[OpenID] Unsubscribe help needed
erwinboogert at xs4all.nl
Sun Mar 4 21:25:00 UTC 2007
List and mods,
I tried to unsubscribe following the instructions at the bottom of
each mail. That doesn't work though.
Could any of the moderators please contact me off list to help me
Op 4-mrt-2007, om 21:00 heeft general-request at openid.net het volgende
> Send general mailing list submissions to
> general at openid.net
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> general-request at openid.net
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> general-owner at openid.net
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of general digest..."
> Today's Topics:
> 1. Re: What Should an OpenId Be? [WAS: RE: Proposal for
> Modularizing Auth 2.0 Discovery] (Claus F?rber)
> 2. Id system requirements (was P2P and decentralization)
> (Terry Braun)
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 15:27:45 +0100
> From: Claus F?rber <GMANE at faerber.muc.de>
> Subject: Re: [OpenID] What Should an OpenId Be? [WAS: RE: Proposal for
> Modularizing Auth 2.0 Discovery]
> To: general at openid.net
> Message-ID: <esel4k$rnb$1 at sea.gmane.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Stephen Paul Weber schrieb:
>> The only point I made in the earlier debate is that all email
>> addresses ARE URIs (without a protocol). Thus,
>> singpolyma at singpolyma.net (which is normalized to
>> http://firstname.lastname@example.org/) is actually a valid OpenID...
> It isn't. While syntactically a correct HTTP URI, it does not have
> semantics that make is usable as an OpenID.
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 09:51:36 -0500
> From: Terry Braun <tab at talking.com>
> Subject: [OpenID] Id system requirements (was P2P and
> Cc: general at openid.net
> Message-ID: <45EADCF8.2010009 at talking.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> I think an identity system will need to provide accountability,
> anonymity and selective disclosure.
> If I spam a blog, there must be some way I can be held accountable and
> therefore have some consequence for my action.
> If I want to join a group where my membership could have an impact
> on my
> job, then I want anonymity.
> And if I want to participate in a group that has some requirement such
> as age, I want to be able to disclose just that information and no
> I'm an incrementalist, so all these things don't need to be in
> place at
> once (openid is a big step forward as it is), but if the requirements
> are agreeable, it would be good to see a way to go from where we
> are to
> The only way I can see to meet these goals is to use a token for an
> identity that is separate from the identity rather than to have the
> identity be the token.
> Kaliya * wrote:
>> I think it is important to think about how different communities have
>> different needs around identifiers and what happens to them. Women
>> have a different relationship to the web an privacy. If one is a
>> woman one can't list one'self in the Skype directory because one will
>> get SkypeStalkers. I learned this before I signed up for my account
>> from other women. I am not saying that OpenID's will lead to
>> this...It is an example of a social phenomena experienced that when I
>> have shared with men who work in the tech industry surprises them. I
>> am guessing there are a few perspectives that we have not heard
>> when thinking about this (XFN and OpenID).
> general mailing list
> general at openid.net
> End of general Digest, Vol 7, Issue 8
SIP: 0878715972 at sip.xs4all.nl
Weblog op http://www.r-win.com/
Bezoek ook mijn zoekmachine voor 600+ Nederlandse discussiefora op:
More information about the general