Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Salvador Mirzo Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2025 23:04:43 -0300 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 105 Message-ID: <875xl03xok.fsf@example.com> References: <67b21894$14$17$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> <28416cc3-e819-886a-4025-2b2588f88663@example.net> <87a5ale0vg.fsf@example.com> <0310a638-3153-f886-5206-9bc8453c1f8e@example.net> <67b4fc88@news.ausics.net> <87frk9mok6.fsf@example.com> <872b55ac-c289-80d2-733a-eef130471862@example.net> <87y0y0fh0d.fsf@example.com> <800485e9-89a6-61a3-d94d-84df476bb6f5@example.net> <87r03scbr3.fsf@example.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 03:04:44 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e3b97fd20bd2d907f4885c7e22f7a781"; logging-data="803027"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18t8KD9DE5TWBbolftz7XUU+eiB69VBWg4=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:rl9JnCXJbSpvDtX+Z4u7EjiAp2o= sha1:sHVPL+LV7MfDJXQmE6y/xwD+ggU= Xref: csiph.com comp.misc:26620 D writes: > On Thu, 20 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: > >> D writes: >> >> [...] >> >>>> Yeah. It's not going to work for regular people. However, there's >>>> something that I think it should work for regular people---low volume >>>> NNTP servers. >>> >>> Leafnode I think would be quite a nice piece of software for small, >>> local nntp >>> servers. >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leafnode >>> >>> I use part of its functionality to pull in usenet into my mail client. >> >> I need to look into leafnode again. Now I don't think leafnode can peer >> with a USENET server, right? I think we should have a server that does. >> I'm willing to write it. > > I think you are right. It doesn't peer, but it does pull selected > groups and latest posts from a "real" nntp server. > > However! > > It saves all messages in a local spool folder, and since nntp is a > nice and simple retro-protocols, it is trivial to understand the > format. So what you could do, between 2 leafnode servers, is to just > reverse engineer the format and "copy" the spool directory between the > two leafnode installations and all the messages will pop up on the > other leafnode as well. Okay, but the question was to just to confirm my mostly-forgotten recollections of Leafnode. I wouldn't mind working on it to make it peer via NNTP itself. But I would much rather write a completely new in a non-C language. >> I would be surprised if INN2 doesn't do all of this, but I think we >> should have other alternatives with newer ideas too. For instance, I > > The reason I did not go the INN2 route was that I wanted some small > and simple, for pulling messages one way only. Leafnode at first had > some restrictions such as needing a valid DNS name which was a pain, > so I simply deleted its checks, and now the server can be named > anything I want, which is fine, since I'm not peering. This can of > course be added back if you want it. I never used INN2, but I do suspect that it's made for a serious USENET server and that it's more complex that it needs to be for the idea of a network of small NNTP servers. >>> Only today was one of my younger partners telling the class that my >>> emails are quite something to behold. Long and packed with all the >>> information the person needs to perform the task. At first he found >>> it draining and stressful, but then he learned that I do not demand >>> instant replies when I email (then I call or write in the email that >>> it is urgent) and after a while he learned to appreciate that all >>> information he might need is in the email. >> >> Yeah---young people don't quite get e-mail. They never read about >> e-mail. Perhaps one thing that's against them (and it was not against >> us) is that they have a lot of options today. We didn't have this many >> options. We started out on a simpler world. So we were able to stay at >> the top of the game over the years. And so we mastered it. Now we're >> experienced and we handle the complexities of the world with the help of >> our experience. They don't have these tools available. They could get >> here quickly, but they're lost. Instructions we give them don't >> suffice: perhaps because people must discover things for themselves. >> That's perhaps why education only works for those who actually don't >> need one. > > I think is perhaps somewhat of a downward trend. I feel awe when > talking to the older generations who had to learn the hardware, > program in assembler and so on. I feel the same. Like you, I feel great learning from the older generations. In fact, I often think that they were privileged for being able to be there first. I identified this easily enough to develop a passion for studying the history of computer science, which makes me look very old now because I use a lot of very old tools, which are awesome tools despite their age. I got a web post by Joel Spolsky the phrase that ``software doesn't get dusty''. > In my generation, hardware and assembler were solved problems, so the > programming was done in higher level languages. > > Todays generation don't even see the hardware, they all use cloud > servers and python. > > So the original foundation gets further and further away. Only a small > set of hw wizards still care and know about that layer of the stack. That's quite right. I went through the same. The whole thing was pretty much already done. I believe I am not very fond of directly interacting with hardware myself. For example, I usually like to have a very clean office---no wires (if I could), not a lot of gadgets around. Nevertheless, I feel obsessed by computers and I try to get close to the hardware by more abstract means. For instance, I've been reading about the 6502 and it seems like such a simple CPU that it makes up for a very great computer architecture first introduction, unlike x86, say.