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: | 5 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 232:44:22 |
| Calls: | 221 |
| Files: | 21,513 |
| Messages: | 84,424 |