|
Grex > Coop7 > #31: How should staff respond to requests that offense .plan files be changed? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 74 responses total. |
srw
|
|
response 50 of 74:
| 
Apr 20 02:34 UTC 1995 |
Actually on rereading 34 I realize that I confused TS badly earlier.
I used blahblah as a substitute (perhaps I should have said foo).
I had no idea that it existed literally. When I read his 34, I
was too busy to notice that it didn't make sense.
Much later than my initial post, another staffer decided to post the
actual account with the problem abcdef. That was not my intention,
but it was harmless I guess. I also apologize to whoever owns blahblah,
as it was a complete coincidence that I chose that name.
|
tsty
|
|
response 51 of 74:
|
Apr 20 13:40 UTC 1995 |
oh ................................................fascinating twist.
I've been confused before - nice red herring, srw <g>.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 52 of 74:
|
Apr 20 13:48 UTC 1995 |
Actually, the first mention of the account name in this item is in
response 33, which was entered by srw.
I, too, didn't realize there really was an account called "blahblah",
so I assumed TS was looking at "abcdef" and saying "blahblah".
|
popcorn
|
|
response 53 of 74:
|
Apr 20 13:49 UTC 1995 |
(By the way, I think we've had an account called "foo" in the past, too.)
|
ajax
|
|
response 54 of 74:
|
Apr 20 15:15 UTC 1995 |
It's getting hard to come up with simple fictitious login names on
Grex...I went through about ten first names the other day for an example
before I found one that wasn't a real account. :)
|
scg
|
|
response 55 of 74:
|
Apr 20 16:33 UTC 1995 |
Maybe we need something like the UM's bjensen account that they use for
examples. It's a real account, or at least it has an x.500 entry
("Mythical manager, ITD Research Systems").
|
davel
|
|
response 56 of 74:
|
Apr 20 19:03 UTC 1995 |
Do we have a johndoe account?
|
steve
|
|
response 57 of 74:
|
Apr 21 01:33 UTC 1995 |
As in anonymous? No. But then again, all accounts on Grex are
anonymous...
|
mdw
|
|
response 58 of 74:
|
Apr 21 09:14 UTC 1995 |
If I remember right, DOS file timestamps are on 2 second intervals.
|
ajax
|
|
response 59 of 74:
|
Apr 21 16:08 UTC 1995 |
Yep, though few programs even show the seconds of the timestamp, I think.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 60 of 74:
|
Apr 21 19:02 UTC 1995 |
Re #58: Well, I'll be darned... I just checked, and, sure enuf, all the
timestamps has even numbers of seconds !!! Isn't that neat?? :-)
|
davel
|
|
response 61 of 74:
|
Apr 21 19:49 UTC 1995 |
Why neat? that just means they wanted to extend the range of representable
dates twice as far without taking any more space.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 62 of 74:
|
Apr 22 13:16 UTC 1995 |
That's no bad thing! I'd rather see a larger range of dates than
to-the-second precision in timestamps, if the choice were up to me.
|
davel
|
|
response 63 of 74:
|
Apr 22 15:44 UTC 1995 |
I demand nanosecond precision!
|
lilmo
|
|
response 64 of 74:
|
Apr 23 04:21 UTC 1995 |
Good grief, I just noticed that for the first time, and was struck by
it; I didn't complain about not having better precision !! sheesh...
|
popcorn
|
|
response 65 of 74:
|
Apr 23 12:54 UTC 1995 |
(You didn't; davel did.) :)
|
davel
|
|
response 66 of 74:
|
Apr 24 01:05 UTC 1995 |
(davel is sorry he opened his mouth)
|
popcorn
|
|
response 67 of 74:
|
Apr 27 20:50 UTC 1995 |
On a similar note, today staff received a complaint from someone who had
never heard of Grex but found out (the hard way) that someone has created
an account here in her name and is sending out threatening e-mail with
subject lines such as "Your a dead man". What the heck do we do with
this account? What do we say to the person who is being impersonated?
<sigh>
|
rcurl
|
|
response 68 of 74:
|
Apr 27 21:23 UTC 1995 |
Have you verified the complaint? You can e-mail the account and ask
for an explanation. You can intercept outgoing mail from the account
until the matter is resolved. You can trace back the source host, and
check it out there. And, there is the remote possibility that it is
all a hoax. Well, there's some things to do ;->.
|
ajax
|
|
response 69 of 74:
|
Apr 28 01:04 UTC 1995 |
Transmitting a death threat across state lines by wire is a more
significant crime than impersonation. If you verify they sent such
threats, then regardless of their identity, I don't see a problem
nuking the account. Or trying to trace its real owner, and/or passing
the info along to a law enforcement agency, for that matter.
|
tsty
|
|
response 70 of 74:
|
Apr 28 09:33 UTC 1995 |
Right, this is no Jake Baker case. It's what the dweebs *wanted*
to stomp on Baker, just what is described in #67. This current
situation might be the *right* sort of thing (sted of Baker) for
a little "suggestion."
In any event, email (a 1 to 1 situation, usually) used like a
drunk behind the wheel can be stopped at the source, once the
alert has been made.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 71 of 74:
|
Apr 28 16:29 UTC 1995 |
At Steve Weiss's suggestion, I reset the password on the bogus account
and mailed it to the e-mail address that the bogus person gave when
running newuser, just like we would for any other account with a lost
password. The alternate e-mail address the impostor gave happened
to be for the real person who was being impersonated, so control of
the account is now restored to her. If she doesn't want the account,
it will be reaped, like any other account, after 3 months of inactivity.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 72 of 74:
|
Apr 28 23:25 UTC 1995 |
Neat. I was trying to see how to handle the possibility that this was
a hoax - and this takes care of that case too.
|
srw
|
|
response 73 of 74:
|
Apr 30 05:58 UTC 1995 |
Yes. I made that suggestion to Valerie on the phone. I haven't been
back to this item in a few days. I come up with that solution for another
impersonation case. It was not obvious to me, though. I thought about
it for quite a while before I recognized the beauty of that approach.
It doesn't always work, though. Sometimes the alleged impersonator
leaves the account with no forwarding address or other info. to identify it.
In the case of the impersonation that started this item, that was what we
had, only a name. It's not unbelievable to have two people with the same
name, and yet there was no way to turn control of the account to the
impersonated party in that case. That's why I found it tougher.
|
tsty
|
|
response 74 of 74:
|
May 1 04:35 UTC 1995 |
good work popcorn.
|