On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 04:46:15PM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote:
web forums, app-based, IM-style, etc.) but none of that, to my mind, lessens
NNTP's ideal applicability to getting private discussion group messages from
place to place (the front end UI/UX being a different thing again).
Ignoring
On 28/08/2018 19:33, Mark Rousell wrote:
> And ISPs' historical problems Usenet's massive bandwidth due to
> binaries does not change the fact that NNTP is very good for message
> distribution.
Missing "with" in the above.
--
Mark Rousell
On 28/08/2018 19:23, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> On 8/28/18 1:48 PM, Michael Stone wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 05:02:08PM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote:
>>> Lots of people download files from FTP servers but that's a wholly
>>> different
>>> culture and use case than Usenet provided for in
On 28/08/2018 18:48, Michael Stone wrote:
> I guarantee that for large files FTP is more efficient, and that when
> one person is sending a file to a small number of other peopl, FTP is
> dramatically more efficient.
I am sure. But it still doesn't make FTP meaningfully comparable to
Usenet or
On 8/28/18 1:44 PM, Michael Stone wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 04:50:27PM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote:
Additionally, both FTP and HTTP were not and are not federated,
one-to-many
services or systems in the way that Usenet was
I guess this is where I say "But why would you expect it to
On 8/28/18 1:48 PM, Michael Stone wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 05:02:08PM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote:
Lots of people download files from FTP servers but that's a wholly
different
culture and use case than Usenet provided for in practice. And who
said that
binaries (whether legal or illegal)
On Tuesday 28 August 2018 10:22:34 Dan Purgert wrote:
> Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Tuesday 28 August 2018 09:03:05 Mark Rousell wrote:
> >> On 28/08/2018 12:42, Michael Stone wrote:
> >> > Yes and no. NNTP is inherently open to abuse because it wasn't
> >> > designed with mechanisms to account
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 05:02:08PM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote:
Lots of people download files from FTP servers but that's a wholly different
culture and use case than Usenet provided for in practice. And who said that
binaries (whether legal or illegal) was not a big part of Usenet at its height?
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 04:50:27PM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote:
Additionally, both FTP and HTTP were not and are not federated, one-to-many
services or systems in the way that Usenet was
I guess this is where I say "But why would you expect it to be?" and
ignore the rest of the argument.
On 28/08/2018 15:27, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 02:52:36PM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote:
>> Except for perhaps hacked servers in some cases, FTP never did have
>> much of a
>> part to play in binaries distribution from what I could see.
>
> I guess you didn't use debian? Or are we
On 28/08/2018 15:27, Michael Stone wrote:
> I will not bother to reply to the rest of the long discussion of
> usenet, since I don't want to be accused (again) of "incorrectly"
> talking about usenet instead of NNTP by someone who wrote a long
> message about usenet.
Note that I could not refute
On 28/08/2018 14:52, Mark Rousell wrote:
> Additionally, both FTP and HTTP are not federated, many-to-many
> services or systems. I say again that Usenet was unique in this
> timeframe for the use case of public access, one-to-many, binary
> distribution.
The above is not complete. I meant to
On 28/08/2018 15:16, Michael Stone wrote:
>
>> As with your other comments about Usenet, this is not an issue for a
>> non-publicly federated system. I.e. The problem that affected Usenet
>> (the
>> ultimate in publicly federated systems) in this context does not
>> affect NNTP in
>> general for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:32:30AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 04:22:56PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
[...]
> >To be fair, this only applies to the brave (pre CDN) old world :)
>
> No, it applies just as much to
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 04:22:56PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:16:06AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 02:03:05PM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote:
>Isn't this true of, say, HTTP too?
Not in the same way, because you have a sender and a receiver,
Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 August 2018 09:03:05 Mark Rousell wrote:
>
>> On 28/08/2018 12:42, Michael Stone wrote:
>> > Yes and no. NNTP is inherently open to abuse because it wasn't
>> > designed with mechanisms to account for the cost of a transaction.
>> > (This is true of all the
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 02:52:36PM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote:
Except for perhaps hacked servers in some cases, FTP never did have much of a
part to play in binaries distribution from what I could see.
I guess you didn't use debian? Or are we only talking about the illegal
content that I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:16:06AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 02:03:05PM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote:
> >Isn't this true of, say, HTTP too?
>
> Not in the same way, because you have a sender and a receiver,
> without the
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 02:03:05PM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote:
Isn't this true of, say, HTTP too?
Not in the same way, because you have a sender and a receiver, without
the potentially infinite number of other machines that might be getting
a copy of the content just in case someone might
On 28/08/2018 13:16, Mark Rousell wrote:
>
> Footnote:-
> 1: A more recent example of a very similar skewed and confused view of
> things is the Casio F-91 watch. Certain elements of US intelligence
> had noticed that many terrorist suspects arrested in Iraq were wearing
> the Casio F-91W watch
On 28/08/2018 13:55, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 01:16:45PM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote:
>> NNTP was inefficient in this regard compared to what other protocol or
>> protocols, exactly?
>
> FTP and later HTTP, which handled binaries efficiently. In fact, one
> was even named in a
On Tuesday 28 August 2018 09:03:05 Mark Rousell wrote:
> On 28/08/2018 12:42, Michael Stone wrote:
> > Yes and no. NNTP is inherently open to abuse because it wasn't
> > designed with mechanisms to account for the cost of a transaction.
> > (This is true of all the early internet protocols, not
On 28/08/2018 12:42, Michael Stone wrote:
> Yes and no. NNTP is inherently open to abuse because it wasn't
> designed with mechanisms to account for the cost of a transaction.
> (This is true of all the early internet protocols, not just NNTP,
> which is why we have, e.g., such a spam problem on
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 01:16:45PM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote:
NNTP was inefficient in this regard compared to what other protocol or
protocols, exactly?
FTP and later HTTP, which handled binaries efficiently. In fact, one was
even named in a way to suggest it was a good way to transfer files.
On 28/08/2018 12:10, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 09:39:43AM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>> No. I guess the thing is that *because* NNTP was comparatively
>> efficient,
>> it was used for the "big stuff" (alt.pic.* anyone?). The point is that,
>> to reap the benefits of its
Michael Stone wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:28:35PM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
>>On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:37:48AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>>>
>>> That bandwidth limit is not on your side of the isp, its the bandwidth
>>> from the main trunk lines to the isp. NNTP is a huge bandwidth hog
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 09:15:43AM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote:
You appear to be conflating the NNTP protocol with Usenet, the global message
transmission network. They are different things. Usenet as we currently know it
relies on NNTP but NNTP is not Usenet.
Whilst I agree that it is true that
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 09:39:43AM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
No. I guess the thing is that *because* NNTP was comparatively efficient,
it was used for the "big stuff" (alt.pic.* anyone?). The point is that,
to reap the benefits of its efficiency, a provider has to set up an
NNTP server and
On 28/08/2018 00:04, Gene Heskett wrote:
> My knowledge is based on a conversation I had with my then isp in about
> 1993 or so, so its entirely possible that the protocol has been changed
> since then. What they had then struck me as very very wastefull of
> resources. Because I was such a
On 27/08/2018 21:13, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:28:35PM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:37:48AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>>>
>>> That bandwidth limit is not on your side of the isp, its the bandwidth
>>> from the main trunk lines to the isp. NNTP is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 07:04:36PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Monday 27 August 2018 12:28:35 Dan Ritter wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:37:48AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > [...] NNTP is a huge
> > > bandwidth hog regardless of how
David writes:
> I didn't know they were asking the ISP to *host* the newsgroups, just
> to allow NNTP stuff to pass from whoever is hosting it to the user,
> who pays for the usage they make of it.
The user pays a fixed monthly fee and was promised a certain bandwidth
(*bandwidth*, not monthly
On Monday 27 August 2018 13:07:27 David Wright wrote:
> On Mon 27 Aug 2018 at 11:37:48 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Monday 27 August 2018 11:11:37 David Wright wrote:
> > > On Sat 25 Aug 2018 at 14:27:38 (-0500), John Hasler wrote:
> > > > David writes:
> > > > > Or are you talking about
On Monday 27 August 2018 12:28:35 Dan Ritter wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:37:48AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > That bandwidth limit is not on your side of the isp, its the
> > bandwidth from the main trunk lines to the isp. NNTP is a huge
> > bandwidth hog regardless of how much of it
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 04:13:30PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:28:35PM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:37:48AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > >
> > > That bandwidth limit is not on your side of the isp, its the bandwidth
> > > from the main
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:28:35PM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:37:48AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
That bandwidth limit is not on your side of the isp, its the bandwidth
from the main trunk lines to the isp. NNTP is a huge bandwidth hog
regardless of how much of it your
On Mon 27 Aug 2018 at 11:37:48 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Monday 27 August 2018 11:11:37 David Wright wrote:
>
> > On Sat 25 Aug 2018 at 14:27:38 (-0500), John Hasler wrote:
> > > David writes:
> > > > Or are you talking about some type of "shared channel" of which I
> > > > have no
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:37:48AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> That bandwidth limit is not on your side of the isp, its the bandwidth
> from the main trunk lines to the isp. NNTP is a huge bandwidth hog
> regardless of how much of it your isp accepts for spooling on local disk
> to serve
On Monday 27 August 2018 11:11:37 David Wright wrote:
> On Sat 25 Aug 2018 at 14:27:38 (-0500), John Hasler wrote:
> > David writes:
> > > Or are you talking about some type of "shared channel" of which I
> > > have no knowledge?
> >
> > Cable providers may have a great many customers on a single
On Monday, August 27, 2018 10:18:28 AM dekkz...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 08/27, Dave Sherohman wrote:
> >The only problem I can ever recall seeing with mailing lists and long
> >threads is when people don't trim the posts they're replying to.
>
> Isn't that usually due to topic drift in which case
On Sat 25 Aug 2018 at 14:27:38 (-0500), John Hasler wrote:
> David writes:
> > Or are you talking about some type of "shared channel" of which I have
> > no knowledge?
>
> Cable providers may have a great many customers on a single cable with
> large (but limited) bandwidth.
Oh, like me, you
On 08/27, Dave Sherohman wrote:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 07:23:15PM +0100, mick crane wrote:
mailing list are great until one of the threads gets really, really, really
long
...and then they're *REALLY* great.
The only problem I can ever recall seeing with mailing lists and long
threads is
On Monday 27 August 2018 07:48:01 rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 27, 2018 04:12:32 AM Dave Sherohman wrote:
> > The only problem I can ever recall seeing with mailing lists and
> > long threads is when people don't trim the posts they're replying
> > to.
>
> That never happens on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 07:48:01AM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 27, 2018 04:12:32 AM Dave Sherohman wrote:
> > The only problem I can ever recall seeing with mailing lists and long
> > threads is when people don't trim the
On Monday, August 27, 2018 04:12:32 AM Dave Sherohman wrote:
> The only problem I can ever recall seeing with mailing lists and long
> threads is when people don't trim the posts they're replying to.
That never happens on this list, does it (with tongue deeply in cheek).
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 07:23:15PM +0100, mick crane wrote:
> mailing list are great until one of the threads gets really, really, really
> long
...and then they're *REALLY* great.
The only problem I can ever recall seeing with mailing lists and long
threads is when people don't trim the posts
David writes:
> Or are you talking about some type of "shared channel" of which I have
> no knowledge?
Cable providers may have a great many customers on a single cable with
large (but limited) bandwidth. Some rural providers may have limited
backhaul bandwidth. They make promises to customers
On Fri 24 Aug 2018 at 19:16:35 (-0500), John Hasler wrote:
> I wrote:
> > For marketing reasons they like to advertise very high bandwidth, beyond
> > what they can actually support on shared channels, and then block
> > potentially high-bandwidth services that most of their customers will
> >
On 08/25/2018 07:18 AM, John Hasler wrote:
Richard writes:
I am subscribed to 17 mailing lists and follow 22 USENET groups.
The providers that block NNTP are concerned about binary groups (which
they most likely believe to be the only kind that exist).
Yes. I was just trying to give a data
Richard writes:
> I am subscribed to 17 mailing lists and follow 22 USENET groups.
The providers that block NNTP are concerned about binary groups (which
they most likely believe to be the only kind that exist).
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
On 08/24/2018 06:08 PM, David Wright wrote:
On Fri 24 Aug 2018 at 16:18:40 (-0500), John Hasler wrote:
The Wanderer writes:
If the user chooses a provider which carries those groups, and chooses
to subscribe to one or more of them, then surely that is what that
user is choosing to do with the
On Friday, 24 Aug 2018 at 21:06, Reco wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 06:45:00PM +0100, Eric S Fraga wrote:
>> On Friday, 24 Aug 2018 at 20:15, Reco wrote:
>> > -INT_MAX. I win.
>>
>> -1 (wraps around so = INT_MAX) and I win!
>
> Damn. Should've seen this. Will use long int next
On 25/08/2018 05:45, Eric S Fraga wrote:
On Friday, 24 Aug 2018 at 20:15, Reco wrote:
-INT_MAX. I win.
-1 (wraps around so = INT_MAX) and I win!
No, it is the other way around for two's complement:
INT_MIN = -INT_MAX - 1
Two's complement is unbalanced. You do not know the power of the dark
I wrote:
> For marketing reasons they like to advertise very high bandwidth, beyond
> what they can actually support on shared channels, and then block
> potentially high-bandwidth services that most of their customers will
> never use and therefor never miss.
David writes:
> I thought their
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 07:23:15PM +0100, mick crane wrote:
> On 2018-08-24 19:06, Reco wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 06:45:00PM +0100, Eric S Fraga wrote:
> > > On Friday, 24 Aug 2018 at 20:15, Reco wrote:
> > > > -INT_MAX. I win.
> > >
> > > -1 (wraps around so = INT_MAX) and
On Fri 24 Aug 2018 at 16:18:40 (-0500), John Hasler wrote:
> The Wanderer writes:
> > If the user chooses a provider which carries those groups, and chooses
> > to subscribe to one or more of them, then surely that is what that
> > user is choosing to do with the bandwidth which that user
The Wanderer writes:
> If the user chooses a provider which carries those groups, and chooses
> to subscribe to one or more of them, then surely that is what that
> user is choosing to do with the bandwidth which that user purchases
> from that user's provider - and as long as the user's bandwidth
On 2018-08-24 at 15:12, Dan Ritter wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 09:52:25PM +0300, Michelle Konzack wrote:
>
>> MANY IAP forbid the use of NNTP (e.g. the french Providers Bougues
>> and Orange) because of the HUGE traffic it produce.
>
> NNTP is about the same efficiency as email.
>
>
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 09:52:25PM +0300, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> MANY IAP forbid the use of NNTP (e.g. the french Providers Bougues and
> Orange) because of the HUGE traffic it produce.
NNTP is about the same efficiency as email.
Usenet with binaries groups, on the other hand, matches what
Hi,
Am 2018-08-24 hackte Piotr Martyniuk in die Tasten:
> On 2018-08-23, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 09, 2018 01:47:24 PM Greg Wooledge wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 05:39:36PM +, tech wrote:
>>> > Should'nt be time to move away from an old mail-listing to
>>>
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 07:23:15PM +0100, mick crane wrote:
> On 2018-08-24 19:06, Reco wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 06:45:00PM +0100, Eric S Fraga wrote:
> > > On Friday, 24 Aug 2018 at 20:15, Reco wrote:
> > > > -INT_MAX. I win.
> > >
> > > -1 (wraps around so = INT_MAX) and
On 2018-08-24 19:06, Reco wrote:
Hi.
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 06:45:00PM +0100, Eric S Fraga wrote:
On Friday, 24 Aug 2018 at 20:15, Reco wrote:
> -INT_MAX. I win.
-1 (wraps around so = INT_MAX) and I win!
Damn. Should've seen this. Will use long int next time.
Reco
mailing list are great
Hi.
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 06:45:00PM +0100, Eric S Fraga wrote:
> On Friday, 24 Aug 2018 at 20:15, Reco wrote:
> > -INT_MAX. I win.
>
> -1 (wraps around so = INT_MAX) and I win!
Damn. Should've seen this. Will use long int next time.
Reco
On Friday, 24 Aug 2018 at 20:15, Reco wrote:
> -INT_MAX. I win.
-1 (wraps around so = INT_MAX) and I win!
--
Eric S Fraga via Emacs 27.0.50 & org 9.1.13 on Debian buster/sid
Hi,
Reco wrote:
> -INT_MAX. I win.
It is time for projective geometry.
Have a nice day :)
Thomas
Hi.
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 04:31:40PM +, Curt wrote:
> On 2018-08-24, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Friday 24 August 2018 09:23:14 Rodolfo Medina wrote:
> >
> >> rhkra...@gmail.com writes:
> >> > On Thursday, August 09, 2018 01:47:24 PM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, Aug 09, 2018
On 2018-08-24, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Friday 24 August 2018 09:23:14 Rodolfo Medina wrote:
>
>> rhkra...@gmail.com writes:
>> > On Thursday, August 09, 2018 01:47:24 PM Greg Wooledge wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 05:39:36PM +, tech wrote:
>> >> > Should'nt be time to move away from
On Friday 24 August 2018 09:23:14 Rodolfo Medina wrote:
> rhkra...@gmail.com writes:
> > On Thursday, August 09, 2018 01:47:24 PM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 05:39:36PM +, tech wrote:
> >> > Should'nt be time to move away from an old mail-listing to
> >> > something more
rhkra...@gmail.com writes:
> On Thursday, August 09, 2018 01:47:24 PM Greg Wooledge wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 05:39:36PM +, tech wrote:
>> > Should'nt be time to move away from an old mail-listing to something more
>> > modern like a bugzilla or else ???
>>
>> No.
>
> +1
+2
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 06:47:59AM +, Piotr Martyniuk wrote:
> On 2018-08-24, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > ed, awk and fast typing to filter those convos of interest "on
> > demand" ought be plenty for anyone ... sheesh!
> >
> > Man, when we wuz yung unz, we were -lucky- to even have cosmic
On 2018-08-24, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> ed, awk and fast typing to filter those convos of interest "on
> demand" ought be plenty for anyone ... sheesh!
>
> Man, when we wuz yung unz, we were -lucky- to even have cosmic rays
> for editing.
> https://xkcd.com/378/
No need to go for extreemes. Good
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 05:54:47AM +, Piotr Martyniuk wrote:
> On 2018-08-23, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 09, 2018 01:47:24 PM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 05:39:36PM +, tech wrote:
> >> > Should'nt be time to move away from an old mail-listing
On 2018-08-23, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 09, 2018 01:47:24 PM Greg Wooledge wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 05:39:36PM +, tech wrote:
>> > Should'nt be time to move away from an old mail-listing to something more
>> > modern like a bugzilla or else ???
NNTP was the
rhkra...@gmail.com writes:
> On Thursday, August 09, 2018 01:47:24 PM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 05:39:36PM +, tech wrote:
> > > Should'nt be time to move away from an old mail-listing to something
> more
> > > modern like a bugzilla or else ???
> >
> > No.
>
> +1
On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 04:05:52PM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 10, 2018 07:33:39 AM Dan Purgert wrote:
> > Dan Ritter wrote:
> > > 3. Indexed mail searching. Whatever works with your preferred
> > > mail client. Have cron run a re-index every morning before you
> > > wake
On Friday, August 10, 2018 07:33:39 AM Dan Purgert wrote:
> Dan Ritter wrote:
> > 3. Indexed mail searching. Whatever works with your preferred
> > mail client. Have cron run a re-index every morning before you
> > wake up.
>
> Care to expand on this one a bit? Not entirely sure what you mean
On Thursday, August 09, 2018 01:47:24 PM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 05:39:36PM +, tech wrote:
> > Should'nt be time to move away from an old mail-listing to something more
> > modern like a bugzilla or else ???
>
> No.
+1
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 03:53:18PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 09:24:44AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 03:26:16PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > [2] Although with the years, I am more and more prone to what I call
> > >tomas's
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 10:16:17AM -, Dan Purgert wrote:
> Miles Fidelman wrote:
> > [...]
> > Forwarding by email is about the only universal way to share
> > stuff, or to move it from some service or another to one's personal
> > storage (I can't tell you how often I email stuff to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 09:24:44AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 03:26:16PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > [2] Although with the years, I am more and more prone to what I call
> >tomas's bastard: "Any sufficiently
On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 03:26:16PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> [2] Although with the years, I am more and more prone to what I call
>tomas's bastard: "Any sufficiently advanced malice can't be
>distinguished from stupidity" -- a kind of unholy cross-over
>between Hanlon's Razor
Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> [...]
> If your forwardee friend fails to notice your fine coffee art photo,
> simply create a new Facebook group for them to join called
> "MyDebianPrinterProblemForJohn" or something, and then log into that
> group and send an invite to your friend, tweet that you've
Miles Fidelman wrote:
> [...]
> Forwarding by email is about the only universal way to share
> stuff, or to move it from some service or another to one's personal
> storage (I can't tell you how often I email stuff to myself).
Thankfully I only have to do the "mail it to myself" approach
On 8/12/18 8:10 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 07:03:29PM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
... mighty fine list you've got there - mailing lists are even better
than I thought they were.
19. Mailing lists interoperate. I can easily forward a message from this
list to another
On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 07:03:29PM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
... mighty fine list you've got there - mailing lists are even better
than I thought they were.
> 19. Mailing lists interoperate. I can easily forward a message from this
> list to another one. Or to a person. I can send a message
On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 12:07:53PM +0300, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am DATE hackte Ben Finney in die Tasten:
> > It's 2018. Shouldn't we move away from an old âkeyboardâ to
> > something
> > mroe modern like a data-glove?
>
> I would prefer the Star Trek version:
>
> "Computer, show me Ben
On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 03:03:49PM -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
> On 08/09/2018 01:39 PM, tech wrote:
>
> > Should'nt be time to move away from an old mail-listing to something more
> > modern like a bugzilla or else ???
>
> Why?? There already are plenty of such sites, you need only pick and choose.
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 07:06:11AM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 06:24:55AM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > I get more mail than that before breakfast. If you've got the
> > right tools, it's easy to deal with.
>
> This is an excellent point. Many of the people who lodge
Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am DATE hackte Dan Purgert in die Tasten:
>> Thanks for the explanation. At some point I may have to look into it
>> in
>> more detail -- although since I run my MTA (well, at least for the
>> mail
>> that matters) that does sorting serverside, might not do me any good.
https://www.mycause.com.au/page/183259/a-smile-will-change-a-day-love-that-changed-my-world
From: arne
Sent: Saturday, 11 August 2018 8:34 AM
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Cc: sp113...@telfort.nl
Subject: Re: mailing list vs "the futur"
On Fri, 10 A
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 02:19:49PM +0200, Eric S Fraga wrote:
> On Friday, 10 Aug 2018 at 12:42, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > [1] I know what I'm talking about: I've watched the slow and painful
> >process of replacing mail with something more
On Friday, 10 Aug 2018 at 12:42, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> [1] I know what I'm talking about: I've watched the slow and painful
>process of replacing mail with something more "modern" (O365) in
>a big corp, and the underhanded tactics of badmouthing and
>marginalizing fueled by a
Hi there
On 10/08/18 01:03, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
No. This is an absolutely terrible idea. Here's why mailing lists
are (along with Usenet newsgroups) vastly superior to web-based anything:
I prefer Usenet to mailing lists. I read dozens of mailing lists and I
don't want all that data
Am DATE hackte Ben Finney in die Tasten:
> It's 2018. Shouldn't we move away from an old âkeyboardâ to
> something
> mroe modern like a data-glove?
I would prefer the Star Trek version:
"Computer, show me Ben Finneys last 10 postings on debian user"
--
Michelle KonzackMiila
On 08/10, Dan Purgert wrote:
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 06:24:55AM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
I get more mail than that before breakfast. If you've got the
right tools, it's easy to deal with.
This is an excellent point. Many of the people who lodge complaints
like the one
On 08/09, tech wrote:
The way most people keep up to date on network news is through subscription to
a number of mail reflectors (also known as mail exploders). Mail reflectors are
special electronic mailboxes which, when they receive a message, resend it to a
list of other mailboxes. This in
Am DATE hackte Dan Purgert in die Tasten:
> Thanks for the explanation. At some point I may have to look into it
> in
> more detail -- although since I run my MTA (well, at least for the
> mail
> that matters) that does sorting serverside, might not do me any good.
I would say, your MTA has
Hiello,
Am sometime in the past hackte Dan Purgert in die Tasten:
> Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 06:24:55AM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
>>> I get more mail than that before breakfast. If you've got the
>>> right tools, it's easy to deal with.
1+
> Not familiar with procmail. A
On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 22:35:19 +0100
Mark Rousell wrote:
> On 09/08/2018 18:39, tech wrote:
> > Should'nt be time to move away from an old mail-listing to something
> > more modern like a bugzilla or else ???
>
> No. Mail lists works as well now as they did then.
>
> Mail lists are efficient,
On 10/08/2018 00:03, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>
> No. This is an absolutely terrible idea. Here's why mailing lists
> are (along with Usenet newsgroups) vastly superior to web-based anything:
> [excellent list redacted for brevity]
Well said! What a very useful list of the reasons that mail lists
101 - 200 of 238 matches
Mail list logo
