Re: Funny code section
  By: mark lewis to Mvan Le on Fri Mar 19 2010 05:59 pm

 >  MvLe> Are you running a shady or top-secret bbs or something ?
 > 
 > no... why would you think that??

I think CBVs for BBSes are overkill.

In my opinion, if people don't provide a legitimate phone number in the first
place; then they probably don't want you knowing their phone number, and they
are reasonabliy expected to forfeit those details as a method of contact and/or
authentication.

Nobody these days provides their real details on a BBS. And if they did, then
they shouldn't. And SysOps who expect people to provide real information are
naive.

 >  MvLe> Those /real/ sysops you referred need to get with the times. 
 > 
 > all i'm saying is don't cripple the existing system such that the existing
 > ways and means no longer work... add new features and capabilities in
 > addition to what's already there... if you want to allow for someone to
 > give their IP number or website address, by all means do so... in another
 > field in the user database... if there's not an existing field for that
 > purpose, then add one... that's what upgrades and enhancements are all
 > about...

I have no problem with a CBV querying the user database for a phone number.
That's what it should do. However, the checking of legitimate numbers should be
handled by the CBV program (including configurable numbers to reject).  

Because there's no guarantee that BBS details provided are genuine, the BBS
should just be a place to store details rather than verify that they are true
(other than logon authentication).  

 > until POTS lines are completely done away with, there's no reason to gimp
 > software that works with them...

Yeah I suppose.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32