Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Usenet providers

174 views
Skip to first unread message

Gary McGath

unread,
Nov 7, 2023, 6:25:11 AM11/7/23
to
I've been using Eternal September as my Usenet provider out of sheer
inertia. It's clearly dying, though, becoming more like Eternal Wait.
Sometimes it takes several tries to load a message.

Eternal September relies on donations (and I send it money
occasionally), so it's probably starved for cash. I've looked at
various paid Usenet providers, with an eye to a low price since I don't
use Usenet all that much and never download big attachments. Pure
Usenet, a Netherlands-based service, looks the best from a pricing
standpoint, and it gets decent reviews.

https://www.pureusenet.nl

I'm open to other suggestions. I connect to the Internet through
T-Mobile, which apparently has never heard of Usenet.

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

Lee Gold

unread,
Nov 7, 2023, 6:39:06 AM11/7/23
to
On 11/7/2023 3:24 AM, Gary McGath wrote:
> I've been using Eternal September as my Usenet provider out of sheer
> inertia. It's clearly dying, though, becoming more like Eternal Wait.
> Sometimes it takes several tries to load a message.

I haven't had problems using it to load a new message from me, but I
do have to click an old message to get it to show new messages.
>
> Eternal September relies on donations (and I send it money
> occasionally), so it's probably starved for cash.  I've looked at
> various paid Usenet providers, with an eye to a low price since I don't
> use Usenet all that much and never download big attachments. Pure
> Usenet, a Netherlands-based service, looks the best from a pricing
> standpoint, and it gets decent reviews.
>
> https://www.pureusenet.nl
>
> I'm open to other suggestions. I connect to the Internet through
> T-Mobile, which apparently has never heard of Usenet.
>
Thanks for the information.

--Lee

Blueshirt

unread,
Nov 7, 2023, 10:29:34 AM11/7/23
to
https://news.individual.net/

€10 for the year

The Doctor

unread,
Nov 7, 2023, 10:52:13 AM11/7/23
to
In article <uid6qk$vplf$1...@dont-email.me>,
Have a llok at nk.ca . The only caveat is that you have to VPN here.

>--
>Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com


--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nk.ca Ici doc...@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Suffering will continue until we stop believing lies. -unknown Beware https://mindspring.com

Arthur T.

unread,
Nov 7, 2023, 11:43:17 AM11/7/23
to
In Message-ID:<uid6qk$vplf$1...@dont-email.me>,
Gary McGath <ga...@mcgath.com> wrote:

>use Usenet all that much and never download big attachments. Pure
>Usenet, a Netherlands-based service, looks the best from a pricing
>standpoint, and it gets decent reviews.
>
>https://www.pureusenet.nl
>
>I'm open to other suggestions.

I've been happy with Astraweb <https://www.astraweb.com/>. They have
block accounts. 10+ years ago I paid $25 for 180 GB. I recently had
to buy another block. But that one-time fee of $25 was all I paid
them for those 10 years. You could also go cheaper and pay only $10
for 25GB.

They have good retention, and I don't see some of the spam others do,
though some does get through their filters.

Note: You can't sign up without allowing scripting and some cookies.

--
Arthur T. - ar23hur "at" pobox "dot" com

Jay E. Morris

unread,
Nov 7, 2023, 11:46:45 AM11/7/23
to
That's strange. I've had absolutely no problem with ES. I know Ray has
updated hardware this year and recently split it between two servers,
one for peering and the other for users IIRC. Evidently it developed
there was some problem with running both on one. He his also working
hard on spam filtering.

I was having some problems some months back but I discovered it was TB
related.

Gary McGath

unread,
Nov 7, 2023, 1:15:40 PM11/7/23
to
On 11/7/23 11:43 AM, Arthur T. wrote:

> I've been happy with Astraweb <https://www.astraweb.com/>. They have
> block accounts. 10+ years ago I paid $25 for 180 GB. I recently had
> to buy another block. But that one-time fee of $25 was all I paid
> them for those 10 years. You could also go cheaper and pay only $10
> for 25GB.

I'm afraid I don't understand block accounts. 25GB of what?

> They have good retention, and I don't see some of the spam others do,
> though some does get through their filters.
>
> Note: You can't sign up without allowing scripting and some cookies.

I've always accessed Usenet through a client app, currently Thunderbird.
Does that mean Astraweb allows only Web access?

Jay E. Morris

unread,
Nov 7, 2023, 1:27:05 PM11/7/23
to
The block is the amount of data passed. If you do only text based groups
then, as Arthur said, 180 GB should last for a considerable time. 25 GB
a few years maybe.

You need scripting and cookies on just to sign up through a web browser.

Arthur T.

unread,
Nov 7, 2023, 9:45:02 PM11/7/23
to
In Message-ID:<uidvhm$14gn2$1...@epsilon3.eternal-september.org>,
Jay interpreted what I said correctly. But for just text, 25 GB is
likely to last a lifetime.

And, as my headers show, I access Usenet via Forte Agent. I shudder
at the idea of a Web interface.

Blueshirt

unread,
Nov 8, 2023, 9:19:29 AM11/8/23
to
Arthur T. wrote:

> In Message-ID:<uidvhm$14gn2$1...@epsilon3.eternal-september.org>,
> "Jay E. Morris" <mor...@epsilon3.comcon> wrote:
> >
> > The block is the amount of data passed. If you do only text based
> > groups then, as Arthur said, 180 GB should last for a considerable
> > time. 25 GB a few years maybe.
> >
> > You need scripting and cookies on just to sign up through a web
> > browser.
>
> Jay interpreted what I said correctly. But for just text, 25 GB is
> likely to last a lifetime.

If you are just using Usenet for text newsgroups something like a 100 GB
block could even outlive the Usenet provider!

> And, as my headers show, I access Usenet via Forte Agent. I shudder
> at the idea of a Web interface.

The Devil's own invention!

Keith F. Lynch

unread,
Nov 8, 2023, 9:24:44 PM11/8/23
to
Blueshirt <blue...@indigo.news> wrote:
> Arthur T. wrote:
>> And, as my headers show, I access Usenet via Forte Agent.
>> I shudder at the idea of a Web interface.

> The Devil's own invention!

The Web is an important app on the Internet. But it's true that it's
far from the whole of the net. I'm annoyed when people use the words
"Internet" and "Web" interchangably. And baffled when more and more
non-Web parts of the Internet are shoehorned into the Web. It's like
figuring out how to abandon most of your house and do everything in
the bathroom. Why?
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

Jay E. Morris

unread,
Nov 8, 2023, 10:29:20 PM11/8/23
to
Yeah, don't know what I was thinking there.

Unless there's a screw up on their spam filters and they let Google
Groups postings through. Then 180GB is about 2 days.

Paul Rubin

unread,
Nov 8, 2023, 10:29:23 PM11/8/23
to
Gary McGath <ga...@mcgath.com> writes:
> I'm afraid I don't understand block accounts. 25GB of what?

25GB of total data transferred. The main body of Usenet traffic these
days, unfortunately, is broadcasted warez, pirated movies, and pr0n. So
you can burn up a lot of transit that way. For text newsgroups 25GB is
nearly infinite.

Charles Packer

unread,
Nov 9, 2023, 3:15:59 AM11/9/23
to
On Thu, 09 Nov 2023 02:24:41 +0000, Keith F. Lynch wrote:

> Blueshirt <blue...@indigo.news> wrote:
>> Arthur T. wrote:
>>> And, as my headers show, I access Usenet via Forte Agent.
>>> I shudder at the idea of a Web interface.
>
>> The Devil's own invention!
>
> The Web is an important app on the Internet. But it's true that it's
> far from the whole of the net. I'm annoyed when people use the words
> "Internet" and "Web" interchangably. And baffled when more and more
> non-Web parts of the Internet are shoehorned into the Web. It's like
> figuring out how to abandon most of your house and do everything in the
> bathroom. Why?

Journalists equate social media with the internet, which is just
about as bad.

Gary McGath

unread,
Nov 9, 2023, 12:22:37 PM11/9/23
to
On 11/8/23 9:24 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Blueshirt <blue...@indigo.news> wrote:
>> Arthur T. wrote:
>>> And, as my headers show, I access Usenet via Forte Agent.
>>> I shudder at the idea of a Web interface.
>
>> The Devil's own invention!
>
> The Web is an important app on the Internet. But it's true that it's
> far from the whole of the net. I'm annoyed when people use the words
> "Internet" and "Web" interchangably. And baffled when more and more
> non-Web parts of the Internet are shoehorned into the Web. It's like
> figuring out how to abandon most of your house and do everything in
> the bathroom. Why?

On mobile devices, we have the opposite trend, where you're supposed to
get a separate app for every business you deal with. That's worse, since
you don't know whether they're competently written or bother with secure
connections. I'm aware of your complaints about constant bug fix
releases, but I'd much rather rely on any major Web browser than on an
application which some retailer hired a random developer to write and
never gets its bugs fixed at all.

Jay E. Morris

unread,
Nov 9, 2023, 4:16:00 PM11/9/23
to
On 11/8/2023 8:24 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Blueshirt <blue...@indigo.news> wrote:
>> Arthur T. wrote:
>>> And, as my headers show, I access Usenet via Forte Agent.
>>> I shudder at the idea of a Web interface.
>
>> The Devil's own invention!
>
> The Web is an important app on the Internet. But it's true that it's
> far from the whole of the net. I'm annoyed when people use the words
> "Internet" and "Web" interchangably. And baffled when more and more
> non-Web parts of the Internet are shoehorned into the Web. It's like
> figuring out how to abandon most of your house and do everything in
> the bathroom. Why?

I'm surprised anymore when anyone (under, say, 50) even references the
internet. The younglings grew up only knowing the web and if they even
think about the internet they think it's some small, vague part of the web.

There are exceptions of course.

Keith F. Lynch

unread,
Nov 9, 2023, 7:47:39 PM11/9/23
to
Jay E. Morris <mor...@epsilon3.comcon> wrote:
> I'm surprised anymore when anyone (under, say, 50) even references
> the internet. The younglings grew up only knowing the web and if
> they even think about the internet they think it's some small, vague
> part of the web.

Change 50 to 30 or 40 and you may be right. The Web only became a
sigfificant part of the Internet in 1993. So someone who is 50 now
was 20 then.

Keith F. Lynch

unread,
Nov 9, 2023, 8:22:10 PM11/9/23
to
Gary McGath <ga...@mcgath.com> wrote:
> On mobile devices, we have the opposite trend, where you're supposed
> to get a separate app for every business you deal with. That's
> worse, since you don't know whether they're competently written or
> bother with secure connections.

If that's a requirement, it sounds like it's guaranteed to drive away
at least half the potential customers.

> I'm aware of your complaints about constant bug fix releases, but
> I'd much rather rely on any major Web browser than on an application
> which some retailer hired a random developer to write and never gets
> its bugs fixed at all.

I'd much rather rely on code that's written to be free of security
bugs in the first place. After the tenth urgent security update to
a piece of software, I lose all confidence that there won't be an
eleventh, i.e. that *this* time they finally found and fixed all
the bugs. That would be like thinking that the lastest exoneration
https://wtop.com/national/2023/11/california-man-whos-spent-25-years-in-prison-for-murder-he-didnt-commit-has-conviction-overturned/
means that every innocent person in prison has finally been freed.

If I was found to have written something with multiple security bugs,
I would have concluded that I was in the wrong line of work, and left
software development to people who were more competent.

Keith F. Lynch

unread,
Nov 9, 2023, 10:07:09 PM11/9/23
to
Charles Packer <mai...@cpacker.org> wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>> I'm annoyed when people use the words "Internet" and "Web"
>> interchangably. And baffled when more and more non-Web parts of
>> the Internet are shoehorned into the Web. It's like figuring
>> out how to abandon most of your house and do everything in the
>> bathroom. Why?

> Journalists equate social media with the internet, which is just
> about as bad.

That's even worse. If someone wants to argue that they prefer the
return of walled gardens to the brief golden age of the open (no
censorship) Internet, I'll listen. But when Usenet, email lists,
etc., are just down the memory hole...

Which reminds me that I sometimes run into someone in person who used
to be active in rasff, but suddenly disappeared one day. When I ask
them why they left, they express surprise that Usenet is still around.
They used Usenet every day, but one day they suddenly just assumed it
had ceased to exist?

Maybe so. After all, there are TV ads for beef (or were last time I
watched over-the-air TV, which has been a while). Forgetting that
Usenet exists is no stranger than forgetting that beef exists. Or,
in both cases, that it once existed but had suddenly and inexplicably
ceased to exist.

Andy Leighton

unread,
Nov 10, 2023, 4:37:41 AM11/10/23
to
Another thing that is annoying is adverts claiming to have the fastest
wifi speeds when what I think they mean is uplink bandwidth? I know
there are different generations of the 802.11 standard and some
providers may provide older routers than others. Also there is some
variance between routers with signal strength etc. But I don't think
ISPs are trying to get you to buy their service on that.

I think that is catching on, as I've definitely heard younger, and less
technical, people ask "do you have wifi?" when what they want to know is
"can I access the web here?" and what they should ask "is there internet
access available?".

--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
- Douglas Adams

Gary McGath

unread,
Nov 10, 2023, 10:04:41 AM11/10/23
to
On 11/9/23 10:07 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Which reminds me that I sometimes run into someone in person who used
> to be active in rasff, but suddenly disappeared one day. When I ask
> them why they left, they express surprise that Usenet is still around.
> They used Usenet every day, but one day they suddenly just assumed it
> had ceased to exist?

I'm sure you remember how Andrew Cuomo launched his political career
with a smear campaign against Usenet. A bunch of providers reacted by
dropping Usenet service, which was no longer a money-maker for them
anyway. Maybe these people lost their Usenet connection during that time
and assumed it was gone completely?

When Google dropped its RSS reader, a lot of pundits said RSS was now
dead. Some people must have believed it.

Gary McGath

unread,
Nov 10, 2023, 10:14:43 AM11/10/23
to
On 11/10/23 4:37 AM, Andy Leighton wrote:
> Another thing that is annoying is adverts claiming to have the fastest
> wifi speeds when what I think they mean is uplink bandwidth? I know
> there are different generations of the 802.11 standard and some
> providers may provide older routers than others. Also there is some
> variance between routers with signal strength etc. But I don't think
> ISPs are trying to get you to buy their service on that.

It seems reasonable to me that they're referring to their router speed.
Wi-Fi speed is rarely the bottleneck, but probably their market research
tells them that touting their Wi-Fi speed sells better than touting
their Internet access speed.


> I think that is catching on, as I've definitely heard younger, and less
> technical, people ask "do you have wifi?" when what they want to know is
> "can I access the web here?" and what they should ask "is there internet
> access available?".

I don't normally carry an Ethernet cable with me, so when I'm looking
for an Internet connection away from home, I'm specifically interested
in Wi-Fi. An RJ45 connector doesn't do me much good.

Tangentially related: Yesterday I gave a presentation at the local
library on Wi-Fi safety. I talked about protocols on a simple technical
level, pointed out the risks of apps of unknown quality, and recommended
using a VPN. Only three people showed up. My previous presentation, on
scams, drew 7 (the maximum number I allow for these things). I guess
"scams" sounds like a more exciting topic.

Tim Merrigan

unread,
Nov 10, 2023, 1:18:03 PM11/10/23
to
They will never find and fix all the bugs, because they're not
omniscient, and can only fix the bugs they find, often by end users
reporting them, (possibly introducing new bugs in the process, being
fellable humans, and all).

Same for false convictions (leaving aside cases where people are
deliberately framed).
--

Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.

Tim Merrigan

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

Mike Van Pelt

unread,
Nov 10, 2023, 2:09:59 PM11/10/23
to
In article <5atlkidednam3dmps...@4ax.com>,
Arthur T. <art...@munged.invalid> wrote:
>And, as my headers show, I access Usenet via Forte Agent. I shudder
>at the idea of a Web interface.

Ditto.

I'm still using trn 4.0. I've found that it's installable
in Windows Subsystem for Linux. I *love* its kill file
feature, though I don't use it all that much. And it's
pure text; I defy anything short of The Blight to infect
my computer through that.

--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston

Gary McGath

unread,
Nov 10, 2023, 4:04:17 PM11/10/23
to
On 11/10/23 2:09 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:

> I'm still using trn 4.0. I've found that it's installable
> in Windows Subsystem for Linux. I *love* its kill file
> feature, though I don't use it all that much. And it's
> pure text; I defy anything short of The Blight to infect
> my computer through that.
>

Can trn access the Known Net?

Jay E. Morris

unread,
Nov 10, 2023, 10:52:43 PM11/10/23
to
On 11/9/2023 6:47 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Jay E. Morris <mor...@epsilon3.comcon> wrote:
>> I'm surprised anymore when anyone (under, say, 50) even references
>> the internet. The younglings grew up only knowing the web and if
>> they even think about the internet they think it's some small, vague
>> part of the web.
>
> Change 50 to 30 or 40 and you may be right. The Web only became a
> sigfificant part of the Internet in 1993. So someone who is 50 now
> was 20 then.

Oops. I hit 70 in less than two months. 93 feels 50 years away.

evelynchim...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 11, 2023, 4:29:54 AM11/11/23
to
On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 10:07:09 PM UTC-5, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Which reminds me that I sometimes run into someone in person who used
> to be active in rasff, but suddenly disappeared one day. When I ask
> them why they left, they express surprise that Usenet is still around.
> They used Usenet every day, but one day they suddenly just assumed it
> had ceased to exist?

In my case, when I retired, I switched to Usenet from my ISP, and then one day
it seemed to disappear. AT some point they finally admitted they had dropped it,
rather than it being a temporary glitch, and I had to find a new Usenet provider.
But I could see how someone might think it had ceased to exist.

--
Evelyn C. Leeper


Keith F. Lynch

unread,
Nov 11, 2023, 1:40:48 PM11/11/23
to
ele...@optonline.net <evelynchim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>> They used Usenet every day, but one day they suddenly just assumed
>> it had ceased to exist?

> In my case, when I retired, I switched to Usenet from my ISP, and
> then one day it seemed to disappear. AT some point they finally
> admitted they had dropped it, rather than it being a temporary
> glitch, and I had to find a new Usenet provider. But I could
> see how someone might think it had ceased to exist.

I'd think almost everyone would check on it, rather than just assuming
that. The same as if their paycheck had suddenly gotten a lot smaller
even though they were still working the same number of hours at the
same job.

Gary McGath

unread,
Nov 11, 2023, 1:42:29 PM11/11/23
to
On 11/11/23 1:40 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> ele...@optonline.net <evelynchim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In my case, when I retired, I switched to Usenet from my ISP, and
>> then one day it seemed to disappear. AT some point they finally
>> admitted they had dropped it, rather than it being a temporary
>> glitch, and I had to find a new Usenet provider. But I could
>> see how someone might think it had ceased to exist.
>
> I'd think almost everyone would check on it, rather than just assuming
> that. The same as if their paycheck had suddenly gotten a lot smaller
> even though they were still working the same number of hours at the
> same job.

For most people, paychecks are a lot more important than Usenet.

Keith F. Lynch

unread,
Nov 11, 2023, 1:52:46 PM11/11/23
to
Jay E. Morris <mor...@epsilon3.comcon> wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>> Change 50 to 30 or 40 and you may be right. The Web only became a
>> sigfificant part of the Internet in 1993. So someone who is 50 now
>> was 20 then.

> Oops. I hit 70 in less than two months. 93 feels 50 years away.

I don't know if you mean age 93, 1993, or 2093. 1993 feels very
recent to me. But I recently realized that I'm closer to age 90
than to any part of the 1990s.

ObFandom: In 1993 I attended ConFrancisco. I don't recall what it
cost to register, but I recall that the hotel cost $30 per night.

Mike Van Pelt

unread,
Nov 11, 2023, 2:44:25 PM11/11/23
to
In article <uim5sc$30tl9$1...@dont-email.me>,
Gary McGath <ga...@mcgath.com> wrote:
>On 11/10/23 2:09 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>
>> I'm still using trn 4.0. I've found that it's installable
>> in Windows Subsystem for Linux. I *love* its kill file
>> feature, though I don't use it all that much. And it's
>> pure text; I defy anything short of The Blight to infect
>> my computer through that.
>>
>
>Can trn access the Known Net?

Maybe, if we can gateway nntp out of the Slow Zone.

Mike Van Pelt

unread,
Nov 11, 2023, 2:49:51 PM11/11/23
to
In article <b4da759b-726c-4454...@googlegroups.com>,
ele...@optonline.net <evelynchim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In my case, when I retired, I switched to Usenet from my ISP, and then one day
> it seemed to disappear. AT some point they finally admitted they had dropped it,
>rather than it being a temporary glitch, and I had to find a new Usenet provider.
>But I could see how someone might think it had ceased to exist.

Calweb did the same thing. "Oh, you're still using that fossil?
I didn't think anyone did any more." So I changed my nntp server
to Eternal September.

Then they sold out, and the new owners quit supporting shell
access. Fortunately, I discovered that it's possible to
install trn (The One True Newsreader) in Windows Subsystem
for Linux. I was considering just going all Linux, but I
still run a few software packages that are Windows only.

Keith F. Lynch

unread,
Nov 11, 2023, 3:59:16 PM11/11/23
to
Mike Van Pelt <use...@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
> I'm still using trn 4.0.

Likewise. It's far from perfect, but it's a great improvement over
its many successors.

Whatever happened to the newsreader that Eric Raymond was working on?

> I've found that it's installable in Windows Subsystem for Linux.

I use it on Panix.

> I *love* its kill file feature, though I don't use it all that much.

Likewise. There are just three people in my killfile (not counting
those who haven't posted to rasff at all this year).

> And it's pure text; I defy anything short of The Blight to infect my
> computer through that.

Right. I still do most of my Internet access through my Panix shell
account. I've always been wary of direct access to the net. It's
convenient, like moving into a Metrorail station rather than having
to walk home from one. But would my stuff still be there when I
got "home"?

The back story of Adrian Tchaikovsky's Hugo-winning Children of Time
series involves malware which completely wrecked civilization on Earth
-- it partially recovered only after the next ice age -- and killed
everyone who was off Earth (except for two people who were no longer
quite human). I doubt that could happen. The likely worst case is
that someone could turn your home computer into a child porn server
without your noticing. You're arrested and offered a five-year prison
sentence followed by a lifetime on the sex-offender list if you
plead guilty. You refuse and go to trial. You're convicted, as
the prosecutor depicts you as a computer expert who must have known,
and sentenced to life without parole. Exactly that has happened to
hundreds of people (unless they're all lying, which seems unlikely).

Keith F. Lynch

unread,
Nov 11, 2023, 4:19:14 PM11/11/23
to
Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> I'd much rather rely on code that's written to be free of security
>> bugs in the first place.

> They will never find and fix all the bugs, because they're not
> omniscient, and can only fix the bugs they find, often by end users
> reporting them, (possibly introducing new bugs in the process, being
> fellable humans, and all).

Code is made of basically the same stuff as mathematical theorems.
Do you also believe that there are undetected bugs in all theorems,
i.e. that there's nothing we know for certain about math? Flaws are
sometimes found in theorems, but it's very rare (not counting theorems
"proven" by crackpots).

The "millennium problems" each offer a million-dollar reward for
proofs or disproofs of various conjectures (e.g. the Riemann
Hypothesis). To avoid risk, they require that the work be published
in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, and that nobody finds a flaw in
the first two years after publication.

> Same for false convictions (leaving aside cases where people are
> deliberately framed).

True, since history, even very recent history, isn't made of the same
platonic substance as code or theorems. It's impossible to absolutely
prove or disprove that you robbed a bank last Tuesday after lunch.
Even time-stamped video could be faked. (Maybe if someone were to
invent a time viewer...)

It could, however, be improved by several orders of magnitude, given
that the most common methods currently used to convict people in the
US have very little correlation with guilt. (Details on request.)
Of course fixing it would result in a few more guilty people getting
away with their crimes, barring universal surveillance.

Keith F. Lynch

unread,
Nov 11, 2023, 4:25:12 PM11/11/23
to
Gary McGath <ga...@mcgath.com> wrote:
> I don't normally carry an Ethernet cable with me, so when I'm
> looking for an Internet connection away from home, I'm specifically
> interested in Wi-Fi. An RJ45 connector doesn't do me much good.

Do most hotels, etc., even offer Ethernet connection? The last time I
used the Net away from home (or my brother's house) was at last year's
Worldcon in Chicago. The public Wi-Fi speed was indeed quite marginal
in most of the hotel. And I didn't see any Ethernet outlets.

The Wi-Fi has since stopped working in that laptop. (Net access still
works via Ethernet.) So I will no longer bring it to conventions.

Peter Trei

unread,
Nov 11, 2023, 5:05:10 PM11/11/23
to
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 2:44:25 PM UTC-5, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
> In article <uim5sc$30tl9$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Gary McGath <ga...@mcgath.com> wrote:
> >On 11/10/23 2:09 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
> >
> >> I'm still using trn 4.0. I've found that it's installable
> >> in Windows Subsystem for Linux. I *love* its kill file
> >> feature, though I don't use it all that much. And it's
> >> pure text; I defy anything short of The Blight to infect
> >> my computer through that.
> >>
> >
> >Can trn access the Known Net?
> Maybe, if we can gateway nntp out of the Slow Zone.

I could see malware written as a bash script or .bat getting
saved and run by a user who was misled as to what they did.

By far the most common route for starting APT attacks are
email attachments which employees are persuaded to open.
(Defending against these is what I'm paid for.)

Pt

Peter Trei

unread,
Nov 11, 2023, 5:08:50 PM11/11/23
to
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 4:25:12 PM UTC-5, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Gary McGath <ga...@mcgath.com> wrote:
> > I don't normally carry an Ethernet cable with me, so when I'm
> > looking for an Internet connection away from home, I'm specifically
> > interested in Wi-Fi. An RJ45 connector doesn't do me much good.
> Do most hotels, etc., even offer Ethernet connection? The last time I
> used the Net away from home (or my brother's house) was at last year's
> Worldcon in Chicago. The public Wi-Fi speed was indeed quite marginal
> in most of the hotel. And I didn't see any Ethernet outlets.
>
> The Wi-Fi has since stopped working in that laptop. (Net access still
> works via Ethernet.) So I will no longer bring it to conventions.

WiFi USB dongles are under $10 these days, so Keith could easily
fix that.

Pt

Scott Dorsey

unread,
Nov 11, 2023, 9:17:44 PM11/11/23
to
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Mike Van Pelt <use...@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
>> I'm still using trn 4.0.
>
>Likewise. It's far from perfect, but it's a great improvement over
>its many successors.
>
>Whatever happened to the newsreader that Eric Raymond was working on?

Whatever happens to anything that he works on?
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Robert Woodward

unread,
Nov 12, 2023, 12:44:39 AM11/12/23
to
Was it Earthlink? (which dropped Usenet late September 2020).

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robe...@drizzle.com

evelynchim...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 12, 2023, 9:21:06 AM11/12/23
to
On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 12:44:39 AM UTC-5, Robert Woodward wrote:
> In article <b4da759b-726c-4454...@googlegroups.com>,
> "ele...@optonline.net" <evelynchim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 10:07:09?PM UTC-5, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> > > Which reminds me that I sometimes run into someone in person who used
> > > to be active in rasff, but suddenly disappeared one day. When I ask
> > > them why they left, they express surprise that Usenet is still around.
> > > They used Usenet every day, but one day they suddenly just assumed it
> > > had ceased to exist?
> >
> > In my case, when I retired, I switched to Usenet from my ISP, and then one
> > day
> > it seemed to disappear. AT some point they finally admitted they had
> > dropped it,
> > rather than it being a temporary glitch, and I had to find a new Usenet
> > provider.
> > But I could see how someone might think it had ceased to exist.
> >
> Was it Earthlink? (which dropped Usenet late September 2020).

No, Optimum (a.k.a. Cablevision), and it was several years ago.

Gary McGath

unread,
Nov 12, 2023, 4:49:56 PM11/12/23
to
On 11/11/23 4:16 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> I'd much rather rely on code that's written to be free of security
>>> bugs in the first place.
>
>> They will never find and fix all the bugs, because they're not
>> omniscient, and can only fix the bugs they find, often by end users
>> reporting them, (possibly introducing new bugs in the process, being
>> fellable humans, and all).
>
> Code is made of basically the same stuff as mathematical theorems.
> Do you also believe that there are undetected bugs in all theorems,
> i.e. that there's nothing we know for certain about math? Flaws are
> sometimes found in theorems, but it's very rare (not counting theorems
> "proven" by crackpots).
>
> The "millennium problems" each offer a million-dollar reward for
> proofs or disproofs of various conjectures (e.g. the Riemann
> Hypothesis). To avoid risk, they require that the work be published
> in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, and that nobody finds a flaw in
> the first two years after publication.

An application to perform a real-world task has little similarity to a
mathematical theorem. "Proving the correctness of a browser" is a
meaningless phrase. A complex application with a user interface deals
with an open-ended set of user inputs, third-party code, and system
services.

Any key-based encryption system is, from a theoretical standpoint,
already defective. Given infinite computing resources and time, you can
break it. Whether something is a bug or not is often a question of
whether it's good enough. This changes over time. Encryption that was
effectively unbreakable in 1995 may be hopelessly weak now.

The number of combinations of inputs, data, and environmental factors is
too large for any mathematical demonstration the they're all bug-free.

This isn't to deny that a lot of code is much sloppier than it has any
right to be. The main reason is feature bloat. Browsers would be much
more secure than they are if they just didn't support JavaScript. Giving
anyone in the world the power to run code on your computer created a
minefield that can never be fully cleaned up. But people want all those
features.

rksh...@rosettacondot.com

unread,
Nov 12, 2023, 4:53:04 PM11/12/23
to
Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:
> ele...@optonline.net <evelynchim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>>> They used Usenet every day, but one day they suddenly just assumed
>>> it had ceased to exist?
>
>> In my case, when I retired, I switched to Usenet from my ISP, and
>> then one day it seemed to disappear. AT some point they finally
>> admitted they had dropped it, rather than it being a temporary
>> glitch, and I had to find a new Usenet provider. But I could
>> see how someone might think it had ceased to exist.
>
> I'd think almost everyone would check on it, rather than just assuming
> that. The same as if their paycheck had suddenly gotten a lot smaller
> even though they were still working the same number of hours at the
> same job.

It's closer to having your employer get rid of a benefit that almost nobody
uses. I've worked in IT for almost 40 years, starting at a university, and
I've seen Usenet go from something most of the Engineering College used to "Is
that still around?" and then to "What's that?".
The cost (and incovenience) of finding a Usenet feed is so small as to be
negligible unless you're into massive binaries. I think I paid $10 for a 10 GB
"block" (body only) at least 15 years ago and haven't had to think about it
since.

Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com

rksh...@rosettacondot.com

unread,
Nov 12, 2023, 5:08:05 PM11/12/23
to
Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:
> Gary McGath <ga...@mcgath.com> wrote:
>> I don't normally carry an Ethernet cable with me, so when I'm
>> looking for an Internet connection away from home, I'm specifically
>> interested in Wi-Fi. An RJ45 connector doesn't do me much good.
>
> Do most hotels, etc., even offer Ethernet connection? The last time I
> used the Net away from home (or my brother's house) was at last year's
> Worldcon in Chicago. The public Wi-Fi speed was indeed quite marginal
> in most of the hotel. And I didn't see any Ethernet outlets.

Very few in my experience, and the few that do haven't updated the equipment
in years.

> The Wi-Fi has since stopped working in that laptop. (Net access still
> works via Ethernet.) So I will no longer bring it to conventions.

I carry an OpenWrt-based travel router with me that can connect Ethernet and
Wi-Fi in either direction (including Wi-Fi to Wi-Fi) and also supports OpenVPN
and WireGuard.
The primary reason is so that we don't have to configure (worst case) five
laptops, four phones, three Kindles and a streaming device whenever we go to a
new hotel. The router has the SSID and key that we use at home so everything
automagically works.

Lowell Gilbert

unread,
Nov 12, 2023, 10:31:33 PM11/12/23
to
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:

> Code is made of basically the same stuff as mathematical theorems.

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.

evelynchim...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 12, 2023, 10:32:18 PM11/12/23
to
On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 5:08:05 PM UTC-5, rksh...@rosettacondot.com wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:
> > Gary McGath <ga...@mcgath.com> wrote:
> >> I don't normally carry an Ethernet cable with me, so when I'm
> >> looking for an Internet connection away from home, I'm specifically
> >> interested in Wi-Fi. An RJ45 connector doesn't do me much good.
> >
> > Do most hotels, etc., even offer Ethernet connection? The last time I
> > used the Net away from home (or my brother's house) was at last year's
> > Worldcon in Chicago. The public Wi-Fi speed was indeed quite marginal
> > in most of the hotel. And I didn't see any Ethernet outlets.
> Very few in my experience, and the few that do haven't updated the equipment
> in years.

The last time I used an Ethernet connection in a hotel was in Newfoundland in 2009.
I suppose that was yet another anomaly: Newfoundland is by any standards different.
It, along with Labrador, was an independent country until 1949. Its time zone is a *half*
hour out from adjacent time zones. Its cell phone service was (at least then) not shared
by any other company. Part of it is covered by a piece of the European tectonic plate.
And its provincial flower is carnivorous. The fact that the hotel guests used Ethernet
connection was just one more quirk.

--
Evelyn C. Leeper

Keith F. Lynch

unread,
Nov 12, 2023, 10:51:59 PM11/12/23
to
ele...@optonline.net <evelynchim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Part of [Newfoundland] is covered by a piece of the European tectonic plate.

I thought the boundary between the European and North American
tectonic plates ran through Iceland, which is a long way from
Newfoundland. (When visiting that island, I viewed North America from
the side. And also learned that the Icelandic spelling of Iceland is
"Island.")

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#/media/File:Tectonic_plates_(2022).svg
confirms this.

Scott Dorsey

unread,
Nov 13, 2023, 10:50:31 AM11/13/23
to
In article <44ttpqf...@be-well.ilk.org>,
It is possible to do formal proof of correctness on software. However, it
requires the code be completely deterministic: no interrupts, no
multithreading. It's difficult but there are automated systems out there
for it and some programming languages that are designed to make it easier.

For high-reliability systems it is very common to have a small block of
code that is verified and proven correct, and then a bunch of additional
code that hangs around it but is in some way isolated from it. Controls
for jet engines, for example, often have a verified control block that is
one big loop that goes around polling everything, and then a UI that talks
to that control block using a shared memory mechanism. It wound up costing
a good fraction of a million dollars for one of those GE controllers to be
verified recently.

Back in the seventies, a lot of people held code verification as the future
of software development but it didn't turn out to be as easy or practical
as expected in great part because of the required determinism. Do not expect
a verified version of Windows or the Linux kernel any time soon.

But you MIGHT someday get a system with a verified microkernel and the
unverifiable device drivers operating in a separate ring from the kernel.
Plan Nine was designed with some of this in mind.

Dorothy J Heydt

unread,
Nov 14, 2023, 2:21:26 PM11/14/23
to
In article <uimtq9$38pjq$1...@epsilon3.eternal-september.org>,
[Hal Heydt]
I'm 74. If I make it to 93 (years old), my youngest grandchild
will be 21 and I will have fulfilled Dorothy's last wishes.
After that...I don't care what happens to me.

Jay E. Morris

unread,
Nov 14, 2023, 3:12:41 PM11/14/23