New "GT40 for GPL" incar screenshot

wow.... 'nuff said ! http://forum.racesimcentral.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56634&perpage=25& pagenumber=7 (this shows the first incar shot from the coming "Ford GT40 for Grand Prix Legends" mod, I'm beginning to believe this could become something magical ;) Mikkel

On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 23:09:16 +0100, "Mikkel Gram-Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>wow.... 'nuff said ! >http://forum.racesimcentral.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56634&perpage=25& >pagenumber=7 >(this shows the first incar shot from the coming "Ford GT40 for Grand Prix >Legends" mod, I'm beginning to believe this could become something magical >;) > >Mikkel

The picture is near the bottom of page 7, to save some searching :) It's just plain -weird- to see a closed cockpit in GPL.. very impressive.. Andre

Why can I only see those images after logging on to RCS? I understand that if I want to post I should in some way authenticate that posting with my name, but what's the purpose of making me log on just to see a picture? Achim "Mikkel Gram-Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3e2a03cb$0$71679$[email hidden]... > wow.... 'nuff said ! >http://forum.racesimcentral.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56634&perpage=25& > pagenumber=7 > (this shows the first incar shot from the coming "Ford GT40 for Grand Prix > Legends" mod, I'm beginning to believe this could become something magical

"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > The picture is near the bottom of page 7, to save some searching :) > It's just plain -weird- to see a closed cockpit in GPL.. very > impressive.. > > Andre Equally weird and wonderful is the 3:04 lap of Lemans Arturo uploaded, using the Eagle as a testbed for the Porsche 917 physics. Pushing nearly 250mph on Mulsanne, with a lot more tire grip than we're accustomed to seeing in GPL. They're right in that they need something to verify cars being used online, or normal GPL racing on VROC will be toast. The '55 & '65 mods will make for slower laptimes, so they don't pose a similar threat. Here's hoping they get it right, SB

Exactly... not interested in creating yet another account just to see a pic... :) Philippe "Philster" Sergerie -- "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b0e559$k2dh8$[email hidden]... > Why can I only see those images after logging on to RCS? I understand that > if I want to post I should in some way authenticate that posting with my > name, but what's the purpose of making me log on just to see a picture? > > Achim > > > "Mikkel Gram-Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3e2a03cb$0$71679$[email hidden]... > > wow.... 'nuff said ! > > > http://forum.racesimcentral.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56634&perpage=25& > > pagenumber=7 > > (this shows the first incar shot from the coming "Ford GT40 for Grand Prix > > Legends" mod, I'm beginning to believe this could become something magical > >

"Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b0e559$k2dh8$[email hidden]... > Why can I only see those images after logging on to RCS? I understand that > if I want to post I should in some way authenticate that posting with my > name, but what's the purpose of making me log on just to see a picture? > They said that otherwise, the forum could get flooded with warez. I guess they had to choose between an open forum, or a forum that allows attachments. -- Jone Tytlandsvik http://tytlandsvik.no

Jone, thanks for the explanation, but a forum cannot get flooded with anything by people who are simply _viewing_ it. Achim "Jone Tytlandsvik" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b0ej0u$osj5f$[email hidden]... ... > They said that otherwise, the forum could get flooded with warez. > I guess they had to choose between an open forum, or a forum that allows > attachments.

Joachim Trensz wrote: > Why can I only see those images after logging on to RCS? I understand that > if I want to post I should in some way authenticate that posting with my > name, but what's the purpose of making me log on just to see a picture? Hear hear.. the 'excluding' system on that site is a bit of a nuisance. It should be more 'inclusive', imho. Regards, Ruud

Joachim Trensz wrote: > > Jone, thanks for the explanation, but a forum cannot get flooded with > anything by people who are simply _viewing_ it. No, but it only takes a couple of people posting warez for others to be able to DL, would be easy to use it for zero days warez stuff, by requesting that you register they make it a that much harder for people to use the forums as a means of distributing warez or otherwise illegal material, the admins can't be everywhere While I agree on the annoyment factor of having to register for yet another web forum, which I don't like in the first place, RSC is one of the few places I have registered for as it's a well run site with tons of useful info, and I did it before "The Pits" moved their forums there :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

Ruud Dingemans <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b0elmh$gnt$[email hidden]... > Joachim Trensz wrote: > > Why can I only see those images after logging on to RCS? I understandthat > > if I want to post I should in some way authenticate that posting with my > > name, but what's the purpose of making me log on just to see a picture? > > Hear hear.. the 'excluding' system on that site is a bit of a nuisance. > It should be more 'inclusive', imho. > Regards, Ruud It takes less than a minute to sign up..... once and for all. We will not be changing this way of doing things. Obviously this setup is intended to make people spend that 1 minute to sign up, not because we make money (it's a non-profit project.... damn ;)) or because we wanna look at the nice numbers and go oooh and aaahhhh over the number of new members, but because we think that once you have signed up you are more prone to actively joining the discussions and thats what the forum is all about. We want to make people join the discussions, not just look at the pretty pictures ;) One of the other reasons is that a "guest" takes as much processor power and bandwith as a "member", just a drop in the ocean, but many drops and all that.... and if you are going to use our hard pressed processor doesn't it sound fair enough that you in return spend a minute signing up before doing so ? We offer a free service to those interested, how can that be a nuisance ? And how can a free for all service be considered an "excluding system" ???????? It's not like we ask for your social security number and demand you write a complete biography before allowing you into the sacred halls of RSC :) Mikkel PS: Sorry if I sound a bit annoyed. But as we spend countless hours managing this service, it seems a bit unfair to me that you complain about spending 1 minute to sign up and use it. Just do it *lol*

On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 09:35:31 -0500, "Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>Equally weird and wonderful is the 3:04 lap of Lemans Arturo uploaded, using >the Eagle as a testbed for the Porsche 917 physics. Pushing nearly 250mph >on Mulsanne, with a lot more tire grip than we're accustomed to seeing in >GPL. They're right in that they need something to verify cars being used >online, or normal GPL racing on VROC will be toast. The '55 & '65 mods will >make for slower laptimes, so they don't pose a similar threat. > >Here's hoping they get it right, > >SB

Do you have the url of that replay for me please? Andre

On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 18:54:53 +0100, "Mikkel Gram-Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote: >PS: Sorry if I sound a bit annoyed. But as we spend countless hours managing >this service, it seems a bit unfair to me that you complain about spending 1 >minute to sign up and use it. Just do it *lol* You had all the right to sound a bit annoyed there. Andre

"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 09:35:31 -0500, "Steve Blankenship" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Equally weird and wonderful is the 3:04 lap of Lemans Arturo uploaded,using > >the Eagle as a testbed for the Porsche 917 physics. Pushing nearly250mph > >on Mulsanne, with a lot more tire grip than we're accustomed to seeing in > >GPL. They're right in that they need something to verify cars being used > >online, or normal GPL racing on VROC will be toast. The '55 & '65 modswill

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >make for slower laptimes, so they don't pose a similar threat. > > > >Here's hoping they get it right, > > > >SB > > Do you have the url of that replay for me please? > > Andre >

It's posted in the same thread as the cockpit shot, Andre. I think it was page 5 or 6; there are two laps, one a 3:06 and more recent 3:04. Let me know if you can't get it there and I'll send it to you. It's about 370K zipped. SB

Hi Goy, well, Mikkel's reply has made any comments unnecessary <g> Achim "Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... ...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> No, but it only takes a couple of people posting warez for others to be > able to DL, would be easy to use it for zero days warez stuff, by > requesting that you register they make it a that much harder for people > to use the forums as a means of distributing warez or otherwise illegal > material, the admins can't be everywhere > > While I agree on the annoyment factor of having to register for yet > another web forum, which I don't like in the first place, RSC is one of > the few places I have registered for as it's a well run site with tons > of useful info, and I did it before "The Pits" moved their forums there > :-)

Thanks for the explanation, Mikkel. As as opposed to Andre I think there's nothing to get annoyed about. A question was asked in polite words, and an opinion was given. No reason to be annoyed. Achim "Mikkel Gram-Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3e2ae6d6$0$222$[email hidden]... ... > Obviously this setup is intended to make people spend > that 1 minute to sign up ...because we think that once you > have signed up you are more prone to actively joining the > discussions and thats what the forum is all about. We want > to make people join the discussions, not just look at the pretty pictures;)

Hi Joachim It was not your post, but the "Hear hear.. the 'excluding' system on that site is a bit of a nuisance. It should be more 'inclusive', imho." from Ruud that made me answer. At least I think we got the question answered ;) Mikkel Joachim Trensz <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b0f8rr$oqq07$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> Thanks for the explanation, Mikkel. > > As as opposed to Andre I think there's nothing to get annoyed about. A > question was asked in polite words, and an opinion was given. No reason to > be annoyed. > > Achim > > > > "Mikkel Gram-Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3e2ae6d6$0$222$[email hidden]... > ... > > Obviously this setup is intended to make people spend > > that 1 minute to sign up ...because we think that once you > > have signed up you are more prone to actively joining the > > discussions and thats what the forum is all about. We want > > to make people join the discussions, not just look at the pretty

pictures > ;) > > > >

> "Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > Do you have the url of that replay for me please? > > > > Andre A bit better this time; page three for the 3:06 http://forum.racesimcentral.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=568662 And page five for the 3:04 http://forum.racesimcentral.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=573381 On second inspection (from the in-car this time, comparing apex speeds and braking points to my own), the grip levels don't look that much different than std. But if they're not, the driver definitely has a light right foot. It's a clean lap with very little sliding or wheelspin; methinks not easy with 600+ hp... ;-)

Mikkel Gram-Hansen wrote: >>Hear hear.. the 'excluding' system on that site is a bit of a nuisance. > It takes less than a minute to sign up..... once and for all. Sorry Mikkel, but... Nope it doesn't. Every time I click a link and see another web page, it logs me out by itself. Sometimes I don't even go anywhere else and suddenly I'm "not logged in". It's a nuisance. All those 'login' sites are a nuisance. A big nuisance with bells on. > is all about. We want to make people join the discussions, not just look at > the pretty pictures ;) Fine, but if I just wanna click a link to your site if it's mentioned here and can't just look at a pretty picture because "i'm not logged in", that's a nuisance. > that.... and if you are going to use our hard pressed processor doesn't it > sound fair enough that you in return spend a minute signing up before doing I don't use (or trust) cookies, so yeah, it may be fair but it's still a nuisance. > We offer a free service to those interested, how can that be a nuisance ? Q.e.d. > PS: Sorry if I sound a bit annoyed. But as we spend countless hours managing > this service, it seems a bit unfair to me that you complain about spending 1 > minute to sign up and use it. Just do it *lol* I'll do it but it's still a nuisance of a (dis)service. And personally, I don't like nuisances, especially if they can be avoided. I like your site, don't get me wrong. It's a credit to the simracing community. But that "you're not logged in" message every friggin' time, that part is and will forever remain a nuisance. Regards, Ruud

"Ruud Dingemans" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b0hevo$lb0$[email hidden]... > I don't use (or trust) cookies, so yeah, it may be fair but it's still a > nuisance. Just allow the damned cookie. > > We offer a free service to those interested, how can that be a nuisance? > > Q.e.d. You're a acting like a bloody fool. Stop whining. This is not some multi-national company you're complaining about, this is a free service run by like-minded enthusiasts. If you want to be cautious with your internet settings then fine, but don't complain when your self-imposed restriction causes you a tiny bit of inconvenience. I understand your security sentiments, personally I disable active scripting in IE, but if there's a site I want to see badly enough that needs it, I'll enable it. This one's worth a cookie. Malc.

On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 23:09:16 +0100, "Mikkel Gram-Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote: >wow.... 'nuff said ! >http://forum.racesimcentral.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56634&perpage=25& >pagenumber=7 >(this shows the first incar shot from the coming "Ford GT40 for Grand Prix >Legends" mod, I'm beginning to believe this could become something magical Will it actually drive like a GT car? Or will it drive like a 67 F1 car and just look like a GT?

"Ruud Dingemans" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b0hevo$lb0$[email hidden]... > I don't use (or trust) cookies, so yeah, it may be fair but it's still a > nuisance. > Seriously, cookies are not dangerous. As for your personal privacy, I think your IP adress, and webserver-logs (not to mention your ISP's logfiles) reveal far far more than a persisted variable (only readable from that very page) in a textfile. :-)

On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 18:21:54 -0500, "Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote: >On second inspection (from the in-car this time, comparing apex speeds and >braking points to my own), the grip levels don't look that much different >than std. But if they're not, the driver definitely has a light right foot. >It's a clean lap with very little sliding or wheelspin; methinks not easy >with 600+ hp... ;-) Thanks, very interesting to see these replays.. I can't wait :)) Andre

On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:29:59 +0100, Ruud Dingemans <[email hidden]> wrote: <snip> >I like your site, don't get me wrong. It's a credit to the simracing >community. But that "you're not logged in" message every friggin' time, >that part is and will forever remain a nuisance. > >Regards, Ruud Instead of writing this post, you could have used the same time to register to solve all those big nuisances with bells on. Andre

Without cookies it is a nuisance. No reason to disable cookies, other than principle of course and when you stick to your principles you gotta expect to pay the price ;) I delete my cookie cache once a month or so, just out of principle and each time I remember how many places I have to log in again.... cookies are good mmm'kay :) Mikkel

Malc wrote: >>I don't use (or trust) cookies, so yeah, it may be fair but it's still a >> nuisance. > Just allow the damned cookie. No. I don't use (or trust) cookies, so I won't use them. It's my pc (well, Mac really) and I'll (dis)allow what I damn well please. > You're a acting like a bloody fool. Stop whining. If there was no reason, this bloody fool wouldn't have anything to whine about. Ergo, it seems there is. > This is not some > multi-national company you're complaining about, this is a free service run > by like-minded enthusiasts. I know. And their "login" system is flawed & a nuisance nevertheless. What do you want, should I proclaim things are just fine (and not a nuisance to me) when I feel they are not, just because it's free? Like I said, I think the site is fine, just having to (re)"login" every time because the site decides by itself you're "logged out" (again) is a nuisance. > If you want to be cautious with your internet settings then fine, but don't > complain when your self-imposed restriction causes you a tiny bit of > inconvenience. There is no real technical reason to use cookies or login systems, period. The Web was conceived (on a NeXT) as a system for free flow of information. If they want me to "login" (and again, and again) every time just because I clicked on a link and ended up on another web page, fine, just don't expect me to not judge it for what it is: a nuisance. > This one's worth a cookie. No site is worth risking your privacy for, imho. I trust (and like) Mikkel's site just fine, I just don't trust cookies and I won't activate them every time for just one site. Regards, Ruud

Carl Ribbegaardh wrote: >>I don't use (or trust) cookies, so yeah, it may be fair but it's still a >> nuisance. > Seriously, cookies are not dangerous. Sure. I'll just use one quote from vnunet.com: >> The warning by the Information Commission (IC) follows a vote by the European Parliament > earlier this month to introduce an amendment to the data protection and privacy > directive that will restrict the use of cookies across Europe. > >> Cookies invade the privacy of surfers by covertly gathering personal data, > according to the European Parliament which has classed them as 'spyware'. I know *most* cookies are innocent. Mikkel's are probably perfectly innocent. I just don't trust them in general, because there will always be companies or organisations who will abuse them. So I turn them off by default, and for a reason. > As for your personal privacy, I think your IP adress, and webserver-logs > (not to mention your ISP's logfiles) reveal far far more than a persisted > variable (only readable from that very page) in a textfile. Possibly. But that doesn't mean I should trust cookies anyway. Besides, I'm a Mac user - in general, I'm not likely to get marketed and/or hacked anyhow ;) Regards, Ruud

Andre Warringa wrote: >>I like your site, don't get me wrong. It's a credit to the simracing >>community. But that "you're not logged in" message every friggin' time, >>that part is and will forever remain a nuisance. > Instead of writing this post, you could have used the same time to > register to solve all those big nuisances with bells on. Oh, I registered long ago. And it still causes the problems described above. It logs me out seemingly at random, even after having logged in (which is a slight nuisance in itself). Regards, Ruud

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 15:54:54 +0100, Ruud Dingemans <[email hidden]> wrote something like this: >Malc wrote: >> Just allow the damned cookie. > >No. I don't use (or trust) cookies, so I won't use them. It's my pc >(well, Mac really) and I'll (dis)allow what I damn well please. So by disallowing cookies, you're allowing this to be a nuisance (to you)... your choice, your loss ;-) As said before on this thread, cookies are the least of your problems if you're worried about your privacy on the net. -- - JKo -

Mikkel Gram-Hansen wrote: > Without cookies it is a nuisance. > No reason to disable cookies, other than principle of course and when you > stick to your principles you gotta expect to pay the price ;) Sure, just don't expect me to not complain if it's a nuisance :) just because I wanna protect my privacy a bit (and so should others, btw... A lot more data is probably being gathered about us than we'd like to know, and probably not for all the right reasons.) > I delete my cookie cache once a month or so, just out of principle and each > time I remember how many places I have to log in again.... cookies are good Sorry Mikkel, I'm afraid they're not (see my quote from the European Parliament a few postings ago) although I think *yours* are just fine ;) It's just that I don't wanna turn them on and off the whole time, and my cookie managers so far don't seem to help either (Mozilla just gives a choice between 'enable' or 'disable') and even if I state that your site *can* set a cookie, it regularly seems to log me out at random, mostly after clicking a link which lands me on another web page. Dunno why it happens but it sure is a nuisa... well, you get the picture ;) Regards, Ruud

"Ruud Dingemans" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b0jmof$v6$[email hidden]... > Malc wrote: > > > Just allow the damned cookie. > > No. I don't use (or trust) cookies, so I won't use them. It's my pc > (well, Mac really) and I'll (dis)allow what I damn well please. Yes. I said the very same thing in my post. You snipped it. You can do what you please with your own computer, but don't complain when your self-imposed restriction creates a problem. You missed the point. Why can't you just allow cookies for sites you trust? > > You're a acting like a bloody fool. Stop whining. > > If there was no reason, this bloody fool wouldn't have anything to whine > about. Ergo, it seems there is. You've progressed to 'blithering idiot' level now. Did you quote that crap from a helpfile? Here's a sentence that makes sense: You state you have a problem, you know of two ways to fix it, but instead of choosing the solution that requires a very small amount of effort on your part (log in manually), you choose the solution that requires a large amount of work by someone else (to redesign their site) just so you can have a slightly easier life. That's a pretty good definition of WHINING. > > This is not some > > multi-national company you're complaining about, this is a free servicerun

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > by like-minded enthusiasts. > > I know. And their "login" system is flawed & a nuisance nevertheless. > What do you want, should I proclaim things are just fine (and not a > nuisance to me) when I feel they are not, just because it's free? > > Like I said, I think the site is fine, just having to (re)"login" every > time because the site decides by itself you're "logged out" (again) is a > nuisance.

No, there's no need to say it's fine, just don't complain about it when you have a workable solution already. You get what you pay for. > > If you want to be cautious with your internet settings then fine, butdon't

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > complain when your self-imposed restriction causes you a tiny bit of > > inconvenience. > > There is no real technical reason to use cookies or login systems, > period. The Web was conceived (on a NeXT) as a system for free flow of > information. If they want me to "login" (and again, and again) every > time just because I clicked on a link and ended up on another web page, > fine, just don't expect me to not judge it for what it is: a nuisance.

Looks like you're stuck between a rock and a hard place then. Malc.

Malc wrote: > Why can't you just allow cookies for sites you trust? Mozilla won't allow it, it seems. > You state you have a problem, you know of two ways to fix it, but instead of > choosing the solution that requires a very small amount of effort on your > part (log in manually) Erm - maybe you'd want to reflect on something here: who says I don't log in manually? I do - it's just that the site logs me out randomly by itself. > That's a pretty good definition of WHINING. Nope. Better learn the proper definition. I wouldn't complain if things just worked the way they're supposed to - but they don't, I'm afraid. Regards, Ruud

"Ruud Dingemans" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b0q1rr$h0k$[email hidden]... > Malc wrote: > > > Why can't you just allow cookies for sites you trust? > > Mozilla won't allow it, it seems. Set it to allow cookies. Go to the site you 'trust' and log in to get the cookie. Disable cookies. I used to do this with IE4 to stop doubleclick doing their thing. It may work for you. > > You state you have a problem, you know of two ways to fix it, butinstead of > > choosing the solution that requires a very small amount of effort onyour > > part (log in manually) > > Erm - maybe you'd want to reflect on something here: who says I don't > log in manually? > > I do - it's just that the site logs me out randomly by itself. Not me. I suggested that you continue to log in manually as you currently do, or allow the cookie. It doesn't log you out manually, it just waits for a predetermined amount of inactivity before assuming you don't want to be logged in anymore. The alternative is having the site ping you every 15 minutes for the next 48hrs like my ISP's site does if I forget to log out. Try clicking links more frequently as a test, you should be able to work out how long the delay is. > > That's a pretty good definition of WHINING. > > Nope. Better learn the proper definition. I wouldn't complain if things > just worked the way they're supposed to - but they don't, I'm afraid. It does work the way it's supposed to, it just doesn't work the way you want it to. Malc.

Malc wrote: > Set it to allow cookies. > Go to the site you 'trust' and log in to get the cookie. > Disable cookies. That's what I did a while ago. Won't work. Hey, I wouldn't say it's a nuisance if it was easy to fix... > It doesn't log you out manually, it just waits for a predetermined amount of > inactivity before assuming you don't want to be logged in anymore. No. It mainly logs me out when I click a link to another page. That doesn't mean I've left the site - I'm still there on another page, and am rarely 'away' for more than a couple of minutes. Either way,... > It does work the way it's supposed to, it just doesn't work the way you want > it to. No, I don't think it should log me out just because I clicked a link that's mentioned on the forum itself, let alone if I'm still "there" in another window. If I go thru the trouble of logging in, it should act properly upon it. IMHO, anyway. Regards, Ruud

"Ruud Dingemans" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b0t4vu$ul2$[email hidden]... > > No, I don't think it should log me out just because I clicked a link > that's mentioned on the forum itself, let alone if I'm still "there" in > another window. If I go thru the trouble of logging in, it should act > properly upon it. IMHO, anyway. > The only problem is your browser, and how you set it up. If you disallow cookies, fine. But don't expect all web applications to work. If you rule out cookies, what kind of authentication implementation would you consider aproperiate? It is a site for members, and it requires login. What is a better solution for the login? /Carl

Carl Ribbegaardh wrote: >>No, I don't think it should log me out just because I clicked a link > It is a site for members, and it requires login. What is a better solution > for the login? A login without cookies. (After all, they've only been around for a couple of years. Sites should be able to do without.) Apart from that, logging in (once!) isn't really the problem. Getting logged out just because I clicked a link on its own forum is. Regards, Ruud

"Ruud Dingemans" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b0uff5$1hd$[email hidden]... > Carl Ribbegaardh wrote: > > > It is a site for members, and it requires login. What is a bettersolution > > for the login? > > A login without cookies. > Yes, but technically, how would you implement that? /Carl

In article <b10ism$sigpe$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > "Ruud Dingemans" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:b0uff5$1hd$[email hidden]... > > Carl Ribbegaardh wrote: > > > > > It is a site for members, and it requires login. What is a better > solution > > > for the login? > > > > A login without cookies. > > > > Yes, but technically, how would you implement that? >

Well, the only thing the cookies do is remember your info for you so you don't have to re-login manually every time.

"John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Well, the only thing the cookies do is remember your info for you so > you don't have to re-login manually every time. That's the only thing this cookie does, others are not quite so benign ;-) Malc.

"John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> In article <b10ism$sigpe$[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] says... > > > > "Ruud Dingemans" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:b0uff5$1hd$[email hidden]... > > > Carl Ribbegaardh wrote: > > > > > > > It is a site for members, and it requires login. What is a better > > solution > > > > for the login? > > > > > > A login without cookies. > > > > > > > Yes, but technically, how would you implement that? > > > > Well, the only thing the cookies do is remember your info for you so > you don't have to re-login manually every time.

My guess is that it authenticates you every click as well. Not only when you've been away. Since this scheme makes it possible for the site to recognise a user, I think it's a very nice authentication implementation.

On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 13:56:07 -0000, Malc wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> "John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > >> Well, the only thing the cookies do is remember your info for you so >> you don't have to re-login manually every time. > > That's the only thing this cookie does, others are not quite so benign ;-) > > Malc. > >

You can also tell your browser to remember login / passwords without needing to seta cookie. (at least that's possible for Mozilla). Another downside of cookies is that you'll probably have to disable proxies like junkbuster or squid if a site requires cookies, but that's a different story. cheers, uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

Carl Ribbegaardh wrote: >>>It is a site for members, and it requires login. What is a better solution >>>for the login? >>A login without cookies. > Yes, but technically, how would you implement that? My goodness, I'm kinda baffled... Unix logins have existed for dozens of years before cookies were even invented and still you ask for the obvious? Regards, Ruud

"Ruud Dingemans" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b13h3q$pt0$[email hidden]... > Carl Ribbegaardh wrote: > > >>>It is a site for members, and it requires login. What is a bettersolution

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >>>for the login? > > >>A login without cookies. > > > Yes, but technically, how would you implement that? > > My goodness, I'm kinda baffled... Unix logins have existed for dozens of > years before cookies were even invented and still you ask for the obvious? >

Yes, there are unix logins, and if you're on a windows server you can use a windows account. Correct me if I'm wrong, but afaik it requires you to have administrative rights on the server. With cookies, you can roll your own user verification. :-) Zope is a different animal, but this is a PHP site ;-)

On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:56:53 +0100, Ruud Dingemans wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Carl Ribbegaardh wrote: > >>>>It is a site for members, and it requires login. What is a better solution >>>>for the login? > >>>A login without cookies. > >> Yes, but technically, how would you implement that? > > My goodness, I'm kinda baffled... Unix logins have existed for dozens of > years before cookies were even invented and still you ask for the obvious? > > Regards, Ruud >

technically, the authentication process of a webserver consists of nothing more than the browser sending an X-Authenticate header with each request for a page which is located within a "protected" area. The contents of this header is a combination of the username and the password that was entered, base64-encoded (this is the reason why http basic auth is inherently unsafe unless you use SSL, as the base64 string can be intercepted by eavesdropping on the tcp packets and unencoded using a one-liner perl script, rendering username / password in cleartext ;-). So yes, Ruud is right, http basic authentication has been part of the http RFC for years. Cookies were only invented later by netscape to implement things like storing the date of your last visit and so on, and eventually was also used for storing password information. Nothing to do with either unix or windows logins, unless you tell your webserver to authenticate against one of these mechanisms. Zope supports both: HTTP basic auth and / or session based logins, out of the box. Cheers, uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

"Uwe hoover Schuerkamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:56:53 +0100, Ruud Dingemans wrote: > > Carl Ribbegaardh wrote: > > > >>>>It is a site for members, and it requires login. What is a bettersolution

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >>>>for the login? > > > >>>A login without cookies. > > > >> Yes, but technically, how would you implement that? > > > > My goodness, I'm kinda baffled... Unix logins have existed for dozens of > > years before cookies were even invented and still you ask for the

obvious?

Quoted text (24 lines)

> > > > Regards, Ruud > > > > > technically, the authentication process of a webserver consists > of nothing more than the browser sending an X-Authenticate > header with each request for a page which is located within a > "protected" area. The contents of this header is a combination > of the username and the password that was entered, > base64-encoded (this is the reason why http basic auth is > inherently unsafe unless you use SSL, as the base64 string can > be intercepted by eavesdropping on the tcp packets and > unencoded using a one-liner perl script, rendering username / > password in cleartext ;-). > > So yes, Ruud is right, http basic authentication has been part > of the http RFC for years. Cookies were only invented later by > netscape to implement things like storing the date of your last > visit and so on, and eventually was also used for storing > password information. Nothing to do with either unix or > windows logins, unless you tell your webserver to authenticate > against one of these mechanisms. >

...cookies can be used to store an identifier. (not a password hopefully, since the cookie is sent to the webserver for each and every request) And sending an x-authenticate (or a 403), isn't necessary if you roll your own authentication. Much like GPLRank nowadays ;-)