General discussion

Locked

Can we agree to a standardized response to password recovery questions?

By Nonapeptide ·
Let's create a standard, courteous (yes, I said and truly mean _courteous_) response that can be cut and pasted into a post. We'll designate a few people as the "Password Recovery" responders who will paste that canned response into a message. We will agree that only the designated responders will post in that thread and only with the agreed upon response.

I don't see how multiple responses that essentially say the same thing are useful. They don't seem to dissuade folks from posting password recovery questions and they waste time for those who feel compelled to respond to them (and those of us who have a morbid fascination to see how the latest password recovery attempt was flamed )

Here's a roadmap for this plan:
1. Agree to have a canned response to password recovery questions.
[if the previous suggestion is agreed upon, then proceed to the following:]
2. Propose and ratify the text for an informative, simple, and courteous response to password recovery questions (which would, for the sake of everyone not in the know, include a header saying that this is a canned response and a final sentence asking that no one else respond to the thread.)
3. Designate one, two, or three established members as responders.

I propose a motion to make a canned response. Do I hear a second?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

155 total posts (Page 1 of 16)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

A question of practicality.

by deepsand In reply to Can we agree to a standar ...

Were it the case that 1) the "Designated 1st Responders" were always aware of such requests on a timely basis, and 2) all TR members were both aware of and adherent to such a policy, then and only then would such be workable.

How can these necessary prerequisite conditions be met?

Collapse -

Let Mae & her shovel Enforce them Sandy. <NT>

by OH Smeg In reply to A question of practicalit ...
Collapse -

I have a standard response

by Tig2 In reply to Can we agree to a standar ...

No one on this site will answer questions of this nature. Please contact your manufacturer or system administrator for additional assistance.

There will always be those who need to say more. I am not willing to police them.

Collapse -

you are

by Jaqui In reply to I have a standard respons ...

to nice, I think they should be told to run dban. ]:)

Darik's Boot And Nuke.

wipe that hard drive completely clean of data. ]:)

get the silly **cker fired.

Collapse -

Either that or

by The Scummy One In reply to you are

electrocute themselves :0

I was thinking about writing a new one, where they stick the grounding wire up their :0 :0

Collapse -

hmmmmm

by Jaqui In reply to Either that or

thumbs up for that one, I chuckled. ]:)

now, can I get anyone to help me fix a computer tomorrow after work...

I'll see how effective it is that grounding method, both rectally and orally grounding. ]:)

if I can find a sucker that is.

Collapse -

No!!!

by The Scummy One In reply to Can we agree to a standar ...

Honestly I wouldnt mind it, but as deepsand has pointed out, this will not work. It is doomed to fail.

Just wondering though, who would have been picked to send a response???
Why choose 1, 2, or 3 people? Even with 3 there could be lapses of coverage (dr. appointment, off time, out drinking, etc..). What, are we going to tell these 3 people not to have a life at all because they have to wait for a PW crack post???

Tis an interesting idea, but, I would likely still post some of my 'dangerous fixes', just cause I can't help myself sometimes

Collapse -

The first few names that come to my mind could probably write a monitor

by Neon Samurai In reply to No!!!

I'm guessing it wouldn't be beyond a few of the regular's skill (but possibly beyond interest) to simply write a program to monitor the site and respond on there behalf.. Beers with teh boys/girls *and* a little slap-around for the "I wanna jack this computer" questions.

Actually, it'd be ammusing to see that little program but only for interest of the problem and solution. In reality, you and the previous are more realistic by pointing out that it's not a simple thing to do. Really, it'd have to be a TR staffling (what's the intern doing after they fetch coffee?) and us responding to PW questions racks up more add displays than cutting the question short.

Collapse -

Courteous? You mean that telling them to drop dead isn't courteous? :^0

by ManiacMan In reply to Can we agree to a standar ...

Oh well, I guess I'll have to resort to the more courteous phrase of "Go +*$@%& yourself" when someone requests password cracking assistance. :^0

Collapse -

Good points. Let's revise this a little bit:

by Nonapeptide In reply to Can we agree to a standar ...

As Deepsand and Pond Scum pointed out, the "first responder" idea was flawed and completely superfluous. There is no need for a specific group of people to be selected for this task. Whoever sees it first can respond first.

As to how this template response would be propagated to other / future members, there could be a explanation within the message itself. Here's a rough draft of what I'm thinking:

"
Subject:
TechRepublic can not help with password recovery. Please DO NOT respond to this thread.
Body:
***The following is a standardized response for questions concerning recovering or "cracking" lost passwords.***

TechRepublic cannot assist anyone in the recovery of lost passwords. Please understand our position. You may have a legitimate reason to recover a password. However, we cannot verify your motives and thusly cannot in good conscience assist anyone in what may be an attempt at gaining unauthorized access to a computer system. Please do not ask questions of this nature on TechRepublic. If you persists, your account could be subject to termination.

To those viewing this post: Please DO NOT respond any further to this thread. This template has been released under the GNU public license and you are encouraged to use it (unmodified) as a standard reply for questions of similar nature.
"

Okay, that last sentence was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but you get the idea. Maybe we can refine this?

Seriosuly, I don't find the DBAN, fdisk, diskpart, et. al. suggestions to be amusing anymore. As we often say, we don't know the motives of the person requesting the information so they may or may not deserve to have their HD nuked. It's not for us to say. Let's just be short and sweet with the topic and get on to more productive things. No?

Merry Christmas.


Nonapeptide

Back to Software Forum
155 total posts (Page 1 of 16)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums