Usenet-Next - A proposal to create a very strict NNTP network with no spam

[Tristan B. Kildaire (Deavmi)]

So, I was not born in the Usenet era and honestly would have like to had
what they had - a standard protocol for communication. This exists today
but guess what has happened to it, SPAM, SPAM and more SPAM.

I want an NNTP network and I know many others do as well, I surely
cannot be alone in a quest for a protocol which allows discussions on
topics with any client you want to use. Therefore I want to create a new
Usenet, in this proposal I shall refer to it as Usenet-Next as it needs
a name that people can use to relate to this proposal.


So how shall we make our network rid of spam. Well the thing is to be
strict in both the user registration process and the server
configurations and who our servers peer with. I am not well versed at
all in NNTP but that is why I'd like to get you people to mail me
(deavmi [at] disroot [dot] org) so we discuss the setup but also the
rules for the network which will be very strict and lastly how these
things are linked together.


Remember, we are not migrating Usenet but creating our own network,
Usenet-Next, therefore we will not have any relation to the Usenet
network or community, the only relation we will have is making them
aware of our new proposal and network.


I would like to save the idea of a distributed network of servers
tossing posts around to create a decentralized but common database of
news - this is Usenet. I would greatly appreciate mail from anyone who
would like to discuss this proposal and do some tests and setup the
network. I would also like to note that I am not making myself the
network king or anything, I just want to start the discussion.


I am sorry for the spam I have caused. But spam is something that is
useless, and this is not spam. I have contradicted myself there, sorry.
I just felt that this is a matter of emergency. I don't want to resort
to terrible centralized web forums, I love Usenet, even for the 2 days I
have been using it but I could not come to terms with and accept the spam.


Sincerely,
Tristan B. Kildaire (Deavmi)

[Bruce Esquibel]

In comp.mail.uucp "Tristan B. Kildaire (Deavmi)" <dea...@disroot.org> wrote:

> I want an NNTP network and I know many others do as well, I surely
> cannot be alone in a quest for a protocol which allows discussions on
> topics with any client you want to use. Therefore I want to create a new
> Usenet, in this proposal I shall refer to it as Usenet-Next as it needs
> a name that people can use to relate to this proposal.

Assuming you aren't a bored troll, you are beating a dead horse.

Usenet is no where as popular as it once was these days, and your complaints
about spam are easily fixed by running your own news server and applying the
filters to do the job you want.

Creating your "new usenet" isn't going to attract new users, it's been tried
before (Usenet II i think it was called) and didn't go anywhere either, as
far as I know. And that was back in the popular days where text posts
(non-binaries) exceeded a quarter million a day.

These days where it's barely a tenth of that, just proves non-use. Few
people are interested in it, preferring to use Twitter, Facebook or any of
the other dozens of social media services.

Plus you are missing the obvious, part of the problem is lack of news
readers that work well (or work at all) on phones and tablets. They exist on
both ios and android but none of them are as good as the worse unix command
line ones. Many people are leaving the desktop/laptop world and just using
what they can carry around in their pocket.

Even if you came up with a whiz-bang app for phones and tablets, usenet is
too difficult to get going. Besides signing up for a news server, group
selection is a mess, threading and message selection varies with taste.

It's something you have to get used to and learn. People want to get
spoonfed these days.

Look at what kind of mess google did with groups.google.com, and they were
google. I dunno how the missed the point or what they were thinking but
that whole system is just an embarassment.

Good luck but I don't need a crystal ball to see this idea of yours going
nowhere.

-bruce
b...@ripco.com

[Dennis Davis]

In article <o0ump9$hes$1...@remote5bge0.ripco.com>,

Bruce Esquibel <b...@ripco.com> wrote:
>In comp.mail.uucp "Tristan B. Kildaire (Deavmi)" <dea...@disroot.org> wrote:
>
>> I want an NNTP network and I know many others do as well, I
>> surely cannot be alone in a quest for a protocol which allows
>> discussions on topics with any client you want to use. Therefore
>> I want to create a new Usenet, in this proposal I shall refer
>> to it as Usenet-Next as it needs a name that people can use to
>> relate to this proposal.
>
>Assuming you aren't a bored troll, you are beating a dead horse.
>
>Usenet is no where as popular as it once was these days, and your
>complaints about spam are easily fixed by running your own news
>server and applying the filters to do the job you want.

...

And/or use a newsreader that supports killfiles:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/killfile-faq/

http://www.rahul.net/falk/killfiles.txt

using killfiles is the only way to make some Newsgroups readable.
--
Dennis Davis <denni...@fastmail.fm>

[Michael Black]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2016, Bruce Esquibel wrote:

> In comp.mail.uucp "Tristan B. Kildaire (Deavmi)" <dea...@disroot.org> wrote:
>
>> I want an NNTP network and I know many others do as well, I surely
>> cannot be alone in a quest for a protocol which allows discussions on
>> topics with any client you want to use. Therefore I want to create a new
>> Usenet, in this proposal I shall refer to it as Usenet-Next as it needs
>> a name that people can use to relate to this proposal.
>
> Assuming you aren't a bored troll, you are beating a dead horse.
>
> Usenet is no where as popular as it once was these days, and your complaints
> about spam are easily fixed by running your own news server and applying the
> filters to do the job you want.
>

I've never seen the spam some seem to see, in 20 years. I guess I've
picked well where I get my usenet from, since the ones I've used have put
effort into limiting the spam.

Of course, maybe what he means is "off topic", which of course is a
different thing, but has always been there in 20 years, the more active a
newsgroup the more likely people will crosspost to it.

Michael

[Juancho]

Tristan B. Kildaire (Deavmi) wrote:
> So, I was not born in the Usenet era and honestly would have like to
> had what they had - a standard protocol for communication. This
> exists today but guess what has happened to it, SPAM, SPAM and more
> SPAM.
>
> I want an NNTP network and I know many others do as well, I surely
> cannot be alone in a quest for a protocol which allows discussions on
> topics with any client you want to use. Therefore I want to create a
> new Usenet, in this proposal I shall refer to it as Usenet-Next as it
> needs a name that people can use to relate to this proposal.
>
>
> So how shall we make our network rid of spam. Well the thing is to be
> strict in both the user registration process and the server
> configurations and who our servers peer with. I am not well versed at
> all in NNTP but that is why I'd like to get you people to mail me
> (deavmi [at] disroot [dot] org) so we discuss the setup but also the
> rules for the network which will be very strict and lastly how these
> things are linked together.

You make it "strict", as you say, and you get no users, for the users
will prefer to remain at Twitter and Facebook. And without users, your
Usenet II would be a beautiful empty carcass, devoid of any value.

Now, I you were talking about making a new Usenet based on UUCP on
dial-up, WITHOUT Internet and without TCP/IP, that could attract some
hundred geeks to get it going... and no one else. So, do you have a POTS
line at hand, and a modem?

So either way, it's a no go.

[Christophe Prevotaux]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 18:46:15 +0100, Juancho shaped the electrons to say:

You do not need a modem and POTS line to do UUCP, UUCP can be used over
many kinds of different transports, but using UUCP over SSH would be a
good start or any other encryption method that seems suitable.

Here is something I wrote a long time ago about that

http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2005/03/10/uucpmail.html

Actually it does not matter how many people it would attract it is still
a great thing to have around I think.Telling people that they are beating
a dead horse has never helped anyone. It does not hurt to let people do
what they want to do.

[William Unruh]

On 2017-05-30, Christophe Prevotaux <cdotpr...@nospamdotruraldashnetworks.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 18:46:15 +0100, Juancho shaped the electrons to say:
>
>> Tristan B. Kildaire (Deavmi) wrote:
>>> So, I was not born in the Usenet era and honestly would have like to
>>> had what they had - a standard protocol for communication. This exists
>>> today but guess what has happened to it, SPAM, SPAM and more SPAM.
>>>
>>> I want an NNTP network and I know many others do as well, I surely
>>> cannot be alone in a quest for a protocol which allows discussions on
>>> topics with any client you want to use. Therefore I want to create a
>>> new Usenet, in this proposal I shall refer to it as Usenet-Next as it
>>> needs a name that people can use to relate to this proposal.

Sure. Charge $10 for each message read. That would get rid of spam.

And how will you determine if a particular message is spam?

>>>
>>>
>>> So how shall we make our network rid of spam. Well the thing is to be
>>> strict in both the user registration process and the server
>>> configurations and who our servers peer with. I am not well versed at
>>> all in NNTP but that is why I'd like to get you people to mail me
>>> (deavmi [at] disroot [dot] org) so we discuss the setup but also the
>>> rules for the network which will be very strict and lastly how these
>>> things are linked together.

You have heard of computers being taken over by hackers? Most spam is
not sent from the senders computer/account. It is sent on other's
accounts.

>>
>> You make it "strict", as you say, and you get no users, for the users
>> will prefer to remain at Twitter and Facebook. And without users, your
>> Usenet II would be a beautiful empty carcass, devoid of any value.
>>
>> Now, I you were talking about making a new Usenet based on UUCP on
>> dial-up, WITHOUT Internet and without TCP/IP, that could attract some
>> hundred geeks to get it going... and no one else. So, do you have a POTS
>> line at hand, and a modem?
>>
>> So either way, it's a no go.
>
> You do not need a modem and POTS line to do UUCP, UUCP can be used over
> many kinds of different transports, but using UUCP over SSH would be a
> good start or any other encryption method that seems suitable.
>
> Here is something I wrote a long time ago about that
>
> http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2005/03/10/uucpmail.html
>
> Actually it does not matter how many people it would attract it is still
> a great thing to have around I think.Telling people that they are beating
> a dead horse has never helped anyone. It does not hurt to let people do
> what they want to do.

Noone is stopping you from doing what you want to do. What you are
trying to do is to force others to do what you want to do.

[Christophe Prevotaux]

On Tue, 30 May 2017 15:49:36 +0000, William Unruh shaped the electrons to

I am not forcing anyone to do anything , I think you did not read that
thread correctly, re-read it.

[Holger Marzen]

["Followup-To:" nach comp.mail.pine gesetzt.]

* On Tue, 30 May 2017 15:49:36 -0000 (UTC), William Unruh wrote:

> On 2017-05-30, Christophe Prevotaux <cdotpr...@nospamdotruraldashnetworks.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 18:46:15 +0100, Juancho shaped the electrons to say:
>>
>>> Tristan B. Kildaire (Deavmi) wrote:
>>>> So, I was not born in the Usenet era and honestly would have like to
>>>> had what they had - a standard protocol for communication. This exists
>>>> today but guess what has happened to it, SPAM, SPAM and more SPAM.
>>>>
>>>> I want an NNTP network and I know many others do as well, I surely
>>>> cannot be alone in a quest for a protocol which allows discussions on
>>>> topics with any client you want to use. Therefore I want to create a
>>>> new Usenet, in this proposal I shall refer to it as Usenet-Next as it
>>>> needs a name that people can use to relate to this proposal.
>
> Sure. Charge $10 for each message read. That would get rid of spam.
>
> And how will you determine if a particular message is spam?

Is spam really a problem? I think the shrinking number of users and
servers might be a problem but the spam problem in Usenet is over. No
spammer cares about Usenet anymore.