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 4 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 12 Next page →
| From | Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 16:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wrNjY-4aM-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199494 |
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 04:22:56PM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: >On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:16:06AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 02:03:05PM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote: >> >Isn't this true of, say, HTTP too? >> >> Not in the same way, because you have a sender and a receiver, >> without the potentially infinite number of other machines that might >> be getting a copy of the content just in case someone might want it >> someday. > >To be fair, this only applies to the brave (pre CDN) old world :) No, it applies just as much to CDNs--even more so. The CDN nodes have senders and receivers and a financial interest in ensuring a good cache rate based both on on-demand caching and predictive caching utilizing their knowledge of both. The old usenet machines had to retrieve anything that might be needed because they didn't know if a client might want it, and they didn't know if they could simply get it from the same server later. Mike Stone
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 17:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wrNN0-4zF-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199498 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:32:30AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 04:22:56PM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: [...] > >To be fair, this only applies to the brave (pre CDN) old world :) > > No, it applies just as much to CDNs--even more so. It was very much tongue-in-cheek: I should have attached the ;-P Thing is, it takes control away from normal pedestrians and gives it to those who can afford a CDN -- yay, centralized Internet. Cheers - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAluFY94ACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYBqQCfYsiCkjMhVxdT/DC96vl9zrNb 2X0An0MV+Mki/ra4QCb6/4qZyjzd3TIM =M6D8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 17:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wrOpI-4Mh-31@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199493 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 28/08/2018 15:16, Michael Stone wrote: > >> As with your other comments about Usenet, this is not an issue for a >> non-publicly federated system. I.e. The problem that affected Usenet >> (the >> ultimate in publicly federated systems) in this context does not >> affect NNTP in >> general for discussion group usage. > > Sure. But in that context, there's not really much benefit to NNTP > either. It's just a dumb transport protocol with fewer deployed > clients than HTTP. Well, we've discussed this at some length now and I can only say that, in my opinion and experience, NNTP seems overwhelmingly advantageous to me in the scenario of a private discussion group (i.e. for a discussion list much like this one and for the common profile of its members). I recognise that other people and other types of user prefer access methodologies (e.g. email lists, web forums, app-based, IM-style, etc.) but none of that, to my mind, lessens NNTP's ideal applicability to getting private discussion group messages from place to place (the front end UI/UX being a different thing again). >> Remember that we're having this discussion over email. As you >> observed above, >> SMTP-based email suffers from a spam problem due to this very issue. >> And yet >> this discussion list works. If this list was a NNTP-based discussion >> group, it >> would be even more bandwidth-efficient > > How? Let's just drop the discussion about how horrible usenet was and > focus on what the potential benefits of NNTP are. I can't think of > many (definitely none significant) over SMTP The key advantage of NNTP over email/SMTP in terms of bandwidth efficiency is that, with NNTP, messages are only sent to users when they explicitly ask for them. This is more bandwidth-efficient than an email-based list since the email-based list must send out messages to each and every user whether or not they want them. There is also a management efficiency advantage to NNTP in that it doesn't have the deliverability problems that plague email nowadays. > and none at all over a well implemented modern web based discussion > with a cacheable REST interface. To my mind, a REST protocol has a different (but overlapping) use case to NNTP or email lists. I know of no standard, open REST protocol that replaces either NNTP or email discussion lists, for example. An often implicitly stated requirement (for certain types of users) in the private discussion list use case is compatibility with a standard mail or Usenet/NNTP client. Clearly, this is not important for every user (and more and more users prefer web UIs nowadays, albeit often in ignorance of other ways to do things) but I nevertheless take the view that NNTP has its place and is, technically speaking, a near-ideal protocol for distribution of discussion groups. >> This is the issue with what I called "moderator-ability" above. >> >> What "noise of an NNTP feed"? A NNTP feed need have no more "noise" >> than this >> mail list does. Once again you seem to be conflating NNTP (used in >> the context >> of a discussion group like this one or a group of such discussion >> groups) with >> the massive volume of Usenet. > > Well, you also seem to like to jump back and forth in talking about > one or the other, without actually offering any specifics. :) You > brush off the problems of (the only) large scale NNTP implementation > by offering a closed environment with close to zero users as a > counterexample. You seem to have it the wrong way round. I am not "offering a closed environment with close to zero users as a counterexample". It (i.e. NNTP in private discussion groups) is not a counter example of or to anything. It is, in fact, the specific issue under discussion! It is *you* who introduced the historical problems of Usenet and used them as erroneous reasons to reject NNTP for the specific use case under discussion, that is private discussion groups. I "brush off" the problems of Usenet because they really do have nothing whatsoever to do with NNTP in the context of private discussion groups, for the reasons I have specified. You were conflating Usenet the system with NNTP the protocol and thereby blaming NNTP for problems that would have plagued Usenet even if it was still based on UUCP and not NNTP. Additionally, I got drawn into historical discussions about Usenet with you but the overall conversation from the perspective of my involvement is still about the applicability and suitability of NNTP for private discussions groups (i.e. something for which it is ideal in reality) and the way that NNTP's involvement in Usenet does not make NNTP a poor protocol for private discussions groups. > But I'm happy to stop talking about usenet...except that you bring it > up again: But why did you ever mention it, when it was not and is not relevant to the issue at hand? I remind you that I only joined in a discussion of Usenet because it was you who introduced it. I joined in specifically to point out how your mention of Usenet was irrelevant in this context. > You've asserted it many times, but you haven't actually shown with > numbers how it's more efficient in practice to any degree that matters > in the real world. I have in fact (a) pointed out specifics of how NNTP works better in the context at hand, and (b) pointed out how your negative view of NNTP in this context was based upon an erroneous conflation with the problems of Usenet that were not caused by NNTP. If you prefer to interpret the specifics i have provided as assertions then so be it. We'll have to agree to disagree. > making it interoperate with the expectations of a modern web forum is > hard--potentially impossible without proprietary extensions, at which > point you've thrown away the entire point of sticking with NNTP > instead of using something else. I disagree. You seem to me to be finding problems where there are none in practice. A great deal of this seems to be about expectations. Could it be that you are expecting something that is, to my mind, unnecessary or irrelevant (i.e. not part of the target use case). I don't want to go into too many details but, at its heart, a forum or discussion group of any sort is about message content. How you get it to and from users is the question and different methods can suit different users, types of users, and audiences. There is no fundamental reason why one method has to be used to the exclusion of all others. Content posted to a web forum (via web browser or via app front end or via some REST client) can perfectly well be distributed (complete with graphics, text effects, images, even binaries (!!) ) to participants via email or NNTP. Email and NNTP protocols as widely deployed in client software and in other standardised servers (email in this case) fully support the necessary message content standards. Similarly, there is no fundamental reason why it is difficult for a user to create a message in their email or NNTP client, send it to the appropriate address or newsgroup, and have it appear in a web forum (again complete with text, text effects, graphics, etc.). There really are no particular difficulties with this and no particular need for proprietary extensions to any standard protocol. There are plenty of services around today that implement perhaps one or two out of the main three of these access methods (the main three being email, NNTP, and web, with NNTP being least common) but few that implement all three. There are a fourth and fifth access methodology, of course, which are REST (mostly non-standardised) and RSS/ATOM. (I am not forgetting ATOM Publishing Protocol but this has even less deployment in practice than NNTP and there are certainly fewer ATOM Publishing Protocol clients in the wild then there are NNTP and email clients). > The conceptual split between transit and reading functionality is a > lot of legacy to carry forward if you're basically trying to create a > reader interface for smart clients. Enough to make it debatable > whether it's worth trying to implement all that vs exposing a REST API. I don't see it as either/or. REST and other access methodologies (for reading and/or writing) can and should co-exist. I'd love to see a modern, open standard REST-based general message posting/reading protocol to replace NNTP in a discussion group/forum context and to standardise non-web browser client access to web forums, but the call of the walled garden makes this unlikely. What we have instead is a proliferation of REST standards, often with their own walled garden or Ts&Cs constraints. Nevertheless, older access methodologies still have their fans and, in actuality, are still relevant today and can be inter-operated with more modern services quite easily. There are those who want them (albeit certainly not to the exclusion of other access methodologies). As this overall thread has shown, many of the people who prefer email or NNTP access methods are the kind of people who are members of this mail list. > >> As for "lacking in functionality", it all depends on what you expect >> it to >> provide. As a way of getting messages from place to place, it seems >> ideal. As a >> way of providing other features, it depends. I would not, for >> example, expect >> NNTP on its own to provide a moderation UI or avatars. > > And yet, those things have made web forums the de facto replacement > for NNTP. I think web forums have become the de facto replacement for groups accessed by NNTP because they were, more than anything else, simpler to use and access. They were *just there* in people's web usage. Other features in web forums came along because they were possible (not that there was, initially, demand for them). Now such secondary features are expected by many classes of user. But, despite this, NNTP and web forums (and other access methodologies) are not mutually exclusive. To be clear, the kinds of users who choose to access a discussion group of some sort via NNTP or email (one that most users access as a web forum) are unlikely to care that they don't see a Like button. On the other hand, any modern NNTP or mail client can in fact show them a clickable Like button that actually works (unless they've chosen to disable complex HTML, which is fine of course). > As much as greybeards don't understand why the like button matters, > it's really hard to convince actual users these days that the reason > you don't have one is that they don't need it and you know better than > they do. I wouldn't attempt to do such a thing. :-) If I was designing a discussion environment from scratch, there's no way I'd design it without a web front end as one possible access method. But one should not ignore the fact that the greybeard population is a large one and actually is getting larger. Even as the percentage of technical users on the Internet continues to reduce as a proportion of the Internet population as a whole, the absolute number of technical users who would like or might like standardised access methods and tools grows. Their voices may be diluted but are no less real. As individuals, they may prefer to use different UIs and different access methodologies from different places: A Tapatalk-like UI on their mobile device (speaking REST to the back end), a NNTP read/write feed on their preferred main Usenet/NNTP client, or an email read/write feed on their preferred main email client (accessed on mobile and/or desktop), and perhaps a web browser UI for occasional quick access from a different form factor device. All of these methods can and should co-exist, in my opinion (ideally speaking). > There are a lot of other usability issues that basically boil down to > the change in user behavior from using a smart client at one location > (possibly telnetting/sshing into there from elsewhere) to using a > variety of dumb clients to access centralized resources. Protocols > that transfer dumb messages but allow a lot of endpoint customization > are great in the smart client model but tend to not have a good user > experience in the dumb client model. (And vice versa--if you have the > ability to highly customize a specific workstation, it's frustrating > to not be able to.) Given demographic and technological trends, > ignoring the dumb client paradigm is short sighted at best. I agree. Nothing I've said should be taken to mean that I ignore the dumb client scenario. But I also recognise that there are many use cases with many types of user. > This is exactly what I was talking about earlier. Yes, it's > theoretically possible. But for a variety of real-world reasons, large > scale NNTP-accessible web forums haven't succeeded. (If you look, you > can find a lot of attempts that never really gained much traction.) It > was more practical in the tapatalk case to invent a new protocol than > to use NNTP. I'd suggest that it's worth understanding why rather than > just insisting that everybody is wrong and NNTP is the answer that > they just haven't figured out. Indeed, but our discussion has ranged in various directions and are beginning to conflate somewhat issues. I'm not pitching NNTP as a replacement for this sort of scenario In the original context of this sub-thread, that is access to discussion groups like this one, NNTP has advantages. This is its ideal use case alongside email. It is the fact that both email and NNTP are standardised that appeals to users in this context, as well as the cleanness and efficiency of these protocols compared to web browser based access or other UIs or access methodologies. -- Mark Rousell
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 21:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wrRxg-6Nn-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199502 |
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 04:46:15PM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote: >web forums, app-based, IM-style, etc.) but none of that, to my mind, lessens >NNTP's ideal applicability to getting private discussion group messages from >place to place (the front end UI/UX being a different thing again). Ignoring the changes to user requirements for UI/UX is at least part of why NNTP is no longer a major factor in internet usage. >The key advantage of NNTP over email/SMTP in terms of bandwidth efficiency is >that, with NNTP, messages are only sent to users when they explicitly ask for >them. This is more bandwidth-efficient than an email-based list since the >email-based list must send out messages to each and every user whether or not >they want them. It's more efficient at the provider level until someone decides they want all of the messages local, either as an archive or to run local search tools, etc. At that point you're transferring all of the messages just as you would via SMTP and it's basically a wash. If you have a bunch of users on remote SMTP and NNTP servers then it's always a wash. (MUAs don't typically download the entire message body unless asked to, just as news readers don't typically download the entire message body unless asked to.) Basically, the efficiency argument is bogus. And even if it weren't bogus, the bandwidth in question is so small as to not matter anyway. (We call this "premature optimization"; there are other concerns that are far more significant--like the UI/UX.) The entire 25 year archive of debian lists is probably on the order of one or two netflix movies. >To my mind, a REST protocol has a different (but overlapping) use case to NNTP >or email lists. I know of no standard, open REST protocol that replaces either >NNTP or email discussion lists, for example. But there are a heck of a lot more deployed REST clients than NNTP clients. You can shake your fist at the cloud all you want, but reality is what it is. Consequently, a good experience for HTTP consumers is going to be a higher priority than NNTP users. The numbers are so skewed as to raise valid questions about whether the small number of NNTP users is worth committing development and operational resources to. Many of the forums I can think of that supported HTTP + NNTP 10 or 15 years ago have long since decided that the answer was no. >I am not "offering a closed environment with close to zero users as a >counterexample". It (i.e. NNTP in private discussion groups) is not a counter >example of or to anything. It is, in fact, the specific issue under discussion! It's always amusing when someone decides to state what "the proper topic of the email thread" is. You want to talk about one thing. The person who started the thread wanted to talk about a completely different thing. But I guess you get to decide what's on-topic because reasons? More specifically, the point at which I started talking about usenet was in response to two people who weren't you talking about ISP-level NNTP transit servers. If you define the use case to exclude ISP-level NNTP servers then you can certainly argue that the only wide scale implementation of ISP-level NNTP transit servers (usenet) is irrelevant, but it takes a large amount of hubris to declare that one particular branch of the thread is more irrelevant than your preferred branch of the thread. > You've asserted it many times, but you haven't actually shown with numbers > how it's more efficient in practice to any degree that matters in the real > world. > > >I have in fact (a) pointed out specifics of how NNTP works better in the >context at hand You still haven't provided numbers that show that your argument matters for real-world implementations. I'll simply agree to disagree that you've provided specifics rather than assertions or personal preferences. >and (b) pointed out how your negative view of NNTP in this >context was based upon an erroneous conflation with the problems of Usenet that >were not caused by NNTP. I think that the only one who's concerned I have a conflation of usenet and NNTP is you. If you want to continue stating that, I guess it's a free internet. (Though, I might start some kind of drinking game based on how many times you say "conflation of usenet and NNTP" or equivalent--it's gotten kinda amusing, if repetitive.) You also seem to have been the one to start making other unfounded assertions about my background and why I have the opinions I have. Honestly, I'd prefer if you just stick to stuff that's somehow relevant to the discussion and avoid erroneous ad hominems. FWIW, another possibility for why the discussion doesn't match your desires (one that doesn't require me to have a misguided agenda of conflating usenet and NNTP based on some shadowy usenet training 20 years in the past) is that threads wander and that people talk about what they want to talk about. Also, more than one person may have something to say, and people can respond to things from different people. Unless someone gets to decide what's on-topic and ban everyone else it's likely the internet will remain that way. > making it interoperate with the expectations of a modern web forum is > hard--potentially impossible without proprietary extensions, at which point > you've thrown away the entire point of sticking with NNTP instead of using > something else. > > >I disagree. You seem to me to be finding problems where there are none in >practice. Really? Where's the like button in the standard NNTP protocol? How do I see a poster's history and other profile information via NNTP? If the answer is "well, you don't need those things" that's a sad argument for how NNTP can replace a web forum. If the answer is "all the protocol really needs to do is move small bits of text around", I guess I'd say "that is such a trivial problem for modern computers that it really doesn't matter how you do that thing; now lets talk about harder problems that matter more to more people". >A great deal of this seems to be about expectations. Could it be that you are >expecting something that is, to my mind, unnecessary or irrelevant (i.e. not >part of the target use case). Ah, you also get to decide what the use cases are? Not the original poster or anyone else on the list? >has to be used to the exclusion of all others. Content posted to a web forum >(via web browser or via app front end or via some REST client) can perfectly >well be distributed (complete with graphics, text effects, images, even >binaries (!!) ) to participants via email or NNTP. Sure, and for the third time: the theory doesn't match the practice. Why? >I don't see it as either/or. REST and other access methodologies (for reading >and/or writing) can and should co-exist. Sure, and for the fourth time: the theory doesn't match the practice. Why? >I think web forums have become the de facto replacement for groups accessed by >NNTP because they were, more than anything else, simpler to use and access. Uh, yeah. That isn't a meaningful feature in your mind? >To be clear, the kinds of users who choose to access a discussion group of some >sort via NNTP or email (one that most users access as a web forum) are unlikely >to care that they don't see a Like button. On the other hand, any modern NNTP >or mail client can in fact show them a clickable Like button that actually >works (unless they've chosen to disable complex HTML, which is fine of course). So the NNTP client has to implement an HTTP client anyway? Why not just use HTTP? I'd guess that the complexity of implementing two protocols has to be higher than implementing just one, so there'd have to be one heck of a compelling reason to implement both. >Indeed, but our discussion has ranged in various directions and are beginning >to conflate somewhat issues. I'm not pitching NNTP as a replacement for this >sort of scenario So you want the servers to implement two or three protocols? That's got to be more complex than implementing just one. There'd have to be one heck of a compelling reason to do that, more than just "I personally like NNTP".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-29 00:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wrUOu-aJ-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199523 |
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:24:51PM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote: > If you have a bunch of users on remote SMTP and NNTP servers then it's > always a wash. (MUAs don't typically download the entire message body > unless asked to, just as news readers don't typically download the entire > message body unless asked to.) Basically, the efficiency argument is bogus. > > >I can only say that I disagree that the bandwidth efficiency is bogus overall. > >If by "remote [...] NNTP servers" you mean other NNTP servers that are >federated with your own, then this is surely a bandwidth saving compared to >email. I.e. The data only needs to be sent once to the remote NNTP servers for >local distribution to users who connect to those servers, thus reducing >bandwidth usage overall. No, because the idea of having ISPs set up NNTP transit servers for individual small discussion groups is...unlikely at best. You've already stipulated that you don't want to talk about usenet, so stop talking about 'a generic architecture of NNTP transit servers that isn't usenet but is still open to arbitrary groups and users but doesn't have any of the problems of usenet because it's carefully controlled and thus doesn't have abuse issues but isn't prohibitively resource intensive and people will set up serves and join the network because nobody likes stupid old HTTP anyway' and instead start talking about something that's likely to be implemented: centralized NNTP gateways to the services most people will use via SMTP or HTTP, with NNTP client access to the gateway. You might see people create private transit servers for local access, but the number of clients using such servers instead of the primary one would suggest de minimis bandwidth savings. If anything, the private transit servers would end up like most private debian archive mirrors and consume more bandwidth than they save (because most of the transferred files never get used). And in this model, any putative "transfer efficiency of NNTP" is simply not compelling. >I know you know this but I'll say it anyway: REST isn't a single protocol, it's >just a type of protocol. There are loads of REST-based protocols around. Which >one do you choose? There are no standardised REST protocols for message >distribution that I am aware of. There's nothing REST-based that is like SMTP, >or POP3, or IMAP, or NNTP, or anything else that has broad client support >across a range of device types in this context. It's so incredibly uncommon to find a REST based discussion forum that doesn't come with its own HTML UI that I don't consider it worth considering. So the "broad client support" in question would be a web browser and that basically includes everything. Welcome to the 21st century! Then, if your content is compelling enough, people will use whatever wacky REST API they need to get your content if they want to go beyond the HTML UI. I'd guess that the number of people using google APIs (for example) today, whether knowingly or unknowingly, exceeds the total number of people that ever used NNTP, even if those people just don't understand how things would be better if they were using NNTP instead. If you meant to talk only about dedicated protocol-specific thick clients, then yeah, there probably aren't as many for specific web forums as there are clients for SMTP, POP3, IMAP, or NNTP. But most people don't really care. (Yes, I've gathered by this point that your number one requirement is the ability to use an NNTP client--I'm referring to the other people.) >hopefully inoffensive manner. Sorry, no. But anyway, I get that you really really like NNTP. Have fun, don't expect a lot of converts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-29 01:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wrVrb-CE-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199533 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 28/08/2018 23:25, Michael Stone wrote: > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:24:51PM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote: >> If you have a bunch of users on remote SMTP and NNTP servers then >> it's >> always a wash. (MUAs don't typically download the entire message body >> unless asked to, just as news readers don't typically download the >> entire >> message body unless asked to.) Basically, the efficiency argument >> is bogus. >> >> >> I can only say that I disagree that the bandwidth efficiency is bogus >> overall. >> >> If by "remote [...] NNTP servers" you mean other NNTP servers that are >> federated with your own, then this is surely a bandwidth saving >> compared to >> email. I.e. The data only needs to be sent once to the remote NNTP >> servers for >> local distribution to users who connect to those servers, thus reducing >> bandwidth usage overall. > > No, because the idea of having ISPs set up NNTP transit servers for > individual small discussion groups is...unlikely at best. Well, I expect you're not going to like me saying this but isn't expecting ISPs to do this more Usenet-style thinking? People don't expect ISPs to run forum servers or mail list servers, so why should they expect them to run NNTP servers for private discussions groups? > so stop talking about 'a generic architecture of NNTP transit servers > that isn't usenet but is still open to arbitrary groups and users but > doesn't have any of the problems of usenet because it's carefully > controlled and thus doesn't have abuse issues but isn't prohibitively > resource intensive and people will set up serves and join the network > because nobody likes stupid old HTTP anyway' I have at no stage advocated a "generic architecture of NNTP transit servers". I have at no stage advocated any NNTP servers being "open to arbitrary groups", other than those created by group owners. I have at no stage suggested that it wouldn't have abuse issues, only that abuse issues can be handled just as they are right now on any non-federated NNTP server, on any mail list, on any web forum, or similar. Indeed, NNTP is not prohibitively resource intensive when used as a private discussion group protocol. You got that bit right. I have at no stage suggested that people necessarily would want to set up their own servers (although in principle they could). This sort of thing is more likely to be run as a service, just as mail servers, mail list services, and web forums often are at present. And I have at no stage suggested that people don't like HTTP. What I have been talking about (since I mentioned I'll be working on NNTP) is implementing NNTP as an alternative access methodology to message resources accessible via other means as well. There's more to the project than that but this is the aspect that seem related to this thread. > and instead start talking about something that's likely to be > implemented: centralized NNTP gateways to the services most people > will use via SMTP or HTTP, with NNTP client access to the gateway. This sounds a bit like trying to reinvent Usenet. It's not going to happen that way. > You might see people create private transit servers for local access, > but the number of clients using such servers instead of the primary > one would suggest de minimis bandwidth savings. If anything, the > private transit servers would end up like most private debian archive > mirrors and consume more bandwidth than they save (because most of the > transferred files never get used). And in this model, any putative > "transfer efficiency of NNTP" is simply not compelling. Quite possibly. Although we've discussed the bandwidth efficiency of NNTP at excessive length, it's admittedly not the primary driving motivation for this work. But, all the same, if bandwidth efficiency is an issue then I'd say that NNTP is good for this scenario. YMMV of course, and that's fine. > > It's so incredibly uncommon to find a REST based discussion forum that > doesn't come with its own HTML UI that I don't consider it worth > considering. Fine, so you prefer web UIs, if I understand you correctly. > So the "broad client support" in question would be a web browser and > that basically includes everything. Welcome to the 21st century! Except that web browsers accessing web forums in the 21st Century don't do everything. They can't. Other tools do some things better. That's rather the point. There are other tools that bring other capabilities to the table. For example, some of these tools are the NNTP and SMTP and IMAP protocols, and these can be accessed by mail clients and NNTP clients. These protocols and clients facilitate users who prefer these tools to do things like choose their own client apps, control how their UI appears, manage who they view and store data, and so on. These approaches provide way more capability and are way more flexible than any web forum's HTML UI. Earlier in this very thread, Rich Kulawiec posted this extensive list of reasons why email is a good protocol for discussion groups: <https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20180809230309.GA7104@gsp.org>. These reasons also apply to NNTP. (Rich referred to Usenet in his message but I think we can read "NNTP" for "Usenet" in his message). So, as you can see, alternatives like email and NNTP access do bring capabilities that web UIs do not bring and are unlikely to bring since they are not standardised. I note, of course, that email and NNTP clients can be implemented in a web browser but this doesn't change the principle here that web forum UIs cannot provide all the services that some users prefer or require. > Then, if your content is compelling enough, people will use whatever > wacky REST API they need to get your content if they want to go beyond > the HTML UI. Alternatively, one might prefer to just make it easy for them to access the content in a way that suits them. > I'd guess that the number of people using google APIs (for example) > today, whether knowingly or unknowingly, exceeds the total number of > people that ever used NNTP, even if those people just don't understand > how things would be better if they were using NNTP instead. I expect so. But this doesn't mean that NNTP (or email) are in any way unsuitable for the kind of scenario I've suggested and that Rich enumerated. > But most people don't really care. (Yes, I've gathered by this point > that your number one requirement is the ability to use an NNTP > client--I'm referring to the other people.) The "other people" are, a priori, not the people targeted by a target use case that is focussed on providing NNTP access. ;-) As I said, there are other aspects to the project but the part that involves NNTP is, unsurprisingly, focused on the kinds of people who care about the kinds of things Rich Kulawiec listed. Many of them might prefer email but some of them will prefer NNTP instead. > But anyway, I get that you really really like NNTP. Have fun, don't > expect a lot of converts. Who necessarily wants or needs converts? This is for people who want NNTP. It's not for selling NNTP to people who don't want or need it. I should add that those who prefer email will be catered for too. As I said, alternatives, not replacements. -- Mark Rousell
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-29 03:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wrX9D-1EF-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199534 |
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 12:18:59AM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote: >I have at no stage advocated a "generic architecture of NNTP transit servers". > >I have at no stage advocated any NNTP servers being "open to arbitrary groups", >other than those created by group owners. [snip long list of other things you haven't said] You're right; the problem is that you haven't said much at all of any substance, so I find myself trying to guess how the vague things you do say could possibly map to anything in the real world. I'll stop doing that. >Fine, so you prefer web UIs, if I understand you correctly. No, I hate them. But I'm a realist and I understand why things are evolving the way they are. > So the "broad client support" in question would be a web browser and that > basically includes everything. Welcome to the 21st century! > > >Except that web browsers accessing web forums in the 21st Century don't do >everything. They can't. Other tools do some things better. That's rather the >point. There are other tools that bring other capabilities to the table. For >example, some of these tools are the NNTP and SMTP and IMAP protocols FWIW, I think SMTP (and IMAP) is on its way out as well. I expect that in 20 years HTTP will still be going strong but SMTP will be a legacy protocol with dwindling recognition (the way NNTP is today). The theories about the superiority of NNTP and SMTP and IMAP are less compelling than the reality that the class of protocols designed for the internet of the 1980s are too susceptible to abuse for use on the modern internet. If SMTP does have a strong presence in 20 years it will probably be in a form that isn't interoperable with a 2018 SMTP implementation. (Which is not entirely impossible; unlike NNTP, SMTP isn't too moribund to evolve. I think it's just unlikely to evolve enough.) Most people currently under the age of 20 probably won't notice that it's gone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-29 03:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wrXCF-1NT-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199537 |
Michael Stone wrote: > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 12:18:59AM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote: > [...] > FWIW, I think SMTP (and IMAP) is on its way out as well. What would SMTP get replaced with? I mean, email is still kind of a big thing (at least in business). -- |_|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 | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-29 09:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ws2VI-58d-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199537 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 09:05:23PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: [...] > FWIW, I think SMTP (and IMAP) is on its way out as well. I expect > that in 20 years HTTP will still be going strong [...] Rather some Google/Amazon/Facebook/Microsoft backed abominable mutation of that. One that (in subtle ways) gives a competitive advantage to centralized services. Cheers - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAluGSPQACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaEJACeMsjCFciphYiFsNQzNWXx+qDD PXEAniE4BslMCfVWftTnSNiHQLLlWukG =XTOf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-29 17:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wsaJA-18K-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199541 |
Michael Stone wrote: > FWIW, I think SMTP (and IMAP) is on its way out as well. I expect > that in 20 years HTTP will still be going strong [...] tomás writes: > Rather some Google/Amazon/Facebook/Microsoft backed abominable > mutation of that. One that (in subtle ways) gives a competitive > advantage to centralized services. I think that SMTP will still be going strong but "consumers" will all use Webmail and all but the largest organizations will either use Webmail as well or contract for email service. You'll be free to run your own server (but not from home: ISPs will block it) but no one will talk to you. I don't think it's a conspiracy. I think most people *like* centralization. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-29 17:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wsaTf-1bV-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199590 |
On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 10:29:25 -0500 John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote: > Michael Stone wrote: > > FWIW, I think SMTP (and IMAP) is on its way out as well. I expect > > that in 20 years HTTP will still be going strong [...] > > tomás writes: > > Rather some Google/Amazon/Facebook/Microsoft backed abominable > > mutation of that. One that (in subtle ways) gives a competitive > > advantage to centralized services. > > I think that SMTP will still be going strong but "consumers" will all > use Webmail and all but the largest organizations will either use > Webmail as well or contract for email service. You'll be free to run > your own server (but not from home: ISPs will block it) but no one > will talk to you. > > I don't think it's a conspiracy. I think most people *like* > centralization. But the very purpose of the Internet is to be decentralised: to avoid a single, or even a few, points of failure. Massive proprietary email providers are just such points of failure. I'm sure it would take nothing short of a geological cataclysm to bring down all Microsoft's servers, but were it to happen, half the businesses on the planet will lose their email (and indeed all their documents and their office applications). We've already seen a number of lesser failures that shouldn't have been possible, entire airlines and banks shut down for a day or two because their systems were centralised and fragile. -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-29 18:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wsbcB-1xz-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199591 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:01:44AM -0500, John Hasler wrote: [...] > > Massive proprietary email providers are just such points of failure. > > True. Explain that to your neighbor and try to convince him that it's a > good reason for him to quit using Gmail. Well, I've succeeded already with a few people moving from gmail/outlook to posteo.de. Every little bit counts. Cheers - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAluGxG8ACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbd9gCeK/p31mw/ujhEcoWyKgAzbdiK 0TwAnRmW32aoW1osUMlhrlp7cZreCJ8B =1m1Q -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-29 19:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wscs1-2bR-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199597 |
tomás writes: > Well, I've succeeded already with a few people moving from > gmail/outlook to posteo.de. Every little bit counts. I'm sure we're losing ground, though. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-29 19:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wscBH-2eN-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199605 |
On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 12:24:42 -0500 John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote: > tomás writes: > > Well, I've succeeded already with a few people moving from > > gmail/outlook to posteo.de. Every little bit counts. > > I'm sure we're losing ground, though. If we get to the point where the majority dictates what Internet facilities the rest may use, we've lost all the ground there is. -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-30 12:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wsrU5-2Qn-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199606 |
Joe wrote: > On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 12:24:42 -0500 > John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote: > >> tomás writes: >> > Well, I've succeeded already with a few people moving from >> > gmail/outlook to posteo.de. Every little bit counts. >> >> I'm sure we're losing ground, though. > > If we get to the point where the majority dictates what Internet > facilities the rest may use, we've lost all the ground there is. > Isn't that what Facebook, et. al. already do? It's AOL all over again. -- |_|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 | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-30 14:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wsuyB-4rG-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199628 |
On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 09:49:06 -0000 (UTC) Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote: > Joe wrote: > > On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 12:24:42 -0500 > > John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote: > > > >> tomás writes: > >> > Well, I've succeeded already with a few people moving from > >> > gmail/outlook to posteo.de. Every little bit counts. > >> > >> I'm sure we're losing ground, though. > > > > If we get to the point where the majority dictates what Internet > > facilities the rest may use, we've lost all the ground there is. > > > Isn't that what Facebook, et. al. already do? It's AOL all over again. > > Not quite yet. I can still invent a completely new protocol, send you the details, and we can exchange data over the Net using it. One day, ISPs will pass nothing but http/s. -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-30 15:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wsvuF-4Zr-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199633 |
Joe wrote: > On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 09:49:06 -0000 (UTC) > Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote: >> Isn't that what Facebook, et. al. already do? It's AOL all over again. >> > Not quite yet. I can still invent a completely new protocol, send you > the details, and we can exchange data over the Net using it. One day, > ISPs will pass nothing but http/s. > Hm, seems like that'd break quite a lot of things that're important to business -- SMTP, SFTP, FTP[*], AS2 ... [*] Please you one last holdout using our ancient FTP service, let's move to the 21st century and use SFTP, please? -- |_|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 | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-30 21:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wsANH-8ey-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199634 |
On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 13:35:35 -0000 (UTC) Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote: > Joe wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 09:49:06 -0000 (UTC) > > Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote: > >> Isn't that what Facebook, et. al. already do? It's AOL all over > >> again. > > Not quite yet. I can still invent a completely new protocol, send > > you the details, and we can exchange data over the Net using it. > > One day, ISPs will pass nothing but http/s. > > > Hm, seems like that'd break quite a lot of things that're important to > business -- SMTP, SFTP, FTP[*], AS2 ... Businesses are heavy users of Office 365, recent MS server infrastructure practically requires it. Bill Gates has been wanting to rent out software practically from the beginning. Files are all kept in 'the cloud'. Even my accountant has outsourced all IT, and she's practically a one-woman-band. -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-31 12:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wsOnE-7Da-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199641 |
Joe wrote: > On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 13:35:35 -0000 (UTC) > Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote: > >> Joe wrote: >> > On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 09:49:06 -0000 (UTC) >> > Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote: >> >> Isn't that what Facebook, et. al. already do? It's AOL all over >> >> again. >> > Not quite yet. I can still invent a completely new protocol, send >> > you the details, and we can exchange data over the Net using it. >> > One day, ISPs will pass nothing but http/s. >> > >> Hm, seems like that'd break quite a lot of things that're important to >> business -- SMTP, SFTP, FTP[*], AS2 ... > > Businesses are heavy users of Office 365, recent MS server And yet they still need SMTP to send email to other businesses, be they on a different o365 cluster, or gmail for business or still a holdout on their own mailserver (not to mention businesses that run linux boxes and have said boxes mailing logs and whatnot to people). -- |_|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 | Dave Sherohman <dave@sherohman.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-04 12:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wugKR-1wT-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199634 |
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 01:35:35PM -0000, Dan Purgert wrote: > [*] Please you one last holdout using our ancient FTP service, let's > move to the 21st century and use SFTP, please? Last week, we decommissioned an ancient server[1] and then got a call two days later from an academic complaining that his web site had disappeared. One of my predecessors had set him up with an arrangement where he FTPed his files to this ancient server, then the actual web host ran a daily cron job to scp files into production. We somehow managed to convince him that the easiest solution would be for him to use SFTP directly to the web server instead, and thus my last FTP user fell. Being rid of that protocol felt even better than I had anticipated. [1] I don't know how old it was exactly - it was here before I started - but it was running a version of Red Hat that was EOLed over a decade ago. -- Dave Sherohman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web