Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:

> On 3/2/23 3:41 PM, Bugsy wrote:
>> I understand that you're saying we should be omnipotent,
>
> Nope. I didn't say nor imply that at all.

It's OK. I probably should have known it all but I think I figured it out
because people on this newsgroup "said" you can post. All I'm requesting is
for the web page to say that so people would know they can post after
authentication and not just read after authentication (like some servers).
>> and that I'm stupid,
>
> I did not say nor imply that in any way, shape, or form. I'll thank you
> for not putting words in my mouth / keyboard.

I didn't mean it as an insult. I just meant it as an acknowledgement on my
part that I probably should have known the answers to what I asked just by
guessing - but my point was that I can easily guess wrong because I know of
some sites which don't allow posting even after authentication (I'm not
sure, for example, what the netfront status is).

>
>> where I get it that you think I should know this stuff already.
>
> Nope.
>
> Everybody has to start from nothing and learn things.

Well, not really. The web page, I think, is great but it should add four
things which can be links so they don't clutter up the web page.
<1> It should state you can "post" after you authenticate (not just read)
<2> It should list the newsgroups that you can post to (using a link!)
<3> Somewhere it should mention binary newsgroups (not that I care myself)

> Some things, like much of what you've asked about, are poorly ~> under
> documented.

<4> It "could" point to a setup example for the i2P
It would assume the i2p software is already installed.
It can assume bogus authorization credentials.
Then it can show the user what buttons to press in the i2p setup.

> There are many things that people learn when they are learning something
> new. Sometimes those things are learned from documentation. Some other
> things are learned by trial and error. But they are still learned.

I agree since I've done torrents for example, which took me a long time to
figure out how the process works but which I could explain in ten lines
now.

Also it took me a long time in the beginning to get tor working with the
socks5 stuff and privoxy garbage where it's so complicated I just gave up.

Similarly with the orbox/orfox stuff on Android which was so complicated
that I just gave up. Same on trying to set up a Windows owncloud and/or
caldav server where sometimes it just turns out to be impossible (it works
on linux but not really on Windows kind of stuff you learn the hard way).

Same when I tried to set up my own vpn when all I really wanted was to use
an existing vpn service (which didn't exist long ago as they do now).

Lot's of things are complicated but almost all of them would be a lot
easier if someone who is providing the service provides a step by step.

I'm sure I even had this learning problem when I first set up tin maybe
twenty years or whatever ago, or when I first set up stunnel.
>> But I don't.
>
> That's fine.

An i2p example would go a looooooooooooooooooooooooong way to help noobs.

>> Worse, I know stuff that provides a counterclaim (see below).
>
> I question the veracity of that.

Well, take aioe then. It doesn't do alt.home.repair newsgroups.
Is that intuitive? Not to me it's not. Maybe to you but not to me.

The paga server doesn't do alt.checkmate (not that I care) but if I cared,
I'd want to know that, wouldn't I?

Those are minor but when you use the news.mozilla.org:119 server (which I
think they took down), it only carried like a half dozen newsgroups.

>> So I get it that you're expecting me to already know what I asked
>
> No I am not expecting any such thing.

Same with news.novabbs.org which only serves an IP address from Australia.
If they don't tell you that, how are you supposed to know that?

My only reason for saying this is three things
<1> They know it (the server admins)
<2> The rocksolid site doesn't say it
<3> And yet a noob like I am needs to know it

>
>> them to document when you say if they call themselves a news server
>> then they should be available for posting.
>
> I maintain that if they are offering Usenet / news services then they
> should be available for posting.

I don't disagree that you guessed that, and you guessed right, but take the
counter case of news.tambov.ru:119 which offers usenet news services
without needing login credentials.

It certainly works (as I've used it myself in the past) but can you post to
this newsgroup? You don't know. You can only guess. And that's the issue.

> It may very well be that you can't post until after you authenticate.

My counterclaim is that some things that "look" like nntp services are more
complicated, like the news.gmane.org:119 situation where (as I recall) it
did NOT require a login/password so the credentials are blank/blank but you
had to be pre-approved by sending them an email request first.

That's not intuitive that it works that way, right?
Someone has to explain it to you as you'd never guess, right?

I think the easiest way to explain how (I remember) gmane to work is that
ALL groups are moderated by the gmane admin, not only moderated newsgroups.

> There is also a good chance that some banners may not properly reflect this.

I understand that a telnet isn't all that good of an indicator of posting
but it is an indicator of listing if it allows you to list the newsgroup.

But why should someone have to telnet and list to know that the
news.tambov.ru:119 or news.mozilla.org:119 authentication-free open servers
only carry something like a dozen newsgroups or that the paga server only
allows four posts every two days (or something like that, I don't recall).

Or that aioe doesn't allow posting to alt.privacy or some other oddball
restriction when you would "guess" completely different than the reality.

> Dizum appears to be a special purpose NNTP server and not a general
> purpose Usenet server.

I don't know that but I'll accept that you know that, but how do you know
that, and more to the issue at hand is how am I supposed to know that?

It looks like a 'normal' usenet server to me from the little I know of it.
It just doesn't work the way you would "guess" it to work, which is why I
brought it up as a counterclaim to the "omnipotence" requirement. :-)

>> telnet news.dizum.net 119 200 sewer InterNetNews NNRP server INN
>> 2.6.3 ready (no posting)
>
> That's an example of the banner that is likely providing mis-information
> and / or reflecting the fact that you've not yet authenticated.

I could try to post but I already know dizum doesn't allow posting but I
only know that from experience. Which is my issue with the rocksolid page.

It's not a major issue. But why should a noob have to guess?
They could add the four things I ask in a few minutes since they know it.

Then nobody after me needs to guess.

>> The reason I was confused is that _some_ nntp servers aren't really
>> nntp servers
>
> NNTP is the Network News Transfer Protocol. If a server speaks the NNTP
> protocol, then it is an NNTP server.
>
> Not all NNTP servers are Usenet servers.

See! I told you I was stupid. I didn't even realize that. It's OK.
Thanks. It's OK to be stupid as long as I can fix it with your help. :-)

>> (and this one seems to be in that same category of having one foot
>> inside of nntp with the other foot somewhere else, like i2p whatever
>> that is).
>
> i2p is a communications method. It's completely independent and
> orthogonal to NNTP.

I didn't know that but the only thing I am asking for is setup instructions
for a noob assuming bogus credentials and assuming i2p is already
installed.

Since they know that and since no noob knows that, it would be helpful for
them to link to a web page that says what the i2p setup to their server is.

>> Given that it's not a "normal" nntp server, it might not carry normal
>> newsgroups.
>
> I believe you mean "Usenet", not "NNTP".

See above. I equate them. But I never ran an nntp server. So I'm a noob.
>> If you think that doesn't happen, then you might want to recall
>> that the old news.mozilla.org:119 nntp server only carried the
>> mozilla newsgroups. mozilla.general mozilla.support.firefox
>> mozilla.support.thunderbird
>
> Mozilla's news server was not a Usenet server. But it was very much an
> NNTP server.

Well, that's not exactly true but I guess it's mostly true in that it
depends on how a noob thinks about it. You're thinking like an expert.

As a noob, I know you could post to the mozilla.support.firefox newsgroup
using almost any NNTP server, so for example you could post using
nntp.aioe.org:119 or news.solani.org:119 or news.mixmin.net:119 too.

But it wasn't "exactly" the same result as if you had posted using the
news.mozilla.org:119 server because it depended on peering and the like.

My point is that I can give counterclaim after counterclaim after
counterclaim where what looks like a duck and quacks like a duck isn't
actually a duck.

It seems to be the same with the rocksolid server but I don't know that for
a fact which is why I would ask them to just say the four missing things.

>> If you think that's a one-off of only carrying a very small subsection
>> of newsgroups, then you might want to recall that the gmane server
>> is similar. news.gmane.org:119
>
> Gmane's server is an NNTP server but not a Usenet server.

But to me, it looked like a duck and quacked like a duck even as it wasn't
a duck. You know it wasn't a duck. But how would a noob like me know if
they don't tell you on their information web page?
>> As far as I remember, that server only carried gmane groups, didn't it?
>> I don't remember actually, but then there's the dual purpose mixmin
>> server which is really a mail gateway anonymizer that acts like an
>> nntp server.
>
> Mixmin is an NNTP server. But that doesn't mean that it's a Usenet server.

I don't understand that above as I'm well aware that you "can" post to the
Usenet newsgroups using your MUA by sending that email to mixmin servers.

But this is a great counterclaim example for the point that I don't even
know how to do that because I don't have an EXAMPLE in front of me to
follow.

So I would post via news.mixmin.net:119 in my newsgreader setup, but if I
had a written example of how to post using my MUA, I might try that.

But I'm a noob. So I don't know how to do that. I can't even guess how.

>> Luckily, the telnet/list command shows a lot of newsgroups, but it's
>> not obvious which is why I'm asking for that so simply be documented
>> better.
>
> That is a reasonable request.

Well, the good news is that the list command went on forever for the
rocksolid telnet, so I can assume that it carries "most" newsgroups.

But I did not know that until I ran the list command.

And, a counterclaim would be that if you ran the list command on the aioe
server, you'd see thousands (or whatever) but alt.home.repair wouldn't be
in that list (or that alt.checkmate wouldn't be in the paga listing?).

Now how would you know that as a noob?
> But the most authoritative list of what newsgroups are carried is the
> server itself. Documentation on a web page ends up out of date and
> incorrect. So ... ask your news client or run the list command.

True. So true. But what they "can" do that doesn't get out of date is say
things like "we don't carry binary newsgroups" or "we carry the main 8
hierarchies" or "we don't carry alt newsgroups" or something simple like
that which covers their principles (which probably don't change often).

>> My confusion before I ran the list command was the way they describe
>> their hierarchy, which if you read what they say, they imply there's
>> a "rocksolid" Usenet hierarchy - which I have no idea what that
>> even means.
>
> As you will learn as you spend more time in Usenet and / or other NNTP
> servers, hierarchie names go from the left to right. So the rocksolid
> hierarchy or "rocksolid.*" newsgroups, are specific to the rocksolid group.

Yeah. I figured that out after I had posted that by the "list" command.

> So rocksolid is either a private NNTP server or it's a hybrid server
> that includes private groups and public Usenet hierarchies.

That's all they'd have to say, which is what they cover, in principle.
Their principles shouldn't change all that often imho.

It's kind of like dizum only allows read so they can tell you that.

Also paga limits you to about four or five messages a day.
So they can tell you that.

You can guess. But why should a noob have to guess when looking at the
rocksolid web page for the first time to see if it's something they want?

>> To see what I'm talking about, go to this web page.
>> http://novabbs.org/common/nodelist.php
>
> That's a list of NNTP servers that carry the rocksolid.* hierarchy.

Yeah. At first I thought rocksolid was like the mozilla setup where it only
allowed posting to their newsgroups - but the list proved otherwise.

But why guess? They can say so in principle (which is a sentence).

>> Then look for this line. "Rocksolid is also available from any usenet
>> news provider carrying the rocksolid.* hierarchy"
>
> Yes, what of it?
>
> Not all Usenet servers carry the rocksolid.* hierarchy. Some do. Not
> all do.

Well, I didn't understand that line (remember, I'm a noob) so now I do.
Thanks.

It just means they carry a lot of hierarchies, and, they carry those too.

>> I don't know what that means but I originally interpreted it sort
>> of like how the mozilla server only handled mozilla newsgroups and
>> nothing else.
>
> Yes, that's correct. They were NNTP servers that carried hierarchies
> that aren't part of general Usenet.

The funny thing (confusing thing actually) was that the mozilla hierarchies
were peered so they "looked" like normal newsgroups even though they
weren't.

It wasn't obvious to a noob who accessed those peered mozilla hierarchies
using aioe or mixmin or whatever (instead of using the mozilla server).

>> They even mention their own newsgroup so that's more of an indication.
>> rocksolid.shared.rocksolid
>
> Fine.
>
> Any news server is free to carry whatever hierarchies they want to carry.
>
> News != Usenet
> NNTP != Usenet
>
> Usenet implies NNTP
> Usenet can be carried over something other than NNTP.

I only brought the issue up as a counterclaim that guessing isn't the right
way to go about introducing a noob to a new server such as rocksolid seems
to be.

Speaking of that, how long has rocksolid been running anyway?
Are they brand new like paganini?
Or old but new again like blueworld?
Or even old but nobody knew about like maddog.stanford.edu?
>> I'll check it out but it will take me a while since I have to start
>> from nothing.
>
> Ask questions.
>
> There are some in the alt.privacy.anon-server newsgroup that use i2p. I
> suspect they will be willing to answer questions.
>
> Though I would encourage you to be less hostile.

I don't think I was hostile. I was matter of fact stating that I know I'm
stupid but that's the whole reason I asked for the documentation.

A noob can't guess right all the time.
Even an expert can't guess right all the time.

I'm a noob with the rocksolid stuff.
But I don't want others to have to guess like I did.

They know the answers to the four questions.
They could just write them.

I'm not complaining.
I'd write them myself if I knew the answers.
But I don't.

>> It would be nice if they assumed a user like me who knows only how
>> Usenet works with a typical news server and then they walk them
>> through an example setup with i2p for their rocksolid server.
>
> I think that's the job of i2p client / community and not the Usenet
> server providers.

Maybe. Maybe not.
If you subcribe to eternal september, you get a nice email back that tells
you how to set it up.

Why can't rocksolid do the same when it comes to i2p setup?
They know it.
A noob doesn't know it.

>> They can assume an email of foo@bar.com & a password of foobar for
>> example. Then they can walk a typical user who has already installed
>> the i2p tools through the setup for their rocksolid server.
>
> Rocksolid is better off providing documentation for what the majority of
> their users will need. i2p is quite niche and won't have many users
> compared to NNTP.

Not going to disagree with you on that one.
Maybe they don't want noobs using i2p anyway.
It could be like giving a high school kid a brand new ferrari.
Not a good idea sometimes to play with the big boys without learning first
on a honda.

>> If they did that just once, the rest of us could follow their example.
>> I'm not blaming them. They're busy I'm sure.
>>
>> It's just a suggestion. I would write it myself but I don't even
>> know what i2p is yet.
>
> I suspect they would appreciate that.

If I ever figure it out, I'll send a writeup to them.

>
>> Yes. I know.
>>
>> Remember that I can give you examples that don't work the way you
>> assume.
>
> I did say "common" and not "always".
>
> There are some uncommon configurations that do allow posting without
> authenticating. Almost all of which are a frequent source of abuse / spam.

I'm sure aioe not allowing posting to the alt.home.repair newsgroup but
allowing reading to it is a result of that so I won't disagree.

Same with paganini limiting the number of posts to about four or five.

All I'm asking though is for that information to be provided to noobs for
rocksolid because I have to assess whether or not it's worth the trouble.

Think about it this way. I know, for example, that battery jumpers they
sell have the SAME problems as the batteries you're jumping, in that I
bought one of them five years ago and now the battery is dead so it's
useless as a portable battery jumper (it still charges though).

Marketing isn't ever going to tell me the truth, so a review should have
told me that they're useless (over time) since they have the same flaws as
the battery you're jumping has.

If I knew that before I bought it, I wouldn't have bought it.
Same with my 110VAC welder and 2-inch wood chipper.
Same with the electric lawn mower.
Or the lightwight so-called mulcher that they sold me at Sears.

I had to go to the trouble of using those things to find out that they
really don't work (in terms of doing a job that you need to have done).

Why do I have to go through all the trouble to figure out how rocksolid
works only to find out, perhaps, in the end, that it doesn't actually work?

> Given that Usenet and / or news servers are almost always meant for
> people to communicate, and seeing as how posting is required to be able
> to do that, it's sort of implied that there is a way to post to such
> servers.

All they have to do is say that. It's only one additional word.
And it shouldn't change over time because it's one of their principles.

> I would expect any public Usenet operator to provide a page that tells
> you what server name to point your client at, what security method is
> supported, what ports to use, how to authenticate.

They actually have that but what they don't tell you is anything useful
about i2p setup for a noob - but we covered that to death already.

Also what they don't cover at all is what's the difference between their
seven different servers? Nothing? Something? Who knows. I can only guess.
Rocksolid Light:
<1> rslight.i2p
<2> fev4bgoasgxttqb3x3tukxxia6lwryteq6a2ramqb2gjiol3zbu6xaid.onion
<3> news.novabbs.org

retroBBS:
<4> retrobbs.i2p
<5> retrobbs2.i2p
<6> www.rocksolidbbs.com

novaBBS:
<7> www.novabbs.com

As a noob, I immediately ask myself, what's the difference?
I don't know.

Do you?
How can you tell?
>> And remember, I gave you a valid nntp countercase for EVERY one of my
>> requests so it's not like I'm making any of this up wearing my tin hat
>> (now where did I leave that faraday cage anyway?). ;->
>
> I believe you are conflating NNTP and Usenet. They are similar but not
> the same thing.

I did say I was a noob so I agree with you I considered them one and the
same. I had considered nntp the server protocol to the Usenet newsgroups.
--
Please wear your mask!
Bugs are everywhere. :)
!__!
(@)(@)
\.'||'./
-: :: :-
/'..''..'\