Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #192449 > unrolled thread
| Started by | bolakim53@mail2tor.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-02-15 15:30 +0100 |
| Last post | 2018-02-18 09:50 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 144 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
hostname bolakim53@mail2tor.com - 2018-02-15 15:30 +0100
Re: hostname Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-02-15 15:40 +0100
Re: hostname Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-02-15 17:40 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Jeremy Nicoll <jn.ml.dbn.25@letterboxes.org> - 2018-02-19 13:30 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-02-19 14:50 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Jeremy Nicoll <jn.ml.dbn.25@letterboxes.org> - 2018-02-20 20:40 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-02-20 20:50 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Jeremy Nicoll <jn.ml.dbn.25@letterboxes.org> - 2018-02-20 21:00 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-02-21 01:20 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2018-02-21 01:30 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-02-21 01:50 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Glenn English <ghe2001@gmail.com> - 2018-02-21 02:10 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2018-02-21 02:10 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2018-02-21 07:10 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2018-02-21 11:30 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-02-21 13:50 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2018-02-21 13:50 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-02-21 13:00 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2018-02-21 13:50 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2018-02-21 16:40 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Frank <zuiderduin@gmx.com> - 2018-02-23 21:00 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-02-19 17:30 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-02-19 19:40 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-02-22 19:00 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-02-23 14:00 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-02-24 04:50 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2018-02-26 11:50 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-02-26 19:00 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-02-23 14:10 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2018-02-23 18:10 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 17:20 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-02-23 17:20 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-20 23:10 +0100
Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org> - 2018-03-21 00:00 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) Forest Dean Feighner <forest.feighner@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 00:20 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 22:10 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) Forest Dean Feighner <forest.feighner@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 22:10 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 22:30 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) Forest <forest.feighner@gmail.com> - 2018-03-22 01:40 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-22 21:40 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-03-21 09:10 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) terryc <terryc@woa.com.au> - 2018-03-21 10:40 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) "Michelle Konzack" <linux4michelle@tamay-dogan.net> - 2018-03-22 07:30 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2018-03-23 19:00 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@surfnaked.ca> - 2018-03-21 16:50 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2018-03-21 17:10 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2018-03-21 17:40 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-03-21 18:00 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2018-03-21 21:40 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2018-03-21 22:30 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2018-03-21 23:00 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2018-03-21 23:30 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-03-22 01:10 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2018-03-22 01:10 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-03-21 21:50 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2018-03-21 22:50 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-03-21 23:50 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2018-03-22 09:40 +0100
Re: Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet dekks herton <dekkzz78@gmail.com> - 2018-03-23 00:10 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2018-03-23 01:50 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 22:30 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 22:20 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2018-03-22 00:40 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-22 09:00 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2018-03-22 15:00 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-21 21:00 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-03-21 21:30 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2018-03-21 22:00 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 22:40 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 22:40 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2018-03-21 23:10 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-03-22 01:20 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-03-22 13:20 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2018-03-22 23:10 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-03-22 23:50 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2018-03-23 00:20 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-03-23 02:10 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2018-03-23 04:00 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2018-03-23 02:50 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2018-03-23 04:10 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-03-23 13:30 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Phil Dobbin <bukowskiscat@gmail.com> - 2018-03-23 15:10 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2018-03-23 17:50 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-22 01:00 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-22 09:20 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2018-03-22 09:50 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-03-22 14:00 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-22 18:50 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-03-22 19:10 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-03-22 21:30 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-23 03:10 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2018-03-23 17:00 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-23 18:10 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2018-03-23 18:10 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-24 01:50 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2018-03-24 14:00 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname "Michelle Konzack" <linux4michelle@tamay-dogan.net> - 2018-03-24 14:10 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-03-23 20:20 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-03-23 21:10 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-03-23 21:30 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-03-24 02:30 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-24 02:10 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2018-03-23 23:30 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Forest <forest.feighner@gmail.com> - 2018-03-23 23:50 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-03-24 00:00 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-03-24 01:20 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-24 02:20 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-03-24 02:40 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-03-22 23:30 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-23 03:50 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-03-23 11:50 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-23 16:50 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-03-23 17:00 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-03-23 18:50 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-23 20:00 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-03-23 21:10 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-03-21 00:10 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2018-03-21 04:40 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-03-21 18:30 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-03-21 21:10 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-22 02:10 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2018-02-19 18:30 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-02-19 20:00 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2018-02-19 20:20 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-02-19 20:30 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2018-02-19 21:40 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-02-19 21:50 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2018-02-19 22:00 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-02-19 22:20 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2018-02-19 22:00 +0100
Re: hostname deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-02-15 19:10 +0100
Re: hostname Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2018-02-15 20:50 +0100
Re: hostname Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-02-15 21:40 +0100
Re: hostname Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2018-02-15 23:30 +0100
Re: hostname Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2018-02-15 23:50 +0100
Re: hostname Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-02-16 01:30 +0100
Re: hostname deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-02-16 07:50 +0100
Re: hostname Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-02-16 00:50 +0100
Re: hostname deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-02-15 22:20 +0100
Re: hostname Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2018-02-15 20:50 +0100
Re: hostname David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-02-16 00:20 +0100
Re: hostname Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-02-16 01:00 +0100
hostname Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> - 2018-02-18 09:10 +0100
Re: hostname Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2018-02-18 09:50 +0100
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-21 09:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) |
| Message-ID | <vvGYN-80x-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #193969 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 09:50:15AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> writes: > > > I don't understand why a home user would not be using a smarthost. [...] > First, note that even if you don't know the reason why someone would > want to run their own mail server on their own connection, that is no > argument to arbitrarily deny them the ability to do it. [...] > As it happens, there are excellent reasons to want to do this. They are > no less strong now than when doing this was much more common in the > 1990s and earlier: in order to retain decentralised control, distributed > throughout the community, of a decentralised and federated communication > system. +100 To put that on stronger terms -- we'd end up with two and a half gatekeepers for mail: Google, Hotmail (aka Microsoft) and... who did I forget? The same nightmare we have at the moment with the so-called "social" networks. They are already trying hard (and spam *is* their ally in that). Don't help them, they are powerful enough as-is. Cheers - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlqyEQ8ACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYfPgCdFbzLO6zZx4hB3jSxS0piziJh 1DMAmweVvITrQO+2BUxAaIqVC9u3lBma =/loT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | terryc <terryc@woa.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-21 10:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) |
| Message-ID | <vvInT-i8-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #193978 |
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:00:16 +0100 <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote: > To put that on stronger terms -- we'd end up with two and a half > gatekeepers for mail: Google, Hotmail (aka Microsoft) and... who > did I forget? yahoo for a starter, then there is that French mob OVH and the NL mob > > The same nightmare we have at the moment with the so-called "social" > networks. > > They are already trying hard (and spam *is* their ally in that). Don't > help them, they are powerful enough as-is. Sspam? the above are the major sources. I've got permanent blocks on their IPs. In the Tl;Dr answer as to why I don't pay someone else to host my mail, $$$ says it all. My mail server runs on my oldest hardware. It was a P90 with 96Mb(?) ramm until a couple of years ago. now it is a PII and it uses the same quantum 6.4Gb scsi that is has for most of its ~ 20 year life (hardware and mailer).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Michelle Konzack" <linux4michelle@tamay-dogan.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-22 07:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) |
| Message-ID | <vw1Tz-4N6-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #193980 |
Am 2018-03-21 hackte terryc in die Tasten:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:00:16 +0100
> <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:
>> To put that on stronger terms -- we'd end up with two and a half
>> gatekeepers for mail: Google, Hotmail (aka Microsoft) and... who
>> did I forget?
>
> yahoo for a starter, then there is that French mob OVH and the NL mob
> Sspam? the above are the major sources. I've got permanent blocks on
> their IPs.
Where do you get the IP-Addresses from the Hotmail/Live/MSN/Outlook
Servers also for OHV (european major spam source and absolutely non-
reponsive on spamreports) Wen I lived in France I have even sued them
for bombing my server in 2010 with 1.8 mio spams in 4 days (each
arround 380kByte in size)
I would need all IPs and/or IP-Blocks from Hotmail/Live/MSN/Outlook,
OHV, Orange, Free, Yahoo, <mail.com>, <mail.ru>, <163.com>
My ISP Hetzner in Nürnberg/Germany has billed me nicely extra for
exceeding the allowed traffic.
Yeah, 1 TByte free traffic per month, BUT NOT 650 GBtye IN 4 DAYS!
In France, you can not even sue enterprises like Free, Orange or OHV,
all three are bullet proof spamsources and the biggest in France.
Justice: It is my problem if I am ISP!
However, I am a very small one and NON-Public!
Unfortunately I have not the money (~180.000€)
to continue @justice in 3rd instance.
Thanks in advance
--
Michelle Konzack Miila ITSystems @ TDnet
GNU/Linux Developer 00372-54541400
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-23 19:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) |
| Message-ID | <vwz8S-1rF-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #193980 |
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 20:31:28 +1100 terryc <terryc@woa.com.au> wrote: > On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:00:16 +0100 > <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote: > > > > To put that on stronger terms -- we'd end up with two and a half > > gatekeepers for mail: Google, Hotmail (aka Microsoft) and... who > > did I forget? > yahoo for a starter, then there is that French mob OVH and the NL mob GMX, Zoho Celejar
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@surfnaked.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-21 16:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet |
| Message-ID | <vvO9X-3TL-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #193978 |
On 21/03/18 01:00 AM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 09:50:15AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > >> David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> writes: >> >>> I don't understand why a home user would not be using a smarthost. > > [...] > >> First, note that even if you don't know the reason why someone would >> want to run their own mail server on their own connection, that is no >> argument to arbitrarily deny them the ability to do it. > > [...] > >> As it happens, there are excellent reasons to want to do this. They are >> no less strong now than when doing this was much more common in the >> 1990s and earlier: in order to retain decentralised control, distributed >> throughout the community, of a decentralised and federated communication >> system. > > +100 Shovel in a bunch more for me. > To put that on stronger terms -- we'd end up with two and a half > gatekeepers for mail: Google, Hotmail (aka Microsoft) and... who > did I forget? Yahoo? I've always felt that e-mail is one part of the Internet which has been invaded less by the megacorps than most areas. But this is changing, and we must resist it. > The same nightmare we have at the moment with the so-called "social" > networks. My problem with "social networks" is that they're monopolies. Imagine popping down to the local pub for a pint and a bit of conversation, only to find that it's part of a huge chain run by a transnational conglomerate. I much prefer the Usenet model, although web sites that let you leave messages come pretty close. What I don't like are those web sites that make you log in through Facebook in order to post. Since I don't have a Facebook account and never will, such sites will have to do without my pearls of wisdom. :-) > They are already trying hard (and spam *is* their ally in that). Don't > help them, they are powerful enough as-is. Now that Trump wants to execute drug dealers, why doesn't he go after the operators of these sites? They're just as addictive as opioids - or alcohol, or tobacco... wait, he should be going after them too! -- cgibbs@surfnaked.ca (Charlie Gibbs)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-21 17:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet |
| Message-ID | <vvOtk-4hp-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #193991 |
On 3/21/18 11:48 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 21/03/18 01:00 AM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > My problem with "social networks" is that they're monopolies. Imagine > popping down to the local pub for a pint and a bit of conversation, > only to find that it's part of a huge chain run by a transnational > conglomerate. I much prefer the Usenet model, although web sites that > let you leave messages come pretty close. What I don't like are those > web sites that make you log in through Facebook in order to post. > Since I don't have a Facebook account and never will, such sites will > have to do without my pearls of wisdom. :-) Maybe we should move back to USENET. It worked pretty well, and it's still going strong in some quarters. Add some global identity & reputation management, and the ability to set up lots of small newsgroups - and we'd have one hell of a Facebook killer. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-21 17:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet |
| Message-ID | <vvOWm-4rZ-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #193994 |
On 03/21/2018 11:05 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > On 3/21/18 11:48 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> On 21/03/18 01:00 AM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: >> >> >> My problem with "social networks" is that they're monopolies. Imagine >> popping down to the local pub for a pint and a bit of conversation, >> only to find that it's part of a huge chain run by a transnational >> conglomerate. I much prefer the Usenet model, although web sites that >> let you leave messages come pretty close. What I don't like are those >> web sites that make you log in through Facebook in order to post. >> Since I don't have a Facebook account and never will, such sites will >> have to do without my pearls of wisdom. :-) > > Maybe we should move back to USENET. It worked pretty well, and it's > still going strong in some quarters. *YES!* I use email and USENET only. I attempted Facebook years ago. I set it up two have some family and one friend set up as "friends". I was careful to *NOT* to specify anything about where I lived. I was immediately spammed by advertising geographically associated with my "friends". The current fiasco with data mining private information says I was right. > Add some global identity & > reputation management, and the ability to set up lots of small > newsgroups - and we'd have one hell of a Facebook killer. Free market does a pretty good job. I'm currently subscribed to >20 tech oriented mailing lists with few problems. > > Miles Fidelman >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-21 18:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet |
| Message-ID | <vvPfH-4yW-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #193998 |
On Wednesday 21 March 2018 12:32:56 Richard Owlett wrote: > On 03/21/2018 11:05 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > > On 3/21/18 11:48 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> On 21/03/18 01:00 AM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > >> > >> > >> My problem with "social networks" is that they're monopolies. > >> Imagine popping down to the local pub for a pint and a bit of > >> conversation, only to find that it's part of a huge chain run by a > >> transnational conglomerate. I much prefer the Usenet model, > >> although web sites that let you leave messages come pretty close. > >> What I don't like are those web sites that make you log in through > >> Facebook in order to post. Since I don't have a Facebook account > >> and never will, such sites will have to do without my pearls of > >> wisdom. :-) > > > > Maybe we should move back to USENET. It worked pretty well, and > > it's still going strong in some quarters. > > *YES!* I use email and USENET only. > I attempted Facebook years ago. I set it up two have some family and > one friend set up as "friends". I was careful to *NOT* to specify > anything about where I lived. I was immediately spammed by advertising > geographically associated with my "friends". The current fiasco with > data mining private information says I was right. > A conclusion I reached 20+ years ago. > > Add some global identity & > > reputation management, and the ability to set up lots of small > > newsgroups - and we'd have one hell of a Facebook killer. > > Free market does a pretty good job. I'm currently subscribed to >20 > tech oriented mailing lists with few problems. > There's an echo in here :) > > Miles Fidelman -- Cheers, Gene Heskett -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-21 21:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet |
| Message-ID | <vvSGB-6UJ-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #193998 |
On 3/21/18 12:32 PM, Richard Owlett wrote: > On 03/21/2018 11:05 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: >> On 3/21/18 11:48 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>> On 21/03/18 01:00 AM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: >>> >>> >>> My problem with "social networks" is that they're monopolies. >>> Imagine popping down to the local pub for a pint and a bit of >>> conversation, only to find that it's part of a huge chain run by a >>> transnational conglomerate. I much prefer the Usenet model, >>> although web sites that let you leave messages come pretty close. >>> What I don't like are those web sites that make you log in through >>> Facebook in order to post. Since I don't have a Facebook account and >>> never will, such sites will have to do without my pearls of wisdom. >>> :-) >> >> Maybe we should move back to USENET. It worked pretty well, and it's >> still going strong in some quarters. > > *YES!* I use email and USENET only. > I attempted Facebook years ago. I set it up two have some family and > one friend set up as "friends". I was careful to *NOT* to specify > anything about where I lived. I was immediately spammed by advertising > geographically associated with my "friends". The current fiasco with > data mining private information says I was right. > >> Add some global identity & reputation management, and the ability >> to set up lots of small newsgroups - and we'd have one hell of a >> Facebook killer. > > Free market does a pretty good job. I'm currently subscribed to >20 > tech oriented mailing lists with few problems. I was thinking of STANDARDS for identity management across USENET sites, coupled with some access controls. Right now, one key limit of USENET (well, NNTP) is that there are lots of ways of spoofing identity on posts, and no way to really limit access on a per-group basis. Email lists provide a lot more control. So does FaceBook. (FYI: I currently HOST 20+ email lists - mostly community groups. I'd love to run them as USENET groups, but - can't control membership.) Miles Fideman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-21 22:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet |
| Message-ID | <vvTsZ-7uo-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194008 |
On 03/21/2018 03:38 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > On 3/21/18 12:32 PM, Richard Owlett wrote: > >> On 03/21/2018 11:05 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: >>> On 3/21/18 11:48 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>> >>>> On 21/03/18 01:00 AM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> My problem with "social networks" is that they're monopolies. >>>> Imagine popping down to the local pub for a pint and a bit of >>>> conversation, only to find that it's part of a huge chain run by a >>>> transnational conglomerate. I much prefer the Usenet model, >>>> although web sites that let you leave messages come pretty close. >>>> What I don't like are those web sites that make you log in through >>>> Facebook in order to post. Since I don't have a Facebook account and >>>> never will, such sites will have to do without my pearls of wisdom. :-) >>> >>> Maybe we should move back to USENET. It worked pretty well, and it's >>> still going strong in some quarters. >> >> *YES!* I use email and USENET only. >> I attempted Facebook years ago. I set it up two have some family and >> one friend set up as "friends". I was careful to *NOT* to specify >> anything about where I lived. I was immediately spammed by advertising >> geographically associated with my "friends". The current fiasco with >> data mining private information says I was right. >> >>> Add some global identity & reputation management, and the ability >>> to set up lots of small newsgroups - and we'd have one hell of a >>> Facebook killer. >> >> Free market does a pretty good job. I'm currently subscribed to >20 >> tech oriented mailing lists with few problems. > > I was thinking of STANDARDS for identity management across USENET sites, > coupled with some access controls. Right now, one key limit of USENET > (well, NNTP) is that there are lots of ways of spoofing identity on > posts, and no way to really limit access on a per-group basis. Email > lists provide a lot more control. So does FaceBook. > > (FYI: I currently HOST 20+ email lists - mostly community groups. I'd > love to run them as USENET groups, but - can't control membership.) > I'm a consumer not a provider, but I understood that "control membership" was part of structure for a "moderated group". Education cheerfully accepted ;}
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-21 23:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet |
| Message-ID | <vvTW1-7IO-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194016 |
On 3/21/18 5:25 PM, Richard Owlett wrote: > On 03/21/2018 03:38 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: >> On 3/21/18 12:32 PM, Richard Owlett wrote: >> >>> On 03/21/2018 11:05 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: >>>> On 3/21/18 11:48 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 21/03/18 01:00 AM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My problem with "social networks" is that they're monopolies. >>>>> Imagine popping down to the local pub for a pint and a bit of >>>>> conversation, only to find that it's part of a huge chain run by a >>>>> transnational conglomerate. I much prefer the Usenet model, >>>>> although web sites that let you leave messages come pretty close. >>>>> What I don't like are those web sites that make you log in through >>>>> Facebook in order to post. Since I don't have a Facebook account >>>>> and never will, such sites will have to do without my pearls of >>>>> wisdom. :-) >>>> >>>> Maybe we should move back to USENET. It worked pretty well, and >>>> it's still going strong in some quarters. >>> >>> *YES!* I use email and USENET only. >>> I attempted Facebook years ago. I set it up two have some family and >>> one friend set up as "friends". I was careful to *NOT* to specify >>> anything about where I lived. I was immediately spammed by >>> advertising geographically associated with my "friends". The current >>> fiasco with data mining private information says I was right. >>> >>>> Add some global identity & reputation management, and the ability >>>> to set up lots of small newsgroups - and we'd have one hell of a >>>> Facebook killer. >>> >>> Free market does a pretty good job. I'm currently subscribed to >20 >>> tech oriented mailing lists with few problems. >> >> I was thinking of STANDARDS for identity management across USENET >> sites, coupled with some access controls. Right now, one key limit >> of USENET (well, NNTP) is that there are lots of ways of spoofing >> identity on posts, and no way to really limit access on a per-group >> basis. Email lists provide a lot more control. So does FaceBook. >> >> (FYI: I currently HOST 20+ email lists - mostly community groups. >> I'd love to run them as USENET groups, but - can't control membership.) >> > > I'm a consumer not a provider, but I understood that "control > membership" was part of structure for a "moderated group". > Education cheerfully accepted ;} > > Not really. Moderated meant that posts were filtered through one or more moderators for approval. Now that provided (provides) some degree of control over who can post, it says nothing about who can read messages (account on a machine that subscribes to the newsgroup). It's possible to rigidly control the machines that receive messages, and potentially control accounts on those machines - but that's a hard-to-implement approach. Now, if traffic were encrypted, and there was an out-of-band key management system (e.g., something like Kerberos or OAuth) - one could then apply global restrictions on who could actually read traffic sent to a particular newsgroup. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-21 23:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet |
| Message-ID | <vvUp3-89l-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194024 |
On 03/21/2018 04:51 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > > > On 3/21/18 5:25 PM, Richard Owlett wrote: >> On 03/21/2018 03:38 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: >>> On 3/21/18 12:32 PM, Richard Owlett wrote: >>> >>>> On 03/21/2018 11:05 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: >>>>> On 3/21/18 11:48 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 21/03/18 01:00 AM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> My problem with "social networks" is that they're monopolies. >>>>>> Imagine popping down to the local pub for a pint and a bit of >>>>>> conversation, only to find that it's part of a huge chain run by a >>>>>> transnational conglomerate. I much prefer the Usenet model, >>>>>> although web sites that let you leave messages come pretty close. >>>>>> What I don't like are those web sites that make you log in through >>>>>> Facebook in order to post. Since I don't have a Facebook account >>>>>> and never will, such sites will have to do without my pearls of >>>>>> wisdom. :-) >>>>> >>>>> Maybe we should move back to USENET. It worked pretty well, and >>>>> it's still going strong in some quarters. >>>> >>>> *YES!* I use email and USENET only. >>>> I attempted Facebook years ago. I set it up two have some family and >>>> one friend set up as "friends". I was careful to *NOT* to specify >>>> anything about where I lived. I was immediately spammed by >>>> advertising geographically associated with my "friends". The current >>>> fiasco with data mining private information says I was right. >>>> >>>>> Add some global identity & reputation management, and the ability >>>>> to set up lots of small newsgroups - and we'd have one hell of a >>>>> Facebook killer. >>>> >>>> Free market does a pretty good job. I'm currently subscribed to >20 >>>> tech oriented mailing lists with few problems. >>> >>> I was thinking of STANDARDS for identity management across USENET >>> sites, coupled with some access controls. Right now, one key limit >>> of USENET (well, NNTP) is that there are lots of ways of spoofing >>> identity on posts, and no way to really limit access on a per-group >>> basis. Email lists provide a lot more control. So does FaceBook. >>> >>> (FYI: I currently HOST 20+ email lists - mostly community groups. >>> I'd love to run them as USENET groups, but - can't control membership.) >>> >> >> I'm a consumer not a provider, but I understood that "control >> membership" was part of structure for a "moderated group". >> Education cheerfully accepted ;} >> >> > Not really. Moderated meant that posts were filtered through one or > more moderators for approval. Now that provided (provides) some degree > of control over who can post, it says nothing about who can read > messages (account on a machine that subscribes to the newsgroup). It's > possible to rigidly control the machines that receive messages, and > potentially control accounts on those machines - but that's a > hard-to-implement approach. Now, if traffic were encrypted, and there > was an out-of-band key management system (e.g., something like Kerberos > or OAuth) - one could then apply global restrictions on who could > actually read traffic sent to a particular newsgroup. > > Miles Fidelman I suspect we are in different "universes of discourse". "next 24 hours" is approximate tautology to "*CHAOS*" Better response later ;/ YPA [ Your Patience Appreciated ;]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-22 01:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet |
| Message-ID | <vvVXP-NR-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194024 |
Miles Fidelman wrote: > On 3/21/18 5:25 PM, Richard Owlett wrote: >> [...] >> >> I'm a consumer not a provider, but I understood that "control >> membership" was part of structure for a "moderated group". >> Education cheerfully accepted ;} >> >> > Not really. Moderated meant that posts were filtered through one or > more moderators for approval. Now that provided (provides) some degree > of control over who can post, it says nothing about who can read > messages (account on a machine that subscribes to the newsgroup). It's > possible to rigidly control the machines that receive messages, and > potentially control accounts on those machines - but that's a > hard-to-implement approach. Now, if traffic were encrypted, and there > was an out-of-band key management system (e.g., something like Kerberos > or OAuth) - one could then apply global restrictions on who could > actually read traffic sent to a particular newsgroup. It has always been my understanding that "newsgroups" were somewhat intended to be publicly readable -- i.e. "this is the current news". Mailing lists, on the other hand were the ones that were somewhat more (semi-)private discourse. I'm not really sure "intended" is the right choice of word here though. I mean, reality tends to distort "a creator's intent" pretty well. -- |_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947 |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-22 01:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet |
| Message-ID | <vvVXP-NR-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194030 |
On 3/21/18 7:57 PM, Dan Purgert wrote: > Miles Fidelman wrote: >> On 3/21/18 5:25 PM, Richard Owlett wrote: >>> [...] >>> >>> I'm a consumer not a provider, but I understood that "control >>> membership" was part of structure for a "moderated group". >>> Education cheerfully accepted ;} >>> >>> >> Not really. Moderated meant that posts were filtered through one or >> more moderators for approval. Now that provided (provides) some degree >> of control over who can post, it says nothing about who can read >> messages (account on a machine that subscribes to the newsgroup). It's >> possible to rigidly control the machines that receive messages, and >> potentially control accounts on those machines - but that's a >> hard-to-implement approach. Now, if traffic were encrypted, and there >> was an out-of-band key management system (e.g., something like Kerberos >> or OAuth) - one could then apply global restrictions on who could >> actually read traffic sent to a particular newsgroup. > It has always been my understanding that "newsgroups" were somewhat > intended to be publicly readable -- i.e. "this is the current news". > > Mailing lists, on the other hand were the ones that were somewhat more > (semi-)private discourse. > > I'm not really sure "intended" is the right choice of word here though. > I mean, reality tends to distort "a creator's intent" pretty well. > I'm not sure "intended" is the right word either. I think it was more a matter of scaling and membership management, and perhaps traffic management. Mailing lists get really unwieldy as membership grows. Newsgroups scale rather well. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-21 21:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet |
| Message-ID | <vvSQh-6ZL-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #193994 |
On Wed 21 Mar 2018 at 12:05:53 -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote: > On 3/21/18 11:48 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > > > On 21/03/18 01:00 AM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > > > > My problem with "social networks" is that they're monopolies. Imagine > > popping down to the local pub for a pint and a bit of conversation, only > > to find that it's part of a huge chain run by a transnational > > conglomerate. I much prefer the Usenet model, although web sites that > > let you leave messages come pretty close. What I don't like are those > > web sites that make you log in through Facebook in order to post. Since > > I don't have a Facebook account and never will, such sites will have to > > do without my pearls of wisdom. :-) > > Maybe we should move back to USENET. It worked pretty well, and it's still Maybe we should just continue to talk about email in this thread. Keeps it on-topic etc. Feel free to contribute to it. -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-21 22:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet |
| Message-ID | <vvTMl-7Ey-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194009 |
On 03/21/2018 03:47 PM, Brian wrote: > On Wed 21 Mar 2018 at 12:05:53 -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote: > >> On 3/21/18 11:48 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>> On 21/03/18 01:00 AM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: >>> >>> >>> My problem with "social networks" is that they're monopolies. Imagine >>> popping down to the local pub for a pint and a bit of conversation, only >>> to find that it's part of a huge chain run by a transnational >>> conglomerate. I much prefer the Usenet model, although web sites that >>> let you leave messages come pretty close. What I don't like are those >>> web sites that make you log in through Facebook in order to post. Since >>> I don't have a Facebook account and never will, such sites will have to >>> do without my pearls of wisdom. :-) >> >> Maybe we should move back to USENET. It worked pretty well, and it's still > > Maybe we should just continue to talk about email in this thread. Keeps > it on-topic etc. Feel free to contribute to it. > POT vs KETTLE ? For the record, very many OT sub-threads to threads I began have been *VALUABLE*. One liners which are nominally ON-Topic, much less so ;/ YMMV
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-21 23:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet |
| Message-ID | <vvUIp-8h7-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194022 |
On Wed 21 Mar 2018 at 16:41:25 -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: > On 03/21/2018 03:47 PM, Brian wrote: > > On Wed 21 Mar 2018 at 12:05:53 -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote: > > > > > On 3/21/18 11:48 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > > > > > > > On 21/03/18 01:00 AM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > My problem with "social networks" is that they're monopolies. Imagine > > > > popping down to the local pub for a pint and a bit of conversation, only > > > > to find that it's part of a huge chain run by a transnational > > > > conglomerate. I much prefer the Usenet model, although web sites that > > > > let you leave messages come pretty close. What I don't like are those > > > > web sites that make you log in through Facebook in order to post. Since > > > > I don't have a Facebook account and never will, such sites will have to > > > > do without my pearls of wisdom. :-) > > > > > > Maybe we should move back to USENET. It worked pretty well, and it's still > > > > Maybe we should just continue to talk about email in this thread. Keeps > > it on-topic etc. Feel free to contribute to it. > > > > POT vs KETTLE ? Eh? Does anyone understand this remark? > For the record, very many OT sub-threads to threads I began have been > *VALUABLE*. They are up there in the Hall of Fame. Never to be forgot. > One liners which are nominally ON-Topic, much less so ;/ > YMMV So be it: back to discussing email, then. -- Brian. > > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-22 09:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet |
| Message-ID | <vw3Vn-644-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194027 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 10:47:24PM +0000, Brian wrote: >On Wed 21 Mar 2018 at 16:41:25 -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: > >> On 03/21/2018 03:47 PM, Brian wrote: >> > On Wed 21 Mar 2018 at 12:05:53 -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote: >> > >> > > On 3/21/18 11:48 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> > > >> > > > On 21/03/18 01:00 AM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > My problem with "social networks" is that they're monopolies. Imagine >> > > > popping down to the local pub for a pint and a bit of conversation, only >> > > > to find that it's part of a huge chain run by a transnational >> > > > conglomerate. I much prefer the Usenet model, although web sites that >> > > > let you leave messages come pretty close. What I don't like are those >> > > > web sites that make you log in through Facebook in order to post. Since >> > > > I don't have a Facebook account and never will, such sites will have to >> > > > do without my pearls of wisdom. :-) >> > > >> > > Maybe we should move back to USENET. It worked pretty well, and it's still >> > >> > Maybe we should just continue to talk about email in this thread. Keeps >> > it on-topic etc. Feel free to contribute to it. >> > >> >> POT vs KETTLE ? > >Eh? Does anyone understand this remark? I do. It is a reference to the Spanish/English idiom "The pot calling the kettle black" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pot_calling_the_kettle_black]. The direct implication of that idiom is that the pot is ALSO black, but is accusing the kettle of being so. The implication of Richard referencing that idiom is that you are guilty of the same thing you are accusing Miles of, viz, getting off topic. > >> For the record, very many OT sub-threads to threads I began have been >> *VALUABLE*. > >They are up there in the Hall of Fame. Never to be forgot. > >> One liners which are nominally ON-Topic, much less so ;/ >> YMMV > >So be it: back to discussing email, then. > >-- >Brian. -- For more information, please reread.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dekks herton <dekkzz78@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-23 00:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet |
| Message-ID | <vwhvj-6Hl-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #193994 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 03/21, Miles Fidelman wrote: >On 3/21/18 11:48 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >>On 21/03/18 01:00 AM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: >> >> >>My problem with "social networks" is that they're monopolies. >>Imagine popping down to the local pub for a pint and a bit of >>conversation, only to find that it's part of a huge chain run by a >>transnational conglomerate. I much prefer the Usenet model, >>although web sites that let you leave messages come pretty close. >>What I don't like are those web sites that make you log in through >>Facebook in order to post. Since I don't have a Facebook account >>and never will, such sites will have to do without my pearls of >>wisdom. :-) > >Maybe we should move back to USENET. It worked pretty well, and it's >still going strong in some quarters. Add some global identity & >reputation management, and the ability to set up lots of small >newsgroups - and we'd have one hell of a Facebook killer. There's always Fidonet lol -- regards..... Thinkpad T60p 2.33Ghz 2GB SXGA+ Jabber IM: dekkzz76@jabber.hot-chilli.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-23 01:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet |
| Message-ID | <vwj45-7xw-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194063 |
On 3/22/18 7:06 PM, dekks herton wrote: > On 03/21, Miles Fidelman wrote: >> On 3/21/18 11:48 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>> On 21/03/18 01:00 AM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: >>> >>> >>> My problem with "social networks" is that they're monopolies. >>> Imagine popping down to the local pub for a pint and a bit of >>> conversation, only to find that it's part of a huge chain run by a >>> transnational conglomerate. I much prefer the Usenet model, >>> although web sites that let you leave messages come pretty close. >>> What I don't like are those web sites that make you log in through >>> Facebook in order to post. Since I don't have a Facebook account >>> and never will, such sites will have to do without my pearls of >>> wisdom. :-) >> >> Maybe we should move back to USENET. It worked pretty well, and it's >> still going strong in some quarters. Add some global identity & >> reputation management, and the ability to set up lots of small >> newsgroups - and we'd have one hell of a Facebook killer. > > There's always Fidonet lol > Does Fidonet still live? I just checked fidonet.org and a lot of the links (like the node status one) go to odd places. Fidonet.us seems to be current, but no list of active nodes. Sigh... -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web