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

#235272

On 30/07/2026 11:41 PM, Anton Antimo wrote:
> The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> writes:
> 
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> We never should have let the corporatins sieze control of everything,
>> but we didn't know what to do.
> 
> Exactly.  I don't think we could've done anything.  They're free to
> destroy.  They found a way to make money and so they did.  I hesitate to
> say it was completely disastrous because perhaps some good came: a lot
> of us found a way to make a living?  In the beginning, we were the only
> ones who knew how to use it and how it worked.  I suppose this is the
> same we must do again.

I beg to differ.  Nothing good comes from planned hurdles over technical
arcana.

> 
> I'm not so closely in touch with NNTP admins here, but judging from the
> groups hosted by Eternal September, after Google Groups left the USENET,
> things look pretty bright here.  Why?  Because once again we're left to
> our own devices here.  The only sorry thing is that all the experts we
> used to have are really hanging out somewhere else.  I wonder if they
> know that the USENET is peaceful once again.

And we're once again free from most of the spam.  And not all of us have
appetite for the spam.

> 
> What I believe is that they just don't want to come back because perhaps
> the USENET is just not disruption-free guaranteed.  Perhaps we think now
> we need to really have semi-open groups such as a mailing list or a
> private NNTP server.  For example, the Linux kernel people seem to
> prefer a mailing list (for posting) because this way they easily ban any
> misbehaving member and keep the newbies at bay.
> 
> So that's another question I ask.  Is the USENET model the adequate one
> for an Internet-populous world?  Maybe we should begin a new network of
> interlinked private NNTP servers.  It doesn't seem that a high-volume
> NNTP group is interesting anyway; that usually means a too high
> noise/content ratio.

The Usenet model is perhaps best, but it's not what people nowadays are
used to.  As you can see below, I'm also present on a blue sky, and it's
a symptom, not a cause.  I mean the blue sky is a symptom.  People don't
know about /netiquette/ and staying on topic, nor how to have a long
form conversation.

Not even every one here on the Usenet weave knows how to do that, and
behave like this is a Discordious conversation, and try to leave "funny"
one liners in hopes of receiving some sort of /internet points/.
-- 
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]

#235191

On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 10:17:24 -0400, The True Melissa wrote:

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

A lot of users of Free Software act very much like sheep.

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

#235273 — CorelDRAW! on S.C.O. Unix (was: Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading?)

On 31/07/2026 4:53 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 10:17:24 -0400, The True Melissa wrote:
> 
>> We never should have let the corporatins sieze control of everything,
>> but we didn't know what to do.
> 
> A lot of users of Free Software act very much like sheep.

I see you are still using your proprietary S.C.O. UnixWare, or what.
How did it feel to spend USD 7,833.00 on licensed proprietary Unix?

And how is your rental of CorelDRAW! going?  Did you make some inter-
esting drawings yet?  Have you posted some in the binary newsgroups?

For the people here on the alt.folklore.computers weave, see the

   Message-ID: <E3FcS.38017$UXf1.11211@fx03.ams4>

on comp.unix.shell.  Lawrence was really interested in proprietary
Unix shells, and I told him about S.C.O.
-- 
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]

#235194

The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> writes:

> We never should have let the corporatins sieze control of everything, 
> but we didn't know what to do.
They didn't. People handed them control. People want a curated, safe,
walled garden consisting of only the pleasant things they want to
see, not a wild forest full of animals, danger, and trees that they have
to cut down to build a cabin out of. People, most of them, willingly
gave up their freedom and agency of will for convenience.

If you bought Apple or Windows, if you run Ubuntu or whatever Redhat is
calling itself these days, if you use Google, if you put up with
Cloudflare's bullshit, if a smartphone is in your hand most of the day,
if you use social media, if you email people behind Spamhaus, *you*
helped create this.

-- 
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]

#235196

Verily, in article <87fr0zp1j9.fsf@atr2.ath.cx>, did 
jayjwa@atr2.ath.cx.invalid deliver unto us this message:
> 
> The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> writes:
> 
> > We never should have let the corporatins sieze control of everything, 
> > but we didn't know what to do.
> They didn't. People handed them control. People want a curated, safe,
> walled garden consisting of only the pleasant things they want to
> see, not a wild forest full of animals, danger, and trees that they have
> to cut down to build a cabin out of. People, most of them, willingly
> gave up their freedom and agency of will for convenience.

It may seem okay until the owner of the garden does things we don't 
like. 

A whole, whole lot of people are dissatisfied with the current Internet 
of robots and slop. They just don't know what to do about it.


-- 
The meek shall inherit, we're told,
But I'm not so easily sold.
For supposing they should,
It would do them no good --
They'd lose it at once to the bold. 

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

#235200

On Sat, 1 Aug 2026 08:45:43 -0400, The True Melissa wrote:

> Verily, in article <87fr0zp1j9.fsf@atr2.ath.cx>, did
> jayjwa@atr2.ath.cx.invalid deliver unto us this message:
>> 
>> The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> writes:
>> 
>> > We never should have let the corporatins sieze control of everything,
>> > but we didn't know what to do.
>> They didn't. People handed them control. People want a curated, safe,
>> walled garden consisting of only the pleasant things they want to see,
>> not a wild forest full of animals, danger, and trees that they have to
>> cut down to build a cabin out of. People, most of them, willingly gave
>> up their freedom and agency of will for convenience.
> 
> It may seem okay until the owner of the garden does things we don't
> like.
> 
> A whole, whole lot of people are dissatisfied with the current Internet
> of robots and slop. They just don't know what to do about it.

The not knowing what to do about it doesn't bother me, its the fact that 
when you provide some options that are feasible for them (not reasonable 
as that is subjective) that these same people will usually shoot down 
those ideas. Rathering to fawn at the idea of not being able to do 
anything about the state of affairs and (at least in my experience) return 
out of that state with a renewed sense of wanting to stick their head in 
the sand so as to fawn further.

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

#235197

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

 ja> They didn't. People handed them control. People want a curated, safe,
 ja> walled garden consisting of only the pleasant things they want to
 ja> see, not a wild forest full of animals, danger, and trees that they
 ja> have to cut down to build a cabin out of. People, most of them,
 ja> willingly gave up their freedom and agency of will for convenience.

 I miss those days of hand-hacking web sites, stashing a box in your
 company's server room to serve web pages, and hosting your own mail.

 What's next?    :)


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

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

#235207

"Kurt Weiske" <kurt.weiske@realitycheckbbs.org.remove-3f9-this> writes:

>  To: jayjwa
> -=> jayjwa wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-
>
> ja> They didn't. People handed them control. People want a curated, safe,
> ja> walled garden consisting of only the pleasant things they want to
> ja> see, not a wild forest full of animals, danger, and trees that they
> ja> have to cut down to build a cabin out of. People, most of them,
> ja> willingly gave up their freedom and agency of will for convenience.
>
> I miss those days of hand-hacking web sites, stashing a box in your
> company's server room to serve web pages, and hosting your own mail.

Those days are still here.

> What's next?    :)

Your call. :)

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

#235214

On Mon, 03 Aug 2026 21:59:53 -0300
Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> wrote:

> > I miss those days of hand-hacking web sites, stashing a box in your
> > company's server room to serve web pages, and hosting your own
> > mail.  
> 
> Those days are still here.

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.)

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

#235221

On Tue, 4 Aug 2026 08:29:35 -0700, John Ames wrote:

> On Mon, 03 Aug 2026 21:59:53 -0300 Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org>
> wrote:
> 
>> > I miss those days of hand-hacking web sites, stashing a box in your
>> > company's server room to serve web pages, and hosting your own mail.
>> 
>> Those days are still here.
> 
> 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.)

What is even worse is that major VPS providers and ISPs block outbound 
port 25 (SMTP) and the encrypted port (don't care to look it up). Its 
quite evil.

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

#235227

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

> What is even worse is that major VPS providers and ISPs block outbound 
> port 25 (SMTP) and the encrypted port (don't care to look it up). Its 
> quite evil.

Not all of them. They block Windows smb/nmb stuff (on ipv4 only) here
but that's all. I could double my speeds down and match on up if I move
to another company that is doing fiber but I don't - for this reason and
the fact that they do ipv6 with prefix delegation. The fiber is CGNAT'd
and that's a deal-breaker for me. 

-- 
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]

#235236

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

> On Tue, 4 Aug 2026 08:29:35 -0700, John Ames wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 03 Aug 2026 21:59:53 -0300 Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> > I miss those days of hand-hacking web sites, stashing a box in your
>>> > company's server room to serve web pages, and hosting your own mail.
>>> 
>>> Those days are still here.
>> 
>> 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.)
>
> What is even worse is that major VPS providers and ISPs block outbound 
> port 25 (SMTP) and the encrypted port (don't care to look it up). Its 
> quite evil.

Yeah---that sucks.  When I say I host my own email, it means I bought a
server on the Internet that also creates an PTR-record in their zone.
Otherwise we can't really run an SMTP.

But I can't blame the initiative of the creators of SPF, DKIM, DMARC et
cetera given the status quo of the Internet.

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

#235226

On Tue, 04 Aug 2026 08:29:35 -0700, John Ames wrote:

> On Mon, 03 Aug 2026 21:59:53 -0300 Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org>
> wrote:
> 
>> > I miss those days of hand-hacking web sites, stashing a box in your
>> > company's server room to serve web pages, and hosting your own mail.
>> 
>> Those days are still here.
> 
> 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.)

I have no trouble with mail hosting (I have a cooperative ISP).

Web hosting - I only do that for low volume stuff, but some providers 
refuse access to it.

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

#235228

On 5 Aug 2026 09:36:01 GMT
Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> wrote:

> I have no trouble with mail hosting (I have a cooperative ISP).

Getting the ISP to allow outbound is one thing. The larger problem as
I've seen it is that Major Players (Google, f'rexample) are perfectly
happy to take a you're-not-on-The-List-sir approach to actual delivery;
nominally for spam control, but it's mighty convenient that this makes
smaller players in the space effectively second-class citizens.

(F'rexample, I'm on a mailing list that GMail has simply stopped taking
messages from; it's a bog-standard MailMan list as people have been
running since the late Paleolithic, but for some reason messages won't
come through no matter what I do. Don't even show up in my spam folder,
just go straight to dev/null. Actually had to open an account with a
small provider to receive them.)

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

#235231

On Wed, 05 Aug 2026 08:36:33 -0700, John Ames wrote:

> On 5 Aug 2026 09:36:01 GMT Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> wrote:
> 
>> I have no trouble with mail hosting (I have a cooperative ISP).
> 
> Getting the ISP to allow outbound is one thing. The larger problem as
> I've seen it is that Major Players (Google, f'rexample) are perfectly
> happy to take a you're-not-on-The-List-sir approach to actual delivery;
> nominally for spam control, but it's mighty convenient that this makes
> smaller players in the space effectively second-class citizens.
> 
> (F'rexample, I'm on a mailing list that GMail has simply stopped taking
> messages from; it's a bog-standard MailMan list as people have been
> running since the late Paleolithic, but for some reason messages won't
> come through no matter what I do. Don't even show up in my spam folder,
> just go straight to dev/null. Actually had to open an account with a
> small provider to receive them.)

I run several Mailman lists, and a lot of subscribers have gmail 
addresses; they are getting messages.

It may be because my ISP is classed (I guess) as a business ISP.

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

#235232

On Wed, 5 Aug 2026 08:36:33 -0700, John Ames wrote:

> On 5 Aug 2026 09:36:01 GMT Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> wrote:
> 
>> I have no trouble with mail hosting (I have a cooperative ISP).
> 
> Getting the ISP to allow outbound is one thing. The larger problem as
> I've seen it is that Major Players (Google, f'rexample) are perfectly
> happy to take a you're-not-on-The-List-sir approach to actual delivery;
> nominally for spam control, but it's mighty convenient that this makes
> smaller players in the space effectively second-class citizens.
> 
> (F'rexample, I'm on a mailing list that GMail has simply stopped taking
> messages from; it's a bog-standard MailMan list as people have been
> running since the late Paleolithic, but for some reason messages won't
> come through no matter what I do. Don't even show up in my spam folder,
> just go straight to dev/null. Actually had to open an account with a
> small provider to receive them.)

This is because the IP needs to whitelisted on one of the major 
whitelisting services like https://www.whitelisted.org and then you have 
to set up all the SPF, DKIM and DMARC stuff in the correct way. *THEN* you 
gotta warm up the domain since new domains arriving to these providers 
like GMail just get sent to spam half the time. With whitelisting your MX 
box its about 50/50 your mail gets sent to spam, without its 100%

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

#235240 — Electronic mail deliverability (was: Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading?)

On 2026-08-05, John Ames wrote:

> On 5 Aug 2026 09:36:01 GMT
> Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> wrote:
>
>> I have no trouble with mail hosting (I have a cooperative ISP).
>
> Getting the ISP to allow outbound is one thing. The larger problem as
> I've seen it is that Major Players (Google, f'rexample) are perfectly
> happy to take a you're-not-on-The-List-sir approach to actual delivery;
> nominally for spam control, but it's mighty convenient that this makes
> smaller players in the space effectively second-class citizens.
>
> (F'rexample, I'm on a mailing list that GMail has simply stopped taking
> messages from; it's a bog-standard MailMan list as people have been
> running since the late Paleolithic, but for some reason messages won't
> come through no matter what I do. Don't even show up in my spam folder,
> just go straight to dev/null. Actually had to open an account with a
> small provider to receive them.)

What will more likely become the case is that you'll need at least one
account with "Major Players" with a mailbox, and a mail address and
mailbox outside of said players, so that you're reachable and can reach
both sides of the schism.

Also, beware that Microsoft is especially evil regarding e-mail
delivery. If you're delivering or sending to somebody whose domain has
MX handled by Microsoft (local hosting also included in this, if it uses
Exchange Online Protection - I literally mean the MX record pointing to
Microsoft), it's better to cautiously assume it will not be delivered.

I need to get together a concise list of URLs I can append to a message
to summarize the Microsoft situation. Here's one:

<https://www.nerd-quickies.net/2020/10/20/microsoft-silently-dropping-emails-a-sad-but-true-story/>

AFAIK, there are four possible outcomes when a message is accepted by
Microsoft:

1) Message accepted for delivery and dropped by SmartScreen™®©;

2) Message accepted for delivery and put in the "Quarantine", which must
   be checked separately and may still not allow access to quarantined
   content depending on organisation rules;

3) Message accepted for delivery but put into the Junk/Spam folder;

4) Message reaches the intended inbox.

A key problem is that, unless you're aware, you may think that only 3)
and 4) are possible.

-- 
Nuno Silva

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

#235241 — Re: Electronic mail deliverability (was: Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading?)

On Thu, 06 Aug 2026 09:27:17 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote:

> What will more likely become the case is that you'll need at least one
> account with "Major Players" with a mailbox, and a mail address and
> mailbox outside of said players, so that you're reachable and can reach
> both sides of the schism.
> 
> Also, beware that Microsoft is especially evil regarding e-mail
> delivery. If you're delivering or sending to somebody whose domain has
> MX handled by Microsoft (local hosting also included in this, if it uses
> Exchange Online Protection - I literally mean the MX record pointing to
> Microsoft), it's better to cautiously assume it will not be delivered.

At the moment:

- my mail server is local to me (it's 2 metres to my right as I type)
- it's with a commercial ISP who make no restrictions on port usage
- I have full SPF/DKIM/DMARC set up for the server
- I control the MX (I run the DNS server too)

I'll probably still get screwed at some point.

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

#235237

John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, 03 Aug 2026 21:59:53 -0300
> Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> wrote:
>
>> > I miss those days of hand-hacking web sites, stashing a box in your
>> > company's server room to serve web pages, and hosting your own
>> > mail.  
>> 
>> Those days are still here.
>
> 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.)


And a simple website is easily generated by the Smart Systems.

Speaking of them, I think they would make the setting up of a new SMTP
for a home user a lot easier as well---if one is the hacker-type.  I
never tried them for that, but I have a feeling they would be very
helpful.

I've set up a wonderful qmail server that implements DKIM and DMARC.
But before I did it, I felt frustrated with the very idea you're
presenting here---that it's become non-trivial.  Someone on Hacker News
said goodbye to hosting his own SMTP after so many X years.  I initially
believed it was going to be hopeless.  In the end, I realized that there
are so many more users on Gmail than on Hotmail.  It turns out Gmail
doesn't give us a lot of trouble if you implement SPF, DKIM and DMARC.
As a result, I'm a very happy qmail sysadmin and email user.

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.

I think I like SPF and DKIM.  I can't say I care about DMARC.

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

#235238

On Wed, 05 Aug 2026 18:12:25 -0300, Anton Antimo wrote:

> It turns out Gmail doesn't give us a lot of trouble if you implement
> SPF, DKIM and DMARC.

I put SPF on my domain, and GMail doesn’t seem to give me trouble.

What *does* give me trouble is ProofPoint. I have dealt with one or
two organizations that divert their incoming mail through that, and it
refuses to accept messages from my VPS, unless I sign up on their
website or something.

Then there’s this large company that a client of mine occasionally has
to deal with, that diverts its incoming mail through Mimecast into
Outlook.com. But the SPF for my client’s domain does not include
Mimecast among the permitted senders, so Outlook.com rejects it.

It’s their configuration screwup, not the fault of my client. (No, I
don’t see why we need to include Mimecast among the permitted senders
-- they have nothing to do with us.)

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

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

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

csiph-web