Subject:
|
Re: Email Authentication - Why not make it optional?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Jun 2001 23:52:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
81 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> In lugnet.admin.nntp, Brad Hamilton writes:
> >
> > Since this has happened, I've seen one reply of the nature "Great - I'm so
> > happy you did this!" post and a huge number of "This is such a hassle, why
> > are we doing this" posts. Presumably, the one positive post is from the one
> > person (or maybe there were two) that had this problem.
>
> Well allow me to say that I am glad that Todd implemented this
> measure. Mostly because since it has been implemented, we have
> gotten rid of the annoying clone.
Until said clone (or someone else) finds another way around it.
> And it will continue to
> help LUGNET remain a very nice friendly place that I actually
> enjoy coming to.
I enjoyed my time on Lugnet even when the clone was having fun - I just
ignored the posts (mostly).
> To me that is worth the small hassle people have
> to go through to post. I still think the easiest way to post is
> via the web while logged in to LUGNET, so it hasn't affected me
> at all. I know there are people can't use the web to post, and that
> is unfortunate.
I also use the web to post 99% of the time, but I'm still not convinced this
is a good solution to the problem we've been experiencing. See my earlier
post http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=9268
> > Why are we punishing the whole community for a problem that only one or two
> > people had? This is even more annoying given that this is the first time
> > I've heard about this happening (so presumably, the likilihood of this
> > happening again is low as well).
>
> We had been getting attacked by that same troll/flamer for about
> a year. And that was one person. In my opinion we've been
> extremely lucky that we haven't had more.
I believe, however, that we will have more, and this is setting a precedent.
As they find ways around the security, Todd will be forced to implement more
such "solutions", and it will become a decreasingly "nice" place to be. So
in the end, the pests get what they want, and the rest of us get what they
force us to have.
> > Why can't this authentication be an optional feature? Why not let the one
> > or two people who are actually worried about being spoofed turn it on and
> > let everyone else post without authorization???
>
> Because it still allows an unauthorized person to post to LUGNET.
> The point wasn't to protect people who didn't want to be cloned. It
> was to keep out people who weren't authorized to post.
And I still maintain this isn't what the problem is. The problem is the
people who (authorised or not) post trolls/flames etc. and the other people
(authorised or not) who take the bait and post public replies.
> In our most
> famous case, we have a person who had been banned from LUGNET, but
> continued to post here, disrupting things, attacking other users,
> and making outright threats. If authentication were optional that
> person could continue to post.
>
>
> > I personally believe that the spoofing that went on was probably an isolated
> > case by one individual. Are we going to let that one attack stifle the life
> > out of LUGNET???
>
> I believe it will help preserve LUGNET's life, not stifle it. Compare
> the "quality of life" here on LUGNET with that of Usenet.
Sure, Lugnet will survive, at least for a while, but a lot of people will
post less than they would've before. Dunno whether thats good or bad...
Regards
ROSCO
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
42 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
