Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2025 05:49:23 +0000
Subject: Re: Note - ISP Screwed Up - Can WRITE But Not SEE
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
References: <bNOdnaADoYK2HQ36nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <20250122210010.2353d60f@ryz.dorfdsl.de>
 <c96dnWLIkv08Fwz6nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <74ac8126-3732-0c2d-ef7e-87766df419ac@example.net>
 <vmtrde$1ll9u$23@dont-email.me>
 <aae6a8dd-fe2b-68ec-8627-c45b5da6959e@example.net>
 <8Yicnf7eGZv5rg76nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <wwvbjvwtu3p.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk>
From: "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net>
Organization: wokiesux
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2025 00:49:22 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <wwvbjvwtu3p.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <9_mcnYH9NaL-5gn6nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@earthlink.com>
Lines: 85
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 99.101.150.97
X-Trace: sv3-wS8EdTMu4/RXp5aaI23GF0hShCdGcgEVYluQUn4J9oEkFy5TD2o1FMj+9RBuRVfGvYdy8HwJUgVr4Wk!CKIjA3HHKznm7Ub0G5EGxHVzvhgwfQzoJg+vAdJbAVywr/VeD2J9eXDY63wUl1C4wNaGhV6ZmU7M!hFHwzwU59E0YMwltTbtP
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 5506

On 1/24/25 4:54 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> writes:
>>    There must be something in-between usenet and 'X' - http
>>    rather than p119. Simple interface but hooks for better
>>    alternative reader apps.
> 
> There’s multiple options out there. However by now Usenet users for the
> most part have either found alternatives that suit them, or are so stuck
> in their ways that nothing other than Usenet will do...

   I do *like* usenet ... have used it since the WWW kinda
   came into focus. LONG history. The predecessor for many
   was the Compuserve Forums - very similar.

   But access TO usenet - esp for free and/or anon - is
   shrinking. Number one issue is that nobody can OWN it,
   therefore little or no PROFIT.

>>    Remember BBS's ? The trick was that there was usually only ONE
>>    server holding all the messages. Depending, this is not necessarily
>>    terrible. The spreads-it-around nature of usenet is interesting,
>>    good redundancy, but the number of feed servers seems to be
>>    decreasing, fewer and fewer sources for the articles.
> 
> I’m pretty sure most of my Usenet peers are essentially hobbyists. It’s
> not hard to carry a text feed, a cheap Linux VPS is more than adequate.
> But hobbyists generally don’t often want the hassle of a nontrivial
> userbase.


   Usenet is not 'intensive' - but it's still shrinking.


>>    As for binaries ... you just set a reasonable limit for msg size,
>>    and forbid .part's. A detector for ascii-encoded bin will work too.
> 
> Yes, it’s a few lines of config in my filter.

   At this point, likely should be a SERVER filter for
   various legal reasons.

>>    As such, a modern BBS - prob with one or two fail-over servers -
>>    would be the middle path. Structure everything like usenet,
>>    just NOT usenet. Could even pipe in actual usenet articles,
>>    for as long as they last.
>>
>>    Again though the "liability" issue for un-PC content. It's sort of a
>>    prob in the USA but a much bigger prob in the EU and beyond. As
>>    said, such a system needs to be located in a who-knows/cares-country
>>    where it's hard to get at legally.
> 
> Sites that can’t be reached legally get blocked (at least when they’re
> big enough to matter). Not completely insurmountable (VPNs, proxies,
> etc) but certainly a barrier to widespread adoption.
> 
> An advantage of a distributed system (Usenet, ActivityPub, etc) is that
> each node can deal with its prevailing legal environment without much
> impacting the rest of the network. UK Usenet hosts were taking down CSAM
> since the 1990s, with zero impact on anyone else (no doubt the UK wasn’t
> the only jurisidiction doing it but I had no visibility of that).

   I agree with the merits of 'distributed' with each
   admin/nation deciding. Any ONE nation will be tempted
   to censor to its own advantage and/or prejudices.

   But usenet IS shrinking. Enough disinterested or threatened
   providers and they can make it largely inaccessible.

> A closely related disadvantage is that there’s not always much you can
> do about certain kinds of misbehavior originating on other nodes short
> of blocking entire nodes, if their operators aren’t cooperative. On
> Usenet, Google was the worst recent offender: huge amounts of spam, and
> operators who didn’t care at all, but also huge numbers of legitimate
> users who would be lost if you blocked the whole site.

   Oh, I remember the GG spam blizzards ... give people
   a chance to be total assholes and they WILL. It's not
   even political - it's a 'domination'/'status' thing
   kinda hardwired into many species.

   As such, ANY kinda free system IS gonna get the same.
   Only 'obscurity' saves you - but that also means less
   or no PROFIT in providing.

   No really great solutions here. Such is life.