SMF Development > Next SMF Discussion
My SMF 3.0 Dream
RoCKeT-88:
--- Quote from: Antechinus on April 04, 2012, 02:39:14 AM ---
--- Quote from: 青山 素子 on April 04, 2012, 02:11:05 AM ---
--- Quote from: RoCKeT-88 on April 04, 2012, 02:03:24 AM ---I think that scenario is out of the scope of the discussion, clearly. I am still waiting to hear about webmail.
--- End quote ---
If you are hosting mailboxes for people and those people exchange illegal content using it, or just violating copyright using it, you could still run into trouble. Yes, there is the whole "safe harbor" thing and other defenses, but you might still be subject to legal issues of which you may not want.
Also, it wouldn't be too hard to be a pain and use PM attachments to eat up disk space to mess with the owner. Since those are PM attachments, you couldn't just go and clean them out like you could with public attachments.
--- End quote ---
Actually you could, even without viewing them. You simply make it a site policy that if storage space becomes an issue, any and all attachments may be subject to removal.
Ok, let's take the current PM system. Using that on a vanilla installation, a person who is so inclined can already do the following:
1/ Use the bbc img tags to exchange pictures of anything, including CP or snuff.
2/ Exchange links to illegal downloads.
3/ Engage in grooming and/or sexual harrassment of minors.
4/ Exchange proprietary code.
5/ Exchange details of hacks and other malware.
I could go on with more examples, but I'm sure the point is clear by now. As I said, I have been thinking about this lately, and I'm not convinced the old arguments against PM attachments really hold up to scrutiny.
--- End quote ---
Very true great post.
Right why I said just go with were not doing it get over it~ Solves all this! LOL
RoCKeT-88:
--- Quote from: 青山 素子 on April 04, 2012, 02:39:37 AM ---Then see about that modification that was mentioned earlier. The author might be fine with sending you a copy.
Remember that just because SMF isn't as bloated as you want doesn't mean you can make it that way.
--- End quote ---
LOL Also very true and a good funny post~
Antechinus:
Personally I'd like the option of PM attachments sometimes, but I wouldn't make it available to any and all members who just happened to register. I'd be limiting it to a well-trusted group only.
This doesn't mean I'm going to jump up and down and demand it be a default feature. It's just something I've been considering as a possible addition to a site I run.
RoCKeT-88:
--- Quote from: Antechinus on April 04, 2012, 02:55:42 AM ---Personally I'd like the option of PM attachments sometimes, but I wouldn't make it available to any and all members who just happened to register. I'd be limiting it to a well-trusted group only.
This doesn't mean I'm going to jump up and down and demand it be a default feature. It's just something I've been considering as a possible addition to a site I run.
--- End quote ---
I think it's safe to assume if so it will be a mod. I understand this concept like if admins could only have the option.
SoLoGHoST:
--- Quote from: 青山 素子 on April 04, 2012, 02:11:05 AM ---Also, it wouldn't be too hard to be a pain and use PM attachments to eat up disk space to mess with the owner. Since those are PM attachments, you couldn't just go and clean them out like you could with public attachments.
--- End quote ---
Wrong! You can clean them out the same way and much more. I already provided tons of pruning options in the SMF Admin for my PM Attachments Mod. You can set a maximum disk usuage storage space on them. You can prune them by member name sent to or sent from, their age, how many views/downloads the attachments received, and many more pruning options.
But, like RoCKeT-88 stated, just say that you won't allow this to be part of SMF. That makes more sense to me, rather than trying to rationalize why you won't make it a part of SMF...
Cheers :)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version