In comp.misc Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>> On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 19:13:00 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>
>>> I mean something like ASN.1 ...
>>
>> Bloody hell.
>>
>> Where’s the garlic ...
>
> Gentle reminder of the full text:
>
> | I mean something like ASN.1 (although not ASN.1; far more complex
> | than necessary).
>
> ASN.1 is given as an example because it’s a well-known example of an
> interface definition language, not because I’m suggesting using it,
> as anyone capable of reading to the end of a sentence can tell.

Do note you are respondig to Lawrence. He exists soley to create
turmoil and strife. So if halting his reading comprehension at the
first part of your sentence would generate maximum turmoil and strife,
then that is just exactly what he will do.

On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 15:05:40 +0000, Rich wrote:

> In comp.misc Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>>> On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 19:13:00 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>
>>>> I mean something like ASN.1 ...
>>>
>>> Bloody hell.
>>>
>>> Where’s the garlic ...
>>
>> Gentle reminder of the full text:
>>
>> | I mean something like ASN.1 (although not ASN.1; far more complex |
>> than necessary).
>>
>> ASN.1 is given as an example because it’s a well-known example of an
>> interface definition language, not because I’m suggesting using it, as
>> anyone capable of reading to the end of a sentence can tell.
>
> Do note you are respondig to Lawrence. He exists soley to create
> turmoil and strife. So if halting his reading comprehension at the
> first part of your sentence would generate maximum turmoil and strife,
> then that is just exactly what he will do.

I agree. He is best killfiled.

--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

On Sat, 10 Aug 2024, Rich wrote:

> In comp.misc Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>>> On Fri, 09 Aug 2024 19:13:00 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>
>>>> I mean something like ASN.1 ...
>>>
>>> Bloody hell.
>>>
>>> Where’s the garlic ...
>>
>> Gentle reminder of the full text:
>>
>> | I mean something like ASN.1 (although not ASN.1; far more complex
>> | than necessary).
>>
>> ASN.1 is given as an example because it’s a well-known example of an
>> interface definition language, not because I’m suggesting using it,
>> as anyone capable of reading to the end of a sentence can tell.
>
> Do note you are respondig to Lawrence. He exists soley to create
> turmoil and strife. So if halting his reading comprehension at the
> first part of your sentence would generate maximum turmoil and strife,
> then that is just exactly what he will do.
>

Amen! That is good advice. Avoid Lawrence and the discussion might
actually go in very interesting directions. ;)

A more perfect netnews:
o Automatic rejection of top-posted articles.
o Severe penalties for exceeding 72 characters.
o Automatic elision of "LOL", "ROTFL", "LMAO" etc.
o Life-time ban for using an emoji.

--bks

Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
>
> A more perfect netnews:
> o Automatic rejection of top-posted articles.
> o Severe penalties for exceeding 72 characters.
> o Automatic elision of "LOL", "ROTFL", "LMAO" etc.
> o Life-time ban for using an emoji.
>
> --bks

PMSL!

William Stickers <bill.stickers@innocent.com> wrote:

> Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
> >
> > A more perfect netnews:
> > o Automatic rejection of top-posted articles.
> > o Severe penalties for exceeding 72 characters.
> > o Automatic elision of "LOL", "ROTFL", "LMAO" etc.
> > o Life-time ban for using an emoji.
> >
> > --bks
>
[> PMSL!]
^
|
|
[automatic elision]

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PTB, FIBS - Professional Crastinator

My pet rock Gordon just is.

Sn!pe wrote:
>
> William Stickers <bill.stickers@innocent.com> wrote:
>
> > Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
> > >
> > > A more perfect netnews:
> > > o Automatic rejection of top-posted articles.
> > > o Severe penalties for exceeding 72 characters.
> > > o Automatic elision of "LOL", "ROTFL", "LMAO" etc.
> > > o Life-time ban for using an emoji.
> > >
> > > --bks
> >
> [> PMSL!]
> ^
> |
> |
> [automatic elision]

:'-(

Fine, I'm going back to loitering, erm, I mean lurking. <sniff>.

Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:

>> Just a thought experiment:
>> if you could/had to make something like a NNTP 2.0 (with no need for
>> backwards compatibility) and server and client software for it today, what
>> would it be like?
>> In terms of specifications, technologies used, user interface, etc.

[...]

> * All messages signed by author and originating server (supporting
> reputation management)

Can you elaborate on this? You'd like to bind each message to the
author-public-key and his NNTP server? So that everyone who he is and
which server he used? (Can you give an example of how you'd do that?)

In comp.misc Johanne Fairchild <jfairchild@tudado.org> wrote:
> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>>> Just a thought experiment:
>>> if you could/had to make something like a NNTP 2.0 (with no need for
>>> backwards compatibility) and server and client software for it today, what
>>> would it be like?
>>> In terms of specifications, technologies used, user interface, etc.
>
> [...]
>
>> * All messages signed by author and originating server (supporting
>> reputation management)
>
> Can you elaborate on this? You'd like to bind each message to the
> author-public-key and his NNTP server? So that everyone who he is and
> which server he used? (Can you give an example of how you'd do that?)

One possibility (which would inherit most if not all of the pgp/gpg
'key' distribution problem):

1) each user generates a gpg key pair they use for 'usenet2' posts.

2) user uploads public key to some "central source" for others to
retreive from [1] for 'validation' purposes.

3) user installs private half of key in their client software

4) for each post, user's client software 'signs' the message using the
private key, inserting the 'signature' into appropriate message
'headers' (note, there's a lot left unstated here, I'm spitballing, not
protocol designing).

5) each server also performs step 1 but there may not need to be a step
2 for a server /if/ the collective set of servers are the 'central'
storage of keys and the protocol has a way to supply a public key for
'server/user X' on demand.

6) for each post, from any user of serverX, serverX further signs the
message using the serverX private key and inserts the appropriate
message headers containing the "server signature" (note that here one
most likely wants this server sig. to cover [and thus authenticate]
the user signature headers of the message).

The result, is that a recipient, should they choose to do so, can
verify that any given message was signed by serverX using the serverX
public key, and can further verify that the messge was signed by userX
of serverX via the userX of serverX public key.

[1] Do note that the 'central source' could be the collective set of
'usenet2' servers, provided there was a way to request the 'key' of
user 'X' from server 'Y'. In which case #2 is "uploads public key to
their 'usenet2' server.

Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:

> In comp.misc Johanne Fairchild <jfairchild@tudado.org> wrote:
>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>
>>>> Just a thought experiment:
>>>> if you could/had to make something like a NNTP 2.0 (with no need for
>>>> backwards compatibility) and server and client software for it today, what
>>>> would it be like?
>>>> In terms of specifications, technologies used, user interface, etc.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> * All messages signed by author and originating server (supporting
>>> reputation management)
>>
>> Can you elaborate on this? You'd like to bind each message to the
>> author-public-key and his NNTP server? So that everyone who he is and
>> which server he used? (Can you give an example of how you'd do that?)
>
> One possibility (which would inherit most if not all of the pgp/gpg
> 'key' distribution problem):
>
> 1) each user generates a gpg key pair they use for 'usenet2' posts.
>
> 2) user uploads public key to some "central source" for others to
> retreive from [1] for 'validation' purposes.
>
> 3) user installs private half of key in their client software
>
> 4) for each post, user's client software 'signs' the message using the
> private key, inserting the 'signature' into appropriate message
> 'headers' (note, there's a lot left unstated here, I'm spitballing, not
> protocol designing).
>
> 5) each server also performs step 1 but there may not need to be a step
> 2 for a server /if/ the collective set of servers are the 'central'
> storage of keys and the protocol has a way to supply a public key for
> 'server/user X' on demand.
>
> 6) for each post, from any user of serverX, serverX further signs the
> message using the serverX private key and inserts the appropriate
> message headers containing the "server signature" (note that here one
> most likely wants this server sig. to cover [and thus authenticate]
> the user signature headers of the message).
>
> The result, is that a recipient, should they choose to do so, can
> verify that any given message was signed by serverX using the serverX
> public key, and can further verify that the messge was signed by userX
> of serverX via the userX of serverX public key.
>
>
> [1] Do note that the 'central source' could be the collective set of
> 'usenet2' servers, provided there was a way to request the 'key' of
> user 'X' from server 'Y'. In which case #2 is "uploads public key to
> their 'usenet2' server.

Thanks.

I have not thought even five minutes on this, but it seems complicated.
A large NNTP server should be time-resilient, so, for example, to
eternally be able to verify signatures, we need to keep all used public
keys always available. Archiving, as we know, is not an easy task.

When I think of a user's network, I think of a kind of mailing lists via
NNTP, but not like Gmane. I subscribe myself to a group in a server by
getting an authorization from the server (for that group specifically).
I register that authorization in my client. Now I can post to that
group. Without an authorization, I'd only be able to read it. Other
servers can easily host that group for reading. Servers connected to
these other servers could not post to that group---only read it. If a
client is external (that is, connected to these other servers) would
ever like to post, the author would write his post and the client would
directly connect to the group's original server, authenticate itself,
and then post.

In other words, let's not share responsibility. Each server controls
its groups---and lets others easily read it, archive it, disseminate
it. This way experts can have their own turf, let the world see their
discussion without disturbing them.

How is membership controlled in the Linux kernel mailing list (for
example)? I don't know. I'd think someone must approve new members.
I'd like to keep an eye on those discussions via NNTP, but it seems I
cannot easily do that. Surely someone is archiving that in an NNTP
server somewhere. I'm on Eternal September. It should be an easy
matter for me; if it is not, then I think that's an opportunity for new
work.

Johanne Fairchild <jfairchild@tudado.org> writes:
> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>> Just a thought experiment:
>>> if you could/had to make something like a NNTP 2.0 (with no need for
>>> backwards compatibility) and server and client software for it today, what
>>> would it be like?
>>> In terms of specifications, technologies used, user interface, etc.
>
> [...]
>
>> * All messages signed by author and originating server (supporting
>> reputation management)
>
> Can you elaborate on this? You'd like to bind each message to the
> author-public-key and his NNTP server? So that everyone who he is and
> which server he used? (Can you give an example of how you'd do that?)

User signatures:

The client software automatically generates a key pair; signs every
message under it; and distributes the public key with each message.

The high-level effect is to create the option for users to maintain a
persistent identity (denoted by their public key) between their
postings.

It’s useful several things:
- forgery prevention
- reputation management (up-scoring, filtering, etc)
- access control (groups with restricted posting rules of some sort)
- canceling/superseding their their own posts (comparable to
existing cancel lock functionality)
- authentication of destination public keys for encrypted messages
across netnews, allowing encrypted groups (necessarily with limited
membership) or secure user-to-user messaging

A hypothetical netnews replacement might not include all these things,
but it does mean they are options.

It doesn’t _force_ a persistent identity; there’s nothing stopping a
user from generating a fresh key for every posting, for example in an
attempt to frustrate filtering. But no matter: you can filter out
previously unattested identities, if you’re trying to defend yourself
against a troll problem.

In a wider context, it also creates the option of cryptographically
relating users to other cryptographically managed identities, for
example PKIX, OpenPGP, or national identity schemes.

Originating server signatures:

The situation is similar but here there is a key pair per server, which
signs all messages originated on that server. Again public keys are
distributed with messages.

The first effect is to identify who has administrative responsibility
for posts through the server. If a user starts to use a particular
server for abuse of some kind, such as spam, then it gives the server
operator the option of issuing cancels (or perhaps more complex kinds of
policy statement, be creative l-) for the abusive messages.

A second use case would be to authenticate institutional affilation,
e.g. if the server is owned by a university, business, etc. (This might
involve signing the user keys rather than signing the posts - I’ve not
thought this through.)

Logistics:

Key pairs above may actually be hierarchies of key pairs, e.g. with
well-protected root keys delegating to limited-scope operational keys.

Originating server keys could be rolled over relatively frequently
without losing much value.

Under current trends we’d expect to use (at least) a post-quantum
signature scheme, which means large signatures. Even with ML-DSA-44 two
signatures and two public keys adds about 6Kbyte to every message. That
could be reduced a bit by separating key distribution from message
distribution, but on modern networks the overhead isn’t actually that
much, so it might be better to just accept the cost.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

In comp.misc Johanne Fairchild <jfairchild@tudado.org> wrote:
> When I think of a user's network, I think of a kind of mailing lists via
> NNTP, but not like Gmane. I subscribe myself to a group in a server by
> getting an authorization from the server (for that group specifically).
> I register that authorization in my client. Now I can post to that
> group. Without an authorization, I'd only be able to read it. Other
> servers can easily host that group for reading. Servers connected to
> these other servers could not post to that group---only read it. If a
> client is external (that is, connected to these other servers) would
> ever like to post, the author would write his post and the client would
> directly connect to the group's original server, authenticate itself,
> and then post.
>
> In other words, let's not share responsibility. Each server controls
> its groups---and lets others easily read it, archive it, disseminate
> it. This way experts can have their own turf, let the world see their
> discussion without disturbing them.

It seems to me that much the same could be done with moderated
groups already, but I guess it's a matter of preference whether
this should be a part of the NNTP standard.

> How is membership controlled in the Linux kernel mailing list (for
> example)? I don't know. I'd think someone must approve new members.
> I'd like to keep an eye on those discussions via NNTP, but it seems I
> cannot easily do that. Surely someone is archiving that in an NNTP
> server somewhere. I'm on Eternal September. It should be an easy
> matter for me; if it is not, then I think that's an opportunity for new
> work.

A read-only NNTP server for the lore.kernel.org mailing lists is
here:
nntp.lore.kernel.org

It doesn't seem to be properly maintained though, mailing lists
move and apparantly their new groups aren't included, or maybe
they've actually been moved off that server and can't be included
easily. I've never looked into it that closely, but it might be
something you could follow up on.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 8/8/24 02:32, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> It's a complete rethinking of the way distributed social media is
> supposed to work.

So what.

Usenet is not social media.

--
Grant. . . .

On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 22:05:26 -0500, Grant Taylor wrote:

> On 8/8/24 02:32, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> It's a complete rethinking of the way distributed social media is
>> supposed to work.
>
> Usenet is not social media.

Which of those words do you think does not apply?

Lawrence D'Oliveiro:

> Grant Taylor:
>
> > Usenet is not social media.
>
> Which of those words do you think does not apply?

The noun should be singular, for Usenet is a medium. As for
the adjective, `social' has grown so inflated, discredited,
and besmirched by its use in "social network" and "social
platform" as actually to accrue negative connotations on its
own. It is for the lack of the vicious features of social
media that I love Usenet, so how can I call it that? No,
Usenet is a medium for public discussions.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>On 8/8/24 02:32, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> It's a complete rethinking of the way distributed social media is
>> supposed to work.
>
>So what.
>
>Usenet is not social media.

ObDevilsAdvocate: Usenet is the original social medium.

--
Steven O'Neill steveo@panix.com
Brooklyn, NY http://www.panix.com/~steveo

On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 13:37:07 +0300
Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro:
>
> > Grant Taylor:
> >
> > > Usenet is not social media.
> >
> > Which of those words do you think does not apply?
>
> The noun should be singular, for Usenet is a medium. As for
> the adjective, `social' has grown so inflated, discredited,
> and besmirched by its use in "social network" and "social
> platform" as actually to accrue negative connotations on its
> own. It is for the lack of the vicious features of social
> media that I love Usenet, so how can I call it that? No,
> Usenet is a medium for public discussions.
>
I guess that most viscious trolls moved over to privately owned "social
media" platforms, but there were troublemakers from fairly early on.

PS &OT, today I went for a drink in a Social Club; it was astoundingly non-
social, the other people were focussed on their mobile phones. So I did
likewise.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

Kerr-Mudd, John:

> PS &OT, today I went for a drink in a Social Club; it was
> astoundingly non-social, the other people were
> focussed on their mobile phones. So I did likewise.

So that club is no longer a sutiable "medium for public
discussions." Smartphones are joykillers, and social
networks, ironically, great disuniters of people.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments

Computer Nerd Kev to Johanne Fairchild:

> > How is membership controlled in the Linux kernel mailing
> > list (for example)? I don't know. I'd think someone
> > must approve new members. I'd like to keep an eye on
> > those discussions via NNTP, but it seems I cannot easily
> > do that. Surely someone is archiving that in an NNTP
> > server somewhere. I'm on Eternal September. It should
> > be an easy matter for me; if it is not, then I think
> > that's an opportunity for new work.
>
> A read-only NNTP server for the lore.kernel.org mailing
> lists is here:
> nntp.lore.kernel.org

Many if not all Linux kernel mailing lists are available for
both reading and posting via NNTP on Gmane. For a complete
list, type "kernel.org" in the list search box here:

https://admin.gmane.io/

and hit Enter. The Gmane NNTP server is: news.gmane.io .

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments

On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 18:48:20 +0300, Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote:
>Kerr-Mudd, John:
>> PS &OT, today I went for a drink in a Social Club; it was
>> astoundingly non-social, the other people were
>> focussed on their mobile phones. So I did likewise.
>
>So that club is no longer a sutiable "medium for public
>discussions." Smartphones are joykillers, and social
>networks, ironically, great disuniters of people.

the word "people" never made sense to me . . . plural for person?
no such animal; each person is an individual, no "e pluribus unum"

On Thu, 15 Aug 2024, Anton Shepelev wrote:

> Kerr-Mudd, John:
>
>> PS &OT, today I went for a drink in a Social Club; it was
>> astoundingly non-social, the other people were
>> focussed on their mobile phones. So I did likewise.
>
> So that club is no longer a sutiable "medium for public
> discussions." Smartphones are joykillers, and social
> networks, ironically, great disuniters of people.
>

Maybe it was an anti-social club? Personally I do not own a smart phone,
and when travelling or bored, I watch people or read regular books or
newspapers.

I feel like I am a very strange person sometimes. ;)

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

[...]

>
> I feel like I am a very strange person sometimes. ;)
>

On anonymity:

"Last night I saw upon the stair
A little man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
Oh, how I wish he'd go away..."
--Hughes Mearns

(nothing personal meant)

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PTB, FIBS - Professional Crastinator

My pet rock Gordon just is.

In comp.misc Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote:
> Computer Nerd Kev to Johanne Fairchild:
>
>> > How is membership controlled in the Linux kernel mailing
>> > list (for example)? I don't know. I'd think someone
>> > must approve new members. I'd like to keep an eye on
>> > those discussions via NNTP, but it seems I cannot easily
>> > do that. Surely someone is archiving that in an NNTP
>> > server somewhere. I'm on Eternal September. It should
>> > be an easy matter for me; if it is not, then I think
>> > that's an opportunity for new work.
>>
>> A read-only NNTP server for the lore.kernel.org mailing
>> lists is here:
>> nntp.lore.kernel.org
>
> Many if not all Linux kernel mailing lists are available for
> both reading and posting via NNTP on Gmane.

Sure, but they already mentioned Gmane in the post I was responding
to, so obviously they have some problem with that. Or perhaps what
they were saying is that they can't be bothered connecting to
another NNTP server besides Eternal September, in which case that's
their problem.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

D <nospam@example.net> writes:

> I feel like I am a very strange person sometimes. ;)

Being normal may be nice for a vector.
I'm not a vector.

--
.----------.
----------------------o-------| |-------o----------------------
| '----------' |
'--------------------------'
\o/

On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 14:11:43 -0000 (UTC), Steven M. O'Neill wrote:

> Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>
>>On 8/8/24 02:32, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> It's a complete rethinking of the way distributed social media is
>>> supposed to work.
>>
>>Usenet is not social media.
>
> ObDevilsAdvocate: Usenet is the original social medium.

Absolutely. And the centralization introduced by the web-based successors
(at least the proprietary ones) is a definite step back.