I can see why a developer will get desmorilized if nobody uses a
feature, so why instead of "hacking" old software we do not
support/help new projects?
Am 02.11.2023 um 18:26:54 Uhr schrieb rek2 hispagatos:
I can see why a developer will get desmorilized if nobody uses a
feature, so why instead of "hacking" old software we do not
support/help new projects?
I don't use abandoned software for networking, it won't support current encryption standard and other stuff like IPv6.
I also don't want to deal with old stuff that isn't developed anymore
because nobody will fix the bugs (I am not a developer and I can't do
that).
rek2 hispagatos:
I can see why a developer will get desmorilized if nobody uses a
feature, so why instead of "hacking" old software we do not
support/help new projects?
I don't use abandoned software for networking, it won't support
current encryption standard and other stuff like IPv6. I also don't
want to deal with old stuff that isn't developed anymore because
nobody will fix the bugs (I am not a developer and I can't do that).
I've often looked at all the NNTP-related software that's
available, including much currently maintained (for Linux at
least), and thought that there almost seems to be more people
working on NNTP software now than actually using NNTP. If they want
to do it then that's fine, but I think they'd achieve more for
Usenet by spending their time actually posting from their clients
rather than developing them.
Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
rek2 hispagatos:
I can see why a developer will get desmorilized if nobody uses a
feature, so why instead of "hacking" old software we do not
support/help new projects?
I don't use abandoned software for networking, it won't support
current encryption standard and other stuff like IPv6. I also don't
want to deal with old stuff that isn't developed anymore because
nobody will fix the bugs (I am not a developer and I can't do
that).
Why is encryption required for Usenet? For login, yes.
A problem is Usenet is not strongly supported. The number of NNTP
clients is dismal, and many are actually e-mail clients with
newsgroups tacked on, because the tree structure for e-mail folders
can be reused for newsgroups. However, constructs permitted in
e-mail do not always translate well to Usenet. E-mail and newsgroups
are different communication venues with differing histories that have
some overlap.
As for old clients that don't support the latest encryption protocols
and/or ciphers, a solution is to add another program as a proxy that
does, like sTunnel. Not all NNTP providers have logins (they don't
assign accounts to users), so encryption is meaningless.
Some have both port 119 (not encrypted) and 563 (encrypted) connections.
So, what do you use as your NNTP client?
Am 02.11.2023 um 16:47:41 Uhr schrieb VanguardLH:
Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
rek2 hispagatos:
I can see why a developer will get desmorilized if nobody uses a
feature, so why instead of "hacking" old software we do not
support/help new projects?
I don't use abandoned software for networking, it won't support
current encryption standard and other stuff like IPv6. I also don't
want to deal with old stuff that isn't developed anymore because
nobody will fix the bugs (I am not a developer and I can't do that).
Why is encryption required for Usenet? For login, yes.
That's the point.
A problem is Usenet is not strongly supported. The number of NNTP
clients is dismal, and many are actually e-mail clients with newsgroups
tacked on, because the tree structure for e-mail folders can be reused
for newsgroups. However, constructs permitted in e-mail do not always
translate well to Usenet. E-mail and newsgroups are different
communication venues with differing histories that have some overlap.
Most of them can be used well for Usenet too.
As for old clients that don't support the latest encryption protocols
and/or ciphers, a solution is to add another program as a proxy that
does, like sTunnel. Not all NNTP providers have logins (they don't
assign accounts to users), so encryption is meaningless.
That is only possible for your own network, but not for public server.
Wait some time and they are being abused for posting spam and troll
posts.
Some have both port 119 (not encrypted) and 563 (encrypted)
connections.
119 can be encrypted with STARTTLS.
So, what do you use as your NNTP client?
Claws Mail and true, it doesn't set User-Agent.
VanguardLH:
Why is encryption required for Usenet? For login, yes.
That's the point.
Some have both port 119 (not encrypted) and 563 (encrypted) connections.
119 can be encrypted with STARTTLS.
I use individual.net on non-encrypted port 119. They only encrypt on
port 563. They also have ports 80 and 8119 should a user be blocked on
the normal NNTP ports.
I've never been concerned about a hacker grabbing my login credentials
when connecting to port 119. Individual.net is very responsive to user requests, like killing a login that is getting abused by a forger, and
will simply issue a new password.
Of course, they don't even need my login credentials to attempt forging
me. They could use an individual.net account of their own, so the
injection node in PATH shows the same as for me, and have their client
use the same headers as for me. The wonderful anarchy of Usenet.
However, abuse reports to individual.net are acted upon.
Am 02.11.2023 um 16:47:41 Uhr schrieb VanguardLH:
As for old clients that don't support the latest encryption protocols
and/or ciphers, a solution is to add another program as a proxy that
does, like sTunnel. Not all NNTP providers have logins (they don't
assign accounts to users), so encryption is meaningless.
That is only possible for your own network, but not for public server.
Wait some time and they are being abused for posting spam and troll
posts.
I see a lot of folks that ask for older usenet software
and try to recompile and do all kind of hacks to make it work,
such is ok, but I see a lack of support to the new school developers
that make an effort to try to add usenet support to their projects
to just later just drop them because lack of use and support from
the usenet community, an example of this is a very promissing email client called "meli" https://github.com/meli/meli
she added support for nntp/usenet since day 1, I been the only person helping troubleshoot bugs etc, but after some time she is thinking in dropping the ball
and only continue with email support because only 2 people uses usenet and helps with patches/submiting bugs and such.. I can see why a developer
will get desmorilized if nobody uses a feature, so why instead of "hacking" old software we do not support/help new projects?
I hear aerc another very good email client talking about supporting nntp/usenet
someone comencted it on the matrix #golang channel but I never hear back.. maybe developers thing nobody is going to use it and dont want to
put an effort it on ... *shrugs*
Happy Hacking
ReK2
First language is Spanish.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 482 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 43:45:30 |
| Calls: | 9,566 |
| Files: | 13,656 |
| Messages: | 6,142,002 |