Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:23:30 06/07/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 07, 1999 at 20:38:35, Micheal Cummings wrote: > >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... > >When it comes to spamming, I get spammed from legit emails, I have not once got >a spam from hotmail, yahoo. Check carefully. I'll bet half your spam comes from hotmail, thru a third-party like UAB. But it does originate at hotmail _all_ the time... And we will see these scourges disappear, thankfully...
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.