|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 149 responses total. |
wlevak
|
|
response 100 of 149:
| 
Jan 21 06:13 UTC 2006 |
It is not necessary to verify the identity of every user. Users who connect
through a service that requires identification to get the service, are already
identified to a sufficient extent, ie. educational institutions, users who
use their employer's access, etc. It's the commercial services that sell
access to anyone for money, that is the problem. Yahoo and Yahoo Korea, are
two that produce a lot of spam.
|
keesan
|
|
response 101 of 149:
|
Jan 21 16:17 UTC 2006 |
So do we allow access to anyone coming from an .edu? Is there a list of
trustworthy ISPs somewhere? Would every applicant for outgoing email have
to be manually checked out?
|
cross
|
|
response 102 of 149:
|
Jan 21 17:37 UTC 2006 |
Regarding #100; Not true. There are plenty of public kiosk settings at,
say, universities that don't require any sort of authentication to use.
Blindly applying a regular expression to the connecting hostname is not
a good idea. You are correct that you don't need to verify every user,
though.
|
richard
|
|
response 103 of 149:
|
Jan 21 19:51 UTC 2006 |
Listen, if the government becomes more draconian in its attempts to
regulate the 'net, grex may one day be REQUIRED to verify all users.
As it is, some terrorist living in the U.S. could log on to grex using
an anonymizer to hide his location, and using an anonymously generated
login, and pass along terrorist information to his people back at
home. It is safer than calling them on the phone since we all know
they wiretap international phone records now.
Also someone who is into child porn and wants an email to use for such
correspondence, would be far safer using a Grex email than a Yahoo or
Hotmail email. Grex doesn't require any verifiable personal info to
take out a login. I am sure the Homeland Security Department would
love to shut a place as open as Grex down, if they were aware of it.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 104 of 149:
|
Jan 21 19:55 UTC 2006 |
Ok, terrorists using Grex. This conversation has gone too far.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 105 of 149:
|
Jan 21 21:42 UTC 2006 |
Won't someone PLEASE think of the children?
|
naftee
|
|
response 106 of 149:
|
Jan 21 21:48 UTC 2006 |
richard's absolutely nuts !
|
cross
|
|
response 107 of 149:
|
Jan 22 03:28 UTC 2006 |
I really doubt grex is on anyone's anti-terrorism radar.
|
scholar
|
|
response 108 of 149:
|
Jan 22 06:33 UTC 2006 |
talk to bap.
|
aruba
|
|
response 109 of 149:
|
Jan 22 10:14 UTC 2006 |
Re #99: Dan: Dial-up access is an essential part of Grex's chritable mission
for a number of reasons, not least of which is that we told the IRS it was
an essential part of our charitable mission. If we were to eliminate our
phone lines, we would have to notify the IRS, and they might cancel our
501(c)3 status.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 110 of 149:
|
Jan 22 16:30 UTC 2006 |
Does m-net have dialup? Do they have 501(c)3 status?
|
cross
|
|
response 111 of 149:
|
Jan 22 16:36 UTC 2006 |
Regarding #109; Huh? That's a thin argument, I think. I do see where
dialins are mentioned on the application for 501(c)3 status, but it also
seems to me that that could be amended in light of changes in technology
and undue financial burden that would jeopardize the rest of grex's
mission, etc. Note that no where in the articles of incorporation are
dialins mentioned; only computer conferencing. Regardless, I'm not sure
why removing the dialin lines is at issue right now.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 112 of 149:
|
Jan 22 17:21 UTC 2006 |
It isn't. Removing dialup access would reduce operating costs, and would
be an option if Grex's income continued to decline.
|
aruba
|
|
response 113 of 149:
|
Jan 22 18:11 UTC 2006 |
Re #110: M-Net's application was different than Grex's. The rules say that
if you change your charitable activities, you must notify the IRS of the
change.
Frankly, I think keeping those dialins open is the most charitable thing
that Grex does, and I'm proud that we do it.
|
cross
|
|
response 114 of 149:
|
Jan 22 18:36 UTC 2006 |
Regarding #113; It makes sense as long as people use them. But keeping
them around if they're not used, or only rarely used, makes little sense.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 115 of 149:
|
Jan 22 18:40 UTC 2006 |
Re #114: Charity rarely makes economic sense -- if it did, it wouldn't be
charity. So long as there are users who use the dialins, I think they should be
left open. (If it were between closing the dialins and closing the Internet
link I would be in favor of the latter, personally, but I suspect I'm in the
extreme minority on that point.)
|
cross
|
|
response 116 of 149:
|
Jan 22 18:50 UTC 2006 |
So a charity that offered sliderules to the masses would be putting its
resources to good use?
Like I said, as long as they're using them, I don't have a problem with it.
Once they stop, it would be foolish to continue offering the service.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 117 of 149:
|
Jan 22 19:06 UTC 2006 |
Re #116: I didn't say that. It *would* be performing a charitable function,
however.
|
keesan
|
|
response 118 of 149:
|
Jan 22 20:06 UTC 2006 |
I use the dialin lines several times a day.
|
wlevak
|
|
response 119 of 149:
|
Jan 23 05:41 UTC 2006 |
User's from .edu domains can be checked against the institutuion' online
directory. Public access users would not be listed there. At the University
of Michigan, public access users cannot e-mail.
|
cross
|
|
response 120 of 149:
|
Jan 23 05:56 UTC 2006 |
What does that have to do with anything?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 121 of 149:
|
Jan 23 07:28 UTC 2006 |
re #119:
Strictly hypothetically, let's imagine that someone logs in and tries
to send 10,000 spam messages from an IP address that reverse-lookup
tells us belongs to a student computer lab at a large public university,
for example UCLA. What good do you suppose that knowledge does us?
Do we know who to contact at potentially any .edu-listed institution
across the country if we have a problem? Will that person respond to
our inquiries? Even if we do and even if they would, who's going to
be willing to spend their time trying to track down each spammer that way?
I'll grant that people connecting through a .edu address might be less
likely to spam than other users (I don't know that for a fact, or have
any real reason to believe it, but I'll certainly admit the possibility
and even accept it for the sake of argument..) But so what?
|
tod
|
|
response 122 of 149:
|
Jan 23 17:27 UTC 2006 |
re #104
Is that so hard to believe?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 123 of 149:
|
Jan 23 17:42 UTC 2006 |
Without proof? You bet.
|
tod
|
|
response 124 of 149:
|
Jan 23 20:33 UTC 2006 |
WMD are hidden on Grex
|