So do we.
https://rootbadger.com
So do we.
https://rootbadger.com
On 2026-07-25, Tom Mix wrote:Same, Nuno.
So do we.
https://rootbadger.com
Given the amount of times this is being advertised here, that's about to cross a threshold of me never looking into it because it's being
advertised as if this were a TV commercial spot :-P
On 2026-07-25, Tom Mix wrote:
So do we.
https://rootbadger.com
Given the amount of times this is being advertised here, that's about to cross a threshold of me never looking into it because it's being
advertised as if this were a TV commercial spot :-P
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> writes:
On 2026-07-25, Tom Mix wrote:
So do we.
https://rootbadger.com
Given the amount of times this is being advertised here, that's about to
cross a threshold of me never looking into it because it's being
advertised as if this were a TV commercial spot :-P
Same, Nuno.
I saw Lisp Club on a post header of your article. Are you discussingThank you for informing me that you have noticed.
Lisp anywhere on the USENET or anywhere else on the Internet? Please
share?
Just another centralized message board among hundreds (thousands?) that already exist. The novelty is the usenet-like group hierarchy otherwise
it looks just like Digg (RIP), Reddit, Lemmy and others.
If I've learned anything over the last 20+ years of modern social media
it's that they either collapse or live long enough to sell your data.
Usenet, the original social media platform, has been around since long
before most Silicon Valley social media founders were born and it will
remain long after they're gone.
I'll stick to the original, warts and all.
On 2026-07-25, Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-07-25, Tom Mix wrote:
Just another centralized message board among hundreds (thousands?) that already exist. The novelty is the usenet-like group hierarchy otherwise
it looks just like Digg (RIP), Reddit, Lemmy and others.
If I've learned anything over the last 20+ years of modern social media
it's that they either collapse or live long enough to sell your data.
Usenet, the original social media platform, has been around since long
before most Silicon Valley social media founders were born and it will
remain long after they're gone.
I'll stick to the original, warts and all.
Just another centralized message board among hundreds (thousands?) that >already exist. The novelty is the usenet-like group hierarchy otherwise
it looks just like Digg (RIP), Reddit, Lemmy and others.
On 2026-07-25, Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-07-25, Tom Mix wrote:
So do we.
https://rootbadger.com
Given the amount of times this is being advertised here, that's about to
cross a threshold of me never looking into it because it's being
advertised as if this were a TV commercial spot :-P
Just another centralized message board among hundreds (thousands?) that already exist. The novelty is the usenet-like group hierarchy otherwise
it looks just like Digg (RIP), Reddit, Lemmy and others.
If I've learned anything over the last 20+ years of modern social media
it's that they either collapse or live long enough to sell your data.
Usenet, the original social media platform, has been around since long
before most Silicon Valley social media founders were born and it will
remain long after they're gone.
I'll stick to the original, warts and all.
On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 01:02:25 -0000 (UTC), Ted W. wrote:
On 2026-07-25, Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-07-25, Tom Mix wrote:
Just another centralized message board among hundreds (thousands?) that
already exist. The novelty is the usenet-like group hierarchy otherwise
it looks just like Digg (RIP), Reddit, Lemmy and others.
If I've learned anything over the last 20+ years of modern social media
it's that they either collapse or live long enough to sell your data.
Usenet, the original social media platform, has been around since long
before most Silicon Valley social media founders were born and it will
remain long after they're gone.
I'll stick to the original, warts and all.
There is also something to say about just the simplicity. I have run a
lemmy instance and still find it frustrating that you have to use web browsers to utilize the platform. KISS really applies here in that we already have protocol standards for discussions and minimal clients with minimal network connectivity required.
Multimedia is rather over-emphasized on popular disccussion platforms and
is better served on their own dedicated platforms for their binary types.
As a side note, I would prefer its own protocol for the different types of media to be consumed (as with NNTP for mainly textual discussion) however, it's a far fetched and not well thought out idea of mine that I wouldn't expect to see ever happening in the wild at any great scale.
Can you elaborate on your idea? It seems you're saying that instead of
using the web, a social network should implement its own multimedia
protocol? If so, I'd side with you---I agree with the web isn't a very
good user interface and I also don't know how we could turn a multimedia protocol into a good user interface. When I think of good user
interface, I always think of text user interfaces, like the one we
already have.
Why is that so? I believe computers are not too different from what
they were in the 70s. We're still using the same software pretty much.
(Not saying everything is perfect.)
On 2026-07-29, Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> wrote:
Can you elaborate on your idea? It seems you're saying that instead of
using the web, a social network should implement its own multimedia
protocol? If so, I'd side with you---I agree with the web isn't a very
good user interface and I also don't know how we could turn a multimedia
protocol into a good user interface. When I think of good user
interface, I always think of text user interfaces, like the one we
already have.
Me too - but we're a small minority.
Why is that so? I believe computers are not too different from what
they were in the 70s. We're still using the same software pretty much.
(Not saying everything is perfect.)
I agree that the lower layers might not have changed much.
But they're buried under layer after layer of gooey bloatware.
Yes. Not being the smart way to use computers, it can't be the future.
For years I've expected the web to somehow die precisely because of the
way browsers have been evolving. Complex software is bound to die
because of the lack of diversity. Look how very few browsers we have.
Why is that? Because only very rich corporations can build it. And
maybe now we have a glimpse of the downfall of the web. The so-called
smart systems producing slop and bots perhaps being responsible for most
of the web traffic. Maybe that's indeed the end of the web. Rebirth.
I still think the web as its idealized conception is something we want.
Just like the USENET is something we want.
Verily, in article <875x1xa9t7.fsf@safunu.org>, did anton@safunu.org
deliver unto us this message:
Yes. Not being the smart way to use computers, it can't be the future.
For years I've expected the web to somehow die precisely because of the
way browsers have been evolving. Complex software is bound to die
because of the lack of diversity. Look how very few browsers we have.
Why is that? Because only very rich corporations can build it. And
maybe now we have a glimpse of the downfall of the web. The so-called
smart systems producing slop and bots perhaps being responsible for most
of the web traffic. Maybe that's indeed the end of the web. Rebirth.
I still think the web as its idealized conception is something we want.
Just like the USENET is something we want.
This is an interesting discussion.
Perhaps hypertext and document organization should never have been
combined. I recently rediscovered gopherspace, and to my surprise it's
not completely dead.
The current web dissatisfies thinking people. Something else is bound to arise. Maybe it'll be a gopherspace revival or maybe a new thing, but
the web just isn't cutting it these days.
We never should have let the corporatins sieze control of everything,
but we didn't know what to do.
I wonder if they
know that the USENET is peaceful once again.
What I believe is that they just don't want to come back because perhaps
the USENET is just not disruption-free guaranteed. Perhaps we think now
we need to really have semi-open groups such as a mailing list or a
private NNTP server. For example, the Linux kernel people seem to
prefer a mailing list (for posting) because this way they easily ban any misbehaving member and keep the newbies at bay.
So that's another question I ask. Is the USENET model the adequate one
for an Internet-populous world? Maybe we should begin a new network of interlinked private NNTP servers. It doesn't seem that a high-volume
NNTP group is interesting anyway; that usually means a too high
noise/content ratio.
We never should have let the corporatins sieze control of everything,
but we didn't know what to do.
Can you elaborate on your idea? It seems you're saying that instead of
using the web, a social network should implement its own multimedia
protocol? If so, I'd side with you---I agree with the web isn't a very
good user interface and I also don't know how we could turn a multimedia protocol into a good user interface. When I think of good user
interface, I always think of text user interfaces, like the one we
already have.
Why is that so? I believe computers are not too different from what
they were in the 70s. We're still using the same software pretty much.
(Not saying everything is perfect.)
NNTP is the API for UsenetThis is incorrect. NNTP is Network News Transfer Protocol, is not an
We never should have let the corporatins sieze control of everything,They didn't. People handed them control. People want a curated, safe,
but we didn't know what to do.
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
NNTP is the API for UsenetThis is incorrect. NNTP is Network News Transfer Protocol,
is not an
API, and isn't technically needed to use usenet. Before NNTP, UUCP
shuffled articles along. Two systems peered via UUCP over a serial/modem
link can pass along articles.
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> writes:
We never should have let the corporatins sieze control of everything,They didn't. People handed them control. People want a curated, safe,
but we didn't know what to do.
walled garden consisting of only the pleasant things they want to
see, not a wild forest full of animals, danger, and trees that they have
to cut down to build a cabin out of. People, most of them, willingly
gave up their freedom and agency of will for convenience.
jayjwa wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-
They didn't. People handed them control. People want a curated, safe, walled garden consisting of only the pleasant things they want to
see, not a wild forest full of animals, danger, and trees that they
have to cut down to build a cabin out of. People, most of them,
willingly gave up their freedom and agency of will for convenience.
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
NNTP is the API for UsenetThis is incorrect. NNTP is Network News Transfer Protocol, is not an
API, and isn't technically needed to use usenet. Before NNTP, UUCP
shuffled articles along. Two systems peered via UUCP over a serial/modem
link can pass along articles. A PC user can dial-in to such a system and
pull articles for reading in off-line mode. This was important in the
time of expensive connections that ran up phone bills and tied up phone lines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_News_Transfer_Protocol
Verily, in article <87o6fo7adu.fsf@safunu.org>, did anton@safunu.org
deliver unto us this message:
What I believe is that they just don't want to come back becauseIt's certainly easier to curate and moderate a mailing list than a
perhaps the USENET is just not disruption-free guaranteed.
[...]
newsgroup.
I believe one of the values of Usenet is that the feed includes some
fools and mischief-makers. Some people are amused by that and read it
all, some people killfile the anti-social types, and some read only a selected few.
We have direct and immediate control over our own Usenet
feeds, unlike forums where we have to ask a mod.
So that's another question I ask. Is the USENET model the adequate one
for an Internet-populous world? Maybe we should begin a new network of
interlinked private NNTP servers. It doesn't seem that a high-volume
NNTP group is interesting anyway; that usually means a too high
noise/content ratio.
Usenet will never be for everyone. The barrier to entry is too high for
many.
Verily, in article <87fr0zp1j9.fsf@atr2.ath.cx>, did jayjwa@atr2.ath.cx.invalid deliver unto us this message:
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> writes:
We never should have let the corporatins sieze control of everything,They didn't. People handed them control. People want a curated, safe,
but we didn't know what to do.
walled garden consisting of only the pleasant things they want to see,
not a wild forest full of animals, danger, and trees that they have to
cut down to build a cabin out of. People, most of them, willingly gave
up their freedom and agency of will for convenience.
It may seem okay until the owner of the garden does things we don't
like.
A whole, whole lot of people are dissatisfied with the current Internet
of robots and slop. They just don't know what to do about it.
Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> writes:
[...]
There is also something to say about just the simplicity. I have run a
lemmy instance and still find it frustrating that you have to use web
browsers to utilize the platform. KISS really applies here in that we
already have protocol standards for discussions and minimal clients
with minimal network connectivity required.
Multimedia is rather over-emphasized on popular disccussion platforms
and is better served on their own dedicated platforms for their binary
types.
As a side note, I would prefer its own protocol for the different types
of media to be consumed (as with NNTP for mainly textual discussion)
however,
it's a far fetched and not well thought out idea of mine that I
wouldn't expect to see ever happening in the wild at any great scale.
Can you elaborate on your idea? It seems you're saying that instead of
using the web, a social network should implement its own multimedia
protocol? If so, I'd side with you---I agree with the web isn't a very
good user interface and I also don't know how we could turn a multimedia protocol into a good user interface. When I think of good user
interface, I always think of text user interfaces, like the one we
already have.
Why is that so? I believe computers are not too different from what
they were in the 70s. We're still using the same software pretty much.
(Not saying everything is perfect.)
To: jayjwa
jayjwa wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-
They didn't. People handed them control. People want a curated, safe, walled garden consisting of only the pleasant things they want to
see, not a wild forest full of animals, danger, and trees that they
have to cut down to build a cabin out of. People, most of them,
willingly gave up their freedom and agency of will for convenience.
I miss those days of hand-hacking web sites, stashing a box in your
company's server room to serve web pages, and hosting your own mail.
What's next? :)
I miss those days of hand-hacking web sites, stashing a box in your company's server room to serve web pages, and hosting your own
mail.
Those days are still here.
On Mon, 03 Aug 2026 21:59:53 -0300 Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org>
wrote:
I miss those days of hand-hacking web sites, stashing a box in your
company's server room to serve web pages, and hosting your own mail.
Those days are still here.
Mail hosting is unfortunately non-trivial thanks to the Major Players
going ape with spam control in a way that *just so happens* to block all
but the Major Players from reliable delivery - but yes, it's still 100% possible to roll your own website as much from-scratch as you please.
(Hell, in some ways it's actually easier, now that pretty much every
browser has reasonable CSS support.)
On Mon, 03 Aug 2026 21:59:53 -0300 Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org>
wrote:
I miss those days of hand-hacking web sites, stashing a box in your
company's server room to serve web pages, and hosting your own mail.
Those days are still here.
Mail hosting is unfortunately non-trivial thanks to the Major Players
going ape with spam control in a way that *just so happens* to block all
but the Major Players from reliable delivery - but yes, it's still 100% possible to roll your own website as much from-scratch as you please.
(Hell, in some ways it's actually easier, now that pretty much every
browser has reasonable CSS support.)
What is even worse is that major VPS providers and ISPs block outbound
port 25 (SMTP) and the encrypted port (don't care to look it up). Its
quite evil.
I have no trouble with mail hosting (I have a cooperative ISP).
On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 14:38:11 -0300, Anton Antimo wrote:
Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> writes:
[...]
There is also something to say about just the simplicity. I have run a
lemmy instance and still find it frustrating that you have to use web
browsers to utilize the platform. KISS really applies here in that we
already have protocol standards for discussions and minimal clients
with minimal network connectivity required.
Multimedia is rather over-emphasized on popular disccussion platforms
and is better served on their own dedicated platforms for their binary
types.
As a side note, I would prefer its own protocol for the different
types of media to be consumed (as with NNTP for mainly textual
discussion) however, it's a far fetched and not well thought out
idea of mine that I wouldn't expect to see ever happening in the
wild at any great scale.
Can you elaborate on your idea? It seems you're saying that instead of
using the web, a social network should implement its own multimedia
protocol? If so, I'd side with you---I agree with the web isn't a very
good user interface and I also don't know how we could turn a multimedia
protocol into a good user interface. When I think of good user
interface, I always think of text user interfaces, like the one we
already have.
Why is that so? I believe computers are not too different from what
they were in the 70s. We're still using the same software pretty much.
(Not saying everything is perfect.)
I mean, its more than possible. We don't really have to dwell on how that implementation would actually occur since this is just hypothetical but we for sure have more than enough examples of very good interfaces built
around a single protocol or tool. The first one that comes to mind is git. They have things that visualize the git history over time in a really cool way like gource. They also have more typical graphical interfaces for git, vim integration, shell integration, web integration, emacs integration and plain old command line.
The question of tying all the pieces together into a nice interface is up
to the application developers.
What I really am trying to get across above however is that the
fundamental separation between data provenance, data presentation and data communication should be fully present. I think the best way to illistrate this is via an example.
Current Day:
You have a forum site that on the main landing page you have ads posted, videos auto playing and *linked* images automatically being loaded,
infinite scrolling and click tracking. All of this being implemented on
top of an HTTP/TCP stack.
You point your web browser at it and you either get all of the features or none of them. The site determines what your computer does and what it doesn't
This is a problem for many reasons that I will get into later.
My Theoretical Ideal:
You have a forum site or video sharing site or a government web page. When connecting you are provided with a basic HTML/HTTP style page that can be made to look pretty by your browser. No autoplaying anything, no
autoloaded images, no javascript. You get just what you asked for and no more. If you just wanted the text of the web page then you already have it by accessing the site. You want to watch a video or a live stream? Follow this rtmp:// or "video://" link of which you can either download in full
or live stream the video. You want to look at a photo gallery? Here is a list of images that you can set in your client to either fully fetch and display automatically via the photo:// links or let you manually select
them as you please.
Here I am assuming the video:// would be a static file on the webserver
and that the "video" protocol has the ability to seek and livestream (protocol features) rather than just file transfer (despite modern
browsers being capable of client side streaming of static mp4s served as files from HTTP servers).
My Point:
Regardless, this just seems like an idea that is a gopher or gemini
protocol clone and derived from that ethos. And in a way, it is. But the idea of having separate protocols for the different "types" of data that
you may wish to host brings the following benefits:
1. You have less protocol overhead as the transfer protocol is specialized for that type of media, instead of using a protocol layered on top of the network that involves special parsing and additional considerations by
each layer. Example being HLS and binary transfer in HTTP
2. You have an easier time as a software client user and as a software client developer defining controls for the type of content you wish to
view and whether you want it to be manually interacted with or
automatically fetched.
2b. This directly helps with the issues of dealing with things like JS where essentially you are running other people's served code, which can cause you to, lets say, auto play videos and auto fetch images despite you having those settings set to false. Avoiding so called jailbreaks
4. It encourages a full applicatio suite. Much like the UNIX philosophy of one thing done well, you can have a separation of tools and separation of concerns for each developer.
3. It provides for simpler specifications due to limited scope. One HUGE problem with HTML and HTTP is that their specifications are HUGE and
forever changing. For example, HTML (SGML derived) is permissible to have non-well-formed documents. i.e. unclosed tags such as '<p>' '<br>' and
many more. While in that same exact specification they have XHTML (XML Derived, now simply called HTML as they are no longer delineated in the spec) which *IS* well formed. HTTP also has for a while had the capability to do live streaming, overtaking traditional streaming control protocols such as rtsp, rtmp and rts (I know that some of these are hypertext
oriented protocols, they are built for a specific purpose none-the-less). There are some good reasons for HLS vs rtsp, rtmp, etc... Originating from the way it plays nicely with CDNs (HLS is file based streaming in
typically 0.5-2 second chunks) but I honestly have to think that similar benefits could be derived from the same level of trickery pulled to make
HLS happen in just making a CDN friendly streaming protocol. Completely removing the HTTP stack and wackiness that way.
3a. This also, I think, would make writing specifications that could be
used universally much easier, rather than a lazy de facto standard that emerges from organizations developing for use cases individually and then sharing that with (or copying from) other orgs. Or even worse, only for a single platform/application, which leads every website to be a PWA that requires JS.
Conclusion:
Ultimately, I would want the media specific protocols for to simplfy and make the internet much more intentional and privacy respecting in nature. Screw algorithms, screw proprietary content delivery stacks and stop expecting me to run other people's shady code to view what could be summerized in a notepad.exe document (my fave cookie recipe).
I think that we have enough going over HTTP. And for business/life
critical tasks such as banking, there are very much correct ways to handle their communications that SHOULD be standardized in their own protocols using encryption and the like. Not left up to some web dev to figure out during their 8hr shift only for it to probably be implemented wrong. And
if implemented correctly, only for that one bank.
Removing the oppourtunity for error and distributing the control of media consumption and program execution is paramount to freedom of discussion
and internet security. As a side note, the fact that I can get served zero cliekc malware through AD networks is just insane to me, I can't even support my favorite creators without worrying about my security! (This
issue could be averted completely with server side AD code, but easily blocked :) )
Post Script.
As another side note. I think that one thing the entirety of the global network really really forgets is that separation of concerns does not
simply stop at the hardware/infrastructure level. Neither does the UNIX philosophy stop where it seems to end. Instead, separation of concerns, trust and function are at the core values of the whole computing machine
and it networking. Simply those platforms that most use don't take this approach. Its the minimal viable product, the path of least resistence and highest profit. Feature creep over expert execution. It just hurts my soul
Post Post Script.
I honestly think that ultimately what I have proposed would do a lot of
good for the main use case that people use the internet for now, communication/entertainment (this has been kinda blurred in recent
decades) and would prevent a lot of vendor/application lock in that we
have seen with web browsers and word processors. It would just rely on people actually wanting to retain that type of computing environment once they realize what they have and could lose.
On 5 Aug 2026 09:36:01 GMT Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> wrote:
I have no trouble with mail hosting (I have a cooperative ISP).
Getting the ISP to allow outbound is one thing. The larger problem as
I've seen it is that Major Players (Google, f'rexample) are perfectly
happy to take a you're-not-on-The-List-sir approach to actual delivery; nominally for spam control, but it's mighty convenient that this makes smaller players in the space effectively second-class citizens.
(F'rexample, I'm on a mailing list that GMail has simply stopped taking messages from; it's a bog-standard MailMan list as people have been
running since the late Paleolithic, but for some reason messages won't
come through no matter what I do. Don't even show up in my spam folder,
just go straight to dev/null. Actually had to open an account with a
small provider to receive them.)
On 5 Aug 2026 09:36:01 GMT Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> wrote:
I have no trouble with mail hosting (I have a cooperative ISP).
Getting the ISP to allow outbound is one thing. The larger problem as
I've seen it is that Major Players (Google, f'rexample) are perfectly
happy to take a you're-not-on-The-List-sir approach to actual delivery; nominally for spam control, but it's mighty convenient that this makes smaller players in the space effectively second-class citizens.
(F'rexample, I'm on a mailing list that GMail has simply stopped taking messages from; it's a bog-standard MailMan list as people have been
running since the late Paleolithic, but for some reason messages won't
come through no matter what I do. Don't even show up in my spam folder,
just go straight to dev/null. Actually had to open an account with a
small provider to receive them.)
Thanks for the through presentation. Your ideas are what makes sense to
me; it is the lack of such properties in the current web and web
browsing that makes me think they will not survive down the road. In
the end, it is really the best design that survives. (Yes, Common Lisp
is still an island, but the story is not over yet. Things don't evolve
as fast as the expert would like to see.)
Not to criticize your ideas, but just to add the comment that I still
can't see a new-revolutionary idea. The current difficulty that we face
at the current web seems to be how to move it from where it is to this doug-mcilroy-do-one-thing-and-do-it-well design. The obvious thing /to
me/ is the need for a new type of web browser. Things hardly ever are
born more powerful than the current in-use tool, but it has to be cool
enough to encourage people to use it. Without a New Browser (whatever
it would be), users will not take it on and so web developers will not
care about it. I was happy to see the birth of the Gemini protocol, but
it's unclear it is it.
One my current hopes is the so-called ai-slop. Perhaps it will destroy
the web so badly that it will bury the web browser, allowing new ideas
to emerge.
I feel we may be at an exciting moment. In the beginning, the
excitement was the void, the unknown that was ahead of the hacker's
work. Now the void may be here again, but in the form of nonsense.
On Tue, 4 Aug 2026 08:29:35 -0700, John Ames wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2026 21:59:53 -0300 Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org>
wrote:
I miss those days of hand-hacking web sites, stashing a box in your
company's server room to serve web pages, and hosting your own mail.
Those days are still here.
Mail hosting is unfortunately non-trivial thanks to the Major Players
going ape with spam control in a way that *just so happens* to block all
but the Major Players from reliable delivery - but yes, it's still 100%
possible to roll your own website as much from-scratch as you please.
(Hell, in some ways it's actually easier, now that pretty much every
browser has reasonable CSS support.)
What is even worse is that major VPS providers and ISPs block outbound
port 25 (SMTP) and the encrypted port (don't care to look it up). Its
quite evil.
On Mon, 03 Aug 2026 21:59:53 -0300
Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> wrote:
I miss those days of hand-hacking web sites, stashing a box in your
company's server room to serve web pages, and hosting your own
mail.
Those days are still here.
Mail hosting is unfortunately non-trivial thanks to the Major Players
going ape with spam control in a way that *just so happens* to block
all but the Major Players from reliable delivery - but yes, it's still
100% possible to roll your own website as much from-scratch as you
please. (Hell, in some ways it's actually easier, now that pretty much
every browser has reasonable CSS support.)
It turns out Gmail doesn't give us a lot of trouble if you implement
SPF, DKIM and DMARC.
On 5 Aug 2026 09:36:01 GMT
Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> wrote:
I have no trouble with mail hosting (I have a cooperative ISP).
Getting the ISP to allow outbound is one thing. The larger problem as
I've seen it is that Major Players (Google, f'rexample) are perfectly
happy to take a you're-not-on-The-List-sir approach to actual delivery; nominally for spam control, but it's mighty convenient that this makes smaller players in the space effectively second-class citizens.
(F'rexample, I'm on a mailing list that GMail has simply stopped taking messages from; it's a bog-standard MailMan list as people have been
running since the late Paleolithic, but for some reason messages won't
come through no matter what I do. Don't even show up in my spam folder,
just go straight to dev/null. Actually had to open an account with a
small provider to receive them.)
What will more likely become the case is that you'll need at least one account with "Major Players" with a mailbox, and a mail address and
mailbox outside of said players, so that you're reachable and can reach
both sides of the schism.
Also, beware that Microsoft is especially evil regarding e-mail
delivery. If you're delivering or sending to somebody whose domain has
MX handled by Microsoft (local hosting also included in this, if it uses Exchange Online Protection - I literally mean the MX record pointing to Microsoft), it's better to cautiously assume it will not be delivered.
Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> writes:
[...]
I saw Lisp Club on a post header of your article. Are you discussing
Lisp anywhere on the USENET or anywhere else on the Internet? Please
share?
Thank you for informing me that you have noticed.
I won't reply to it, because it is a personal question. And clearly off-topic here.
I won't reply to it, because it is a personal question. And clearly
off-topic here.
LISP is old enough to be topical in this newsfroup.
the IP address I currently use, though this IP address is not present in
any other famous SMTP blacklist out there that I know of.
scott wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-
I only noticed this was a problem when I was trying to send mail to someone I know IRL who has an email address through one of Microsoft's services (don't recall if it was Hotmail or Outlook.com). For some inexplicable reason, Microsoft had configured its mail servers to use UCEProtect.
I filed a ticket at Linode. Linode contacted Microsoft. Within a day
or two, the problem was resolved and the mail started going through.
Mail hosting is unfortunately non-trivial thanks to the Major Players
going ape with spam control in a way that *just so happens* to block
all but the Major Players from reliable delivery - but yes, it's still
100% possible to roll your own website as much from-scratch as you
please. (Hell, in some ways it's actually easier, now that pretty much
every browser has reasonable CSS support.)
scott wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-
I filed a ticket at Linode. Linode contacted Microsoft. Within a
day or two, the problem was resolved and the mail started going
through.
I was shocked ("Shocked, I say!") when I researched why my office
Teams telephone number showed up as SPAM RISK on my Android phone. I
went to hiya.com and registered my Teams number, and within 24 hours
the SPAM moniker went away.
On Sat, 8 Aug 2026 08:06:31 -0700, Kurt Weiske wrote:
scott wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-
I filed a ticket at Linode. Linode contacted Microsoft. Within a
day or two, the problem was resolved and the mail started going
through.
I was shocked ("Shocked, I say!") when I researched why my office
Teams telephone number showed up as SPAM RISK on my Android phone. I
went to hiya.com and registered my Teams number, and within 24 hours
the SPAM moniker went away.
Apparently the SCAMMERS have been spoofing the phone numbers of
these high profile, "got to answer this!" phone numbers. And some
people then report these to the various spammer data bases.
On Sun, 9 Aug 2026 00:03:23 -0000 (UTC), danny burstein wrote:
Apparently the SCAMMERS have been spoofing the phone numbers of
these high profile, "got to answer this!" phone numbers. And some
people then report these to the various spammer data bases.
There are supposed to be protocols in place for reputable telcos to be
able to attest to caller ID from their own customers, and also define
the level of trust for that passed across from other providers ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STIR/SHAKEN>.
Daniel Cerqueira <dan.list@lispclub.com> writes:
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> writes:
On 2026-07-25, Tom Mix wrote:
So do we.
https://rootbadger.com
Given the amount of times this is being advertised here, that's about to >>> cross a threshold of me never looking into it because it's being
advertised as if this were a TV commercial spot :-P
Same, Nuno.
I saw Lisp Club on a post header of your article. Are you discussing
Lisp anywhere on the USENET or anywhere else on the Internet? Please
share?
On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 01:02:25 -0000 (UTC), Ted W. wrote:
On 2026-07-25, Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-07-25, Tom Mix wrote:
[...]
Just another centralized message board among hundreds (thousands?) that
already exist. The novelty is the usenet-like group hierarchy otherwise
it looks just like Digg (RIP), Reddit, Lemmy and others.
If I've learned anything over the last 20+ years of modern social media
it's that they either collapse or live long enough to sell your data.
Usenet, the original social media platform, has been around since long
before most Silicon Valley social media founders were born and it will
remain long after they're gone.
I'll stick to the original, warts and all.
There is also something to say about just the simplicity. I have run a
lemmy instance and still find it frustrating that you have to use web browsers to utilize the platform. KISS really applies here in that we
already have protocol standards for discussions and minimal clients with minimal network connectivity required.
Multimedia is rather over-emphasized on popular disccussion platforms and
is better served on their own dedicated platforms for their binary types.
As a side note, I would prefer its own protocol for the different types of media to be consumed (as with NNTP for mainly textual discussion) however, it's a far fetched and not well thought out idea of mine that I wouldn't expect to see ever happening in the wild at any great scale.
Verily, in article <875x1xa9t7.fsf@safunu.org>, did anton@safunu.org
deliver unto us this message:
Yes. Not being the smart way to use computers, it can't be the future.
For years I've expected the web to somehow die precisely because of the
way browsers have been evolving. Complex software is bound to die
because of the lack of diversity. Look how very few browsers we have.
Why is that? Because only very rich corporations can build it. And
maybe now we have a glimpse of the downfall of the web. The so-called
smart systems producing slop and bots perhaps being responsible for most
of the web traffic. Maybe that's indeed the end of the web. Rebirth.
I still think the web as its idealized conception is something we want.
Just like the USENET is something we want.
This is an interesting discussion.
Perhaps hypertext and document organization should never have been
combined. I recently rediscovered gopherspace, and to my surprise it's
not completely dead.
The current web dissatisfies thinking people. Something else is bound to arise. Maybe it'll be a gopherspace revival or maybe a new thing, but
the web just isn't cutting it these days.
We never should have let the corporatins sieze control of everything,
but we didn't know what to do.
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> writes:
Verily, in article <875x1xa9t7.fsf@safunu.org>, did anton@safunu.org
deliver unto us this message:
Yes. Not being the smart way to use computers, it can't be the future.
For years I've expected the web to somehow die precisely because of the
way browsers have been evolving. Complex software is bound to die
because of the lack of diversity. Look how very few browsers we have.
Why is that? Because only very rich corporations can build it. And
maybe now we have a glimpse of the downfall of the web. The so-called
smart systems producing slop and bots perhaps being responsible for most >>> of the web traffic. Maybe that's indeed the end of the web. Rebirth.
I still think the web as its idealized conception is something we want.
Just like the USENET is something we want.
This is an interesting discussion.
Perhaps hypertext and document organization should never have been
combined. I recently rediscovered gopherspace, and to my surprise it's
not completely dead.
The current web dissatisfies thinking people. Something else is bound to
arise. Maybe it'll be a gopherspace revival or maybe a new thing, but
the web just isn't cutting it these days.
We never should have let the corporatins sieze control of everything,
but we didn't know what to do.
Exactly. I don't think we could've done anything. They're free to
destroy. They found a way to make money and so they did. I hesitate to
say it was completely disastrous because perhaps some good came: a lot
of us found a way to make a living? In the beginning, we were the only
ones who knew how to use it and how it worked. I suppose this is the
same we must do again.
I'm not so closely in touch with NNTP admins here, but judging from the groups hosted by Eternal September, after Google Groups left the USENET, things look pretty bright here. Why? Because once again we're left to
our own devices here. The only sorry thing is that all the experts we
used to have are really hanging out somewhere else. I wonder if they
know that the USENET is peaceful once again.
What I believe is that they just don't want to come back because perhaps
the USENET is just not disruption-free guaranteed. Perhaps we think now
we need to really have semi-open groups such as a mailing list or a
private NNTP server. For example, the Linux kernel people seem to
prefer a mailing list (for posting) because this way they easily ban any misbehaving member and keep the newbies at bay.
So that's another question I ask. Is the USENET model the adequate one
for an Internet-populous world? Maybe we should begin a new network of interlinked private NNTP servers. It doesn't seem that a high-volume
NNTP group is interesting anyway; that usually means a too high
noise/content ratio.
On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 10:17:24 -0400, The True Melissa wrote:
We never should have let the corporatins sieze control of everything,
but we didn't know what to do.
A lot of users of Free Software act very much like sheep.
On 2026-08-04, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:
Mail hosting is unfortunately non-trivial thanks to the Major Players
going ape with spam control in a way that *just so happens* to block
all but the Major Players from reliable delivery - but yes, it's still
100% possible to roll your own website as much from-scratch as you
please. (Hell, in some ways it's actually easier, now that pretty much
every browser has reasonable CSS support.)
Only partially true. Yes, the major MSPs have taken over the majority of
mail delivery. And, yes, there are certain hoops you have to jump
through to get mail to deliver reliably to them. But it's far from
impossible and I would argue that achieving reliable delivery is only marginally non-trivial. Most of the issues are well documented and most
MSPs follow pretty standard practices (DMARC, DKIM, SPF, etc.)
I started hosting my own mail server about 15 years ago and haven't
looked back. The ability to use unique and randomly generated email
addresses for every website reduces not only the ability for advertisers
to have a reliable primary key with which to fingerprint your activity online. Additionally, it makes it trivial to fight spam. It also has the
side benefit of enabling attribution to companies that have sold your
data or who have experienced breaches.
It's certainly more work than signing up for Gmail but I'd argue that
there are more benefits than people realize. I also hold the, possibly unpopular opinion that LLMs have made the hosting of one's own mail
server ever the more trivial since a lot of what complicated doing so in
the past was knowing how the major MSPs fight spam. This information has by-and-large been consumed by LLMs and is now very easy to find.
On 26/07/2026 9:43 AM, Anton Antimo wrote:
Daniel Cerqueira <dan.list@lispclub.com> writes:
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> writes:I saw Lisp Club on a post header of your article. Are you
On 2026-07-25, Tom Mix wrote:
So do we.
https://rootbadger.com
Given the amount of times this is being advertised here, that's about to >>>> cross a threshold of me never looking into it because it's being
advertised as if this were a TV commercial spot :-P
Same, Nuno.
discussing
Lisp anywhere on the USENET or anywhere else on the Internet? Please
share?
I have been discussing how to learn Common Lisp in comp.lang.lisp. What
is it about Lisp that you want to discuss? Do you wish to weave a web
with me on Hunchentoot? We could create a front weave for alt.folklore. computers!
In article <87mrv0s24m.fsf@safunu.org>, Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> wrote:
But I can't email my (one) friend on Hotmail because Hotmail has banned
the IP address I currently use, though this IP address is not present in >>any other famous SMTP blacklist out there that I know of.
Where is your mail server located? Mine was (at the time) on a Linode VPS. The scammers at UCEProtect have blacklisted Linode's entire IP address
range, just because they're assholes like that.
I only noticed this was a problem when I was trying to send mail to
someone I know IRL who has an email address through one of Microsoft's services (don't recall if it was Hotmail or Outlook.com). For some inexplicable reason, Microsoft had configured its mail servers to use UCEProtect.
I filed a ticket at Linode. Linode contacted Microsoft. Within a day
or two, the problem was resolved and the mail started going through.
(I ended up moving that VPS to Server Optima...more disk and RAM at a
lower price. That said, I still have other services at Linode and
wouldn't hesitate to recommend them.)
On 2026-08-04, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:
Mail hosting is unfortunately non-trivial thanks to the Major Players
going ape with spam control in a way that *just so happens* to block
all but the Major Players from reliable delivery - but yes, it's still
100% possible to roll your own website as much from-scratch as you
please. (Hell, in some ways it's actually easier, now that pretty much
every browser has reasonable CSS support.)
Only partially true. Yes, the major MSPs have taken over the majority of
mail delivery. And, yes, there are certain hoops you have to jump
through to get mail to deliver reliably to them. But it's far from
impossible and I would argue that achieving reliable delivery is only marginally non-trivial. Most of the issues are well documented and most
MSPs follow pretty standard practices (DMARC, DKIM, SPF, etc.)
I started hosting my own mail server about 15 years ago and haven't
looked back. The ability to use unique and randomly generated email
addresses for every website reduces not only the ability for advertisers
to have a reliable primary key with which to fingerprint your activity online. Additionally, it makes it trivial to fight spam. It also has the
side benefit of enabling attribution to companies that have sold your
data or who have experienced breaches.
It's certainly more work than signing up for Gmail but I'd argue that
there are more benefits than people realize. I also hold the, possibly unpopular opinion that LLMs have made the hosting of one's own mail
server ever the more trivial since a lot of what complicated doing so
in the past was knowing how the major MSPs fight spam. This
information has by-and-large been consumed by LLMs and is now very
easy to find.
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 9 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 42:02:40 |
| Calls: | 220 |
| Files: | 21,513 |
| Messages: | 84,866 |