Re: [Quake-devel] Quake authentication - email acounts

[Nelson R. <pal...@li...>]

On Fri, 31 Dec 1999, you wrote:
> Joseph Carter wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, Dec 30, 1999 at 08:21:49PM -0800, J. Westfall wrote:
> > > seems like a person could have an unlimited number of email address,
> > > it would just be a matter of the user creating a new account on a
> > > personal unix box, using that email, then deleting that account.
> > 
> > The account would be required for maintenance of the account tied to it.
> > Could be changed of course since people do need to change email
> > addresses at times.
> > 
> > It'd also be possible to ban entire sites (hotmail) and possible make
> > exceptions for certain addresses at those sites.
> > 
> > Email may not be the BEST way to do it, but I don't see a whole lot of
> > alternatives at the moment.  Please feel free to suggest them.
> > 
> > > I personally dont like the idea of user accounts just to play a game.
> > 
> > A lot of people (the people running the servers) seem to want it.  Them
> > wanting it, we should create it--even if made optional.
> 
> Indeed. Even if it's just local auth, it's a Good Thing(tm).
> 
> > > what happens if the auth servers goes down?
> > 
> > I don't like the idea of a central autho either.  If the auth on a
> > single machine is down, likely so is the server it's attached to.
> 
> Central auth should scare the bejeezus out of everyone involved, which is
> why I don't think it would happen. I don't believe in allowing a central
> auth server to control who gets allowed to play QF, but at the same time
> it makes sense for servers to get together -- so that once you have an
> account on one server, you've got one on all of the servers in that
> "guild". Since we could distribute the auth server with the rest of our
> source, anyone who wants to start up a server or start up a guild could
> do so, with no barrier to entry.
> 
> > > or there is a prick server admin that just bans people until they are
> > > "blacklisted" or even better an little exploit that just sends these
> > > ban notices to the auth servers?  you almost need to add a
> > > verification method for servers, for "good" servers. heh.
> > 
> > I think this is the biggest argument against central servers.  Even just
> > private auth to connect is better than what we have now (nothing) and is
> > what has been requested.
> 
> I do think we need local authorization control (user must be authorized
> to connect to _this_ server), and the ability for one QW server to defer
> to another auth server (say, for free or for-profit subscription
> services, or intra-clan practice matches or something). Beyond that, I
> think we should let the community self-organize and stay the hell out of
> the way.
> 
> -- 
> | Jeff Teunissen -=- Pres., Dusk To Dawn Computing -- d2deek at pmail.net
> | Disclaimer: I am my employer, so anything I say goes for me too.     :)
> | dusknet.dhis.net is a black hole for email.    Use my Reply-To address.
> | Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux         http://dusknet.dhis.net/~deek/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Quake-devel mailing list
> Qua...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/quake-devel

I think it would be an invasion of privacy, mark of the beast and such. It
might be best to avoid a central auth situation, this also may be why Id
software never implemented such a solution.

--

"Guns don't kill people. It's those damn bullets. Guns just make them go
 really really fast." -- Jake Johanson