| Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | HayTanBricks  | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2020 06:12 | | Subject: | Re: New Payment Method | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Yes a blank option would be great. While AfterPay or Zippay won’t integrate with
Market place platforms, a blank option will give us the availability to use an
alternative payment solution
In Suggestions, LaygoAdelaide writes:
| | Would it be possible to add another payment method.
Afterpay
Zip Pay
or at least have a blank one so that we can input our own custom method.
|
|
 |
| Author: | bb1301425 | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2020 07:39 | | Subject: | Re: 2FA or some other additional login security | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, patpendlego writes:
| | Please implement 2FA or some other additional login security to BrickLink account.
|
Please don't. I've dealt with 2FA supporting medical and financial software
for years. It's a pain to set up, and the training curve with too many users
is a vertical wall. I've yet to see a 2FA provider who doesn't have outages
every few weeks, and your phone is NOT secure. For what is a retail operation,
over complicated processes and ticked off customers lead to less of a retail
operation. Add in the expense of doing this internationally, and you will see
a notable jump in what TLG has to skim off the top for fees. Not something that
any of us want.
Use paypal, tie it to your credit card. That will give you security for your
money. If you're worried about some getting in and messing with your inventory....
Don't invent things to be scared of.
|
|
| Author: | leggodtshop | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2020 08:51 | | Subject: | Re: 2FA or some other additional login security | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mfav writes:
|
|
| Author: | jonwil | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2020 08:07 | | Subject: | Re: 2FA or some other additional login security | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I support the idea of proper 2FA. Messages to a phone or mobile device (via SMS
or otherwise) is not proper 2FA. Supporting the U2F standard would be perfect
IMO, its designed to be a 2FA solution that avoids all the problems of using
phones as a 2FA solution. And its open and well documented (and AFAIK designed
to be easy for sites to implement)
It can (if implement correctly) even help stop phishing attacks (where someone
creates a fake web page designed to make you think its the real page and then
uses that fake page to steal login information or otherwise do nefarious things)
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
|
Australia, South Australia
USA, Vermont
Netherlands, Overijssel
