Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #198510 > unrolled thread
| Started by | tech <tech@rkn.ovh> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-08-09 19:40 +0200 |
| Last post | 2018-10-04 14:10 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 236 — 46 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
mailing list vs "the futur" tech <tech@rkn.ovh> - 2018-08-09 19:40 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-08-09 19:50 +0200
RE: mailing list vs "the futur" tech <tech@rkn.ovh> - 2018-08-09 20:10 +0200
RE: mailing list vs "the futur" tech <tech@rkn.ovh> - 2018-08-09 20:20 +0200
RE: mailing list vs "the futur" deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 01:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-08-10 03:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2018-08-10 12:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> - 2018-08-10 13:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2018-08-10 14:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-08-10 14:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> - 2018-08-10 14:40 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-08-10 15:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-08-10 15:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> - 2018-08-10 14:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dave Sherohman <dave@sherohman.org> - 2018-08-10 15:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2018-08-10 16:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2018-08-10 15:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" cyaiplexys <cyaiplexys@sitesplace.net> - 2018-08-10 18:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2018-08-10 15:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-08-10 15:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" "Michelle Konzack" <linux4michelle@tamay-dogan.net> - 2018-08-11 11:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-08-12 14:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-08-10 15:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" "Michelle Konzack" <linux4michelle@tamay-dogan.net> - 2018-08-11 10:40 +0200
Re: Re: mailing list vs "the futur" dekkzz78@gmail.com - 2018-08-11 11:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@freedbms.net> - 2018-08-12 15:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-08-10 13:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2018-08-10 16:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-08-23 22:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2018-08-23 22:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 03:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" "James H. H. Lampert" <jamesl@touchtonecorp.com> - 2018-08-09 21:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-08-10 12:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-08-23 21:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" "Martin McCormick" <martin.m@suddenlink.net> - 2018-08-23 23:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Piotr Martyniuk <zaxonxp45@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 08:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@freedbms.net> - 2018-08-24 08:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Piotr Martyniuk <zaxonxp45@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 09:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@freedbms.net> - 2018-08-24 11:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" "Michelle Konzack" <linux4michelle@tamay-dogan.net> - 2018-08-24 21:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2018-08-24 21:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2018-08-24 22:40 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-24 23:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-08-25 01:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-25 02:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-08-25 21:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-25 21:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-08-27 17:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-08-27 17:40 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2018-08-27 18:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-08-27 22:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2018-08-27 22:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com> - 2018-08-28 10:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-08-28 13:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com> - 2018-08-28 15:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-08-28 15:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-08-28 16:40 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-08-28 20:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-08-28 16:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-08-28 16:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-08-28 16:40 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-08-28 17:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com> - 2018-08-28 17:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-08-28 21:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-08-29 00:40 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com> - 2018-08-29 01:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-08-29 03:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-08-29 03:40 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-08-29 09:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-29 17:40 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2018-08-29 17:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-08-29 18:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-29 19:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2018-08-29 19:40 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-08-30 12:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2018-08-30 14:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-08-30 15:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2018-08-30 21:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-08-31 12:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dave Sherohman <dave@sherohman.org> - 2018-09-04 12:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-09-04 14:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-09-04 15:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-09-04 17:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-09-04 18:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-09-04 18:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-09-04 19:50 +0200
[Off-topic] Was: mailing list vs "the futur" John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-04 20:20 +0200
Re: [Off-topic] Was: mailing list vs "the futur" Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-09-04 20:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Liam O'Toole <liam.p.otoole@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 03:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-09-05 04:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2018-09-05 09:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-04 20:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-09-04 20:30 +0200
[Off-topic] Was: mailing list vs "the futur" John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-04 20:50 +0200
Re: [Off-topic] Was: mailing list vs "the futur" Default User <hunguponcontent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 21:20 +0200
Re: [Off-topic] Was: mailing list vs "the futur" Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2018-09-04 21:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> - 2018-09-04 17:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-09-04 15:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2018-09-04 16:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 12:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-09-01 12:40 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-29 18:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2018-08-29 19:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2018-08-29 02:40 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-08-29 09:40 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-08-29 12:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-08-29 12:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-08-29 12:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-08-29 12:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-08-29 12:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-08-29 13:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-08-29 14:40 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-08-29 14:40 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-08-29 15:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-08-29 17:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-08-29 18:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-08-29 21:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-08-30 12:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-08-30 14:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-29 17:40 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-08-29 21:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-30 00:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-08-30 01:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> - 2018-09-01 20:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-09-01 22:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> - 2018-09-01 23:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-09-02 10:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-02 15:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2018-09-02 15:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-02 16:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2018-09-02 16:40 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2018-09-02 17:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2018-09-02 18:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-09-02 17:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-09-02 18:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2018-09-02 18:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> - 2018-09-03 07:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@freedbms.net> - 2018-09-03 08:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> - 2018-09-03 07:40 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-09-03 13:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> - 2018-09-03 15:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-09-03 16:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2018-09-03 13:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-08-29 12:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> - 2018-08-29 12:40 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 11:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-09-01 16:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-08-29 13:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-08-29 13:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-08-29 13:40 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2018-08-29 14:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-08-29 14:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2018-08-29 14:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-08-29 14:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-08-29 14:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-08-29 14:40 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2018-08-29 14:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2018-08-29 14:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-08-29 15:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-08-29 14:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-08-29 14:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-08-28 14:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-08-28 01:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-08-28 09:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-08-28 13:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com> - 2018-08-28 14:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-08-28 15:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com> - 2018-08-28 16:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-08-28 16:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com> - 2018-08-28 18:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com> - 2018-08-28 18:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-08-28 19:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2018-08-28 20:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com> - 2018-08-28 20:40 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com> - 2018-08-28 20:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com> - 2018-08-28 20:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-28 22:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com> - 2018-08-28 18:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-08-28 19:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2018-08-28 20:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com> - 2018-08-28 16:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com> - 2018-08-28 10:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-08-27 19:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-08-28 01:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-28 05:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2018-08-25 12:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2018-08-25 14:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2018-08-25 15:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Rodolfo Medina <rodolfo.medina@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 15:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-08-24 18:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2018-08-24 18:40 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 19:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2018-08-24 19:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> - 2018-08-24 19:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 20:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 20:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2018-08-24 20:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@freedbms.net> - 2018-08-25 01:40 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dave Sherohman <dave@sherohman.org> - 2018-08-27 10:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 13:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-08-27 14:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-08-27 16:00 +0200
Re: Re: mailing list vs "the futur" dekkzz78@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 16:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-08-27 17:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> - 2018-08-25 10:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2018-08-25 02:50 +0200
Re: mailing list is the future (corrected spelling mistakes) Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2018-08-09 20:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 21:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@freedbms.net> - 2018-08-12 16:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org> - 2018-08-09 22:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" "Michelle Konzack" <linux4michelle@tamay-dogan.net> - 2018-08-11 11:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@freedbms.net> - 2018-08-12 16:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> - 2018-08-10 01:40 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com> - 2018-08-11 00:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Rob van der Putten <rob@sput.nl> - 2018-08-11 11:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@freedbms.net> - 2018-08-12 16:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2018-08-12 20:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-08-13 12:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@freedbms.net> - 2018-08-13 16:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-08-13 12:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2018-08-10 10:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2018-08-10 12:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Shea Alterio <krusete@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 18:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-08-10 12:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> - 2018-08-11 14:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-08-11 15:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-08-13 15:30 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-08-13 16:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@freedbms.net> - 2018-08-13 16:20 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com> - 2018-08-11 00:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" arne <sp113438@telfort.nl> - 2018-08-11 00:50 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" dekkzz78@gmail.com - 2018-08-11 11:00 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@freedbms.net> - 2018-10-04 06:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2018-10-04 10:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@freedbms.net> - 2018-10-04 06:10 +0200
Re: mailing list vs "the futur" Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 14:10 +0200
Page 9 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 Next page →
| From | Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-29 14:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ws854-7ZT-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199572 |
Michael Stone wrote: > [...] I personally tend to think that bringing the next billion > people online is more important than maintaining a Manichaean priesthood > based on internet protocols from the 80s. So, we need to replace HTTP then? Got it. :) That being said, "bringing more people online" has very little to do with the underlying protocols that handle the transfer of data. If we assume that these "billion people" aren't online because either - no access to computers in general OR - access to a computer, but no access to internet Then they're blank slates, and arguably in a better position to be taught about these supposedly archaic tools and protocols, rather than letting them be "trapped" in the walled gardens of facebook and the like. -- |_|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 | Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 14:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wrKP8-2CM-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199459 |
Michael Stone wrote: > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:28:35PM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote: >>On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:37:48AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: >>> >>> That bandwidth limit is not on your side of the isp, its the bandwidth >>> from the main trunk lines to the isp. NNTP is a huge bandwidth hog >>> regardless of how much of it your isp accepts for spooling on local disk >>> to serve you. >>> >> >>This is not the case. > > Yes it is. Most ISPs stopped supporting NNTP because of the ridiculous > bandwidth (and disk space) demands. I cant see *text* based NGs requiring nearly as much space (or bandwidth) as modern (i.e. HTML-based) email. Now, if you're talking about the "binary" groups, yeah, that's going to be a complete mess, and I can see why they wouldn't want to carry those groups. > Your rebuttal skipped over the part about people posting off-topic > junk all over the place, and the fact that (the couple of cranks who Don't see OT trash as any more painful than spam emails, not to mention all the crap that people willingly sign up for. > [...] A full newsfeed hit 1TB/day in the early 2000s, and most of the > ISPs who were still trying to provide the service threw the towel in > at that point. The costs were through the roof, the fraction of > customers who used the service was miniscule, and almost nobody > canceled because they turned off the news server. I take it "a full newsfeed" includes those binary groups, huh? I mean, E-S is only pushing an average of a few hundred MB/day -- BUT they only carry the text groups. > [...] > There's a reason usenet is effectively dead. It was a great idea > technically, on a "safe" network. It's completely incapable of dealing > with abuse on the open internet. Except it's still around, and still dealing with the open internet. Sure, it's not very widely used, but if it couldn't deal with the internet, it wouldn't exist at all. Furthermore, it's not that the ~protocol~ is bad by any means, just that the content is effectively worthless. I mean, given the proliferation of spam, one could argue similarly against email. > In theory you can still use an NNTP client (vs a server) to follow a > limited number of text-only groups fairly efficiently. In practice > there's just not that much left worth following because the experience > got to be so bad, and because so few people are even aware it exists > anymore. If you purchase newsgroup service as a standalone from a > specialized company you typically get a somewhat more curated experience > (for a pretty sizable fraction of the total price of your internet > connection, to pay the costs outlined above). The reality is that the > primary use of these services is downloading pirated software and other > binaries. No theory needed - it works perfectly well. There's enough still out there that's worth reading; although I don't expect that NNTP will necessarily stick around for the rest of my lifetime. -- |_|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 | Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 01:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wryNX-48y-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199444 |
On Monday 27 August 2018 12:28:35 Dan Ritter wrote: > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:37:48AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > > That bandwidth limit is not on your side of the isp, its the > > bandwidth from the main trunk lines to the isp. NNTP is a huge > > bandwidth hog regardless of how much of it your isp accepts for > > spooling on local disk to serve you. > > This is not the case. > > The NNTP server-to-server algorithm is analogous to rsync, > if you think of: > > - each message is a file > - each newsgroup is a directory > - if the receiver doesn't have a directory, it won't be > sync'd over from the sender > - the sender/receiver don't bother looking at contents > of each file to decide whether to update, just the > name-timestamp > > And it always goes in exactly one direction; when the receiver > wants to send messages back upstream, that's a different > connection in which they swap places. > My knowledge is based on a conversation I had with my then isp in about 1993 or so, so its entirely possible that the protocol has been changed since then. What they had then struck me as very very wastefull of resources. Because I was such a PITA, they actually built another machine for NNTP and had at&t bring in another oc3 circuit to feed it. I had what was a full house Amiga 2000 with 64 megs of ram on a PP&S 040 board, had a pair of 1GB scsi seagates, their machine had a 47GB drive, which was filled in just an hour or so, so the expire was set at 8 hours. So the last thing I did at night was dial them up and grab what I wanted that was new, and the first thing in the morning, the same. Sheer economics has likely driven some major changes in how NNTP works today. And I expect thats a hell of a lot better for the average ma & pa isp. By the time I built a new machine and put red hat 5 on it, in 1998 I think, NNTP had degenerated to 90% spam, so I never rejoined that pool party, it was too polluted for me. Email was easier to filter, and here I am still, almost 20 years later, and older too, I'll be 84 in a couple more months if I don't miss morning roll call first. > NNTP is a bandwidth hog in exactly the same proportion as the > space it occupies on disk. > > I have simplified for the sake of a familiar analogy. > > -dsr- Take care Dan. -- 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 | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 09:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wrGVb-o9-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199463 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 07:04:36PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Monday 27 August 2018 12:28:35 Dan Ritter wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:37:48AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > > > [...] NNTP is a huge > > > bandwidth hog regardless of how much of it your isp accepts for > > > spooling on local disk to serve you. This keeps coming up stubbornly in this thread: it is wrong. NNTP, with its flood-filling algorithm, is fairly efficient wrt. link usage. It was developed in a time when bandwidth was expensive, and folks back then were no idiots, mind you. > > > > This is not the case. > > > > The NNTP server-to-server algorithm is analogous to rsync, > > if you think of: [...] Yes, kind of. > My knowledge is based on a conversation I had with my then isp in about > 1993 or so, so its entirely possible that the protocol has been changed > since then. NNTP hasn't changed much since 1986, no. > What they had then struck me as very very wastefull of > resources. Because I was such a PITA, they actually built another > machine for NNTP and had at&t bring in another oc3 circuit to feed it. No. I guess the thing is that *because* NNTP was comparatively efficient, it was used for the "big stuff" (alt.pic.* anyone?). The point is that, to reap the benefits of its efficiency, a provider has to set up an NNTP server and do its care and feeding. And perhaps prune the newsgroups it's ready to carry. A full feed was, for that time, taxing, but not because NNTP was inefficcient, but because that's where the big stuff was. No one mailed pictures or archives around (unless, that is, to punish the occasional spammer: X11 sources were mailed around, if I remember correctly) Video streaming these days is much less efficient. Cheers - -- t -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAluE/D8ACgkQBcgs9XrR2kavwACeJriYNwJmdGKjh6QtIH+7qMQ0 YX4AnRR4KDbBeQTuRDtTF5OoDltCviy/ =o96w -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 13:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wrKcp-2r2-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199473 |
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 09:39:43AM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: >No. I guess the thing is that *because* NNTP was comparatively efficient, >it was used for the "big stuff" (alt.pic.* anyone?). The point is that, >to reap the benefits of its efficiency, a provider has to set up an >NNTP server and do its care and feeding. And perhaps prune the newsgroups >it's ready to carry. A full feed was, for that time, taxing, but not >because NNTP was inefficcient, but because that's where the big stuff >was. No one mailed pictures or archives around (unless, that is, to >punish the occasional spammer: X11 sources were mailed around, if I >remember correctly) NNTP was fairly inefficient for large binaries because they were repacked to 7 bits and then chopped up into small pieces, some of which tended to get lost--so either the entire thing is reposted or enough redundant information was sent to survive the loss of some pieces. And the servers kept exchanging the data whether anyone requested/looked at it or not. Heck, even the moderation (where it existed) was inefficient--first, transfer the spam; then, store the spam; transfer the cancel message; store the cancel message; check to see if the spam is in the stored messages; finally, delete the spam or wait for it to be transferred. Binaries on NNTP took off not because they were efficient, but because they were perceived to be more anonymous than direct transfers. (There's no central logs of which clients look at which specific content, and the full feed is deniable as to intent.) This lead to a big child pornography problem, among other issues (not usenet's finest moment). Things are not nearly as anonymous now as they were 20 years ago and the most illegal content has tended to move elsewhere. (Though "anonymous VPN access" remains a feature point for the subscription news services--and this is not for the benefit of people accessing comp.misc.) It really doesn't seem like you ever looked at the stats on what fraction of the feed an ISP received was ever requested by any customer, or you wouldn't argue that this was an efficient mechanism. (But god forbid you stopped carrying alt.binaries.stupid.waste.of.space because then customers would tie up the support line complaining that your newsgroup count was lower than your competitor's newsgroup count.) Again, nice idea 30 years ago, but incapable of withstanding abuse on the modern internet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 14:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wrL8t-2Ye-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199477 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 28/08/2018 12:10, Michael Stone wrote: > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 09:39:43AM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: >> No. I guess the thing is that *because* NNTP was comparatively >> efficient, >> it was used for the "big stuff" (alt.pic.* anyone?). The point is that, >> to reap the benefits of its efficiency, a provider has to set up an >> NNTP server and do its care and feeding. And perhaps prune the >> newsgroups >> it's ready to carry. A full feed was, for that time, taxing, but not >> because NNTP was inefficcient, but because that's where the big stuff >> was. No one mailed pictures or archives around (unless, that is, to >> punish the occasional spammer: X11 sources were mailed around, if I >> remember correctly) > > NNTP was fairly inefficient for large binaries because they were > repacked to 7 bits and then chopped up into small pieces, some of > which tended to get lost--so either the entire thing is reposted or > enough redundant information was sent to survive the loss of some > pieces. And the servers kept exchanging the data whether anyone > requested/looked at it or not. NNTP was inefficient in this regard compared to what other protocol or protocols, exactly? Compared to email? Well, email suffered from very similar issues transferring binaries. Compared to DCC over IRC? (DCC being a then-popular one-to-one alternative to Usenet's one-to-many distribution model). I must admit that I've never examined the details of the DCC protocol but it is certainly inefficient in terms of /user experience/ compared to Usenet over NNTP: In practice DCC was essentially synchronous, one at a time, needing continuous user management whereas Usenet facilitated a time-efficient asynchronous access mechanism for the end user without continuous management. So what one-to-many distribution platforms or protocols existed in this timeframe against which to compare NNTP (or Usenet)? And you are persisting in conflating NNTP with Usenet. The problem with Usenet (as you say) was the volume of binaries, /which would have been a problem no matter protocol was used to transfer them, /regardless of the efficiency of NNTP. This problem with Usenet does not, however, translate to any kind of inherent efficiency problem with NNTP as a transfer mechanism for discussions. May I ask, did you use Usenet in this timeframe? I ask this because some of your comments remind me of training courses run for certain types of professional at that time which were taught by people who, themselves, commonly had only limited, and sometimes very skewed and confused, experience of the systems and protocols they were supposedly experts on[1]. Thus what they taught was close to, but not quite, an accurate representation of how things really were. In particular, conflation of worldwide systems like Usenet with specific protocols like NNTP is an example of some of the inaccuracies or errors of comprehension that they passed on to their students. As I said in my other recent message, Usenet (at that time and now) relied and relies on NNTP but NNTP is not tainted by the problems of Usenet. If you are saying that NNTP was not designed to carry binaries then you are of course correct but (a) just like other protocols, it has been extended to do so, and (b), as I observed above, what are you comparing it to in terms of efficiency? As a one-to-many (not anonymous, see below) distribution medium it had no real alternative at the time. > Heck, even the moderation (where it existed) was inefficient--first, > transfer the spam; then, store the spam; transfer the cancel message; > store the cancel message; check to see if the spam is in the stored > messages; finally, delete the spam or wait for it to be transferred. Certainly, NNTP moderation over the federated Usenet system was far less than ideal but, once again, let's remember that this is not a problem for a discussion group that is not shared over Usenet. Moderation using NNTP in this context (i.e. the context under discussion here) is actually better than with a mail list and not a lot different to a web forum. > Binaries on NNTP took off not because they were efficient, but because > they were perceived to be more anonymous than direct transfers. > (There's no central logs of which clients look at which specific > content, and the full feed is deniable as to intent.) I disagree. This attitude (that anonymity was the primary driver) is redolent of the confused or skewed training courses I referred to above. Whilst I can accept that some people may have perceived Usenet to be anonymous, they were of course wrong both then and now (and this was well known to technical users back at that time). >From what I recall, Usenet grew in popularity for binaries groups not because it was (supposedly, in some people's views) anonymous but because it was an *efficient one-to-many distribution medium*. In fact it was effectively the *only* one-to-many distribution medium available at all until the first peer-to-peer file sharing networks began to appear (which is why I wonder what other system or protocol you are comparing NNTP's binary transfer efficiency against). I should add that I described Usenet as an "efficient" distribution medium above and it most certainly was efficient in this respect. Even though, as you say, NNTP needs to encode binaries, Usenet was still efficient because of its one-to-many capability and its asynchronous capability. It just worked. And let me re-iterate that none of this history, whilst interesting, particularly relates to NNTP's continued suitability for discussion groups such as this one. > It really doesn't seem like you ever looked at the stats on what > fraction of the feed an ISP received was ever requested by any > customer, or you wouldn't argue that this was an efficient mechanism. > (But god forbid you stopped carrying > alt.binaries.stupid.waste.of.space because then customers would tie up > the support line complaining that your newsgroup count was lower than > your competitor's newsgroup count.) Again, nice idea 30 years ago, but > incapable of withstanding abuse on the modern internet. You're still conflating Usenet with NNTP. What you refer to here was an issue with Usenet. This tells us nothing whatsoever about the suitability of NNTP for discussion group transport, something for which NNTP was and is ideal. This use of NNTP is nothing to do with Usenet and is nothing to do with Usenet's binary-related practical problems. Footnote:- 1: A more recent example of a very similar skewed and confused view of things is the Casio F-91 watch. Certain elements of US intelligence had noticed that many terrorist suspects arrested in Iraq were wearing the Casio F-91W watch model. The intelligence reports extrapolated this apparent correlation to suggest, amongst other things, that the watch was chosen because its alarm capabilities allowed an alarm to be set more than 24 in the future (in fact that particular model allows no such thing, although some other Casio models do). In truth, the Casio F-91W model was and still is popular with third world terrorist suspects because it is (a) very cheap, and (b) it is produced in greater numbers than any other watch model in the world. I.e. Lots of people in third world countries wear Casio F-91Ws, not just terrorists. And yet the intelligence people were ignorant of the wider popularity of the F-91W and extrapolated incorrectly from the limited (skewed) data set of which they were aware. Similar errors of limited vision, confusion, and skew were made in the timeframe we're discussing here by some people running training course for professionals. -- Mark Rousell
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 15:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wrLLc-3aF-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199481 |
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 01:16:45PM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote: >NNTP was inefficient in this regard compared to what other protocol or >protocols, exactly? FTP and later HTTP, which handled binaries efficiently. In fact, one was even named in a way to suggest it was a good way to transfer files. :) >May I ask, did you use Usenet in this timeframe? Yes, academic, commercial ISP, and paid subscription servers. I also had some insight into what it took to keep the servers running, not just the user-side view... I followed a number of text groups, until the signal to noise ratio got low enough to make it not worth the effort. >I disagree. This attitude (that anonymity was the primary driver) is redolent >of the confused or skewed training courses I referred to above. Whilst I can >accept that some people may have perceived Usenet to be anonymous, they were of >course wrong both then and now (and this was well known to technical users back >at that time). You seem to have an overly idealistic view of the level of logging on most news servers 20 years ago. Also, for the record, I don't think I ever had a "training course" on usenet. As far as being wrong...if LE siezed an anonymous FTP server distributing illegal content and either reviewed its logs or monitored its link they could get a list of each IP that accessed content. There is no central point from which you can see who accessed usenet content. You might be able to get that by investigating every usenet server on the internet, but it's enough of a harder problem that access was effectively anonymous up until large providers started actively trying to address certain kinds of activity (and then, only for those providers). You may be referring to whether the posting is anonymous, which is a quite different question. It's certainly much easier to track a post to a single origin, though jurisdictional boundaries could make it hard to actually do anything with that information. The bottom line is that for a period of time, usenet was the easiest way to obtain certain illegal content. There were certainly overblown reports that usenet was nothing but illegal content, and it's certainly possible to transfer illegal content via other protocols, but it's naive and/or disingenous to pretend that usenet didn't have a problem. >I should add that I described Usenet as an "efficient" distribution medium >above and it most certainly was efficient in this respect. Even though, as you >say, NNTP needs to encode binaries, Usenet was still efficient because of its >one-to-many capability and its asynchronous capability. It just worked. The one to many capability simply didn't outweigh the enormous volume of one-to-none-via-many. Even back in the day there were a lot of really passionate advocates of the theoretical greatness of the service, with no clue of how much it was costing to provide. >And let me re-iterate that none of this history, whilst interesting, >particularly relates to NNTP's continued suitability for discussion groups such >as this one. Well, there's no particularly relevant discussion of how suitable it is for email lists like this one. :) If 25 years of advocacy haven't managed to get debian to understand how wonderful it would be to switch from SMTP lists to NNTP groups, it's really unlikely to happen going forward. Instead, it's likely that the theoretical advantages don't nearly outweigh the practical disadvantages. Mike Stone
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 16:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wrMHf-3Jb-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199482 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 28/08/2018 13:55, Michael Stone wrote: > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 01:16:45PM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote: >> NNTP was inefficient in this regard compared to what other protocol or >> protocols, exactly? > > FTP and later HTTP, which handled binaries efficiently. In fact, one > was even named in a way to suggest it was a good way to transfer > files. :) HTTP came later and wasn't relevant in the timeframe to which you referred. Additionally, both FTP and HTTP are not federated, many-to-many services or systems. I say again that Usenet was unique in this timeframe for the use case of public access, one-to-many, binary distribution. Except for perhaps hacked servers in some cases, FTP never did have much of a part to play in binaries distribution from what I could see. I think it was file sharing P2P protocols that eventually reduced people's preference for Usenet coupled with (as you say) ISPs' great difficulty in continuing to support Usenet servers. > Yes, academic, commercial ISP, and paid subscription servers. I also had some insight into what it took > to keep the servers running, not just the user-side view... I followed a number of text groups, until the > signal to noise ratio got low enough to make it not worth the effort. I too was a Usenet user in that timeframe and worked for an ISP at the time, although not directly on Usenet/NNTP servers. > You seem to have an overly idealistic view of the level of logging on > most news servers 20 years ago. You mean about the same amount of logging as on mail servers, FTP servers, or anything else at the time, then? Sure, there wasn't much logging in practice. I didn't say there was. I'm not being idealistic. I am simply observing that, logging or not, accessing a NNTP server did not hide one's IP address any more then than it does now. Indeed, despite greater legislation-mandated logging in many countries, the technical opportunities to access a server of potentially any type in a genuinely anonymous way are much greater now than they were back then due to widespread availability of VPN services! I therefore do not agree that anonymity was a primary driving factor for the use of Usenet for one-to-many distribution of binaries (although I don't doubt that the essentially false idea of anonymity may have influenced many less-expert users). I'm not being idealistic about the amount of access logging that went on when I say this; I am simply being pragmatic. I am being pragmatic because Usenet was simply the only widely available, worldwide, federated, public system available to distribute data (especially binaries) in a one-to-many manner. Other systems or protocols such as FTP just couldn't do what Usenet could do back then. > Also, for the record, I don't think I ever had a "training course" on > usenet. That's good. :-) > As far as being wrong...if LE siezed an anonymous FTP server > distributing illegal content and either reviewed its logs or monitored > its link they could get a list of each IP that accessed content. And the very same applied to a NNTP server attached to Usenet (or a standalone NNTP server for that matter). It was and is no more difficult for a NNTP server than for a FTP server, or an email server, or anything else. > There is no central point from which you can see who accessed usenet > content. But why would you expect there to be? It's a federated system. If you were expecting such a thing then you were expecting the wrong thing. One might also observe that looking for who accessed Usenet content is surely a waste of time. If one is interested in preventing distribution of illegal data of some sort then the primary concern is the sender, and the sender was not anonymous with NNTP (regardless of the existence of logs or not). Remember, the point here is one-to-many distribution, and it's the one that law enforcement should surely be interested in. > The bottom line is that for a period of time, usenet was the easiest > way to obtain certain illegal content. There were certainly overblown > reports that usenet was nothing but illegal content, and it's > certainly possible to transfer illegal content via other protocols, > but it's naive and/or disingenous to pretend that usenet didn't have a > problem. Oh I agree with you on this about Usenet. But: (a) I don't blame NNTP for this since it is not responsible for Usenet's problems that ultimately derived from its massive scale, not its protocols. The problems occurred as a result of the fact that Usenet was and is a massive, worldwide, publicly federated one-to-many distribution system. I.e. It was custom made (without its creators even realising it!) for large scale distribution of binaries, whether legal or illegal. (b) I dispute that Usenet had any real, reliable anonymity (although I accept that some people may have erroneously believed it did). I have no idealism or inflated idea about the level of logging that was common at the time on any server, regardless of the protocol it served. I take the view I do simply because every access to Usenet had to take place via a server which was and is, both then and now, the natural choke point for law enforcement to investigate senders of data deemed illegal over any protocol[1]. Furthermore, the false belief of anonymity paled into insignificance (in terms of Usenet's success as a binaries transfer medium) in comparison to the fundamental and unique one-to-many nature of Usenet, in my view, experience and memory. Yes, the bandwidth needs of Usenet was a problem for ISPs to cope with but that wasn't users' direct problem in terms of choosing to use Usenet for one-to-many binaries distribution. > The one to many capability simply didn't outweigh the enormous volume > of one-to-none-via-many. Even back in the day there were a lot of > really passionate advocates of the theoretical greatness of the > service, with no clue of how much it was costing to provide. I agree. This is a problem with Usenet that I have not disputed. It's just that, coming back to the original subject of this discussion (i.e. NNTP as a private discussion group transport protocol), the problem of one-to-none-via-many (nicely phrased :-) ) is not an issue. It's only an issue if you want to run a Usenet server (or a node in some other massive, public access, federated system) but we're not discussing that scenario at all. > If 25 years of advocacy haven't managed to get debian to understand > how wonderful it would be to switch from SMTP lists to NNTP groups, > it's really unlikely to happen going forward. Has there been any such advocacy? I wasn't actually aware of it, if so! My own participation in this sub-thread has simply been to point out that (a) NNTP still works as well as it always did, which is to say efficiently, elegantly and very practicably, for private discussion groups, and (b) that Usenet's problems related to its large scale/public federation issues do not apply at all to NNTP in the context of private discussion groups. All that said, I wouldn't want to see NNTP replace the existing email discussion lists. I personally prefer NNTP as an alternative, but not replacement, for email-based discussion. (As well as both email and NNTP as alternative access methods to web-based forums for those who prefer these seemingly outmoded but still flexible and efficient access methodologies). > Instead, it's likely that the theoretical advantages don't nearly > outweigh the practical disadvantages. The practical advantages of NNTP as a private discussion group medium are real enough, in my experience. :-) Footnote:- 1: Or, for that matter, receivers who came to their specific attention. The fact that receivers in Usenet over NNTP are less noticeable than senders is not something I see as a weakness of either Usenet as a whole or the NNTP protocol. The senders and receivers of DCC transfers in IRC, for example, also left no particular logging footprint at all. -- Mark Rousell
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 16:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wrNah-47Z-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199490 |
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 02:52:36PM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote: >Except for perhaps hacked servers in some cases, FTP never did have much of a >part to play in binaries distribution from what I could see. I guess you didn't use debian? Or are we only talking about the illegal content that I thought wasn't the reason usenet is important. It's so hard to keep track of what the point was supposed to be. I will not bother to reply to the rest of the long discussion of usenet, since I don't want to be accused (again) of "incorrectly" talking about usenet instead of NNTP by someone who wrote a long message about usenet. Mike Stone
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 18:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wrOzn-4Po-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199495 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 28/08/2018 15:27, Michael Stone wrote: > I will not bother to reply to the rest of the long discussion of > usenet, since I don't want to be accused (again) of "incorrectly" > talking about usenet instead of NNTP by someone who wrote a long > message about usenet. Note that I could not refute your apparent conflation of Usenet and NNTP without writing about Usenet. Admittedly, I also got drawn into a side-discussion of Usenet history with you. Anyway, I agree that it is difficult to remember who said what (or, perhaps more importantly, *why* they said it) when a thread gets as convoluted as this one. We can agree to agree about that which we agree about, and to disagree about that which we disagree about. :-) -- Mark Rousell
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 18:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wrOJ4-57N-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199495 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 28/08/2018 15:27, Michael Stone wrote: > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 02:52:36PM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote: >> Except for perhaps hacked servers in some cases, FTP never did have >> much of a >> part to play in binaries distribution from what I could see. > > I guess you didn't use debian? Or are we only talking about the > illegal content that I thought wasn't the reason usenet is important. > It's so hard to keep track of what the point was supposed to be. Oops, I meant to reply to this part. Lots of people download files from FTP servers but that's a wholly different culture and use case than Usenet provided for in practice. And who said that binaries (whether legal or illegal) was not a big part of Usenet at its height? I certainly said no such thing and nor did you, as far as I could see. -- Mark Rousell
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 19:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wrQhP-5Ss-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199505 |
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 05:02:08PM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote: >Lots of people download files from FTP servers but that's a wholly different >culture and use case than Usenet provided for in practice. And who said that >binaries (whether legal or illegal) was not a big part of Usenet at its height? Anyone who argues that NNTP is the most efficient thing around? I guarantee that for large files FTP is more efficient, and that when one person is sending a file to a small number of other peopl, FTP is dramatically more efficient. I guess NNTP binary distribution is more efficient in some theoretical world where exactly the right subscriptions are distributed to exactly the right people via local transit servers, with no reposts. We can probably just write the volume of such transfers off as noise in the real world.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 20:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wrQUy-6lf-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199511 |
On 8/28/18 1:48 PM, Michael Stone wrote: > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 05:02:08PM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote: >> Lots of people download files from FTP servers but that's a wholly >> different >> culture and use case than Usenet provided for in practice. And who >> said that >> binaries (whether legal or illegal) was not a big part of Usenet at >> its height? > > Anyone who argues that NNTP is the most efficient thing around? I > guarantee that for large files FTP is more efficient, and that when > one person is sending a file to a small number of other peopl, FTP is > dramatically more efficient. I guess NNTP binary distribution is more > efficient in some theoretical world where exactly the right > subscriptions are distributed to exactly the right people via local > transit servers, with no reposts. We can probably just write the > volume of such transfers off as noise in the real world. NNTP is exceptionally efficient for large scale message distribution - when compared to, say, a mailing list server that sends a message per subscriber. For binary files, something like bit torrent is clearly more efficient. Though, a while back, somebody implemented a rather efficient mechanism that used NNTP for distributing header information, and a distributed hash table for the files themselves. Saved a lot of bandwidth. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 20:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wrR4e-6oi-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199516 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 28/08/2018 19:23, Miles Fidelman wrote: > On 8/28/18 1:48 PM, Michael Stone wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 05:02:08PM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote: >>> Lots of people download files from FTP servers but that's a wholly >>> different >>> culture and use case than Usenet provided for in practice. And who >>> said that >>> binaries (whether legal or illegal) was not a big part of Usenet at >>> its height? >> >> Anyone who argues that NNTP is the most efficient thing around? I >> guarantee that for large files FTP is more efficient, and that when >> one person is sending a file to a small number of other peopl, FTP is >> dramatically more efficient. I guess NNTP binary distribution is more >> efficient in some theoretical world where exactly the right >> subscriptions are distributed to exactly the right people via local >> transit servers, with no reposts. We can probably just write the >> volume of such transfers off as noise in the real world. > > NNTP is exceptionally efficient for large scale message distribution - > when compared to, say, a mailing list server that sends a message per > subscriber. Indeed. And ISPs' historical problems Usenet's massive bandwidth due to binaries does not change the fact that NNTP is very good for message distribution. -- Mark Rousell
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 20:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wrRdT-6ry-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199518 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 28/08/2018 19:33, Mark Rousell wrote: > And ISPs' historical problems Usenet's massive bandwidth due to > binaries does not change the fact that NNTP is very good for message > distribution. Missing "with" in the above. -- Mark Rousell
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 20:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wrQUy-6lf-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199511 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 28/08/2018 18:48, Michael Stone wrote:
> I guarantee that for large files FTP is more efficient, and that when
> one person is sending a file to a small number of other peopl, FTP is
> dramatically more efficient.
I am sure. But it still doesn't make FTP meaningfully comparable to
Usenet or NNTP in the context of this sub-thread discussion.
> I guess NNTP binary distribution is more efficient in some theoretical
> world where exactly the right subscriptions are distributed to exactly
> the right people
I can only point you to the world as it actually stood where binary
distribution (for certain types of binary for a certain type of user
base) via Usenet was outstandingly common at one time (which you of
course know). FTP just wasn't a feasible candidate protocol for that
particular use case. As such, yes, NNTP was efficient enough. As I said
when I entered this sub-thread (with added comment in square brackets):
NNTP was inefficient in this regard compared to what other protocol
or protocols, exactly?
Compared to email? Well, email suffered from very similar issues
transferring binaries.
Compared to DCC over IRC? (DCC being a then-popular one-to-one
alternative to Usenet's one-to-many distribution model). I must
admit that I've never examined the details of the DCC protocol but
it is certainly inefficient in terms of /user experience/ compared
to Usenet over NNTP: In practice DCC was essentially synchronous,
one at a time, needing continuous user management whereas Usenet
facilitated a time-efficient asynchronous access mechanism for the
end user without continuous management.
So what one-to-many distribution platforms or protocols existed in
this timeframe against which to compare NNTP (or Usenet)?
I perhaps should have asked "NNTP was inefficient in this regard
compared to what other *relevant *protocol or protocols, exactly?".
You have observed, quite correctly of course, that FTP is a more
bandwidth-efficient protocol that was available in the timeframe under
discussion for binary file transfers but the fact nonetheless remains
that FTP did not and does not fulfil the particular mass volume and mass
user numbers one-to-many use case to which Usenet was put at that time.
FTP did not and does not have the federated, distributed, public access
nature that Usenet provided and that led to its success in this context.
Sure, Usenet became impossible to cope with for ISPs due to the volume
of binaries groups. But, from a user experience perspective, it was very
efficient indeed (for reasons I enumerated in other messages) for the
job it ended up being used for. And it was not significantly more
bandwidth-inefficient than any other suitable or relevant system or
protocol because, at the time, there were no other systems or protocols
that could really fulfil the Usenet use case.
FTP, despite more bandwidth-efficiently allowing binary transfers of
course, still did not fulfil the same use case.
Anyway, this part of the discussion is just more about Usenet history.
It has nothing to do with NNTP in a discussion group context which is
why I initially commented in this thread.
> via local transit servers, with no reposts. We can probably just write
> the volume of such transfers off as noise in the real world.
You seem to be again conflating Usenet's issues relating to huge
bandwidth due to mass distribution of binaries with the completely
different use case of NNTP that is the subject of this thread.
--
Mark Rousell
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 22:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wrSMG-7sM-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199517 |
As a totally theoretical aside, it should be noted that NNTP is a peer to peer protocol. At one time news servers and spools were so heavyweight that they required a VAX (leading to the client-server model of news that is the only way most people think it can work), but by modern standards the servers require negligible resources and a spool (especially if it only handles a few private newsgoups such as the Debian lists) is small potatoes. Every debian-user subscriber could run a local server for as many of the Debian lists as they chose to subscribe to at a lower cost in resources than running their own mail server. Will never happen, of course. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 18:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wrOzn-4Po-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199490 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 28/08/2018 14:52, Mark Rousell wrote: > Additionally, both FTP and HTTP are not federated, many-to-many > services or systems. I say again that Usenet was unique in this > timeframe for the use case of public access, one-to-many, binary > distribution. The above is not complete. I meant to write this:- Additionally, both FTP and HTTP were not and are not federated, one-to-many services or systems in the way that Usenet was (and is). I say again that Usenet was unique in this timeframe for the use case of public access, one-to-many, binary distribution. -- Mark Rousell
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 19:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wrQhP-5Ss-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199503 |
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 04:50:27PM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote: >Additionally, both FTP and HTTP were not and are not federated, one-to-many >services or systems in the way that Usenet was I guess this is where I say "But why would you expect it to be?" and ignore the rest of the argument.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 20:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wrQUy-6lf-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199510 |
On 8/28/18 1:44 PM, Michael Stone wrote: > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 04:50:27PM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote: >> Additionally, both FTP and HTTP were not and are not federated, >> one-to-many >> services or systems in the way that Usenet was > > I guess this is where I say "But why would you expect it to be?" and > ignore the rest of the argument. But one might want it to be - as compared to something centralized, like a list server or forum. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web