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, > johnl@iecc.com, http://compilers.iecc.com --- SBBSecho 3.00-Linux * Origin: Electronic Warfare BBS | telnet:\\bbs.ewbbs.net (1:227/201) .