The NNTP servers I use. 

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

The NNTP servers I use:

newsRead.Glorb.COM <- Text only, unfiltered, $10/year.
Reader.XSusenet.COM <- Free, Good. "text/HTML" allowed.

usNews.BlockNews.NET <- Has 10+ year old posts, DEEP.
News.US.Usenet-News.NET <- $12 for 50 gigabytes.

Google Groups <- The only cost⋅free Usenet search, but it's weak.
Only way to "HTTP:" link to your posts.

I woulnd't use:

teranews <- NOT good, too unreliable. BAD.
aioe <- Too Censorious. Drops "text/HTML" posts.

mixmin <- Pointless encryption is REQUIRED.
Drops "text/HTML" posts,
promotes "multipart/alternative".

eternal september <- Drops "text/HTML" posts,
promotes "multipart/alternative".

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

You ( Addison⋅Brecht ) asked me:
> Do you post or just read with the reader.xsusenet.com server?
> (I wasn't able to get the posting to work so that's why I ask)

"Reader.XSusenet.COM" doesn't let me post.
I didn't know that when I made my previous post, sorry.

Were Glorb to go down ( it never does ),
I'd use XSusenet to update newsgroups.

Article numbers vary from server to server;
so my newsreader ( http://Jeff-Relf.Me/X.HTM )
remembers the last 9 message⋅IDs.

Using mIDs, I can swith servers on⋅the⋅fly,
from Glorb ( left⋅click ) to XSusenet ( right⋅click ) and back,
without losing track of my "read/unread" articles ( body and header ).

P.S. Do you have anything to do with
the "Addison.COM" in your "From:" line ? !

[Addison]

Jeff-Relf.Me wrote on Wed, 01 May 2013 07:26:30 -0700:

> P.S. Do you have anything to do with
> the "Addison.COM" in your "From:" line ? !

Nope. I just put something there so folks would know
it's not a real email address. Addison is my middle
name.

More to your point ...

What is the proper way to put an email address (which
my news client insists upon) without putting an email
address anyway?

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Addison⋅Brecht, "From: Jeff-Relf.Me <@.>" works for me; i.e. "@.".

As it stands now, spammers are sending emails to <Addison<@>Addison.com>;
i.e. "Addison.COM" must react to those emails.

By the way... What newsreader/OS are you using ?

[Steve Crook]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 13:09:12 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me wrote in
Message-Id: <Jeff-Relf.Me@May.1{13.09.Seattle.2013}>:

> Addison⋅Brecht, "From: Jeff-Relf.Me <@.>" works for me; i.e. "@.".

$ dig . soa +short
a.root-servers.net. nstld.verisign-grs.com. 2013050101 1800 900 604800
86400

Your email address states you are in the DNS root domain. :)

--
What shall we use
To fill the empty spaces
Where we used to talk?

[Addison]

Jeff-Relf.Me wrote on Wed, 01 May 2013 13:09:12 -0700:

> spammers are sending emails to <Addison<@>Addison.com>

I just changed it to 'nob...@nowhere.com'.
Is that what most people do?
Or is there a better way to satisfy the need for an
email address in order to keep the newsreader happy?

> What newsreader/OS are you using ?

Pan on Centos.

I tried finding xnews on Centos but there wasn't any
repository. I don't want to build from source so a
tested repository is important. Pan was the only
one I knew of that I could find - but I'm not beholden
to Pan.

[Addison]

Steve Crook wrote on Wed, 01 May 2013 20:22:28 +0000:

> Your email address states you are in the DNS root domain.

If that's directed towards me, I have no idea what it
means to be in the "DNS root domain".

Just to be clear, my name contains "Addison" but I
don't want to give my real email, so, I'm just making
one up.

If there is a 'standard' for making up bogus email addresses
to satisfy the need for the newsreader to have one, then
let me know and I'll use that protocol (whatever it is).

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Addison⋅Brecht... Now spammers are sending emails to
<nobody<@>NowHere.COM>, which isn't any better.

If you don't like "<@.>", try "<Addison...@Example.COM>".

<Example.COM> is reserved, it's a dummy domain.

Also, I recomend Mozilla Thunderbird over Pan
because Thunderbird renders HTML and it lets you skin EVERYTHING,
including the body of emails ( via "userContent.CSS"✼ ).
[ ✼: http://Jeff-Relf.Me/userContent.CSS.TXT ]

slrn is also good.

P.S. Are you a SysOp of some kind ? if so, how so ?

[Addison]

Jeff-Relf.Me wrote on Wed, 01 May 2013 15:43:11 -0700:

> <Example.COM> is reserved, it's a dummy domain.

Kewl. I never knew there were any dummy domains.
I've set it as such.

[Addison]

Jeff-Relf.Me wrote on Wed, 01 May 2013 15:43:11 -0700:

> Also, I recomend Mozilla Thunderbird

I tried setting it up and failed.
Thunderbird wants an incoming and outgoing user name?
What is that for nntp?
Thunderbird also had no spot for the NNTP server and port
in the initial setup - so - TB is certainly not intuitive
to set up for NNTP. It seems to try to treat NNTP as SMTP,
which isn't at all the same thing.

But, I'm sure that was just beginner's crud; which I can
get over - but my first impression isn't good.

> slrn is also good.
I looked it up. It's a text-only NNTP client. My mistake for
not saying I am looking for a GUI.

> P.S. Are you a SysOp of some kind ? if so, how so ?

Far from it. I'm just your basic Linux user who learns
by using the thing. Never took a class. Just loaded it
and started using it.

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq�]

"Addison" <nob...@example.com> wrote in message
news:kls77e$qrq$6...@news.albasani.net...

Hello Seamus!

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Mozilla Thunderbird is the most popular Usenet/eMail app.

I leaned to set up Thunderbird years ago;
and, yes, the learning curve was kind of steep.

In Thunderbird's main menu, select "Tools" then "Account Settings..."
then "Account Actions" ( bottom left ).

You don't have to setup an inbox or anything like that;
no SMTP, POP nor IMAP.

You have to tell Thunderbird to remember your password.

Later, you'll be prompted to enter a password, and it will remember it,
just like FireFox does. Thunderbird works like FireFox, it's a fork.

[Whiskers]

The approved method is to put "invalid.com" or "invalid.invalid"; those
domain names are reserved specifically to be used when you don't want to
get any emails yourself or inflict them on anyone else.

"addison.com" exists; it has email servers. So unless it's yours, don't
use it. Using someone else's email address could get your usenet account
withdrawn by your ISP or NSP.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[andrew]

On 2013-05-02, Jeff-Relf.Me <> wrote:

> Mozilla Thunderbird is the most popular Usenet/eMail app.

I prefer the twin brothers slrn/mutt :)

Andrew
--
Do you think that's air you're breathing?

[Ray Banana]

On 7184 September 1993, Whiskers wrote:

> The approved method is to put "invalid.com" or "invalid.invalid"; those
> domain names are reserved specifically to be used when you don't want to
> get any emails yourself or inflict them on anyone else.

No. According to RFC 5536, a domain name ending with .invalid should be
used in this case.

--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.
http://www.eternal-september.org

[Dave Sparks]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 21:11:12 +0000, Addison wrote:

> I just changed it to 'nob...@nowhere.com'. Is that what most people do?
> Or is there a better way to satisfy the need for an email address in
> order to keep the newsreader happy?

nowhere.com exists, and is owned by Burda Wireless GmbH (who might have
intended it to be read as "now here".

The TLD to use for dummy addresses is ".invalid". For examples in
documentation or skeleton configuration files use ".example.com". For
testing use ".test". All these are reserved for these purposes.

Jeff Relf is best ignored.

[Steve Crook]

On Wed, 1 May 2013 21:13:08 +0000 (UTC), Addison wrote in
Message-Id: <kls0h4$qrq$3...@news.albasani.net>:

>
>> Your email address states you are in the DNS root domain.
>
> If that's directed towards me, I have no idea what it
> means to be in the "DNS root domain".

No, it was directed at Jeff. The period '.' is the anchor on domain
names in DNS. An email address that ends in @. states the user in at
the room of the DNS tree. Like this:-

. (root)
com., org., net. (Top Level domains)
google.com., mixmin.net., twitter.com. (Second level domains)

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·]

"Sn!pe" <sn...@dead.address.invalid> wrote in
message news:1l28dg0.okreva1409pgvN%sn...@dead.address.invalid...

> While we may have crossed swords in the past, Greg, I must agree that
> Addison bears many similarities to shameless Seamus MacRae, "Viet Nam
> veteran" and sock-puppet of notorious .net-abuser Paul Derbyshire. Many
> of us have been expecting Derbyshire to trot out some new socks as he is
> apparently retiring his "kensi" puppet. I expect "Nadegda" will be next
> to disappear.


Agreed. Derbyshire likes to gather low-hanging fruit. It got so that
with his "Tetrarchy" socks he was having to climb high on the ladder
in order to reach any fruit at all.

So, it's pretty obvious why he ends up starting from scratch time
and time again.

[auk added]

--
Sir Gregory

[Whiskers]

On 2013-05-02, Ray Banana <ray...@banana.shacknet.nu> wrote:
> On 7184 September 1993, Whiskers wrote:
>
>> The approved method is to put "invalid.com" or "invalid.invalid"; those
>> domain names are reserved specifically to be used when you don't want to
>> get any emails yourself or inflict them on anyone else.
>
> No. According to RFC 5536, a domain name ending with .invalid should be
> used in this case.

<stands corrected>

[Checkmate]

Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate!

On Thu, 2 May 2013 13:13:42 -0400, Sir Gregory Hall, Esqￜ put forth
the notion that:

>
> "Sn!pe" <sn...@dead.address.invalid> wrote in
> message news:1l28dg0.okreva1409pgvN%sn...@dead.address.invalid...

Haven't seen Andy around lately either.

--
Checkmate
KotAGoR XXXIV
AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012
co-winner, Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker award, May 2001
Copyright ￜ 2012
all rights reserved


I'm Checkmate, and I approve this message...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpZhZAr1cQU


Read what others are saying about Checkmate!
_____________________________________________________________________

"I keep forgetting you've been doing this for so long that it's easy
for you. I can't wait to piss on your grave."

Uncle Steve

Message-ID: <b18ab6cb2c...@gmail.com>
_____________________________________________________________________

"Did... did you just tell someone to attempt to ROT-13 *numbers*, you
Clueless Newbie of the Month candidate?"

Paul Derbyshire, socked-up as [tor] Phoenix

Message-ID: <k3ae35$prb$1...@news.mixmin.net>
_____________________________________________________________________

"Nov. 1 can't come quickly enough for me. I really, REALLY want to put
that little + in the box for your Creepy Candy Coating on the ballot,
so badly my hand is twitching. And I'm sorely tempted to rustle up a
couple dozen sockpuppets and stuff the ballot box just to make
absolutely sure you "win" it, you fucking lech!"

Paul Derbyshire, socked up as Andrew Wilson

Message-ID: <9870030e-6c49-4f16-af9e-
070a57...@g18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>
_____________________________________________________________________

"You can sit there all you want and spit out all the denial you can
muster, it still doesn't change the fact that you are the current
king shit of the puppeteers in this group."

-Ragnar
_____________________________________________________________________

"You have got to be the biggest butt fucking moron in this place.
You use socks and then admit to it? What the fuck is the point?"

-Ragnar, socked-up as "Wildhare"
_____________________________________________________________________

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

INN requires an email address, so I use <@.>.

INN should NOT require an email address because:

1. Were it real, it'd get trashed.

2. Normally, it's not real; i.e. it's the worst kind of SPAM,
exactly were you'd rather not see it. And it's MISLEADING.

Instead, the "From:" line should contain a "homepage" URL.

By the way, "invalid.com" is a funny website, check it out.

[Shmuel Metz]

In <klr9ds$qrq$1...@news.albasani.net>, on 05/01/2013

at 02:38 PM, Addison <Add...@Addison.com> said:

>What is the proper way to put an email address (which
>my news client insists upon) without putting an email
>address anyway?

Use a TLD of "invalid", e,g, From: f...@bar.baz.invalid

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·]

"Checkmate" <Lunati...@The.Edge> wrote in
message news:6hr2up....@news.alt.net...
> Sir Gregory Hall, Esq· put forth the notion that:
>> "Sn!pe" <sn...@dead.address.invalid> wrote ...

>> > Sir Gregory Hall, Esq· <greghall@home.fÂke> wrote:

>> >> "Addison" <nob...@example.com> wrote . . .
>> >> > Jeff-Relf.Me wrote ...

>> scratch, time and time again.

>>
>> [auk added]
>
> Haven't seen Andy around lately either.

Andy?

[Checkmate]

Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate!

On Fri, 3 May 2013 12:55:18 -0400, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq· put forth

Andrew Wilson, the cackler.

--
Checkmate
KotAGoR XXXIV
AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012
co-winner, Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker award, May 2001

Copyright © 2012

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq�]

"Checkmate" <Lunati...@The.Edge> wrote in
message news:6htiie....@news.alt.net...

> Sir Gregory Hall, Esq� put forth the notion that:
>> "Checkmate" <Lunati...@The.Edge> wrote in
>> message news:6hr2up....@news.alt.net...
>> > Sir Gregory Hall, Esq� put forth the notion that:
>> >> "Sn!pe" <sn...@dead.address.invalid> wrote ...

Oh, that Andy? Bah, he was just another sock and
bit player in the Tetrarchy. He schlepped outta here
even before Kensi flounced. Unfortunately Bill was
never able to impart an independent character on
that sock.

The Tetrarchy had been shrinking noticeably prior to
Kensi's lie about being 'too busy' to post due to an
engagement. What a joke! Many of us have been
engaged and it sure doesn't take up any significant
amount of time.

Why don't these bit actors have the decency to come
right out and say, "It was fun while it lasted but it ended
up being altogether too much work trying to keep
up the pretense, and, besides, too many subscribers
finally managed to see through the scam primarily
because of sleuths like Sir Gregory and Checkmate
who exposed the many inconsistencies of the ruse -
things like character mix-ups, obvious males trying to
act and sound like females, quite apparent lack of Ph.D.
- level knowledge in astrophysics (Kensi), total ignorance
of tech stuff and the economy from a claimed techie (Nads),
and an often instantaneous knowledge by one of what
another was doing or was planning to do - it's as if Nads
and Kensi expected us to believe they had ESP or
something.

There was no Tetrarchy. There is no Tetrarchy. There is one,
two-bit actor joined at the hip with three socks. Bill is the two-
bit actor. Andrew was his sock sidekick. Kensi and Nads
were Bill's female socks. At least Bill managed to develop
their characters to be somewhat believable, although a lot
too shallow in many critical areas of development.

Bill never fooled me for one single solitary minute. I played
the Rube like a kitten plays with a ball of twine.


--
Sir Gregory

[Shmuel Metz]

In <kls0df$qrq$2...@news.albasani.net>, on 05/01/2013

at 09:11 PM, Addison <nob...@nowhere.com> said:

>I just changed it to 'nob...@nowhere.com'.
>Is that what most people do?

Not those who RTFRFC.

>Or is there a better way to satisfy the need for an
>email address in order to keep the newsreader happy?

[Alfred Fox]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 05:50:39 +0200, Ray Banana wrote:

> According to RFC 5536, a domain name ending with .invalid should be used
> in this case.

What's the functional difference between f...@is.invalid &
f...@example.com ?

[Alfred Fox]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 12:37:50 -0700, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:

> INN should NOT require an email address because:
> 1. Were it real, it'd get trashed.
> 2. Normally, it's not real

In this day and age, nobody in his right mind would give
out their email address, lest they wish it to be filled
with spam in short order.

Pan also requires an email address, and, nobody in their right
mind would give theirs out for those very same reasons.

I'm guessing the nntp protocol may require the email address?

If so, the nntp client should ask if the user wants to use a
valid one or not and leave it at that (auto generating an invalid
one if necessary).

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler {One Of Four}]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt.
<snicker>

Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·, in
<news:6htp25....@news.alt.net> did thusly write:

> The Gay Retarded Drug-Addicted Chimp (aka "Checkmate")

> <Lunati...@The.Edge> wrote in message
> news:6htiie....@news.alt.net...

>> Sir Gregory Hall, Esq· put forth the notion that:

>>> The Gay Retarded Drug-Addicted Chimp (aka
>>> "Checkmate") <Lunati...@The.Edge> wrote in

>>> message news:6hr2up....@news.alt.net...

>>>> Sir Gregory Hall, Esq· put forth the notion that:

>>>>> The Retarded Swamp Vulture (aka "Tr!pe")
>>>>> <sn...@dead.address.invalid> wrote ...

Andrew Wilson isn't my sock, he's a real person, Gweggles.

> The Tetrarchy had been shrinking noticeably prior to
> Kensi's lie about being 'too busy' to post due to an
> engagement. What a joke! Many of us have been
> engaged and it sure doesn't take up any significant
> amount of time.

Not just an engagement, Gweggles, she's preparing to be wed.
That takes a lot of work and a lot of planning.

You're just butthurt that she chose an egghead over your
troglodytic ass.

> Why don't these bit actors have the decency to come
> right out and say, "It was fun while it lasted but it ended
> up being altogether too much work trying to keep
> up the pretense, and, besides, too many subscribers
> finally managed to see through the scam primarily
> because of sleuths like Sir Gregory and Checkmate
> who exposed the many inconsistencies of the ruse -
> things like character mix-ups, obvious males trying to
> act and sound like females, quite apparent lack of Ph.D.
> - level knowledge in astrophysics (Kensi),

Except she proved that she did have knowledge in that field
at that level, Gweggles.

> total ignorance
> of tech stuff and the economy from a claimed techie (Nads),

She's a programmer, not a computer tech, Gweggles. She
proved her mettle by posting the source code of a few of her
original programs.

> and an often instantaneous knowledge by one of what
> another was doing or was planning to do - it's as if Nads
> and Kensi expected us to believe they had ESP or
> something.

Ever heard of email, Gweggles? Personally, I don't use it
for communication with usenetters, preferring to use
TorChat.

> There was no Tetrarchy. There is no Tetrarchy.

And yet, there is.

> There is one,
> two-bit actor joined at the hip with three socks.

Wrong.

> Bill is the two-
> bit actor. Andrew was his sock sidekick. Kensi and Nads
> were Bill's female socks.

Wrong.

> At least Bill managed to develop
> their characters to be somewhat believable, although a lot
> too shallow in many critical areas of development.
>
> Bill never fooled me for one single solitary minute. I played
> the Rube like a kitten plays with a ball of twine.

Well, your historical revisionist fanfic was nice, but
there's one problem with it, Gweggles... I don't run socks.

But your admission that the Tetrarchy is playing you like a
Rotweiler plays with a kitten is noted, kitten.

<snicker>

--

/\ Properly known as Bill
\ /\ The Monster You Kooks Can't Handle
\ / \ THERE IS NO CABAL - LONG LIVE THE NEW CABAL
\/ The AUK coup is complete. The Old Cabal is no more.

Accept no substitutes...
if it's from Databasix, it's a sure bet it's from a kook.

databasix.com netbasix.net ncfast.net usfast.net:
all branches of the same malignant tree.

April 2013 Kook Awards Voting Ballot:

Message-ID: <klq94t$pr9$5...@newsfeed.x-privat.org>

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/browse_thread/thread/863e819ca2bee288/4781057ed0011009

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/4781057ed0011009

http://alt.usenet.kooks.narkive.com/23BW1ftq/april-2013-kook-awards-official-voting-ballot

http://alt.usenet.kooks.narkive.com/23BW1ftq/

http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?STYPE=msgid&A=0&MSGI=%3Cklq94t%24pr9%245%40newsfeed.x-privat.org%3E

http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=136738686100

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Yes, Alfred⋅Fox, "the nntp protocol" requires an email address;
but only the INN server app is foolish enough to enforce it.

Other NNTP server apps know better, of course.

Compared to Pan, slrn is better at scoring
and Mozilla Thunderbird is better at displaying UTF⋅8/HTML.

[Ray Banana]

host example.com
example.com has address 192.0.43.10
example.com has IPv6 address 2001:500:88:200::10

host is.invalid
Host is.invalid not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
Host is.invalid not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)

[Ray Banana]

On 7186 September 1993, Jeff-Relf Me wrote:

> Compared to Pan, slrn is better at scoring

I use exactly the same scorefile for slrn and Pan. D'oh.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

In the right hands, slrn handles UTF⋅8/HTML better than Pan.

I thought maybe it was better at scoring bodies/headers too;
but, as you can see, I don't actually know. I've never used Pan.

[Michael Moroney]

Alfred Fox <af...@example.com> writes:

>I'm guessing the nntp protocol may require the email address?

The NNTP protocol itself (RFC 3977) doesn't care about the From: line,
however the standard format for Usenet articles and their headers
(RFC 5536/5537, replacing 1036) does, in fact, require it to be an email
address. The NNTP protocol defines how messages are exchanged between
news servers and only cares about a few headers (such as Message-ID: and
Path:), and From: isn't one of them.

The definition of the From: header probably needs to be revisited,with so
many people messing with it in different ways to avoid spam harvesters.

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq�]

"I Bought DataBasix" <ow...@databasix.com> wrote in
message news:km3212$b21$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
> On Fri, 03 May 2013 18:49:50 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote:
>
>>Yes, Alfred?Fox, "the nntp protocol" requires an email address;

>>but only the INN server app is foolish enough to enforce it.
>>
>>Other NNTP server apps know better, of course.
>

> INN is the one following standards. Fools hate standards, Fool.

Fools hate standards? Is that why DataBasix is run as an abuse
server?

[Steve Bonine]

On 5/4/13 8:51 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:

> The definition of the From: header probably needs to be revisited,with so
> many people messing with it in different ways to avoid spam harvesters.

The contents of From: is either useful or useless depending on whether
the sender is living in fear of spam. The definition of the header will
not change that.

Defining a standard way of obfuscating the email address would make it
possible to decode it in the client and thus generate an email response
to the sender. Spam harvesters could use the same algorithm, so those
who are aghast that anyone would use their real email address would
still live in fear that spammers might snag their address.

[[Tor] Andrew Wilson]

On Fri, 3 May 2013 15:34:59 -0400, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq· wrote:

> "Checkmate" <Lunati...@The.Edge> wrote in
> message news:6htiie....@news.alt.net...
>> Sir Gregory Hall, Esq· put forth the notion that:
>>> "Checkmate" <Lunati...@The.Edge> wrote in
>>> message news:6hr2up....@news.alt.net...
>>> > Sir Gregory Hall, Esq· put forth the notion that:
>>> >> "Sn!pe" <sn...@dead.address.invalid> wrote ...

To quote a friend of mine: "What does your classic unsubstantiated and
erroneous claim have to do with OS/2, ko0ky?"

<cackle>

[Shmuel Metz]

In <slrnko3adp.7...@ID-107770.user.individual.net>, on
05/02/2013

at 12:48 AM, Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> said:

>The approved method is to put "invalid.com" or "invalid.invalid";

No; the approved method is to use a TLD of "invalid". An SLD of
"invalid" has no special significance. Perhaps you are thinking of 3.
Reserved Example Second Level Domain Names in RFC 2606 Reserved Top
Level DNS Names. See 2. TLDs for Testing, & Documentation Examples in
RFC 2606 or 3.4. Duties of a Posting Agent in RFC 5537 Netnews
Architecture and Protocols.

[Mike Easter]

One could simplify or define the issues.

There should be a From: Yes; how it is populated depends

There should be a Reply-To: Yes; how and if it is populated depends.

Antispam with no interest in correspondence should simply munge the From
with a proper .invalid

The current 'best practices' for those who do not desire spam and eschew
XOVER harvesters but while encouraging email correspondence might be to
munge the From with an invalid and/but populate the Reply-To with
legitimate, since the Reply-To isn't in the XOVER. However there are
harvesting schemes which can also scrape everything including the Reply-To.

Those who eschew both XOVER while also discouraging news to email
transitioning would not populate the Reply-To.


--
Mike Easter

[Shmuel Metz]

In <km1gdr$iqb$4...@news.albasani.net>, on 05/03/2013

at 11:15 PM, Alfred Fox <af...@example.com> said:

>What's the functional difference between f...@is.invalid &
>f...@example.com ?

From RFC 2606

".invalid" is intended for use in online construction of
domain names that are sure to be invalid and which it is
obvious at a glance are invalid.

There is no such statement for example.com, example.edu or
example.org.

From RFC 5537:

Contrary to [RFC5322], which implies that the mailbox or
mailboxes in the From header field should be that of the poster
or posters, a poster who does not, for whatever reason, wish to
use his own mailbox MAY use any mailbox ending in the top-level
domain ".invalid" [RFC2606].

There is no such statement for example.com, example.edu or
example.org.

[Shmuel Metz]

In <km33po$pef$1...@pcls6.std.com>, on 05/04/2013
at 01:51 PM, mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
said:

>The definition of the From: header probably needs to be
>revisited,with so many people messing with it in different ways to
>avoid spam harvesters.

That's not the fault of the Netnews specifications, it's because they
didn't RTFRFC. From RFC 5537:

Contrary to [RFC5322], which implies that the mailbox or
mailboxes in the From header field should be that of the poster
or posters, a poster who does not, for whatever reason, wish to
use his own mailbox MAY use any mailbox ending in the top-level
domain ".invalid" [RFC2606].

[Frank Slootweg]

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
> In <km33po$pef$1...@pcls6.std.com>, on 05/04/2013
> at 01:51 PM, mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> said:
>
> >The definition of the From: header probably needs to be
> >revisited,with so many people messing with it in different ways to
> >avoid spam harvesters.
>
> That's not the fault of the Netnews specifications, it's because they
> didn't RTFRFC. From RFC 5537:
>
> Contrary to [RFC5322], which implies that the mailbox or
> mailboxes in the From header field should be that of the poster
> or posters, a poster who does not, for whatever reason, wish to
> use his own mailbox MAY use any mailbox ending in the top-level
> domain ".invalid" [RFC2606].

Most people will understand what RFC 5537 *meant* to say, but a
*bogus* [1] "mailbox ending in the top-level domain ".invalid"
[RFC2606]", i.e. like the one in my From header, is *not* a 'mailbox'.
It's a string of characters which - more or less - has the *format* of a
mailbox, but it *is* not a 'mailbox'.

So despite what RFC 5537 says, the confusion, whining, flaming,
<whatever>, will continue.

[1] Using a real mailbox ending in the top-level domain ".invalid" is of
course rather useless/stupid.

[Russ Allbery]

I'm sure that's true, but I doubt it's because of that reason. Only a few
people are going to care about the difference between a mailbox
conceptually and a mailbox as an ABNF production. (For the record, I
believe the latter meaning was intended.)

Netnews is between a rock and a hard place here, with no particularly
appealing solutions. Compatibility with the mail message format is a core
and mandatory feature of netnews, if for no other reason than the number
of combined clients that break if you break that compatibility is
daunting. However, the mail standardization folks are completely
uninterested in allowing invalid (from their perspective) From headers.
The above was a compromise, and even it was quite controversial at the
time.

(That's putting aside the question of whether private replies should be
actively encouraged by the standard, which is another controversial
question. I realize most of the people reading this particular set of
newsgroups probably feels they shouldn't be, based on past threads, but I
can assure you there was a different breakdown of opinion in the working
group.)

At this point, I'm 95% certain that there are no longer sufficient
resources interested in active development of netnews standards to reopen
the base format document and prepare a revision, so whatever the standards
say now is pretty much what they're going to say, for good or for ill.

--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Please post questions rather than mailing me directly.
<http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/questions.html> explains why.

[Shmuel Metz]

In <av4ie4...@mid.individual.net>, on 05/10/2013

at 03:35 PM, Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> said:

> Most people will understand what RFC 5537 *meant* to say, but a
>*bogus* [1] "mailbox ending in the top-level domain ".invalid"
>[RFC2606]", i.e. like the one in my From header, is *not* a
>'mailbox'.

It satisfies the syntax for given in RFC 5321:

mailbox = name-addr / addr-spec

[Frank Slootweg]

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

> In <av4ie4...@mid.individual.net>, on 05/10/2013
> at 03:35 PM, Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> said:
>
> > Most people will understand what RFC 5537 *meant* to say, but a
> >*bogus* [1] "mailbox ending in the top-level domain ".invalid"
> >[RFC2606]", i.e. like the one in my From header, is *not* a
> >'mailbox'.
>
> It satisfies the syntax for given in RFC 5321:
>
> mailbox = name-addr / addr-spec

Yes, I said/implied that in the part you snipped, but the RFC says
"MAY use any mailbox", not "MAY use the syntax for a mailbox". You can't
'use' something which *isn't* such a something.

Russ said that he believes the ABNF production was meant, so we three
agree, but my point was that what it says will mean different things for
different people.

So the war goes on! :-)

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Russ⋅Allbery... Plenty of "From:" lines have no email address.

Only INN ( the server app ) requires an email address.
So newsreaders already handle it, no problem.

The "From:" line should contain a name and/or a URL, not an email address.
INN should stop requiring the '@' character.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Again, RFC 2606 says: ＜＜

".invalid" is intended for use in online construction of
domain names that are sure to be invalid and which it is

obvious at a glance are invalid. ＞＞

Sure, but "<@.>" or "" ( nothing ) is even MORE OBVIOUS;
e.g. "From: Jeff-Relf.Me <@.>" or, better yet, "From: Jeff-Relf.Me".

"<Cr...@Junk.Invalid>" is SPAM per se.

INN ( the server app ) should stop requiring the '@' character.

The "From:" line should contain a name and/or a URL, not an email address.

Plenty of "From:" lines have no email address; newreaders handle it !

[tlvp]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 13:39:32 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:

> ... or, better yet, "From: Jeff-Relf.Me" ...

You're showing a domain there, with TLD .me ... now all you need is a
username, and you'd have a valid email address :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[bi...@mix.com]

In news.software.nntp Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:

> At this point, I'm 95% certain that there are no longer sufficient
> resources interested in active development of netnews standards to reopen
> the base format document and prepare a revision, so whatever the standards
> say now is pretty much what they're going to say, for good or for ill.

So it seems.

On the bright side, I'm glad I lived long enough to see propagation
working as well as it now does. Heh.

As for posting with a non-spammable address, the username "nobody"
is valid, but goes directly to /dev/null on many email systems. I
think this is better than many "fake" addresses I've seen, in which
the domain actually does, or someday could, belong to someone.

My email address has remained the same since before junk email existed,
so concealing it now wouldn't do any good.....

Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number

[Russ Allbery]

bi...@MIX.COM writes:

> My email address has remained the same since before junk email existed,
> so concealing it now wouldn't do any good.....

Yeah, likewise. Honestly, I think it's a bit of a tempest in a teapot,
but that's probably just because I never had a private email address and
was forced to put together the infrastructure to filter out ~1000 spam
messages a day, so it's no longer any big deal. (Personally, I trained
bogofilter, which works quite well and takes care of nearly all of it with
very little attention on my part.)

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu>, I sent you an email.

In <news:87ppww5...@windlord.stanford.edu>,
you say your email⋅spam filters work well, so I'm testing it.

If "<r...@stanford.edu>" or "<Cr...@Junk.Invalid>" doesn't work,
then it is itself SPAM, right off the bat.

Again:

"<@.>" or "" ( nothing ) OBVIOUSLY doesn't work;
e.g. "From: Jeff-Relf.Me <@.>" or, better yet, "From: Jeff-Relf.Me".

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

I thought you ( Russ Allbery ) never saw my posts.

My email wouldn't get past your spam filters, I assumed.
I was wrong. I sent you no prior emails, by the way.

Re: INN should stop requiring the '@' character.

You replied ( via email ): ＜＜

I do understand your point;
it's just not something that personally interests me. ＞＞

I don't run INN myself and Geoff Brozny ( sysop<@>Glorb.COM )
won't modify INN for me; hence the stupid "<@.>" in my "From:" line.

"From: Jeff-Relf.Me <Nob...@Jeff-Relf.Me>" would be too verbose,
too repetitive; it would be SPAM in its own right.

Were I to use, "From: Nob...@Jeff-Relf.Me",
people would call me "Mr. Nobody" and/or filter me out.
"From: Jeff-Relf.Me" would be MUCH better, INN should allow it.

[Russ Allbery]

Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:

> I thought you ( Russ Allbery ) never saw my posts.

No, I actually do read all of them (at least that are posted to
news.software.nntp). I just generally don't have a lot to say -- I'm
still somewhat interested in NNTP and in INN, and I would like to find
time to work on it more, but most of the things that bother you aren't
things that light my personal fire. So even if I had the time, which I
don't have much of right at the moment, I'd probably not be working on
this.

So much virtual ink has been spilled over the role of email addresses in
netnews over the years that I'm basically burned out on the whole topic.
So I just leave people to say their peace and do what they want to do. :)

Unless I'm misremembering, INN has worked the way that it does in this
regard for a very, very long time.

[amitie]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 02:03:13 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>In message <kmokjt$6np$1...@reader1.panix.com>

> bi...@MIX.COM <bi...@MIX.COM> wrote:
>> In news.software.nntp Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>>> At this point, I'm 95% certain that there are no longer sufficient
>>> resources interested in active development of netnews standards to reopen
>>> the base format document and prepare a revision, so whatever the standards
>>> say now is pretty much what they're going to say, for good or for ill.
>
>> So it seems.
>
>> On the bright side, I'm glad I lived long enough to see propagation
>> working as well as it now does. Heh.
>

>You don't miss the good ol days when USENET was still often propagated
>over UUCP, usually at night, and a post could take four or five days to
>appear everywhere? Those were some grand old days!

---
Free reading Usenet Access news://nntp.homeip.net
Web Access to usenet http://mccarragher.com/cgi-bin/dnewsweb.exe
UUCP files ftp://mccarragher.com

[Steve Crook]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 16:36:28 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me wrote in
Message-Id: <Jeff-R...@May.12{16.36.Seattle.2013}>:

> Re: INN should stop requiring the '@' character.

It requires the '@' character because more complex email validation is
expensive. I use a Perl hook to validate the address format and the
TLD (or .invalid) but that's a local customization.

> I don't run INN myself

This is probably the first change to make if you want a customized
service.

--
What shall we use
To fill the empty spaces
Where we used to talk?

[bi...@mix.com]

In news.software.nntp Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote,

quoting me:

> > On the bright side, I'm glad I lived long enough to see propagation
> > working as well as it now does. Heh.
>

> You don't miss the good ol days when USENET was still often propagated
> over UUCP, usually at night, and a post could take four or five days to
> appear everywhere? Those were some grand old days!

I still have my trusty Telebit modem - and it probably still works -
but I must say it's quite impressive to post an article now and see it
appear all over the world in just four or five seconds. Speaking of
grand.

[Shmuel Metz]

In <av4pqb...@mid.individual.net>, on 05/10/2013

at 05:41 PM, Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> said:

>Yes, I said/implied that in the part you snipped, but the RFC says
>"MAY use any mailbox", not "MAY use the syntax for a mailbox". You
>can't 'use' something which *isn't* such a something.

"550 mailbox not found"

[Shmuel Metz]

In <auoqmc...@mid.individual.net>, on 05/05/2013

at 09:43 PM, Mike Easter <Mi...@ster.invalid> said:

>There should be a Reply-To: Yes; how and if it is populated depends.

Why? I know of no historical or operational reason to require a
Reply-To header field/

[Shmuel Metz]

In <aukn3a...@mid.individual.net>, on 05/04/2013

at 10:16 AM, Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> said:

>Defining a standard way of obfuscating the email address would make
>it possible to decode it in the client and thus generate an email
>response to the sender. Spam harvesters could use the same
>algorithm, so those who are aghast that anyone would use their real
>email address would still live in fear that spammers might snag
>their address.

WTF? Who asked for "a standard way of obfuscating the email address"?
There is a standard way to indicate that you don't want your e-mail
address in the From header field, defined in RFC 5537.

Now, there may be naïve posters who append ".invalid" to their actual
address, but I didn't see such a suggestion in this thread.

[Frank Slootweg]

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

> In <av4pqb...@mid.individual.net>, on 05/10/2013
> at 05:41 PM, Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> said:
>
> >Yes, I said/implied that in the part you snipped, but the RFC says
> >"MAY use any mailbox", not "MAY use the syntax for a mailbox". You
> >can't 'use' something which *isn't* such a something.
>
> "550 mailbox not found"

Nope. This not reading (not comprehending?) and then snipping relevant
material/context is getting really tiresome. But it's not that that bad
habit hasn't been pointed out to you many, many times, is it? Yet you
continue (not) doing it. Your loss.

[Shmuel Metz]

In <avv77u...@mid.individual.net>, on 05/20/2013

at 06:10 PM, Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> said:

>This not reading (not comprehending?) and then snipping relevant
>material/context is getting really tiresome.

Then cut back on the LSD.

[Frank Slootweg]

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

> In <avv77u...@mid.individual.net>, on 05/20/2013
> at 06:10 PM, Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> said:
>
> >This not reading (not comprehending?) and then snipping relevant
> >material/context is getting really tiresome.
>
> Then cut back on the LSD.

Yet another dishonest and pathetic (double) post-edit, how 'cute'!

[Shmuel Metz]

In <b04gov...@mid.individual.net>, on 05/22/2013

at 06:23 PM, Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> said:

>Yet another dishonest and pathetic (double) post-edit, how 'cute'!

Yes, Message-ID: <b04gov...@mid.individual.net> is pathetic, but
you posted it anyway.

[Anonymous]

In article <Jeff-Relf.Me@May.1{7.26.Seattle.2013}>
Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote:
>
> You ( Addison⋅Brecht ) asked me:
> > Do you post or just read with the reader.xsusenet.com server?
> > (I wasn't able to get the posting to work so that's why I ask)
>
> "Reader.XSusenet.COM" doesn't let me post.
> I didn't know that when I made my previous post, sorry.

That's because you're an asshole.