Author: Don Dailey
Date: 13:01:32 01/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 23, 1999 at 11:42:11, KarinsDad wrote: >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. :) Yes, but there can be many reasons one would want anonymity and they are not all bad reasons. I personally don't care who is anonymous, as long as they are well behaved. >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.