Author: Don Dailey
Date: 07:09:50 01/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 23, 1999 at 01:34:52, KarinsDad wrote: >On January 22, 1999 at 22:36:50, Don Dailey wrote: > >>On January 22, 1999 at 15:00:04, KarinsDad wrote: >> >>>On January 22, 1999 at 14:45:39, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On January 22, 1999 at 08:08:07, Steffen Jakob wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 22, 1999 at 02:15:59, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 21, 1999 at 15:16:37, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>[...] >>>>> >>>>>>Fake email address in what sense? You can't get a password without having a >>>>>>real email address, since the password is sent to the email address. >>>>> >>>>>I think Dan meant those Email accounts which you can get free from several >>>>>public services (e.g. gmx, bigfoot, ...). >>>>That is one issue. It would not be a problem if the services were not abused to >>>>allow hanky-panky. But they are sometimes. Another is that people can get an >>>>account, then delete the email account used to get access and continue to post. >>>>I have had emails bounce before, trying to send an email to the originator of a >>>>message. >>> >>>This problem is easier to resolve though. >>> >>>Once a month or so, have CCC send an Email to everyone. If an Email bounces, try >>>it again a day later or so and if it still bounces, disable the account. You >>>could even do this at random times so that people wouldn't know that it occurs >>>at the end of the month, to get new Email and CCC accounts at the beginning of >>>the month. If anyone accidentally got caught with a problem such as their ISP >>>was down for a few days and couldn't get back in, they could always Email CCC >>>that they cannot get back in and why their Email was disabled. I think the >>>frequency of problems of this type is low enough that the solution would be >>>fine. >>> >>>Some ISPs give out free accounts for 30 days or so, so you couldn't eliminate >>>the problem completely. You could only attempt to minimize it. >>> >>>This solution could also be used to eventually clean up the server of obsolete >>>accounts. >>> >>>You could also state right up front that the free Email accounts that are abused >>>will invalidate that service for everyone (such as if someone uses hotmail.com >>>to cause problems, all free hotmail.com accounts are busted). This may prevent a >>>few non-paying Email contributors from getting access here, but for those of us >>>who do pay an ISP (which is probably a high percentage), it would minimize these >>>types of abuse problems here (such as Sean's 91+ accounts). >>> >>>Do these solutions seem reasonable? >>> >>>KarinsDad >> >>I think your idea is quite good. I'm not sure I like the idea >>about disabling a whol provider however since this could prevent >>us from getting a good member and would prevent them from getting >>the benefit of our group. >> >>- Don > >I don't like it either. It was an extreme measure for when someone overly >abusive uses that provider. I figured that after the heat wore down, a few >weeks, a month, whatever, the provider could be re-allowed. This would be >unfortunate, but how do you stop the person who is abusive and just keeps going >back to the same provider for free Email addresses as you ban him each time? At >least if they try to get a fake Email (i.e. get a real one and drop it), then >they may have to pay at least for a month of an ISP. > >KarinsDad Yes, it's one of those things that don't have an elegant solution so what you suggest is as good as any. One possibility is to alert any potential member to the possibility that if they are from a given provider they may have to use an alternative type of registration. Instead of sending them a password, ICD sends them an email asking them to call ICD to get their password. ICD then gets a phone number from them and calls them back to verify. Yes, it's a little extra procedure, but if you want to solve a problem a little extra procedure will probably be required. Even if ICD skipped the callback verification part, it would be very effective I think. Most of these types of cowards thrive on anonymity. Just like most thiefs, they want to do their work under cover and any human interaction would make them uncomfortable. Talking to a person at ICD would also give ICD the chance to recognize a voice and would limit the number of possible times they could be fooled. My recommendation is that ICD would try to take a little bit of time on such calls, being friendly and conversational, the last thing an offender would want to deal with. This gives them time to get familiar with the voice and personality too. I believe this would be a significant hurdle to the typical offender. - Don
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.