Subject:
|
Re: Email Authentication - Why not make it optional?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 20 Jun 2001 15:54:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
91 times
|
| |
|
|
I agree that it is time consumeing, as someone else wrote - I too write them
offline and then dail in and send them. It is cheaper and gives one time to
think about the answer.
I also saves money.
Now, there is a simple way around this - in Outlook 5 which I have, there is
an option "my server requires me to log on" - I need a username and password.
I am not at home now, so I cannot check whether we actually use this, but we
should.
This will give the authentication we need. The lugnet server can create it
and send it to people.
Can anyone tell - is this possible in netscape, opera and other browsers?
Still everything can be cracked if people really want too.
People who really want access to lugnet can just create any net-based mail
and use that to access even that some people are banned from lugnet. So this
is not a soultion, I guess this is hard to come by.
Personally I have not seen any of the problems described here.
Sonnich
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Brad Hamilton writes:
> 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 has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
42 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
|
|
|
|
