|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 177 responses total. |
brighn
|
|
response 50 of 177:
| 
Sep 10 19:28 UTC 1996 |
Thaks, Sarah. I think. =]
|
popcorn
|
|
response 51 of 177:
|
Sep 10 20:29 UTC 1996 |
(Um... i haven't said anything at all in this item with flamiferous intent.)
|
birdlady
|
|
response 52 of 177:
|
Sep 11 20:18 UTC 1996 |
I know. =) I was just warding off "possible" flames. I was having an odd
day yesterday, so I don't even remember what I said. *sigh*
You're welcome, brighn.
|
yoyo
|
|
response 53 of 177:
|
Sep 13 07:10 UTC 1996 |
Wowy that was a good one thanks, you guys can sure go at it bring on the next
round.
PS I don't mean to upset anyone but you all got to admit the fights are pretty
good, There better than many philosophical fights. And I'm glad to see them
end reasonably quick. also intresting idea backtalk have to go check it out.
|
birdlady
|
|
response 54 of 177:
|
Sep 13 19:33 UTC 1996 |
That wasn't a fight. =) It wasn't anywhere *near* the flame wars I've seen
in the past couple of years. It was simply myself making a moot point because
I didn't plug in my brain that day. ;-)
|
ladyevil
|
|
response 55 of 177:
|
Sep 15 07:12 UTC 1996 |
Well, now that THAT is all through.
Yes, actually, my reasons are pretty similar to brighn's.
And, as I am currently the sole active FairWittness in Sexuality, I would
very much appreciate it if anon reading was not allowed from there.
And, the step I ask in anonymity beyond what I have now has nothing to do
with read-write privileges, you numbskulls who wanted to juvenilly ask the
question of why I was against this..
If the difference was truly that unclear to you, I have my worries.
|
russ
|
|
response 56 of 177:
|
Sep 15 20:21 UTC 1996 |
IMHO, recent developments have made anonymous reading through Backtalk
an idea which should be SCRAPPED. Immediately and permanently.
Cyber Promotions is spamming AOL through lists of ID's obtained by
watching chat rooms and other on-line identifiers. IF anyone like
C.P. spammed Grex through lists of ID's grabbed through Backtalk, it
would hose the Internet connection and the remaining disk space. The
last thing Grex needs is another denial-of-service attack.
To keep this from happening with regularity, it may be necessary to
scrap the idea of Web-accessibility of conferences altogether. Sad.
As a defense, Grex should also impose some conditions of use, including
a LARGE per-message fee for unsolicited and unwanted advertising sent
to users on Grex. If you do get a spam which results in denial of
service, at least Grex would be financially secure for a while.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 57 of 177:
|
Sep 15 21:49 UTC 1996 |
If all the Backtalk IDs were not e-mail IDs, that would not be a problem.
|
russ
|
|
response 58 of 177:
|
Sep 15 22:46 UTC 1996 |
The ID's of most of the people posting in BBS are most certainly e-mail ID's.
You completely fail to comprehend the problem.
|
janc
|
|
response 59 of 177:
|
Sep 15 23:01 UTC 1996 |
I hope to be opening Backtalk into all the conferences in a week or so. It'll
still be a Beta test version, but it will be a fully operational Beta test
version. My plan right now is to turn off anonymous access before doing so.
I haven't seen any really compelling arguments against anonymous access, but
I also haven't seen any really compelling arguments against it, and lacking
strong reasons on either side, I'm going to let myself be swayed by the fact
that at least a few peole find the anonymous thing strong offensive, and
nobody's heart is going to break if we don't turn it on.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 60 of 177:
|
Sep 16 02:15 UTC 1996 |
You completely fail to comprehend the solution. Require different IDs for
Backtalk.
|
arthurp
|
|
response 61 of 177:
|
Sep 16 04:27 UTC 1996 |
Someone with a different id posts from backtalk, and the snoop sees that
response right after *my* response. So he gets one invalid email address and
one valid one.
Or are we going to rewrite everything so that it displays a random garbage
name instead of the one that goes with my UID. That would completely cripple
the conferences.
|
tsty
|
|
response 62 of 177:
|
Sep 16 06:24 UTC 1996 |
someting like that ...
|
popcorn
|
|
response 63 of 177:
|
Sep 16 14:38 UTC 1996 |
Rane, actually it would be very hard to set up a "no e-mail" account.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 64 of 177:
|
Sep 16 15:06 UTC 1996 |
I'm forgetting all the implications of conferencing simultaneously from
both within Grex and from the Web. The "solution" is still to just
not display e-mail ids (or garbage it, as arthurp suggests) - that is,
if there is really a problem to solve. I doubt anyone would go to the
work of collecting e-mail addresses from a tiny system like this, in order
to "spam" it. If anyone tried, there are probably other defenses (Grex
can block all e-mail from some addresses, I would think, even if AOL is
sued for trying).
|
janc
|
|
response 65 of 177:
|
Sep 16 15:43 UTC 1996 |
I don't see how separate accounts would help anything. They'd be confusing
and much harder to administrate.
|
russ
|
|
response 66 of 177:
|
Sep 16 16:20 UTC 1996 |
administer. Administer. ADMINISTER! *NOT* administrate, which is not a word.
|
remmers
|
|
response 67 of 177:
|
Sep 16 17:23 UTC 1996 |
I tend to agree with Rane's #64. Grex is a pretty small fish.
Not attractive spam bait.
|
void
|
|
response 68 of 177:
|
Sep 16 19:20 UTC 1996 |
according to my dictionary, administrate means "to administer."
|
davel
|
|
response 69 of 177:
|
Sep 16 19:48 UTC 1996 |
(I'm with Russ on this one. void, I declare your dictionary null & void.)
|
remmers
|
|
response 70 of 177:
|
Sep 16 21:59 UTC 1996 |
(My dictionary recognizes "administrate" too. (American
Heritage))
|
void
|
|
response 71 of 177:
|
Sep 17 00:05 UTC 1996 |
(my dictionary is also an american heritage. anyone have an OED?)
|
scg
|
|
response 72 of 177:
|
Sep 17 01:33 UTC 1996 |
If CyberPromotions were really interested in Grex, nothing would stop them
from running newuser and creating an account.
|
srw
|
|
response 73 of 177:
|
Sep 17 07:29 UTC 1996 |
So we have a word battle to distract us from the main event?!
(j lang)
I kind of like anonymous reading, because it offers some of the advantages
of the "guest" account" that I favored, but we never managed to create.
However, I don't feel strongly about it. If we can sweep away all of the
objections to web-based conferencing by dropping support for anonymous
reading, then I won't stand in the way of such a compromise. At least Backtalk
will still support that facility on other sites.
|
remmers
|
|
response 74 of 177:
|
Sep 17 11:15 UTC 1996 |
Interesting comparison to the 'guest' account. During the time
it was under discussion, I can't recall any objection to
allowing people read-access to conferences via an anonymous
guest account. It seems inconsistent that there should be
objection to anonymous web-based reading.
I'm also not sure how widespread the objection is. A few people
have voiced concerns.
|