Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: anthk <anthk@openbsd.home>
Newsgroups: comp.misc,alt.fan.usenet
Subject: Re: If you were to design a netnews protocol today...
Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 06:24:48 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <slrn101vbff.198p.anthk@openbsd.home.localhost>
References: <v900h1$2eak$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <v9qda4$1uk3c$1@dont-email.me> <cc27102d-7dc7-e0cf-8d76-6be5c51d3792@example.net> <v9v91q$2rdhf$1@dont-email.me> <29b37221-05c5-bbef-1cee-6db3f99b7270@example.net>
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 08:24:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cc7a24369ce4842ffee3a5ba377d97da"; logging-data="1014028"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19exERs9Hl08B4Q7odDUSSP"
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (OpenBSD)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RWGlhMKYQuT5moZrJuzxCtTQnn0=
Xref: csiph.com comp.misc:27376 alt.fan.usenet:1100

On 2024-08-19, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2024, Andy K. wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 21:43:50 +0200
>> D wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 17 Aug 2024, Andy K. wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 14:32:01 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> George Musk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just a thought experiment:
>>>>> if you could/had to make something like a NNTP 2.0 (with no need for
>>>>> backwards compatibility) and server and client software for it today, what
>>>>> would it be like?
>>>>> In terms of specifications, technologies used, user interface, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Not for nothing, but Secure Scuttlebutt is a pretty cool "next gen
>>>> NNTP" option.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Scuttlebutt
>>>>
>>>
>>> Long time since I heard about it, but doesn't it have scaling problems?
>>
>> Maybe, but mainly it has discoverability problem. Unless you already
>> know a community you want to join, it's these days almost impossible
>> to find some public server/group/whatever.
>>
>> It doesn't help that there are two concepts now - servers (old) and
>> rooms (new), and there seems to be a different invite/join process for
>> each.
>>
>> I love SSB conceptually, since it's basically like Usenet in its UUCP
>> beginnings (nodes syncing among each other periodically), but it has
>> teething problems.
>>
>
> Ahh got it. Maybe time to bring those improvisational UUCP networks back 
> to life then? Why opt for the copy, when you can get the original! ;)

Just use NNCP instead of UUCP; they almost work the same as a backend.