 | | Re: Lugnet's security (Was: Re: What the F.......) —Dan Jezek
|
| | | Thanks. I knew what I was doing when posting the message and just thought you should know it can be done (which you probably do). While I did it under good intentions, some else could do it under bad intentions and if it can be done, someone will do (...) (25 years ago, 12-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Lugnet's security (Was: Re: What the F.......) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Yes, obviously. That's why the rule in the T&C. --Todd (25 years ago, 12-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lugnet's security (Was: Re: What the F.......) —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | (...) Ummm...Can't we just let Todd do his thing and assume that he knows what he is doing? No offense, Dan, but that was a strange thing to do -- especially in light of the RTL post from (I hope) an imposter. Its one thing to have an honest and (...) (25 years ago, 12-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lugnet's security (Was: Re: What the F.......) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) He did post it in the test newsgroup. And it _was_ just a test. (25 years ago, 12-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lugnet's security (Was: Re: What the F.......) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | Matthew Miller wrote in message ... (...) he is (...) in (...) I've thought about this many times in the past, and realize no test is at all necessary. When I post to Lugnet from work, I post using my Mindspring userid (which is what I've (...) (25 years ago, 12-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
