Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #1497 > unrolled thread

Usenet salvation through p2p -> news server tree delivery scheme retirement

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  Usenet salvation through p2p -> news server tree delivery scheme retirement AD <isquat@gmail.com> - 2011-06-28 07:49 -0700
    Re: Usenet salvation through p2p -> news server tree delivery scheme retirement Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-06-28 16:00 +0100
      Re: Usenet salvation through p2p -> news server tree delivery scheme retirement AD <isquat@gmail.com> - 2011-07-05 08:38 -0700
        Re: Usenet salvation through p2p -> news server tree delivery scheme retirement The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-05 20:10 +0100
          Re: Usenet salvation through p2p -> news server tree delivery scheme retirement Jacob Sparre Andersen <sparre@nbi.dk> - 2011-07-06 12:24 +0200
            Re: Usenet salvation through p2p -> news server tree delivery scheme retirement The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-06 12:14 +0100
              Re: Usenet salvation through p2p -> news server tree delivery scheme retirement Jacob Sparre Andersen <sparre@nbi.dk> - 2011-07-06 14:20 +0200
                Re: Usenet salvation through p2p -> news server tree delivery scheme retirement John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2011-07-06 08:15 -0500
                  Re: Usenet salvation through p2p -> news server tree delivery scheme retirement The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-06 14:26 +0100
        Re: Usenet salvation through p2p -> news server tree delivery scheme retirement Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-07-05 18:33 +0100
        Re: Usenet salvation through p2p -> news server tree delivery scheme retirement AD <isquat@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 04:31 -0700
          Re: Usenet salvation through p2p -> news server tree delivery scheme retirement Jacob Sparre Andersen <sparre@nbi.dk> - 2011-07-06 15:58 +0200
          Re: Usenet salvation through p2p -> news server tree delivery scheme retirement John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2011-07-06 13:07 -0500
            Re: Usenet salvation through p2p -> news server tree delivery scheme retirement AD <isquat@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 00:35 -0700
              Re: Usenet salvation through p2p -> news server tree delivery scheme retirement The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-07 13:41 +0100
                Re: Usenet salvation through p2p -> news server tree delivery scheme retirement "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> - 2011-07-07 23:12 +0200
                  Re: Usenet salvation through p2p -> news server tree delivery scheme retirement Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-07-07 22:35 +0100
                    Re: Usenet salvation through p2p -> news server tree delivery scheme retirement "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> - 2011-07-08 13:05 +0200
                      Re: Usenet salvation through p2p -> news server tree delivery scheme retirement AD <isquat@gmail.com> - 2011-07-11 00:18 -0700
                        Re: Usenet salvation through p2p -> news server tree delivery scheme retirement John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2011-07-11 07:34 -0500
    Re: Usenet salvation through p2p -> news server tree delivery scheme retirement Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> - 2011-06-28 17:09 +0000
      Re: Usenet salvation through p2p -> news server tree delivery scheme retirement John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-28 12:55 -0500
    Re: Usenet salvation through p2p -> news server tree delivery scheme retirement Chris Davies <chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> - 2011-06-30 09:47 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#1497 — Usenet salvation through p2p -> news server tree delivery scheme retirement

I'm at loss where to post this as the problem seems mostly platform
independent.
I had this crazy thought the other day that bittorrent could be used
to exchange usenet
traffic between usenet feeds now that we live in the post "!" e-mail
notation style world.

You'd have to somehow augment the torrents with the manifests of what
each server has.

Well, it won't be a torrent but something else entirely.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1498

AD <isquat@gmail.com> writes:
> I'm at loss where to post this as the problem seems mostly platform
> independent.

Somewhere in news.*.  But I'm not sure what problem you think it solves
anyway.

> I had this crazy thought the other day that bittorrent could be used
> to exchange usenet traffic between usenet feeds now that we live in
> the post "!" e-mail notation style world.
>
> You'd have to somehow augment the torrents with the manifests of what
> each server has.

IIRC UUCP-based transmission worked without; you just got some articles
several times.  Text Usenet is pretty low-bandwidth by modern standards,
so that needn't be a big deal.  (Binary groups are another story, but
presumably if you wanted to engage in bulk copyright violation you'd
just use BT directly anyway.)

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1598

On Jun 28, 6:00 pm, Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> AD <isq...@gmail.com> writes:
> > I'm at loss where to post this as the problem seems mostly platform
> > independent.
>
> Somewhere in news.*.  But I'm not sure what problem you think it solves
> anyway.
>
> > I had this crazy thought the other day that bittorrent could be used
> > to exchange usenet traffic between usenet feeds now that we live in
> > the post "!" e-mail notation style world.
>
> > You'd have to somehow augment the torrents with the manifests of what
> > each server has.
>
> IIRC UUCP-based transmission worked without; you just got some articles
> several times.  Text Usenet is pretty low-bandwidth by modern standards,
> so that needn't be a big deal.  (Binary groups are another story, but
> presumably if you wanted to engage in bulk copyright violation you'd
> just use BT directly anyway.)
>
Yeah, binary groups is exactly what I had in mind :-)

That and cutting the dependency on nntp feeds as well as the reliance
on the set
of groups they choose to carry.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1605

John Hasler wrote:
> AD writes:
>> Yeah, binary groups is exactly what I had in mind :-)
> 
> I couldn't care less about binary groups.
> 
>> That and cutting the dependency on nntp feeds as well as the reliance
>> on the set of groups they choose to carry.
> 
> You don't quite understand.  Usenet _is_ peer to peer.  _Anyone_ can run
> a newsserver.  There is no "tree".
> 
> See <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3977>

If someone will give you a feed, anyway.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1618

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> John Hasler wrote:

>> You don't quite understand.  Usenet _is_ peer to peer.  _Anyone_ can
>> run a newsserver.  There is no "tree".
>>
>> See <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3977>
>
> If someone will give you a feed, anyway.

It is my experience that that isn't a problem.  I am currently
exchanging news feeds with ten other servers (one of them carrying only
"private" groups).

Greetings,

Jacob
-- 
                      CAUTION
               BLADE EXTREMELY SHARP
                KEEP OUT OF CHILDREN

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1620

Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> John Hasler wrote:
> 
>>> You don't quite understand.  Usenet _is_ peer to peer.  _Anyone_ can
>>> run a newsserver.  There is no "tree".
>>>
>>> See <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3977>
>> If someone will give you a feed, anyway.
> 
> It is my experience that that isn't a problem.  I am currently
> exchanging news feeds with ten other servers (one of them carrying only
> "private" groups).
> 

Really? I might give it a bash then..haven't set up a news server in yonks..


What's the current 'best practice? INN?

> Greetings,
> 
> Jacob

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1624

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> What's the current 'best practice? INN?

I think so.

Jacob
-- 
"The butcher backed into the meat grinder and got a little behind
 in his work."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1626

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> What's the current 'best practice? INN?

Inn2 (use leafnode for leaf sites).
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1627

John Hasler wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> What's the current 'best practice? INN?
> 
> Inn2 (use leafnode for leaf sites).
Thanks mate.

I'll research that one if I get a chance.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1611

AD <isquat@gmail.com> writes:
> Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> AD <isq...@gmail.com> writes:

>>> I had this crazy thought the other day that bittorrent could be used
>>> to exchange usenet traffic between usenet feeds now that we live in
>>> the post "!" e-mail notation style world.
>>
>> IIRC UUCP-based transmission worked without; you just got some articles
>> several times.  Text Usenet is pretty low-bandwidth by modern standards,
>> so that needn't be a big deal.  (Binary groups are another story, but
>> presumably if you wanted to engage in bulk copyright violation you'd
>> just use BT directly anyway.)
>>
> Yeah, binary groups is exactly what I had in mind :-)
>
> That and cutting the dependency on nntp feeds as well as the reliance
> on the set of groups they choose to carry.

Sounds like you should just use BitTorrent directly then.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1625

On Jul 5, 8:05 pm, John Hasler <jhas...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> AD writes:
> > Yeah, binary groups is exactly what I had in mind :-)
>
> I couldn't care less about binary groups.
>

Me thinks servertoserver communication could be improved and the
difference between
server 2server and server 2 newsreader eliminated.

That would help to stamp out google groups for good.

Since my ISP does not provide usenet access and even if it did
it might not have offered what I needed now I have
to figure out who to feed from.

Do you have specific recommendations for a free
nntp feed?

> > That and cutting the dependency on nntp feeds as well as the reliance
> > on the set of groups they choose to carry.
>
> You don't quite understand.  Usenet _is_ peer to peer.  _Anyone_ can run
> a newsserver.  There is no "tree".
>

My understanding was that NNTP has nothing to do with communication
between the news servers.
Did that change in the last decade or what?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1628

AD <isquat@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 5, 8:05 pm, John Hasler <jhas...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> Me thinks servertoserver communication could be improved and the
> difference between server 2server and server 2 newsreader eliminated.

The differences are there for a good reason.  The first two I can come
up with:

 1) Clients are not running continuously.

 2) Clients are not necessarily interested in everything in a group.

I can't see where you really can improve the communication between news
servers.  But feel free to write up a proposal.

> Do you have specific recommendations for a free nntp feed?

Dotsrc.org or pnx.dk depending on your needs.

> My understanding was that NNTP has nothing to do with communication
> between the news servers.

It has.

> Did that change in the last decade or what?

Not as far as I can remember.

Jacob
-- 
"Any newsgroup where software developers hang out is
 an Emacs newsgroup."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1638

AD writes:
> Me thinks servertoserver communication could be improved and the
> difference between server 2server and server 2 newsreader eliminated.

There is no such difference.  Newsreaders just utilize a subset of NNTP
commands.

> My understanding was that NNTP has nothing to do with communication
> between the news servers.

You misunderstand.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1652

On Jul 6, 9:07 pm, John Hasler <jhas...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> AD writes:
> > Me thinks servertoserver communication could be improved and the
> > difference between server 2server and server 2 newsreader eliminated.
>
> There is no such difference.  Newsreaders just utilize a subset of NNTP
> commands.
>
Ok, I guess I was out of the loop for a while.
When I run news servers in mid 90s the communication was batch based
through uucp (over dialup:
no permanent IP connection)

> > My understanding was that NNTP has nothing to do with communication
> > between the news servers.
>
> You misunderstand.

Ok, my sysadmin days are long gone the the cache is purged by now.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1661

AD wrote:
> On Jul 6, 9:07 pm, John Hasler <jhas...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> AD writes:
>>> Me thinks servertoserver communication could be improved and the
>>> difference between server 2server and server 2 newsreader eliminated.
>> There is no such difference.  Newsreaders just utilize a subset of NNTP
>> commands.
>>
> Ok, I guess I was out of the loop for a while.
> When I run news servers in mid 90s the communication was batch based
> through uucp (over dialup:
> no permanent IP connection)

IIRC it was still NNTP over UUCP. Or something.


> 
>>> My understanding was that NNTP has nothing to do with communication
>>> between the news servers.
>> You misunderstand.
> 
> Ok, my sysadmin days are long gone the the cache is purged by now.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1679

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> schrieb:
> AD wrote:
>> On Jul 6, 9:07 pm, John Hasler <jhas...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>> AD writes:
>>>> Me thinks servertoserver communication could be improved and the
>>>> difference between server 2server and server 2 newsreader eliminated.
>>> There is no such difference.  Newsreaders just utilize a subset of NNTP
>>> commands.
>>>
>> Ok, I guess I was out of the loop for a while.
>> When I run news servers in mid 90s the communication was batch based
>> through uucp (over dialup:
>> no permanent IP connection)

For permanent IP connections, NNTP had almost completely replaced UUCP
by the mid-90's, but UUCP was still popular for dial-up (though I
personally never used it - NNTP was good enough for me even over
dial-up).


> IIRC it was still NNTP over UUCP. Or something.

Nope. NNTP needs TCP (theoretically it can use "any reliable
bi-directional 8-bit-wide data stream channel" (RFC 3877), it was only
ever used with TCP). News transfer over UUCP used a very different
mechanism (was UUCP even bi-directional? I don't remember).

	hp

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1680

"Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> writes:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> schrieb:

>> IIRC it was still NNTP over UUCP. Or something.
>
> Nope. NNTP needs TCP (theoretically it can use "any reliable
> bi-directional 8-bit-wide data stream channel" (RFC 3877), it was only
> ever used with TCP). News transfer over UUCP used a very different
> mechanism (was UUCP even bi-directional? I don't remember).

It could transfer files in both directions in a single call, if my
memory serves.  For news transport the files in question were compressed
batches of articles.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1689

On 2011-07-07 21:35, Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> writes:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> schrieb:
>
>>> IIRC it was still NNTP over UUCP. Or something.
>>
>> Nope. NNTP needs TCP (theoretically it can use "any reliable
>> bi-directional 8-bit-wide data stream channel" (RFC 3877), it was only
>> ever used with TCP). News transfer over UUCP used a very different
>> mechanism (was UUCP even bi-directional? I don't remember).
>
> It could transfer files in both directions in a single call, if my
> memory serves.

Yes, but AFAIR the files had to be spooled before the call, you couldn't
set up a bidirectional communication channel for a command-response
pattern as needed for NNTP (and most other TCP-based internet
protocols). You could probably have done it over cu(1).

> For news transport the files in question were compressed batches of
> articles.

Right.

	hp

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1741

On Jul 8, 2:05 pm, "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usen...@hjp.at> wrote:
> On 2011-07-07 21:35, Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usen...@hjp.at> writes:
> >> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> schrieb:
>
> >>> IIRC it was still NNTP over UUCP. Or something.
>
> >> Nope. NNTP needs TCP (theoretically it can use "any reliable
> >> bi-directional 8-bit-wide data stream channel" (RFC 3877), it was only
> >> ever used with TCP). News transfer over UUCP used a very different
> >> mechanism (was UUCP even bi-directional? I don't remember).
>
> > It could transfer files in both directions in a single call, if my
> > memory serves.
>
> Yes, but AFAIR the files had to be spooled before the call, you couldn't
> set up a bidirectional communication channel for a command-response
> pattern as needed for NNTP (and most other TCP-based internet
> protocols). You could probably have done it over cu(1).
>
uucp is unix to unix copy. It was done over cu, precisely

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1746

AD writes:
> uucp is unix to unix copy. It was done over cu, precisely.

Uucp is done over whatever channel uucico uses.  In the 80s that was
usually dialup, but not always: large organizations had wideband links.
It works fine over TCP.  From the man page:

DESCRIPTION
       The  uucp  command  copies  files between systems.
       ...
       The copy does not take place immediately, but is queued up for
       the uucico (8) daemon; the daemon is started immediately unless
       the -r or --nouucico switch is given.  In any case, the next time
       the remote system is called the file(s) will be copied.

From the uucico man page:

DESCRIPTION
       The uucico daemon processes file transfer requests queued by uucp
       (1) and uux (1).  It is started when uucp or uux is run (unless
       they are given the -r option).  It is also typically started
       periodically using entries in the crontab table(s).

Cu is "call unix".  It's a terminal program.  From the man page:

DESCRIPTION 
       The cu command is used to call up another system and act as a
       dial in terminal.  It can also do simple file transfers with no
       error checking.

Usenet used uucp to move files between systems and uux to get the
receiving system to send files on to the next system.  It handled both
news and mail.  Pathalias along with the MAPS project made it
unnecessary to know the complete path to the destination of a message.
-- 
John Hasler ihnp4!stolaf!bungia!foundln!john 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web