Posted some issues.

http://code.pinaxproject.com/tasks/task/512/
http://code.pinaxproject.com/tasks/task/513/
http://code.pinaxproject.com/tasks/task/514/
http://code.pinaxproject.com/tasks/task/515/
http://code.pinaxproject.com/tasks/task/516/

I'll assign myself and get to work, now that I have a good
understanding of what is wanted.

On Oct 27, 2:47 am, Nick Retallack <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Oct 27, 12:09 am, Brian Rosner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 27, 2009, at 12:27 AM, Nick Retallack wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 26, 10:16 pm, Brian Rosner <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> On Oct 26, 2009, at 8:17 PM, Nick Retallack wrote:
>
> > >>> 1) Wouldn't it be nice if verifying your email address logged you in
> > >>> automatically?
>
> > >> -1. I definitely don't like this. As you mention, it isn't even
> > >> possible unless we modify authentication. I want the action taken by
> > >> emailconfirmation to be atomic. Letting emailconfirmation handle
> > >> authentication too sounds like a really bad idea not only from a
> > >> security standpoint, but from an implementation standpoint too.
>
> > > Yeah but it's the expected behavior.  Having to verify your email
> > > address is annoying enough.  It should be able to log you in and
> > > complete the registration.
>
> > You apparently are the one with the requirement to require e-mail  
> > confirmation. Pinax by default doesn't enforce that. I disagree that  
> > it is expected behavior. I simply do not want to support this use case  
> > in Pinax.
>
> > > Also, this could be made into a non-default configuration setting, so
> > > you can warn people about the security risks in some nearby comments.
>
> > Having to document potential security risks is something I'd prefer to  
> > avoid. If this functionality is important to your requirements there  
> > isn't much stopping you from implementing it yourself. It isn't  
> > anything *I* want to support in Pinax.
>
> Well you already have the ACCOUNT_EMAIL_VERIFICATION setting.  This
> setting sounds like a logical extension to me.  Would you accept it if
> I submitted a patch for this setting anyway?
>
>
>
>
>
> > >>> If you do go ahead and make the email confirmation log you in with  
> > >>> the
> > >>> associated account, the confirmations become dangerous.  You can't
> > >>> leave stale ones around.  Right now, I can keep refreshing this  
> > >>> email
> > >>> confirmed page with the same confirmation key and it just confirms  
> > >>> it
> > >>> repeatedly.  I can even pull out old confirmation keys and they work
> > >>> too.  I suppose the keys expire eventually, but I think it would be
> > >>> best if they were just deleted when they are no longer useful.  When
> > >>> an email is successfully confirmed, it should delete all the
> > >>> associated confirmation keys.
>
> > >> Yep, I agree that upon confirmation that all keys associated to the
> > >> confirmed e-mail address should be deleted. The current behavior is
> > >> that you are allowed to re-send confirmation e-mails. A very likely
> > >> situation where a user doesn't get them, but each time you re-send a
> > >> new key is generated. This should be noted in the task you'll create
> > >> for this issue.
>
> > > I'm not sure how those things are related.  There's nothing wrong with
> > > having multiple keys lying around while you're attempting to verify
> > > your email address, because it's always possible that some of them
> > > don't make it.  They could also arrive in the wrong order, so new keys
> > > shouldn't invalidate old ones.
>
> > Confirmation is only tied to one account. Invalidation of the old keys  
> > won't matter since you already performed the confirmation for the  
> > account you requested it for. I'm confused how you see invalidation of  
> > old ones an issue?
>
> Sorry, this whole bit is consistently confusing me.  I was just asking
> what your point was.  It just seemed like a non-sequitur when you said
> "Yep, I agree that upon confirmation that all keys associated to the
> confirmed e-mail address should be deleted.", and then "The current
> behavior is that you are allowed to re-send confirmation e-mails."
> You can't re-send confirmations after the email address has been
> verified either way, so this statement is not relevant to the notion
> of deleting no-longer-useful confirmations.  So I was just curious
> what you were getting at here.
>
> > Keep in mind Pinax won't always depend on a username. Since we will be  
> > generating a unique hash for each account I don't mind producing a  
> > single e-mail as you suggest.
>
> Cool idea.  I'll write that up.
>
> I'm intrigued by this idea that Pinax may not require usernames in the
> future.  Are there any plans in motion for that?
>
> > This is fine. All I am trying to get at is that we don't need to  
> > implement this feature to solve other bugs in Pinax. They are  
> > unrelated. Supporting [email protected] syntax will be a site specific  
> > requirement. If you want that, add it yourself.
>
> Ok.
>
> > > If you set ACCOUNT_EMAIL_VERIFICATION=True, you couldn't possibly be
> > > logged in when the message is generated.  You have to actually verify
> > > your email address first.  After you do that, you can log in, and at
> > > that point you get this useless message that an email confirmation has
> > > been sent.
>
> > Oddly enough I still wasn't able to reproduce. However, I see in the  
> > code what you mean. It doesn't make much sense unless you are  
> > authenticated after sign-up which is the case when e-mail is optional.  
> > This can definitely be fixed.
>
> Are you signing up a new account?  When I do that with
> ACCOUST_EMAIL_VERIFICATION on, by the time I actually log in, I get
> these messages:
>
> Confirmation email sent to [email protected]
> Successfully logged in as example.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Pinax Core Development" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/pinax-core-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to