🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Apr6.164858.1714@mercury.unt.edu> darren@sol.acs.unt.edu (Darren Paul Loher) writes:
>Is there anyway to remove the time/date stamp on anonymous posts?
>(local forum, DOS Waffle 1.64) 
>

I suppose you could always go into the directory and remove it manually. But
what's the point?

-- 
bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us                 "...we found that in space, no one can
Bob Kirkpatrick                        hear you scream. In 1992 we find that
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA       everyone can."             --alienIII

root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:

>In article <1992Apr6.164858.1714@mercury.unt.edu> darren@sol.acs.unt.edu (Darren Paul Loher) writes:
>>Is there anyway to remove the time/date stamp on anonymous posts?
>>(local forum, DOS Waffle 1.64) 
>>

>I suppose you could always go into the directory and remove it manually. But
>what's the point?

Well, if someone was curious about who actually posted anonymously, all they
would have to do is type 'list' and get a list of the last 20 or so callers.
In this list is the time those people called.  Even if you could remove the
time stamp from the caller display, anonymous messages would have time stamps
really close to the time of other, non-anonymous posts from the same user.
So, that doesn't completely solve the problem either.  

Is there a way to modify the output of the 'LIST' command, without the
source code?  I don't remember seeing anything about it in the static file.
-- 
Darren Loher                                Data Communications
darren@sol.acs.unt.edu                   University of North Texas
darren@elecafe.dent.tx.us      "A bar of soap just flew through my window!"

In article <1992Apr8.140827.11293@mercury.unt.edu> darren@sol.acs.unt.edu (Darren Paul Loher) writes:
>Well, if someone was curious about who actually posted anonymously, all they
>would have to do is type 'list' and get a list of the last 20 or so callers.

Oh, I get it. I suppose you could give thought to disabling the list-callers
function --that would help to hide who's been on and achieve a higher
security. It would also prevent callers from making the comparisons that you
speak of.

>Is there a way to modify the output of the 'LIST' command, without the
>source code?  I don't remember seeing anything about it in the static file.

I don't THINK so, unless you want to pull out a binary editor and monkey with
the waffle.exe file. I did that so that the 'poof' command was replaced by a
simple 'g' --and then set 'poof ok' to a trusted user level (mine :) BTW, I
used Norton's diskedit to do it. However --work on a COPY of the .exe file,
lest you do something really ukky. :-)
-- 
root@dogear.spk.wa.us - Bob Kirkpatrick, Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
"...I know it when I see it."  --potter stewart