No. 918 [PM]
nooo
No. 919 [PM]
>>918Heres suggestion, why not tie PMs to the password? I mean, every post has password I guess, and it takes no effort for posters too
No. 920 [PM]
>>919makes sense…. lemme see
does [Hide] at least work for you now ?
No. 921 [PM]
>>920Eh, I press Hide and it does hide but after refresh it still shows all Hidden posts… And then when I press Hide again and the posts which were Hidden now hidden again…
No. 922 [PM]
>>921sounds like a cache thing ?
No. 931 [PM]
test
No. 932 [PM]
>>922Nah, cleared data and it still same…
No. 933 [PM]
Well, with PMs, can you just read the Password field of the post form and use dat?
So, here is idea of how to make it secure and private
First you need to change password generation to be more lengthy(I mean I have password and I never set it up my self so it was generated for me some time?…)
Then you might consider not to allow fetching of messages if the password is weak
You also need to consider anti brute force thing. So, it is reasonable dat one ip would fetch messages from one password. So, if one ip fetches messages from many passwords(like people might have two or three passwords… So more than 5 is sus) you could time out dat ip. Also, if ip fetches mesaages from more than one password you could add artificial latency together with time out. Like 300 ms or something. This way, if passwords are secure enough, brute forcing them wouldnt be really possible. Dont ban fetching though, just make time outs and increase them on infraction
No. 934 [PM]
>>933the "master password" at the bottom should just autofill in the other password fields
i'm just tryna get it going at all rn
No. 935 [PM]
>>934I see, well, its very cool, I support you with all my heart…
No. 936 [PM]
ty
ilysm
No. 981 [PM]
.
No. 982 [PM]
.