Re: posting on neodome?

4 views
Skip to first unread message

bill

unread,
Aug 11, 2021, 10:27:01 AMAug 11
to
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 13:51:25 +0000, Larry wrote:
> Is it possible to request a user ID and password to enable posting from
> news.neodome.net?

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.free.newsservers/search?q=neodome%20posting

I only skimmed the results but apparently there was an attack of all the
free newsservers each of whom responded differently but some of whom simply
turned off posting.

This says posting is ok but I can't get it to post just now when I tested.
telnet news.neodome.net 119
200 news.neodome.net InterNetNews NNRP server INN 2.6.3 ready (posting ok)

Regards,
bill
--
Not having a pencil sharpener is useless for two reasons
1 - Pencils would be pointless
2 - Pencils would be pointless

Sn!pe

unread,
Aug 11, 2021, 11:02:04 AMAug 11
to
Larry <La...@test.invalid> wrote:

> Is it possible to post on news.neodome.net?
>
> Used to be open, no authentication required. But, now no posting to the
> couple of newsgroups I tried. Doesn't seem to be a web page that works.
> But neodome still shows as quite active on the Top 1000.
>
> Is it possible to request a user ID and password to enable posting from
> news.neodome.net?
>

Neodome closed posting after they were criticised
for not dealing with flood attacks, see:

<http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=162342926200>

--
^Ï^ <https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>

My pet rock Gordon just is.

VanguardLH

unread,
Aug 11, 2021, 5:08:45 PMAug 11
to
Larry <La...@test.invalid> wrote:

> Is it possible to post on news.neodome.net?
>
> Used to be open, no authentication required. But, now no posting to the
> couple of newsgroups I tried. Doesn't seem to be a web page that works.
> But neodome still shows as quite active on the Top 1000.
>
> Is it possible to request a user ID and password to enable posting from
> news.neodome.net?

Periodically someone abused neodome to blast out copies of articles
(usually by other posters) in high volume that get peered to other NNTP
servers to pollute those, too. The admin of neodome never took action
to block mass submissions (i.e., throttle how many submissions per
minute, or per session). neodome was deaf to complaints about floods.
That neodome is "active" by some measure could mean they peer a lot of
articles that were submitted elsewhere. "Active" could be based on the
count of submissions to the server (but neodome hasn't taken submissions
for quite a while since they expend no effort to maintain their setup,
or its abuse). "Active" could be merely the count of article they pipe
through their server via peering partnerships with other Usenet
providers.

For users, the only way to eliminate the flood abuse from deaf-and-
deliberately-dumb neodome to filter out everything coming from neodome.
My regex filters in Dialog are:

Header {^Path: \S+\.neodome\.net(!?\.?POSTED)?(!not-for-mail)?$}
Message-ID {<\S+@neodome\.net>}

The first filter looks for neodome as the injection node (to where an
article got submitted), but only works if your NNTP client can test on
non-overview headers. The second filter works only if the poster
doesn't provide their own MID header: if it is missing, the server adds
its own, but if present then the server doesn't touch it. MID can be
specified by poster, like a troll wanting to hide they posted through
neodome. The PATH header cannot be touched by the poster since that is
added by the Usenet provider's NNTP server.

For me, and many others that were around during neodome floods, anything
that originates from (was submitted to) neodome gets filtered out.
Anything that peers through neodome (peered in, peered out) is not
filtered. In my opinion, neodome shouldn't be allowed to peer anywhere;
i.e., no other Usenet provider should establish a peering partnership
with neodome. It's a bad source. Neodome is to Usenet as is a bad cop
is to police departments.

neodome has proven they are not a responsible Usenet provider, and will
ignore any flood abuses using their server. They don't want to expend
any effort on managing their server. Not only do they have an NNTP
interface, but they also operate a mail-to-news gateway, but worse is
they also operate a Tor gateway to further hide the trolls even from
themselves. How are they going to track and block trolls coming in via
Tor? No accounts (an unregistered service) and a TOR interface, so no
way to enforce a TOS. They deliberately chose to be a turd source.

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:TAeNKG8-v3wJ:https://neodome.onion.pet/+&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
(the original onion.pet page wouldn't load, so here is a cached copy)

Did neodome ever have a TOS (Terms of Service)? They don't bother
operating a web site, so no way to read their TOS, if they have one.

As you mentioned, neodome is an *UN*registered free Usenet provider.
Unregistered means no accounts which also means there is no way to
enforce a TOS. No way to close an account to punish a abuser. Yeah,
trolls can create new accounts, but, at least, there was some punishment
to abusers. AIOE is another unregistered free Usenet provider. At one
time, and because its admin never enforced his TOS, lots of crap was
flushed into Usenet from that source, so I filtered out all AIOElians.
It's gotten better (not great, not good, just better), so now I just
colorize AIOElians as a warning to me. If the malcontent threshold
rises again, I'll filter them out again.

Note: Normally I filter out you, too, for using the "X-No-Archive: yes"
header. You declare your messages as unimportant because you want it
removed from Usenet in a week to punch holes into threads. Google
expires in a week. HTTP-to-NNTP gateways (to web-based forum copies of
Usenet) don't support that header, so your attempt to remove your
article after a week is fruitless. The user of X-No-Archive does not
get to specify the expiration. With Google, it's a week. With me,
expiration is immediate. I only saw your thread because I only hide
ignore-flagged posts marked such by my filters and use a Hide Ignored
view by default, but I can switch to the All Messages view, like when
checking the efficacy and accuracy of my filters. You declared your
message unimportant, not me. I'm just honoring your request to expire
and remove your article.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages