Author: KarinsDad
Date: 08:42:11 01/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 23, 1999 at 10:09:50, Don Dailey wrote: >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 me! I 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 Actually, your phone idea is good as well. At the moment, we do not appear to have such a problem with anonymous offenders (with the exception of me), so none of these extreme measures appear to be required. It's just a good idea to give suggestions when we think of them so that ICD can have a pool of ideas to work with. KarinsDad :)
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.