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

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #235174 > unrolled thread

Remember when discussions were worth reading?

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  Remember when discussions were worth reading? Tom Mix <tommix@mixmin.net> - 2026-07-25 17:19 +0000
    Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-07-25 15:06 -0300
    Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-25 23:26 +0100
      Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Daniel Cerqueira <dan.list@lispclub.com> - 2026-07-26 01:29 +0100
        Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-07-25 22:43 -0300
          Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Daniel Cerqueira <dan.list@lispclub.com> - 2026-07-26 11:30 +0100
            Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2026-08-06 14:02 -0400
              Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-06 20:55 +0000
          Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-09 10:46 +0800
            Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-10 09:25 -0300
      Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? "Ted W." <usenet@xy0.org> - 2026-07-26 01:02 +0000
        Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Caffeine Canidae <samuel.common@hotmail.com> - 2026-07-26 16:43 +0100
        Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-07-26 17:28 +0000
          Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-07-29 14:38 -0300
            Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-07-29 18:59 +0000
              Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-07-29 16:13 -0300
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> - 2026-07-30 10:17 -0400
                  Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-07-30 12:41 -0300
                    Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> - 2026-07-30 16:38 -0400
                      Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-03 21:45 +0000
                    Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-09 11:05 +0800
                  Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-30 20:53 +0000
                    CorelDRAW! on S.C.O. Unix (was: Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading?) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-09 11:12 +0800
                  Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? jayjwa <jayjwa@atr2.ath.cx.invalid> - 2026-07-31 12:27 -0400
                    Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> - 2026-08-01 08:45 -0400
                      Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-03 21:50 +0000
                    Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? "Kurt Weiske" <kurt.weiske@realitycheckbbs.org.remove-3f9-this> - 2026-08-01 07:30 -0700
                      Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-03 21:59 -0300
                        Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-08-04 08:29 -0700
                          Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-05 02:54 +0000
                            Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? jayjwa <jayjwa@atr2.ath.cx.invalid> - 2026-08-05 10:31 -0400
                            Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-05 18:14 -0300
                          Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-08-05 09:36 +0000
                            Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-08-05 08:36 -0700
                              Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-08-05 20:16 +0000
                              Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-05 21:00 +0000
                              Electronic mail deliverability (was: Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading?) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-06 09:27 +0100
                                Re: Electronic mail deliverability (was: Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading?) Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-08-06 09:37 +0000
                          Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-05 18:12 -0300
                            Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-06 03:27 +0000
                            Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2026-08-07 21:23 +0000
                              Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? "Kurt Weiske" <kurt.weiske@realitycheckbbs.org.remove-5ex-this> - 2026-08-08 08:06 -0700
                                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-08 23:41 +0000
                                  "spam" calls, was: Remember when discussions were worth reading? danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2026-08-09 00:03 +0000
                                    Re: "spam" calls, was: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-09 02:22 +0000
                                      Re: "spam" calls, was: Remember when discussions were worth reading? danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2026-08-09 02:31 +0000
                              Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-10 11:04 -0300
                          Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? "Ted W." <usenet@xy0.org> - 2026-08-08 17:34 +0000
                            Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-10 00:52 +0100
                            Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-10 11:11 -0300
                  Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-09 10:58 +0800
            Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-07-31 12:45 +0100
              Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? jayjwa <jayjwa@atr2.ath.cx.invalid> - 2026-07-31 12:16 -0400
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-07-31 17:25 +0000
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-03 21:24 +0000
            Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-03 23:02 +0000
              Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-05 12:47 -0300
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-05 21:48 +0000
          The Weave (was: Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading?) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-09 10:52 +0800
            Re: The Weave Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-09 09:29 +0100
            Re: The Weave ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-08-09 09:39 +0000
              Re: The Weave Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-08-09 07:03 -0700
                Re: The Weave Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-09 23:12 +0800
                Re: The Weave Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-09 16:28 +0100
                  Interface connectors (Re: The Weave) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-08-09 13:13 -0700
                    Re: Interface connectors (Re: The Weave) ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-08-09 22:02 +0000
                  Re: The Weave drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) - 2026-08-09 21:04 +0000
                    IBM Channel Interface (Re: The Weave) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-08-09 15:29 -0700
              Re: The Weave Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-09 20:29 +0000
                MAP - Manufacturing Automation Protocol (Re: The Weave) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-08-09 15:39 -0700
                  Re: MAP - Manufacturing Automation Protocol (Re: The Weave) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-09 23:20 +0000
                Re: The Weave "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2026-08-10 09:27 +0100
              Re: The Weave Thomas Prufer <prufer.public@mnet-online.de.invalid> - 2026-08-10 09:02 +0200
        Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2026-07-28 18:01 +0000
        Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-07-29 14:33 -0300
    Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-08-07 16:00 -1000

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#235257

In article <87mrv0s24m.fsf@safunu.org>, Anton Antimo  <anton@safunu.org> wrote:
>But I can't email my (one) friend on Hotmail because Hotmail has banned
>the IP address I currently use, though this IP address is not present in
>any other famous SMTP blacklist out there that I know of.

Where is your mail server located?  Mine was (at the time) on a Linode VPS. 
The scammers at UCEProtect have blacklisted Linode's entire IP address
range, just because they're assholes like that.

I only noticed this was a problem when I was trying to send mail to someone
I know IRL who has an email address through one of Microsoft's services
(don't recall if it was Hotmail or Outlook.com).  For some inexplicable
reason, Microsoft had configured its mail servers to use UCEProtect.

I filed a ticket at Linode.  Linode contacted Microsoft.  Within a day or
two, the problem was resolved and the mail started going through.

(I ended up moving that VPS to Server Optima...more disk and RAM at a lower
price.  That said, I still have other services at Linode and wouldn't
hesitate to recommend them.)

-- 
  _/_
 / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/         Top-posting!
 \_^_/                            >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

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

#235261

  To: scott
-=> scott wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-

 sc> I only noticed this was a problem when I was trying to send mail to
 sc> someone I know IRL who has an email address through one of Microsoft's
 sc> services (don't recall if it was Hotmail or Outlook.com).  For some
 sc> inexplicable reason, Microsoft had configured its mail servers to use
 sc> UCEProtect.

 sc> I filed a ticket at Linode.  Linode contacted Microsoft.  Within a day
 sc> or two, the problem was resolved and the mail started going through.

 I was shocked ("Shocked, I say!") when I researched why my office Teams
 telephone number showed up as SPAM RISK on my Android phone. I went to
 hiya.com and registered my Teams number, and within 24 hours the SPAM
 moniker went away.

         kurt weiske | kweiske at realitycheckbbs dot org
                     | http://realitycheckbbs.org
                     | 1:218/700@fidonet


 
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
 *  realitycheckBBS - Aptos, CA - telnet://realitycheckbbs.org

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

#235265

On Sat, 8 Aug 2026 08:06:31 -0700, Kurt Weiske wrote:

> -=> scott wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-
>
>> I filed a ticket at Linode. Linode contacted Microsoft. Within a
>> day or two, the problem was resolved and the mail started going
>> through.
>
> I was shocked ("Shocked, I say!") when I researched why my office
> Teams telephone number showed up as SPAM RISK on my Android phone. I
> went to hiya.com and registered my Teams number, and within 24 hours
> the SPAM moniker went away.

Isn’t it convenient to have all these random sites popping that will
make your problems go away, if you give them enough personal details?

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

#235266 — "spam" calls, was: Remember when discussions were worth reading?

(response appended below_

In <1158eqq$1tqe9$1@dont-email.me> Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

>On Sat, 8 Aug 2026 08:06:31 -0700, Kurt Weiske wrote:

>> -=> scott wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-
>>
>>> I filed a ticket at Linode. Linode contacted Microsoft. Within a
>>> day or two, the problem was resolved and the mail started going
>>> through.
>>
>> I was shocked ("Shocked, I say!") when I researched why my office
>> Teams telephone number showed up as SPAM RISK on my Android phone. I
>> went to hiya.com and registered my Teams number, and within 24 hours
>> the SPAM moniker went away.

I've run into similar issues and we've been pulling our
collective hair out.

Calls from the SOCIAL SECURITY office, as well as
some hospitals, have been flagged with "scam likely".

Apparently the SCAMMERS have been spoofing the phone
numbers of these high profile, "got to answer this!"
phone numbers.  And some people then report these
to the various spammer data bases.

No easy way to resolve this.  The various steps
the telcos have been forced to take have reduced
the quantity of faked phone numbers, but it's
still way too much.



-- 
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
		     dannyb@panix.com 
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

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

#235267 — Re: "spam" calls, was: Remember when discussions were worth reading?

On Sun, 9 Aug 2026 00:03:23 -0000 (UTC), danny burstein wrote:

> Apparently the SCAMMERS have been spoofing the phone numbers of
> these high profile, "got to answer this!" phone numbers. And some
> people then report these to the various spammer data bases.

There are supposed to be protocols in place for reputable telcos to be
able to attest to caller ID from their own customers, and also define
the level of trust for that passed across from other providers
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STIR/SHAKEN>.

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

#235268 — Re: "spam" calls, was: Remember when discussions were worth reading?

In <1158oa1$20b2q$1@dont-email.me> Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

>On Sun, 9 Aug 2026 00:03:23 -0000 (UTC), danny burstein wrote:

>> Apparently the SCAMMERS have been spoofing the phone numbers of
>> these high profile, "got to answer this!" phone numbers. And some
>> people then report these to the various spammer data bases.

>There are supposed to be protocols in place for reputable telcos to be
>able to attest to caller ID from their own customers, and also define
>the level of trust for that passed across from other providers
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STIR/SHAKEN>.

to be sure these steps have helped, but there are still
plenty, make that PLENTY, of callers who fake their CNID.

Note, of course, there are valid reasons to do this spoofing.
Just as one example (which I was involved in...)
People doing food deliveries for "Meals on Wheels" and similars.

When the driver is calling five minutes away, it makes much more
sense to "send" the main office number...

But yeah, lots of assholes still get through.



-- 
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
		     dannyb@panix.com 
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

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

#235291

scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) writes:

> In article <87mrv0s24m.fsf@safunu.org>, Anton Antimo  <anton@safunu.org> wrote:
>>But I can't email my (one) friend on Hotmail because Hotmail has banned
>>the IP address I currently use, though this IP address is not present in
>>any other famous SMTP blacklist out there that I know of.
>
> Where is your mail server located?  Mine was (at the time) on a Linode VPS. 
> The scammers at UCEProtect have blacklisted Linode's entire IP address
> range, just because they're assholes like that.

Mine is on Kamatera.com.

> I only noticed this was a problem when I was trying to send mail to
> someone I know IRL who has an email address through one of Microsoft's
> services (don't recall if it was Hotmail or Outlook.com).  For some
> inexplicable reason, Microsoft had configured its mail servers to use
> UCEProtect.
>
> I filed a ticket at Linode.  Linode contacted Microsoft.  Within a day
> or two, the problem was resolved and the mail started going through.

I filled a Microsoft form on the web, whose immediate reply was that I
didn't qualify for any consideration.  I understood my IP address was
hopeless and gave up.

Thanks for sharing your case.

> (I ended up moving that VPS to Server Optima...more disk and RAM at a
> lower price.  That said, I still have other services at Linode and
> wouldn't hesitate to recommend them.)

Thanks for the recommendation.  I was a Hetzner user, but they refused
to create me a PT record, in what looked like they were thinking I was
a spammer.  I had to leave them.  I'm pretty happy with Kamatera.com.

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

#235263

On 2026-08-04, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mail hosting is unfortunately non-trivial thanks to the Major Players
> going ape with spam control in a way that *just so happens* to block
> all but the Major Players from reliable delivery - but yes, it's still
> 100% possible to roll your own website as much from-scratch as you
> please. (Hell, in some ways it's actually easier, now that pretty much
> every browser has reasonable CSS support.)

Only partially true. Yes, the major MSPs have taken over the majority of
mail delivery. And, yes, there are certain hoops you have to jump
through to get mail to deliver reliably to them. But it's far from
impossible and I would argue that achieving reliable delivery is only
marginally non-trivial. Most of the issues are well documented and most
MSPs follow pretty standard practices (DMARC, DKIM, SPF, etc.)

I started hosting my own mail server about 15 years ago and haven't
looked back. The ability to use unique and randomly generated email
addresses for every website reduces not only the ability for advertisers
to have a reliable primary key with which to fingerprint your activity
online. Additionally, it makes it trivial to fight spam. It also has the
side benefit of enabling attribution to companies that have sold your
data or who have experienced breaches. 

It's certainly more work than signing up for Gmail but I'd argue that
there are more benefits than people realize. I also hold the, possibly
unpopular opinion that LLMs have made the hosting of one's own mail
server ever the more trivial since a lot of what complicated doing so in
the past was knowing how the major MSPs fight spam. This information has
by-and-large been consumed by LLMs and is now very easy to find.

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

#235286

On 2026-08-08, Ted W. wrote:

> On 2026-08-04, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mail hosting is unfortunately non-trivial thanks to the Major Players
>> going ape with spam control in a way that *just so happens* to block
>> all but the Major Players from reliable delivery - but yes, it's still
>> 100% possible to roll your own website as much from-scratch as you
>> please. (Hell, in some ways it's actually easier, now that pretty much
>> every browser has reasonable CSS support.)
>
> Only partially true. Yes, the major MSPs have taken over the majority of
> mail delivery. And, yes, there are certain hoops you have to jump
> through to get mail to deliver reliably to them. But it's far from
> impossible and I would argue that achieving reliable delivery is only
> marginally non-trivial. Most of the issues are well documented and most
> MSPs follow pretty standard practices (DMARC, DKIM, SPF, etc.)

So what you're saying is that Microsoft is actually an outlier in that
regard?

> I started hosting my own mail server about 15 years ago and haven't
> looked back. The ability to use unique and randomly generated email
> addresses for every website reduces not only the ability for advertisers
> to have a reliable primary key with which to fingerprint your activity
> online. Additionally, it makes it trivial to fight spam. It also has the
> side benefit of enabling attribution to companies that have sold your
> data or who have experienced breaches. 
>
> It's certainly more work than signing up for Gmail but I'd argue that
> there are more benefits than people realize. I also hold the, possibly
> unpopular opinion that LLMs have made the hosting of one's own mail
> server ever the more trivial since a lot of what complicated doing so in
> the past was knowing how the major MSPs fight spam. This information has
> by-and-large been consumed by LLMs and is now very easy to find.

-- 
Nuno Silva

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

#235292

"Ted W." <usenet@xy0.org> writes:

> On 2026-08-04, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mail hosting is unfortunately non-trivial thanks to the Major Players
>> going ape with spam control in a way that *just so happens* to block
>> all but the Major Players from reliable delivery - but yes, it's still
>> 100% possible to roll your own website as much from-scratch as you
>> please. (Hell, in some ways it's actually easier, now that pretty much
>> every browser has reasonable CSS support.)
>
> Only partially true. Yes, the major MSPs have taken over the majority of
> mail delivery. And, yes, there are certain hoops you have to jump
> through to get mail to deliver reliably to them. But it's far from
> impossible and I would argue that achieving reliable delivery is only
> marginally non-trivial. Most of the issues are well documented and most
> MSPs follow pretty standard practices (DMARC, DKIM, SPF, etc.)
>
> I started hosting my own mail server about 15 years ago and haven't
> looked back. The ability to use unique and randomly generated email
> addresses for every website reduces not only the ability for advertisers
> to have a reliable primary key with which to fingerprint your activity
> online. Additionally, it makes it trivial to fight spam. It also has the
> side benefit of enabling attribution to companies that have sold your
> data or who have experienced breaches. 

Can you share a bit more of your strategy?  For example, do you set up
your system to deliver everything@your.domain to you?  I didn't do this
because I thought I'd get a lot of nonsense in my mailbox.  But then
creating an alias every time I need to create an account online happens
to be not very convenient.  So I end up reusing accounts, though I agree
with you that using a single account for each site is the best thing.

> It's certainly more work than signing up for Gmail but I'd argue that
> there are more benefits than people realize. I also hold the, possibly
> unpopular opinion that LLMs have made the hosting of one's own mail
> server ever the more trivial since a lot of what complicated doing so
> in the past was knowing how the major MSPs fight spam. This
> information has by-and-large been consumed by LLMs and is now very
> easy to find.

I totally agree.  Software configuration has become a lot easier with
their help.

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

#235271

On 30/07/2026 10:17 PM, The True Melissa wrote:
> Verily, in article <875x1xa9t7.fsf@safunu.org>, did anton@safunu.org
> deliver unto us this message:
>>
>> Yes.  Not being the smart way to use computers, it can't be the future.
>> For years I've expected the web to somehow die precisely because of the
>> way browsers have been evolving.  Complex software is bound to die
>> because of the lack of diversity.  Look how very few browsers we have.
>> Why is that?  Because only very rich corporations can build it.  And
>> maybe now we have a glimpse of the downfall of the web.  The so-called
>> smart systems producing slop and bots perhaps being responsible for most
>> of the web traffic.  Maybe that's indeed the end of the web.  Rebirth.
>> I still think the web as its idealized conception is something we want.
>> Just like the USENET is something we want.
> 
> This is an interesting discussion.
> 
> Perhaps hypertext and document organization should never have been
> combined. I recently rediscovered gopherspace, and to my surprise it's
> not completely dead.

Welcome to the Gopher weave.  I have a node there.  There's only a
single file of pure text, but you're welcome to find it.  I'll let you
know when I have something substantial to share on my node of the weave.

> 
> The current web dissatisfies thinking people. Something else is bound to
> arise. Maybe it'll be a gopherspace revival or maybe a new thing, but
> the web just isn't cutting it these days.

And not just thinking people.  Even people with social media accounts
have stopped posting -- well for the most part -- because the effort
is not worth it.  I don't want to get into other people's personal
reasons, but believe me when I say that it's not just me, and I know
some of these people intimately.

> 
> We never should have let the corporatins sieze control of everything,
> but we didn't know what to do.
> 

That is indeed a problem, and social revolutions are not won with plat-
itudes and speeches.  We could start our own, but it's a lot of bother,
and we're already living in the dystopian fiction of teenage melodrama.

And without writing my own dystopian fiction right here in the weave of
alt.folklore.computers, I bid you farewell, and do not dare to think of
potential solutions to a world wide web.
-- 
Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/
I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com
https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:;

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

#235192

Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> wrote:
> Can you elaborate on your idea?  It seems you're saying that instead of
> using the web, a social network should implement its own multimedia
> protocol?  If so, I'd side with you---I agree with the web isn't a very
> good user interface and I also don't know how we could turn a multimedia
> protocol into a good user interface.  When I think of good user
> interface, I always think of text user interfaces, like the one we
> already have.
> 
> Why is that so?  I believe computers are not too different from what
> they were in the 70s.  We're still using the same software pretty much.
> (Not saying everything is perfect.)

I would argue that what you're referring to can be achieved by separating
the API from the presentation.  eg the API client calls 'get-article' and
returns an article.  It's up to your client to decide how to present that
article.  If your client happens to be a website then you get a web UI, if
your client happens to be on a VT100 then you get a TUI, if the client
happens to run on iOS then it's an app, etc.

NNTP is the API for Usenet, ActivityPub is the API for Mastodon and Lemmy,
Reddit has its own API (which previously operated like this until they hiked
the price for third party clients and killed most of them).  How the servers
operate behind the API sets how the system behaves as a network (division
into groups, NNTP flood-fill, ActivityPub federation, moderation etc).

I'd suggest that any next-generation Usenet:

1. Considers the separation of backend and frontend via a published API

2. Considers whether the APIs already out there already fulfill the needs
over a new protocol.

eg if you wanted to reimplement Usenet from scratch today perhaps you'd use
ActivityPub instead of NNTP, but you could modify it to make a more
Usenet-like experience.

Theo

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

#235193

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> NNTP is the API for Usenet
This is incorrect. NNTP is Network News Transfer Protocol, is not an
API, and isn't technically needed to use usenet. Before NNTP, UUCP
shuffled articles along. Two systems peered via UUCP over a serial/modem
link can pass along articles. A PC user can dial-in to such a system and
pull articles for reading in off-line mode. This was important in the
time of expensive connections that ran up phone bills and tied up phone
lines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_News_Transfer_Protocol

-- 
PGP Key ID: 781C A3E2 C6ED 70A6 B356  7AF5 B510 542E D460 5CAE
       "The Internet should always be the Wild West!"

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

#235195

jayjwa <jayjwa@atr2.ath.cx.invalid> writes:
>Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>
>> NNTP is the API for Usenet
>This is incorrect. NNTP is Network News Transfer Protocol,

I beg to differ.  NNTP is effectively the API that is used
by remote clients to access and post usenet articles.

TCP is the transport for NNTP, while UUCP was the historical
transport between newservers (the clients were typically local
and used standard unix system calls as the API to the filesystem).

> is not an
>API, and isn't technically needed to use usenet. Before NNTP, UUCP
>shuffled articles along. Two systems peered via UUCP over a serial/modem
>link can pass along articles.

Historically speaking, perhaps.   Nobody uses UUCP over
serial for news article transport (even if they could
get a POTS line, which are less and less avialable).

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

#235198

On Fri, 31 Jul 2026 12:16:09 -0400, jayjwa wrote:

> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> 
>> NNTP is the API for Usenet
> This is incorrect. NNTP is Network News Transfer Protocol, is not an
> API, and isn't technically needed to use usenet. Before NNTP, UUCP
> shuffled articles along. Two systems peered via UUCP over a serial/modem
> link can pass along articles. A PC user can dial-in to such a system and
> pull articles for reading in off-line mode. This was important in the
> time of expensive connections that ran up phone bills and tied up phone
> lines.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_News_Transfer_Protocol

I would argue that the differences between an ABI, API and Protocol are 
moot at its most bare perspective as they all describe the same kind of 
behaviour. A form of governance for communications between different 
pieces of software. 
I would say that API is more appropriately used when discussing an 
interface between software modules within the same ecosystem, or the same 
layer, or the same software stack (HTTP/TCP for example). So lets say 
layer 5-7. While ABI is better utilized for discussing compiling to a 
specific archetectures machine code; Which doesn't really fall anywhere in 
the OSI model. Protocols (as we typically think of them, i.e. sitting on 
top of (TCP/UDP)/IP) on the other hand can be found vaguely above layer 3 
or 4.

Probably the least descriptive here is actually the term Protocol since it 
doesn't provide much meaning outside of "a set of rules to behave and 
interpret with" (in my eyes at least).

If I had to describe the relationships between them its probably like 
this:

Maths Incoming:
-----
∅ ⊂ Protocol 
Protocol ⊃ API
Protocol ⊃ ABI

API ≠ ABI

ABI ⊂ API
ABI ⊅ API
-----

Regardless, all this was just to say that harping on how a person uses API 
vs Protocol doesn't really matter much

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

#235201

On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 14:38:11 -0300, Anton Antimo wrote:

> Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> writes:

>> [...]

>> There is also something to say about just the simplicity. I have run a
>> lemmy instance and still find it frustrating that you have to use web
>> browsers to utilize the platform. KISS really applies here in that we
>> already have protocol standards for discussions and minimal clients
>> with minimal network connectivity required.
>>
>> Multimedia is rather over-emphasized on popular disccussion platforms
>> and is better served on their own dedicated platforms for their binary
>> types.
>>
>> As a side note, I would prefer its own protocol for the different types
>> of media to be consumed (as with NNTP for mainly textual discussion)
>> however,
>> it's a far fetched and not well thought out idea of mine that I
>> wouldn't expect to see ever happening in the wild at any great scale.
> 
> Can you elaborate on your idea?  It seems you're saying that instead of
> using the web, a social network should implement its own multimedia
> protocol?  If so, I'd side with you---I agree with the web isn't a very
> good user interface and I also don't know how we could turn a multimedia
> protocol into a good user interface.  When I think of good user
> interface, I always think of text user interfaces, like the one we
> already have.
> 
> Why is that so?  I believe computers are not too different from what
> they were in the 70s.  We're still using the same software pretty much.
> (Not saying everything is perfect.)

I mean, its more than possible. We don't really have to dwell on how that 
implementation would actually occur since this is just hypothetical but we 
for sure have more than enough examples of very good interfaces built 
around a single protocol or tool. The first one that comes to mind is git. 
They have things that visualize the git history over time in a really cool 
way like gource. They also have more typical graphical interfaces for git, 
vim integration, shell integration, web integration, emacs integration and 
plain old command line.

The question of tying all the pieces together into a nice interface is up 
to the application developers.

What I really am trying to get across above however is that the 
fundamental separation between data provenance, data presentation and data 
communication should be fully present. I think the best way to illistrate 
this is via an example.

Current Day:

You have a forum site that on the main landing page you have ads posted, 
videos auto playing and *linked* images automatically being loaded, 
infinite scrolling and click tracking. All of this being implemented on 
top of an HTTP/TCP stack. 

You point your web browser at it and you either get all of the features or 
none of them. The site determines what your computer does and what it 
doesn't

This is a problem for many reasons that I will get into later.



My Theoretical Ideal:

You have a forum site or video sharing site or a government web page. When 
connecting you are provided with a basic HTML/HTTP style page that can be 
made to look pretty by your browser. No autoplaying anything, no 
autoloaded images, no javascript. You get just what you asked for and no 
more. If you just wanted the text of the web page then you already have it 
by accessing the site. You want to watch a video or a live stream? Follow 
this rtmp:// or "video://" link of which you can either download in full 
or live stream the video. You want to look at a photo gallery? Here is a 
list of images that you can set in your client to either fully fetch and 
display automatically via the photo:// links or let you manually select 
them as you please.

Here I am assuming the video:// would be a static file on the webserver 
and that the "video" protocol has the ability to seek and livestream 
(protocol features) rather than just file transfer (despite modern 
browsers being capable of client side streaming of static mp4s served as 
files from HTTP servers). 

My Point:

Regardless, this just seems like an idea that is a gopher or gemini 
protocol clone and derived from that ethos. And in a way, it is. But the 
idea of having separate protocols for the different "types" of data that 
you may wish to host brings the following benefits:

1. You have less protocol overhead as the transfer protocol is specialized 
for that type of media, instead of using a protocol layered on top of the 
network that involves special parsing and additional considerations by 
each layer. Example being HLS and binary transfer in HTTP

2. You have an easier time as a software client user and as a software 
client developer defining controls for the type of content you wish to 
view and whether you want it to be manually interacted with or 
automatically fetched.

2b. This directly helps with the issues of dealing with things like JS    
where essentially you are running other people's served code, which can 
cause you to, lets say, auto play videos and auto fetch images despite you 
having those settings set to false. Avoiding so called jailbreaks

4. It encourages a full applicatio suite. Much like the UNIX philosophy of 
one thing done well, you can have a separation of tools and separation of 
concerns for each developer.

3. It provides for simpler specifications due to limited scope. One HUGE 
problem with HTML and HTTP is that their specifications are HUGE and 
forever changing. For example, HTML (SGML derived) is permissible to have 
non-well-formed documents. i.e. unclosed tags such as '<p>' '<br>' and 
many more. While in that same exact specification they have XHTML (XML 
Derived, now simply called HTML as they are no longer delineated in the 
spec) which *IS* well formed. HTTP also has for a while had the capability 
to do live streaming, overtaking traditional streaming control protocols 
such as rtsp, rtmp and rts (I know that some of these are hypertext 
oriented protocols, they are built for a specific purpose none-the-less). 
There are some good reasons for HLS vs rtsp, rtmp, etc... Originating from 
the way it plays nicely with CDNs (HLS is file based streaming in 
typically 0.5-2 second chunks) but I honestly have to think that similar 
benefits could be derived from the same level of trickery pulled to make 
HLS happen in just making a CDN friendly streaming protocol. Completely 
removing the HTTP stack and wackiness that way. 

3a. This also, I think, would make writing specifications that could be 
used universally much easier, rather than a lazy de facto standard that 
emerges from organizations developing for use cases individually and then 
sharing that with (or copying from) other orgs. Or even worse, only for a 
single platform/application, which leads every website to be a PWA that 
requires JS.



Conclusion:

Ultimately, I would want the media specific protocols for to simplfy and 
make the internet much more intentional and privacy respecting in nature. 
Screw algorithms, screw proprietary content delivery stacks and stop 
expecting me to run other people's shady code to view what could be 
summerized in a notepad.exe document (my fave cookie recipe). 

I think that we have enough going over HTTP. And for business/life 
critical tasks such as banking, there are very much correct ways to handle 
their communications that SHOULD be standardized in their own protocols 
using encryption and the like. Not left up to some web dev to figure out 
during their 8hr shift only for it to probably be implemented wrong. And 
if implemented correctly, only for that one bank.

Removing the oppourtunity for error and distributing the control of media 
consumption and program execution is paramount to freedom of discussion 
and internet security. As a side note, the fact that I can get served zero 
cliekc malware through AD networks is just insane to me, I can't even 
support my favorite creators without worrying about my security! (This 
issue could be averted completely with server side AD code, but easily 
blocked :) )


Post Script.

As another side note. I think that one thing the entirety of the global 
network really really forgets is that separation of concerns does not 
simply stop at the hardware/infrastructure level. Neither does the UNIX 
philosophy stop where it seems to end. Instead, separation of concerns, 
trust and function are at the core values of the whole computing machine 
and it networking. Simply those platforms that most use don't take this 
approach. Its the minimal viable product, the path of least resistence and 
highest profit. Feature creep over expert execution. It just hurts my soul

Post Post Script.

I honestly think that ultimately what I have proposed would do a lot of 
good for the main use case that people use the internet for now, 
communication/entertainment (this has been kinda blurred in recent 
decades) and would prevent a lot of vendor/application lock in that we 
have seen with web browsers and word processors. It would just rely on 
people actually wanting to retain that type of computing environment once 
they realize what they have and could lose. 

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

#235229

Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> writes:

> On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 14:38:11 -0300, Anton Antimo wrote:
>
>> Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> writes:
>
>>> [...]
>
>>> There is also something to say about just the simplicity. I have run a
>>> lemmy instance and still find it frustrating that you have to use web
>>> browsers to utilize the platform. KISS really applies here in that we
>>> already have protocol standards for discussions and minimal clients
>>> with minimal network connectivity required.
>>>
>>> Multimedia is rather over-emphasized on popular disccussion platforms
>>> and is better served on their own dedicated platforms for their binary
>>> types.
>>>
>>> As a side note, I would prefer its own protocol for the different
>>> types of media to be consumed (as with NNTP for mainly textual
>>> discussion) however, it's a far fetched and not well thought out
>>> idea of mine that I wouldn't expect to see ever happening in the
>>> wild at any great scale.
>> 
>> Can you elaborate on your idea?  It seems you're saying that instead of
>> using the web, a social network should implement its own multimedia
>> protocol?  If so, I'd side with you---I agree with the web isn't a very
>> good user interface and I also don't know how we could turn a multimedia
>> protocol into a good user interface.  When I think of good user
>> interface, I always think of text user interfaces, like the one we
>> already have.
>> 
>> Why is that so?  I believe computers are not too different from what
>> they were in the 70s.  We're still using the same software pretty much.
>> (Not saying everything is perfect.)
>
> I mean, its more than possible. We don't really have to dwell on how that 
> implementation would actually occur since this is just hypothetical but we 
> for sure have more than enough examples of very good interfaces built 
> around a single protocol or tool. The first one that comes to mind is git. 
> They have things that visualize the git history over time in a really cool 
> way like gource. They also have more typical graphical interfaces for git, 
> vim integration, shell integration, web integration, emacs integration and 
> plain old command line.
>
> The question of tying all the pieces together into a nice interface is up 
> to the application developers.
>
> What I really am trying to get across above however is that the 
> fundamental separation between data provenance, data presentation and data 
> communication should be fully present. I think the best way to illistrate 
> this is via an example.
>
> Current Day:
>
> You have a forum site that on the main landing page you have ads posted, 
> videos auto playing and *linked* images automatically being loaded, 
> infinite scrolling and click tracking. All of this being implemented on 
> top of an HTTP/TCP stack. 
>
> You point your web browser at it and you either get all of the features or 
> none of them. The site determines what your computer does and what it 
> doesn't
>
> This is a problem for many reasons that I will get into later.
>
> My Theoretical Ideal:
>
> You have a forum site or video sharing site or a government web page. When 
> connecting you are provided with a basic HTML/HTTP style page that can be 
> made to look pretty by your browser. No autoplaying anything, no 
> autoloaded images, no javascript. You get just what you asked for and no 
> more. If you just wanted the text of the web page then you already have it 
> by accessing the site. You want to watch a video or a live stream? Follow 
> this rtmp:// or "video://" link of which you can either download in full 
> or live stream the video. You want to look at a photo gallery? Here is a 
> list of images that you can set in your client to either fully fetch and 
> display automatically via the photo:// links or let you manually select 
> them as you please.
>
> Here I am assuming the video:// would be a static file on the webserver 
> and that the "video" protocol has the ability to seek and livestream 
> (protocol features) rather than just file transfer (despite modern 
> browsers being capable of client side streaming of static mp4s served as 
> files from HTTP servers). 
>
> My Point:
>
> Regardless, this just seems like an idea that is a gopher or gemini 
> protocol clone and derived from that ethos. And in a way, it is. But the 
> idea of having separate protocols for the different "types" of data that 
> you may wish to host brings the following benefits:
>
> 1. You have less protocol overhead as the transfer protocol is specialized 
> for that type of media, instead of using a protocol layered on top of the 
> network that involves special parsing and additional considerations by 
> each layer. Example being HLS and binary transfer in HTTP
>
> 2. You have an easier time as a software client user and as a software 
> client developer defining controls for the type of content you wish to 
> view and whether you want it to be manually interacted with or 
> automatically fetched.
>
> 2b. This directly helps with the issues of dealing with things like JS    
> where essentially you are running other people's served code, which can 
> cause you to, lets say, auto play videos and auto fetch images despite you 
> having those settings set to false. Avoiding so called jailbreaks
>
> 4. It encourages a full applicatio suite. Much like the UNIX philosophy of 
> one thing done well, you can have a separation of tools and separation of 
> concerns for each developer.
>
> 3. It provides for simpler specifications due to limited scope. One HUGE 
> problem with HTML and HTTP is that their specifications are HUGE and 
> forever changing. For example, HTML (SGML derived) is permissible to have 
> non-well-formed documents. i.e. unclosed tags such as '<p>' '<br>' and 
> many more. While in that same exact specification they have XHTML (XML 
> Derived, now simply called HTML as they are no longer delineated in the 
> spec) which *IS* well formed. HTTP also has for a while had the capability 
> to do live streaming, overtaking traditional streaming control protocols 
> such as rtsp, rtmp and rts (I know that some of these are hypertext 
> oriented protocols, they are built for a specific purpose none-the-less). 
> There are some good reasons for HLS vs rtsp, rtmp, etc... Originating from 
> the way it plays nicely with CDNs (HLS is file based streaming in 
> typically 0.5-2 second chunks) but I honestly have to think that similar 
> benefits could be derived from the same level of trickery pulled to make 
> HLS happen in just making a CDN friendly streaming protocol. Completely 
> removing the HTTP stack and wackiness that way. 
>
> 3a. This also, I think, would make writing specifications that could be 
> used universally much easier, rather than a lazy de facto standard that 
> emerges from organizations developing for use cases individually and then 
> sharing that with (or copying from) other orgs. Or even worse, only for a 
> single platform/application, which leads every website to be a PWA that 
> requires JS.
>
> Conclusion:
>
> Ultimately, I would want the media specific protocols for to simplfy and 
> make the internet much more intentional and privacy respecting in nature. 
> Screw algorithms, screw proprietary content delivery stacks and stop 
> expecting me to run other people's shady code to view what could be 
> summerized in a notepad.exe document (my fave cookie recipe). 
>
> I think that we have enough going over HTTP. And for business/life 
> critical tasks such as banking, there are very much correct ways to handle 
> their communications that SHOULD be standardized in their own protocols 
> using encryption and the like. Not left up to some web dev to figure out 
> during their 8hr shift only for it to probably be implemented wrong. And 
> if implemented correctly, only for that one bank.
>
> Removing the oppourtunity for error and distributing the control of media 
> consumption and program execution is paramount to freedom of discussion 
> and internet security. As a side note, the fact that I can get served zero 
> cliekc malware through AD networks is just insane to me, I can't even 
> support my favorite creators without worrying about my security! (This 
> issue could be averted completely with server side AD code, but easily 
> blocked :) )
>
>
> Post Script.
>
> As another side note. I think that one thing the entirety of the global 
> network really really forgets is that separation of concerns does not 
> simply stop at the hardware/infrastructure level. Neither does the UNIX 
> philosophy stop where it seems to end. Instead, separation of concerns, 
> trust and function are at the core values of the whole computing machine 
> and it networking. Simply those platforms that most use don't take this 
> approach. Its the minimal viable product, the path of least resistence and 
> highest profit. Feature creep over expert execution. It just hurts my soul
>
> Post Post Script.
>
> I honestly think that ultimately what I have proposed would do a lot of 
> good for the main use case that people use the internet for now, 
> communication/entertainment (this has been kinda blurred in recent 
> decades) and would prevent a lot of vendor/application lock in that we 
> have seen with web browsers and word processors. It would just rely on 
> people actually wanting to retain that type of computing environment once 
> they realize what they have and could lose. 

Thanks for the through presentation.  Your ideas are what makes sense to
me; it is the lack of such properties in the current web and web
browsing that makes me think they will not survive down the road.  In
the end, it is really the best design that survives.  (Yes, Common Lisp
is still an island, but the story is not over yet.  Things don't evolve
as fast as the expert would like to see.)

Not to criticize your ideas, but just to add the comment that I still
can't see a new-revolutionary idea.  The current difficulty that we face
at the current web seems to be how to move it from where it is to this
doug-mcilroy-do-one-thing-and-do-it-well design.  The obvious thing /to
me/ is the need for a new type of web browser.  Things hardly ever are
born more powerful than the current in-use tool, but it has to be cool
enough to encourage people to use it.  Without a New Browser (whatever
it would be), users will not take it on and so web developers will not
care about it.  I was happy to see the birth of the Gemini protocol, but
it's unclear it is it.

One my current hopes is the so-called ai-slop.  Perhaps it will destroy
the web so badly that it will bury the web browser, allowing new ideas
to emerge.

I feel we may be at an exciting moment.  In the beginning, the
excitement was the void, the unknown that was ahead of the hacker's
work.  Now the void may be here again, but in the form of nonsense.

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

#235234

On Wed, 05 Aug 2026 12:47:59 -0300, Anton Antimo wrote:

> Thanks for the through presentation.  Your ideas are what makes sense to
> me; it is the lack of such properties in the current web and web
> browsing that makes me think they will not survive down the road.  In
> the end, it is really the best design that survives.  (Yes, Common Lisp
> is still an island, but the story is not over yet.  Things don't evolve
> as fast as the expert would like to see.)

Agreed. In my opinion it really is a battle of what dimension of design 
wins out over the other however. Which one of the design priorities 
ultimately trump the other? Is it cost/profitabliity? Is it fundamental 
resilience? Or a natural ephermrality that ultimately leads to the 'best' 
design. 

That is more exitential question that humanity answers as a whole 
collective in a type of consensus ultimately; which is most accurately 
defined when smoothed out over time (in effect) which dilutes the 
influences of single actors imposed on a whole populace (the "ruling 
elite" or the technocracy).
 
> Not to criticize your ideas, but just to add the comment that I still
> can't see a new-revolutionary idea.  The current difficulty that we face
> at the current web seems to be how to move it from where it is to this
> doug-mcilroy-do-one-thing-and-do-it-well design.  The obvious thing /to
> me/ is the need for a new type of web browser.  Things hardly ever are
> born more powerful than the current in-use tool, but it has to be cool
> enough to encourage people to use it.  Without a New Browser (whatever
> it would be), users will not take it on and so web developers will not
> care about it.  I was happy to see the birth of the Gemini protocol, but
> it's unclear it is it.

This is true, but perhaps new ideas aren't always necessary. Instead it is 
the perception of existing conceptual architectures and frameworks, or it 
is a generallack of understanding of the impact in the differences between 
conceptually similar designs. 

A good example for me is pondering over the difference between E-Mail vs 
NNTP. Excluding topics of encryption and privacy (as those are deep dives 
in of themselves regarding originally crypto-unaware protocols) we can 
take a look a the simple difference between the push and pull nature of 
message transference, or the ability to select who you federate with, a 
deny by default vs allow by default policy.

These small differences have profound deep cutting implications in how 
users interact and respond to each style of communication. 

My point is this. No, I don't have any completely new ideas to really 
bring to the table, but I think that people tend to summerize too quickly 
and generalize/abstract/relate-closely (a bit too closely mind you) 
existing ideas into groups. All while not giving pre-existing ideas the 
credit for having survived so long and digging into the deepest depths of 
nuance that even for those who are technically or philosophically inclined 
tend to overlook or dismiss.

For those who speak multiple langauges this analogy may help. French, 
Spanish, Portugese and much of English are derived from Latin and share a 
lot of their ancestry with the Roman language. It would be fair to group 
and describe these languages as single group, the romance languages. 
However, I would say that if you asked one native individual for each 
langauge and have them interact with one of another language, having them 
discuss the difference in interpretation and meaning (emotive and logical) 
of a phase, idiom, or a descriptive essay (provided to each in their 
respective native langauges, translated to preserve as much meaning and 
emotion as possible) they would find very quickly and clearly find the 
differences between how one interprets their similar language vs the 
other. 

This is also something that I believe behavioral science has also studied 
quite extensively (though I have no sources). The effect of language on 
one's interpretation and perception of the world. To those native each 
word has a specific impact special to that language and to the people that 
speak it, to those who share a similar language (but not the same 
language) will find different impact/meaning in that same pharse spoken in 
theirs. And from an outsider it appears they simply say the same thing 
with no difference in meaning.

So, to return from this tangential thought train, I think it is actually 
better to see how existing ideas being refined, or slightly redefined, may 
actually provide greater value than trying to find a whole new solution to 
begin with (IMO this encourages radical deviation from what is expected 
since it is percieved as new and a plausible, yet underdeveloped 
solution).

> One my current hopes is the so-called ai-slop.  Perhaps it will destroy
> the web so badly that it will bury the web browser, allowing new ideas
> to emerge.

This fits well with the, you don't know what you had before it's gone. The 
internet was great for a good while. Then the enshitification happened, 
corporations started to centralize attention and drain a user's ability to 
understand the computing environment they live in under the promise of 
convenience and "making it better". 
 
> I feel we may be at an exciting moment.  In the beginning, the
> excitement was the void, the unknown that was ahead of the hacker's
> work.  Now the void may be here again, but in the form of nonsense.

Remember, the internet has been around for only so long. Humanity has 
never been connected at such a huge scale to such a huge degree ever in 
it's entire existence. We are still in the wild west of the hyper 
connected world, despite the maturity it seems to have gathered in the 
past two, almost three decades. 

Regardless, I have hope for the future as well. I see those around me 
becoming more aware and intentional about their opinions and actions 
regarding technology. It's becoming important (dare I say cool?) to pay 
attention and be a curator of your online and computing environments.

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

#235270 — The Weave (was: Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading?)

On 27/07/2026 1:28 AM, Jeffrey Bagely wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 01:02:25 -0000 (UTC), Ted W. wrote:
> 
>> On 2026-07-25, Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2026-07-25, Tom Mix wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> Just another centralized message board among hundreds (thousands?) that
>> already exist. The novelty is the usenet-like group hierarchy otherwise
>> it looks just like Digg (RIP), Reddit, Lemmy and others.
>>
>> If I've learned anything over the last 20+ years of modern social media
>> it's that they either collapse or live long enough to sell your data.
>> Usenet, the original social media platform, has been around since long
>> before most Silicon Valley social media founders were born and it will
>> remain long after they're gone.
>>
>> I'll stick to the original, warts and all.
> 
> There is also something to say about just the simplicity. I have run a
> lemmy instance and still find it frustrating that you have to use web
> browsers to utilize the platform. KISS really applies here in that we
> already have protocol standards for discussions and minimal clients with
> minimal network connectivity required.
> 
> Multimedia is rather over-emphasized on popular disccussion platforms and
> is better served on their own dedicated platforms for their binary types.
> 
> As a side note, I would prefer its own protocol for the different types of
> media to be consumed (as with NNTP for mainly textual discussion) however,
> it's a far fetched and not well thought out idea of mine that I wouldn't
> expect to see ever happening in the wild at any great scale.

I've entered the frayed corners of the weave.*  And there are still
people connecting to old school BBS systems from a Commodore 64.  This
necessitates leaving the web, and entering unknown territories with
really strange weaves.

You'll meet strange creatures who speak of Commodore 64 as the pinnacle
of computer interfaces.  And I have not dared to ask if these characters
are completely human; because on the weave, nobody knows if you're a
spider.

I'm sure some of them even use N.N.T.P.  What they weave there, I do not
know.


Best wishes, and happy weaving on the N.N.T.P of alt.folklore.computers!


* I use the term /weave/ for a reason, we've already left the /web/.
-- 
Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/
I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com
https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:;

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

#235274 — Re: The Weave

Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:

> I've entered the frayed corners of the weave.*  And there are still
> people connecting to old school BBS systems from a Commodore 64.  This
> necessitates leaving the web, and entering unknown territories with
> really strange weaves.
> 
> You'll meet strange creatures who speak of Commodore 64 as the pinnacle
> of computer interfaces.  And I have not dared to ask if these characters
> are completely human; because on the weave, nobody knows if you're a
> spider.
> 
> I'm sure some of them even use N.N.T.P.  What they weave there, I do not
> know.
> 
> Best wishes, and happy weaving on the N.N.T.P of alt.folklore.computers!
> 
> * I use the term /weave/ for a reason, we've already left the /web/.

I would say seven times is *over* using that word

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

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web