list from 2001 up to today. I couldn't find a single security report on CNEWS (and only one 2001 local vulnerability in INN). Play well, Jacob (13 years ago, 27-Jun-11, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
