Re: Wish list... NOT!

david a. schlussel (
Thu, 20 Jul 1995 15:03:51 -0400 (EDT)

Reflector operators that are kind enough to let us use their machines should
not be responsible for what is being bounced off them in their absence.
Whoever is "abusing" their "privileges" is responsible for his/her own

If you don't like what you see, close the window. It's really easy to do.
If you have kids that you are trying to protect keep the application on
a disk and out of their reach when you are away.

It is useful for me to know of lurkers presence in the absence of an
address when CU-SeeMe is used for private video conferences. At
the very least you know that someone is watching.

+ David Schlussel +
+ +
+ MCIT-Special Projects +
+ +

On Thu, 20 Jul 1995, Rodney M. Dyer wrote:

> The IP addresses of all senders 'must' be echoed to all receivers. If not,
> then the server 'reflector' simply acts as a tool for dissemination of video
> from an unknown source.
> In this case it is the reflector operator that is to blame when something
> obscene or bad goes through. CuSeeMe already has the capability to identify
> the senders, but what about the lurkers??? If you are not going to have
> some method of identifying the lurker address, then whats the point of even
> showing the lurkers in the first place. There is no reason to echo the
> lurkers to the client CuSeeMe tool. That would make things ever so slightly
> faster. If the lurkers are just going to put up fake or junk preference
> information anyway, I see no reason to see the lurkers at all, or even have
> the CuSeeMe tool receive the lurker information from the refelctor.
> My point? If you are going to show the lurkers, you might as well show
> their real addresses.
> Rodney
> Rodney M. Dyer
> PC Network Administrator
> College of Engineering
> University of North Carolina at Charlotte
> Email:
> Phone: (704)547-3154
> >
> >Why should the 'Lurkers' remain anonymous?
> >
> >Paul A. Denton
> >
> >
> >