News Group question
Leonidas Jones
news.readfreenews.net. I had understood that these groups were not to
be propagated through Usenet, so I wonder why I can access them though
that server.
Lee
Dave Miller
<Cap...@att.net> wrote:
Someone's probably pulling the messages and feeding them there by hand
(or with a program that's pretending to be a newsreader client instead
of another news server).
There's probably nothing wrong with them mirroring the content, but the
main difference is if you post there it won't show up here.
--
Dave Miller http://www.justdave.net/
System Administrator, Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/
Frank Wein
> Path: authen.yellow.readfreenews.net!green.octanews.net!news-out.octanews.net!teal.octanews.net!news-out1.kabelfoon.nl!newsfeed.kabelfoon.nl!bandi.nntp.kabelfoon.nl!newsfeed.freenet.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.mozilla.org!news.mozilla.org.POSTED!not-for-mail
>
> IMO it would be a Good Thing if someone from Mozilla.org or from
> Giganews could convince t-online.de to stop pulling the content in
> that way. And if they cannot be convinced, Giganews should block
> the t-online IPs in order to stop them.
Well, it seems this is a real feed. I use the provider T-Online, so i
have access to their news server news.t-online.com. I posted a message
to mozilla.test on that newsserver and it appeared here on
news.mozilla.org in mozilla.test, too... If you want to convince
yourself, see <news:dsi2ng$nnq$01$1...@news.t-online.com>, some data from
this test posting:
X-Real-X-Trace: news.t-online.com 1139576368 01 24314 gL0rvwGLFTQvS6oa
060210 12:59:28
X-Real-X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse at t-online.de (Note: i munged the @)
Path:
local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.mozilla.org!news.mozilla.org.POSTED!not-for-mail
Frank
Chris Ilias
> Well, it seems this is a real feed. I use the provider T-Online, so i
> have access to their news server news.t-online.com. I posted a message
> to mozilla.test on that newsserver and it appeared here on
> news.mozilla.org in mozilla.test, too...
Would it be appropriate for MoFo to ask these news admins to remove the
Mozilla groups from their server?
I assume one or more news admins copied the articles directly off n.m.o,
and started feeding them on usenet; thus other admins may not know the
groups are not intended for usenet.
--
Chris Ilias - Mozilla Champion
mozilla.test.multimedia moderator
Mozilla links <http://ilias.ca>
(Please do not email me tech support questions)
gwtc
> _Frank Wein_ spoke thusly on 10/02/2006 10:49 AM:
>
>>Well, it seems this is a real feed. I use the provider T-Online, so i
>>have access to their news server news.t-online.com. I posted a message
>>to mozilla.test on that newsserver and it appeared here on
>>news.mozilla.org in mozilla.test, too...
>
>
> Would it be appropriate for MoFo to ask these news admins to remove the
> Mozilla groups from their server?
> I assume one or more news admins copied the articles directly off n.m.o,
> and started feeding them on usenet; thus other admins may not know the
> groups are not intended for usenet.
I'll add my 2 cents to this. I posted a message to the
mozilla.support.firefox group. I posted it on the aioe.org server.
According to Q
[news://news.mozilla.org:119/MrQ97669CDCA...@QsFQDN.dyndns.org]
the message has been posted to the other usenet servers but it has not
been posted to the news.mozilla.org server. So, this IS going to
cause a problem of some sort. People are be posting to those
newsgroups and they're being accepted on the usenet servers but not
this one.
--
Time for a change
Frank Wein
> _Frank Wein_ spoke thusly on 10/02/2006 10:49 AM:
>> Well, it seems this is a real feed. I use the provider T-Online, so i
>> have access to their news server news.t-online.com. I posted a message
>> to mozilla.test on that newsserver and it appeared here on
>> news.mozilla.org in mozilla.test, too...
>
> Would it be appropriate for MoFo to ask these news admins to remove the
> Mozilla groups from their server?
So in the T-Online case i guess MoFo needs to talk to Giganews, not to
T-Online. If Giganews provides a feed/peer to T-Online with all groups,
why should T-Online then not take it ;).
Frank
Chris Ilias
> Chris Ilias wrote:
>> Would it be appropriate for MoFo to ask these news admins to remove the
>> Mozilla groups from their server?
>
> So in the T-Online case i guess MoFo needs to talk to Giganews, not to
> T-Online. If Giganews provides a feed/peer to T-Online with all groups,
> why should T-Online then not take it ;).
Giganews is not feeding the mozilla.* groups to anyone, but Google
Groups, who know not to pass on the feed. The mozilla.* groups aren't
even available on Giganews accounts.
One or more news admins decided to copy the articles using a method that
does not require a feed. (scumbag tactic, if you ask me)
Frank Wein
> _Frank Wein_ spoke thusly on 10/02/2006 6:41 PM:
>> Chris Ilias wrote:
>>> Would it be appropriate for MoFo to ask these news admins to remove the
>>> Mozilla groups from their server?
>>
>> So in the T-Online case i guess MoFo needs to talk to Giganews, not to
>> T-Online. If Giganews provides a feed/peer to T-Online with all groups,
>> why should T-Online then not take it ;).
>
> Giganews is not feeding the mozilla.* groups to anyone, but Google
> Groups, who know not to pass on the feed. The mozilla.* groups aren't
> even available on Giganews accounts.
But how does this then fit together with news.t-online.com getting their
articles from the Giganews server?
> One or more news admins decided to copy the articles using a method that
> does not require a feed. (scumbag tactic, if you ask me)
Well, at least the Giganews server seems to accept postings for
mozilla.* from the news.t-online.com server. And to be honest, i think
T-Online is not a provider which uses dubious methods to get postings,
but maybe i'm wrong here ;-).
Frank
CC
> Dave Miller <just...@mozilla.com> wrote in
> <news:080220062240072274%just...@mozilla.com>:
>
>> In article <8tadnSqsNpS...@mozilla.org>, Leonidas Jones
>> <Cap...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I just noticed that all the new groups are available through
>>> news.readfreenews.net. I had understood that these groups were
>>> not to be propagated through Usenet, so I wonder why I can access
>>> them though that server.
>> Someone's probably pulling the messages and feeding them there by
>> hand (or with a program that's pretending to be a newsreader
>> client instead of another news server).
>>
>> There's probably nothing wrong with them mirroring the content,
>> but the main difference is if you post there it won't show up
>> here.
>
> this continues. Usenet users won't know that their posts won't
> propagate to the news.mozilla.org server, and they'll just assume
> that they will propagate there. Then they'll be frustrated when
> they don't get helpful responses.
>
> Unfortunately, once groups show up on a Usenet server, many peer
> servers automagically add those groups. It looks like that's what
> is happening in this case.
>
> The two servers I have access to which have the mirrored mozilla.*
> groups are news.readfreenews.com and free.teranews.com. Looking at
> the Path headers, quite a few servers show up. After examining a
> few dozen Paths, it appears that the folks who are pulling from
> Giganews/mozilla are at t-online.de. All the Paths I see have
> t-online next to Giganews. Here's a typical path to readfreenews:
>
> Path: authen.yellow.readfreenews.net!green.octanews.net!news-out.octanews.net!teal.octanews.net!news-out1.kabelfoon.nl!newsfeed.kabelfoon.nl!bandi.nntp.kabelfoon.nl!newsfeed.freenet.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.mozilla.org!news.mozilla.org.POSTED!not-for-mail
>
> IMO it would be a Good Thing if someone from Mozilla.org or from
> Giganews could convince t-online.de to stop pulling the content in
> that way. And if they cannot be convinced, Giganews should block
> the t-online IPs in order to stop them.
>
> servers, but they will appear to those servers' users to be dead
> groups where they won't expect to get help. And we users could start
> contacting various admins to request that they remove the groups
> from their active lists.
>
> Another solution would be for mirrors to keep pulling but to make
> those mirrors read-only, but that seems more difficult to achieve.
>
About the free.teranews.com,is that realy free? they ask for a *username
and password, just wondering.
Tks
CC
Chris Ilias
> Chris Ilias wrote:
>
>> One or more news admins decided to copy the articles using a method that
>> does not require a feed. (scumbag tactic, if you ask me)
>
> Well, at least the Giganews server seems to accept postings for
> mozilla.* from the news.t-online.com server. And to be honest, i think
> T-Online is not a provider which uses dubious methods to get postings,
> but maybe i'm wrong here ;-).
I never said t-online was using that method. They could very well be
receiving a feed from a "scumbag" admin. Which is why I said "thus other
admins may not know the groups are not intended for usenet."
<http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.mozilla-org/msg/557588ca1519a310>
All I'm asking is if it would be appropriate fro MoFo to contact the
admins of any servers carrying the groups, and ask that they remove them.
gwtc
> Chris Ilias <n...@ilias.ca> wrote in
> <news:WvCdnUJY8u-...@mozilla.org>:
>
>
>>_Frank Wein_ spoke thusly on 10/02/2006 10:49 AM:
>>
>>>Well, it seems this is a real feed. I use the provider T-Online,
>>>so i have access to their news server news.t-online.com. I posted
>>>a message to mozilla.test on that newsserver and it appeared here
>>>on news.mozilla.org in mozilla.test, too...
>>
>>Would it be appropriate for MoFo to ask these news admins to
>>remove the Mozilla groups from their server?
>>I assume one or more news admins copied the articles directly off
>>n.m.o, and started feeding them on usenet; thus other admins may
>>not know the groups are not intended for usenet.
>
>
> It would be appropriate, IMO, but not terribly effective,
>
> As long as t-online is feeding the news.mozilla.org posts to Usenet,
> I think that contacting other server admins will be a losing
> proposition. Many servers are (unwisely, IMO) set up to automatically
> add any new group they notice on other servers. I'd guess it's too
> late to stop creation of mozilla.* groups on lots and lots of servers,
> and asking admins to remove them will take a long time.
>
> If the source of the "leak", which appears to be only t-online, can be
> stopped relatively soon, hopefully traffic would mostly die except on
> the mozilla server. Otherwise, I expect traffic will grow on Usenet,
> and it'll get to the point where the only viable solution is just to
> allow peering with Usenet.
>
but the problem is not all the usenet servers are uploading the
replies, as in my test case.
Chris Ilias
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=326759
Matt Nordhoff
Responding to the thread in general, this wouldn't really be a problem
if the groups were made available to Usenet at large. (Though it's kind
of a nasty tactic by T-Online and I think they should be told off for it.)
I suppose this has already been discussed to death somewhere, but I
haven't seen any discussion, only mentions that we were going to test
the water and not do that yet, since it would be somewhat irreversible.
But what's the opinion now? It's already happening without Mozilla's
consent, but it'll make Usenetters at large mad at Mozilla because
they're seemingly being ignored.
I dunno. I've ventured into alt.fan.mozilla a few times, and I'm rather
afraid of the place. The signal-to-noise ratio is quite low (or is "bad"
high?), and I was afraid of an angry mob going after me if I said I
liked or disliked anything related to Mozilla or, really, said anything
at all.
If mozilla.* was available on Usenet, it might become like that. But it
might not. I figure it would get somewhat worse, and if it got much
worse, it might drive off all of the good people and accelerate the
getting worse... That would be very, very bad. I like this community.
So, are the plans to wait longer before deciding? (Or, is the decision
already a final "No."?) I think we could, even now, hold an official
poll/discussion to get the consensus of the community, though I bet a
decent majority will decide to keep it private, at least for a while longer.
Perhaps there should be an announcement in mozilla.announce and the
mozilla.support.* groups directed to the Usenetters that you need to use
news.mozilla.org. I think that would get more good people than bad
people, because there would be some effort required to subscribe to this
server. Before or after that (or at the same time, I guess), it should
be announced that you're trying to block off the rest of Usenet from
getting anything. Perhaps announce it on one of the Usenet servers
distributing the groups, so that the message won't take up space here on
news.mozilla.org.
(I bet I should proofread this message and change the beginning of it
before posting it. But I don't feel like it. I hope I don't sound like
too much of a moron. :-) )
--
Matt Nordhoff, aka Peng
gwtc
{SNIP}
>
> I dunno. I've ventured into alt.fan.mozilla a few times, and I'm rather
> afraid of the place. The signal-to-noise ratio is quite low (or is "bad"
> high?), and I was afraid of an angry mob going after me if I said I
> liked or disliked anything related to Mozilla or, really, said anything
> at all.
>
WHAT!!!!? I'm in that group all the time and I don't see any noise
{SNIP}
Chris Ilias
> Perhaps there should be an announcement in mozilla.announce
mozilla.announce has not been migrated yet.
See: <http://chameleon.mozilla.org/~justdave/temp/news-status.html>
I wonder what's holding it up. :-\
--
Chris Ilias
Leonidas Jones
I agree.
Lee
Matt Nordhoff
> WHAT!!!!? I'm in that group all the time and I don't see any noise
Really? Huh. Well, I dunno. I was last there, um, May 2005. There just
seemed to me to be more flaming and a more threatening atmosphere than
the secnews groups.
Well, still, there goes my guesses, I guess.
Matt Nordhoff
> mozilla.announce has not been migrated yet.
> See: <http://chameleon.mozilla.org/~justdave/temp/news-status.html>
>
> I wonder what's holding it up. :-\
Oh. Huh. That's odd. It's been weeks since they finished up the others,
I wonder what is taking so long? I don't see anything special about that
group, except that maybe if there had previously been a mailing list
version of it (I don't remember), it probably had one of the largest
subscriber lists.
Dave Miller
Nordhoff <mnor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yep, exactly. It's got a HUGE subscriber list, and it's also a list
that doesn't typically get many posts, and the people who read it may
or may not care where the mail actually comes from. It got stalled
because there was debate over how or if to notify the subscribers that
the list was moving. It ended up being decided not to notify them, and
just do it silently. By that time I was on vacation, and I just
haven't made it back to it yet among all the other loose ends to tie up
since I got back from vacation.
Matt Nordhoff
> Yep, exactly. It's got a HUGE subscriber list, and it's also a list
> that doesn't typically get many posts, and the people who read it may
> or may not care where the mail actually comes from. It got stalled
> because there was debate over how or if to notify the subscribers that
> the list was moving. It ended up being decided not to notify them, and
> just do it silently. By that time I was on vacation, and I just
> haven't made it back to it yet among all the other loose ends to tie up
> since I got back from vacation.
Okay. I'm not trying to hurry you or anything, but when do you think it
will be moved over?
(How big is the n.p.m.announce subscriber list? And for comparison, what
was like n.p.m.general?)
Gervase Markham
> _Matt Nordhoff_ spoke thusly on 13/02/2006 4:11 AM:
>> Perhaps there should be an announcement in mozilla.announce
>
> mozilla.announce has not been migrated yet.
> See: <http://chameleon.mozilla.org/~justdave/temp/news-status.html>
>
> I wonder what's holding it up. :-\
The fact that it's a very large subscriber list, and we want to try and
do it silently, without spamming them all.
Gerv
Chris Ilias
> news.readfreenews.net.
I was thinking about this (bug 326759). Are other news admins legally
allowed to mirror the content of news.mozilla.org, without permission?
Matt Nordhoff
> I was thinking about this (bug 326759). Are other news admins legally
> allowed to mirror the content of news.mozilla.org, without permission?
It's not very ethical, but since the stuff is all public domain, I doubt it.
--
Matt Nordhoff
Gervase Markham
> It's not very ethical, but since the stuff is all public domain, I doubt
> it.
The contents of news.mozilla.org are not public domain, and neither is
anything else anyone says on any web forum or medium. All comments and
messages are copyrighted by the poster. However, there is an implied
licence to distribute them through the mechanisms configured to do so
(e.g. NNTP). However, if you wanted to e.g. reproduce them in a
magazine, you would need to get permission if your use fell outside the
bounds of fair use in your jurisdiction.
Gerv
Matt Nordhoff
> The contents of news.mozilla.org are not public domain, and neither is
> anything else anyone says on any web forum or medium. All comments and
> messages are copyrighted by the poster. However, there is an implied
> licence to distribute them through the mechanisms configured to do so
> (e.g. NNTP). However, if you wanted to e.g. reproduce them in a
> magazine, you would need to get permission if your use fell outside the
> bounds of fair use in your jurisdiction.
...Oh.
Well, does that implied license include someone pretending to be a
client and putting the messages on another server?
I would guess that since it's implied, nobody could really get sued over
it, but I dunno.
--
Matt Nordhoff
Gervase Markham
> Well, does that implied license include someone pretending to be a
> client and putting the messages on another server?
If it's a news server or an alternative interface to the same
discussion, probably yes.
Gerv
Chris Ilias
> The fact that it's a very large subscriber list, and we want to try and
> do it silently, without spamming them all.
I've noticed that <https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/announce> exists.
Does this mean the announce list has been transferred, and we can
finally close the almighty bug 62228? :-)
Dave Miller
<n...@ilias.ca> wrote:
> _Gervase Markham_ spoke thusly on 17/02/2006 11:07 AM:
> > The fact that it's a very large subscriber list, and we want to try and
> > do it silently, without spamming them all.
>
> I've noticed that <https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/announce> exists.
> Does this mean the announce list has been transferred, and we can
> finally close the almighty bug 62228? :-)
Yes and no. I still have to kill off all the old mail gateways for the
netscape.public.mozilla.* groups that didn't move (there were quite a
few that were just outright abandoned).
Chris Ilias
> In article <AJmdnVmcaoL604LZ...@mozilla.org>, Chris Ilias
> <n...@ilias.ca> wrote:
>
>> Does this mean the announce list has been transferred, and we can
>> finally close the almighty bug 62228? :-)
>
> Yes and no. I still have to kill off all the old mail gateways for the
> netscape.public.mozilla.* groups that didn't move (there were quite a
> few that were just outright abandoned).
Bug 328762 [Disable all of the old mozilla-* mail<->news gateways] is
fixed. Is there anything else that needs to be done before marking bug
62228 as fixed?
Dave Miller
<n...@ilias.ca> wrote:
> Bug 328762 [Disable all of the old mozilla-* mail<->news gateways] is
> fixed. Is there anything else that needs to be done before marking bug
> 62228 as fixed?
No.