> I give up! You have had friendly answers from about 10 people so far > and you prefer to accuse them of attacking you. They all say the same > thing... There is NO problem with the SCI. The fact that everyone > disagrees with you is not an attack, you are simply wrong.
AGAIN, you are missing the point here. I have read the kind answers and I fully agree, the terminology used by ME was not completely politically correct... error-error-error! This I do understand. The fact remains Sidd, simply put for YOU: 1. Novice webmaster activates e-gold account to accept payments for products or services. 2. Novice webmaster implements the default SCI into their website for instant gratification of product or service without external coding or methodology. 3. Novice webmaster is vulnerable. This is the bottom line. I am not accusing e-gold of anything nor am I disagreeing with anyone who actually understands what I'm referring to... you are simply missing the point by a long-shot. These websites exist! These webmasters, I'm sure, have NO IDEA that there is an incorrect implementation. Why? Who knows, lack of experience, lack of information, lack of patience, lack of whatever... it still exists. I am simply trying to find out if there is any way to make the SCI LESS VULNERABLE! Nothing more... > > > THANK YOU! That's 100% correct. "..build in some protection...". > > You just > > validated my point, while at the same time contradicting yourself. > > See it > > yet? > > There is NO contradiction, the protection has NOTHING to do with the e- > gold SCI, it needs to be there NO MATTER what payment system is used. > > If your original point was that there are security holes in MANY web > sites on the internet that MAY or MAY NOT use e-gold for payment, you > are doubtless correct, but obviously it is not a fault of the e-gold > SCI. > Hey, you're on to something there... could that possibly be that THIS IS MY POINT? The fact remains that these webmasters ARE using the e-gold SCI and they have no idea they are vulnerable. I simply requested information or links to resources that can benefit these webmasters. This has turned into something much more ugly than I even remotely expected. I figured that by asking the questions I asked that I would recieve a bit of heat for lack of knowledge or programming skills... what I got was ridicule for incorrect terminology. Yeesh! You can, and probably will, respond to this... AND, there may be others that agree with you. However, the fact remains, some novice webmasters are vulnerable. How could this be? Who knows the actual reasoning. I figured that there would be much more positive reaction and response to assist rather than ridicule or insult. > Perhaps someone else can help you understand this... I have seen this a thousand times, pro programmers treat the inexperienced like they should know. That's why I stated, some people forget where they came from... This is getting old Sidd. I'm done with this negative thread, right here, right now. Say what you will, I'm actually reading the positive disscussions and trying to help develop something that helps novice webmasters rather than letting them hang out to dry. BTW, seeing as you obviously have developed something that could easily (as you said) be implemented, why don't you provide it to others? This would be help to others that actually need the help. Your choice... Have a nice Christmas Sidd, I'm sure you're actually a nice person... lighten up on the less experienced. Respectfully, RJ --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gold.com/stats.html lets you observe the e-gold system's activity now!
