Subject:
|
Re: Email Authentication - Why not make it optional?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 20 Jun 2001 03:22:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
80 times
|
| |
|
|
Well,
It sounds like the problem was a lot more widespread than I thought.
Perhaps these "bad" people weren't posting in groups I frequented.
Anyhow, it sounds like the security stuff is here to stay and will probably
get more intrusive rather than less.
I can always use the web interface, but I prefer to use NNTP. I feel like I
can get a much better view of what's going on. Perhaps I'll re-evaluate my
decision and use the web more often now.
Brad Hamilton <bhamilto1@home.com> wrote in message
news:GF78zF.DCr@lugnet.com...
> This email authentication is driving me nuts! A lot of people were • already
> timid about posting and now its going to be worse.
>
> 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.
>
> 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).
>
> 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???
>
> Why not have a web page where you can toggle your status on/off (perhaps
> generated from a key sent by email)?
>
> I would immediately turn mine off and leave it off unless I actually • started
> having problems with people stealing my identity (which I think is • unlikely
> in the extreme).
>
> I think that the default should be OFF and when you subscribe to LUGNET, • you
> get a message saying "Security Warning: We recommend that you turn this on
> if blah blah blah...." I seriously doubt that anyone is going to spoof • the
> identity of some new, unknown member.
>
> 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???
>
>
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
42 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
