Author: Micheal Cummings
Date: 17:42:21 06/07/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 07, 1999 at 20:07:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 07, 1999 at 15:25:17, KarinsDad wrote: > >>On June 07, 1999 at 13:48:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On June 07, 1999 at 11:26:58, KarinsDad wrote: >>> >>>>On June 07, 1999 at 09:12:24, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 07, 1999 at 00:24:45, Harald Faber wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>I will make big efforts to no longer allow anonymous e-mail accounts here for a >>>>>>new period. Also for existing accounts via hotmail etc. >>>>>> >>>>>>Only exception: if someone with this account wants to stay, he has to prove his >>>>>>identity. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>An unpopular decision, but I think it is correct. I see _no_ reason for these >>>>>anonymous accounts, even though many of them are quite normal people that post >>>>>things that are perfectly acceptable. >>>>> >>>>>however, I wouldn't let you into my house with a sack over your head, and I >>>>>think that the abuse here is more than enough justification to simply say >>>>>"enough". If someone is afraid of revealing their true ID, then perhaps that >>>>>alone is enough reason to be wary of them? >>>> >>>>By your phrase "revealing their true ID", are you referring to revealing it to >>>>Steve, or are you referring to revealing it to everyone? >>>> >>>>KarinsDad :) >>> >>> >>>_EVERYONE_. I believe that if you want to post, you have to 'stand in the >>>light' to do so. Otherwise we continue to have the anonymous crap go on and >>>without any way of stopping it. _I_ post under my real name. I put up with a >>>lot of crap by doing so (IE Rolf and his band of renegades). But everyone knows >>>who I am, where I live/work, and how to contact me. >>> >>>Lurkers are 'ok', but they should only be allowed to lurk, and _not_ write, >>>without losing the cloak in the process... >> >>Robert, >> >>I asked the question since I wanted to determine whether you were responding to >>the issue of identification (which does not necessarily mean identification to >>everyone) versus the issue of anonymity. >> >>A system of verifying identity (for Steve) would also allow him to minimize >>anonomous users from getting banned, getting a new account, and re-entering (at >>least it would make it more difficult, nothing along these lines is yet >>impossible). >> >>However, people coming out into the light is a desire of yours (and others), not >>necessarily a requirement of Steve's. >> >>I would imagine that there are quite a few people here who believe in: >> >>1) No anonymity from the group (such as yourself) or >>2) No anonymity from Steve but anonymity from the group is acceptable (so that >>it is easier to keep out the riff raff once they create a major problem) or >>3) Anonymity (even from Steve) is acceptable as long as it is not abused. >> >>However, I doubt you would find many people who want: >> >>4) A real sounding name for everyone so that they can pretend to know who they >>am talking to (even if they really do not know who they are talking to). >> >>And without some form of identification process, #1 and #2 are not viable. #3 is >>the current situation (all you need is an Email address) and #4 is a joke. >> >>I am quite happy with either #2 or #3. You would be happier with #1. >> >>However, there are probably some posters right now who are doing #4 and you do >>not necessarily know who they are. >> >>Do they bother you less (since it is not obvious who they are) than I do since >>it is obvious that I am not standing out in the light with you? Or do you accept >>them at face value (like you might a repairman who comes to your door)? >> >>KarinsDad :) > > >You should read my previous post on this thread this evening. We are bringing >up blacklist sendmail clients right now. Which means that if you want to talk >to me, from hotmail.com it will be _impossible_ because UAB is going to reject >_all_ hotmail.com mail regardless, because they are #1 on all the SPAM lists. > >Anonymous remailers won't last another 3 years because they are 99% abusers >and 1% legit folks. The 1% has to pay, but that is the way it always is, when >you think about it. > >Note that I was _not_ directly talking about not liking your posts. You have >never been a problem that I have noticed. And you are one of the ones that >will be hurt as this unravels... But right now, we can't even have a decent >election here for all the anonymous crap... Also have you seen how many companies actually have hotmail as their account. Cause they sign a deal that when they advertise through how mail, they have special accounts that are set up to handle large email loads.
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.