Subj : Re: Usenet-Next - A proposal to create a very strict NNTP networkwithno
To   : Deavmi
From : Tristan B. Kildaire
Date : Sun Nov 20 2016 07:39 pm

On 2016-11-20 07:07 PM, Deavmi wrote:
> On 2016-11-20 06:44 PM, 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.
>>
>>
>> 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)
>
> So according to a Usenet user my approach of the walled garden is bad.
> Well, at least I started a discussion. I'd like suggestions then on how
> we could make this network but still be strict but open? D you see what
> I mean?
Email from John:

Well thank you Mr. Levine. I appreciate that. I just wished there was a
way. I just think if we had a Usenet Comittee it would make a hell of a
difference, so we can control which servers are peered and what not.
Idk, sounds ike a heck of a lot of work anyway.

On 2016-11-20 07:27 PM, Comp.compilers wrote:
>> Do you have a suggestion for what to do? (No sarcasm intended, I am
honestly asking)
>
> Live with it, I'm afraid.  While I expect we could boot off some of
the cruddier usenet servers, I don't think it'd make much difference
since there's too many people who get phished and bad guys use their
otherwise legitimate accounts.
>
> Regards,
> John Levine, comp.compilers moderator,
> [email protected], http://compilers.iecc.com
--- SBBSecho 3.00-Linux
* Origin: Electronic Warfare BBS | telnet:\\bbs.ewbbs.net (1:227/201)

You are viewing proxied material from vert.synchro.net. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.