XPost: comp.mail.sendmail

Followup-To: comp.mail.misc.

On 1/6/21 1:37 PM, Andrzej Adam Filip wrote:

Is there a need for news:comp.mail.esmtp or news:comp.mail.mta ?

I don't know.

They aren't in my active file, so I can't check their history. Which is
in and of itself strange as I thought my active file was based on the
ISC default.

Translated: Is comp usenet hierarchy dying/dead?

I don't know if the comp.hierarchy is dying any faster or slower than
other hierarchies.

I know that I post to and interact with multiple newsgroups in the comp hierarchy monthly.

I also question is there any value in removing (part of) the comp
hierarchy? Seeing as how leaving it in the active file seems to take
very few resources.

Starting formal procedure would be waste of time with no interest.

Starting a formal procedure to do what?



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In comp.mail.misc, Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:

On 1/6/21 1:37 PM, Andrzej Adam Filip wrote:

Is there a need for news:comp.mail.esmtp or news:comp.mail.mta ?

Doubtful. comp.mail.misc can cover anything not covered by other
comp.mail.* groups, and comp.mail.misc gets virtually no traffic.

They aren't in my active file, so I can't check their history. Which is
in and of itself strange as I thought my active file was based on the
ISC default.

I think Andrzej was not asking if the groups should be removed, but if
they should be added. (Or maybe he was asking if they should be removed,
but in that case: yes. Those are not official Big-8 newsgroups.)

I also question is there any value in removing (part of) the comp
hierarchy? Seeing as how leaving it in the active file seems to take
very few resources.

It will be mean fewer places for "The Doctor" to post his Xananews
statistics posts, and fewer places for the odd other spammer to show up.

Starting formal procedure would be waste of time with no interest.

Starting a formal procedure to do what?

I think he meant formal procedure to add those groups. I think that
indeed would be a waste of time. As for a formal procedure to remove the groups, that shouldn't be necessary. Just apply a checkgroups message.
The big-8.org wiki points to this FTP site:

ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/Group_Lists

for the official list of groups.

Elijah
------
if correct, that shows there have been no changes for six years

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.mail.sendmail

Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:

In comp.mail.misc, Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:

On 1/6/21 1:37 PM, Andrzej Adam Filip wrote:

Is there a need for news:comp.mail.esmtp or news:comp.mail.mta ?

Doubtful. comp.mail.misc can cover anything not covered by other
comp.mail.* groups, and comp.mail.misc gets virtually no traffic.

They aren't in my active file, so I can't check their history. Which is
in and of itself strange as I thought my active file was based on the
ISC default.

I think Andrzej was not asking if the groups should be removed, but if
they should be added. (Or maybe he was asking if they should be removed,
but in that case: yes. Those are not official Big-8 newsgroups.)

I also question is there any value in removing (part of) the comp
hierarchy? Seeing as how leaving it in the active file seems to take
very few resources.

It will be mean fewer places for "The Doctor" to post his Xananews
statistics posts, and fewer places for the odd other spammer to show up.

Starting formal procedure would be waste of time with no interest.

Starting a formal procedure to do what?

I think he meant formal procedure to add those groups. I think that
indeed would be a waste of time. As for a formal procedure to remove the groups, that shouldn't be necessary. Just apply a checkgroups message.
The big-8.org wiki points to this FTP site:

ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/Group_Lists

for the official list of groups.

I think that short term "recommendation" may be to
post some replies to news:comp.mail.misc *too*.

news:comp.mail.sendmail is "more alive" and because of it receives also
"much more than sendmail" question.

--
[Andrew] Andrzej A. Filip

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 07/01/2021 22:27, Eli the Bearded wrote:

In comp.mail.misc, Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:

ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/Group_Lists

That's not available at my end, I get an error "FTP URLs are disabled".

DoS by security? A signature would have sufficed.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12.03.2024 um 10:17 Uhr Tristan Wibberley wrote:

On 07/01/2021 22:27, Eli the Bearded wrote:

In comp.mail.misc, Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net>
wrote:

ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/Group_Lists

That's not available at my end, I get an error "FTP URLs are
disabled".

Works for me, but you need a software that can access FTP servers, like Filezilla, Pale Moon etc.

TLDR: comp.mail.esmtp and comp.mail.mta don't exist anymore.


--
kind regards
Marco

Send spam to 1710235045muell@cartoonies.org

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:

On 12.03.2024 um 10:17 Uhr Tristan Wibberley wrote:

Well, only a little over three years late! :-)

On 07/01/2021 22:27, Eli the Bearded wrote:

In comp.mail.misc, Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net>
wrote:

ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/Group_Lists

That's not available at my end, I get an error "FTP URLs are
disabled".

Works for me, but you need a software that can access FTP servers, like Filezilla, Pale Moon etc.

It also works in Windows in File Explorer.

You'll have to copy the file(s) before viewing it/them (via Notepad),
but other than that, it works, ever since Windows XP (and probably
before that).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk>
writes:

On 07/01/2021 22:27, Eli the Bearded wrote:

In comp.mail.misc, Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:

ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/Group_Lists

That's not available at my end, I get an error "FTP URLs are disabled".

DoS by security? A signature would have sufficed.

You might be using a recent browser. There's a certain trend in giving
up on FTP for good. Chrome, for instance, doesn't allow such URLs
anymore.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/12/24 08:31, Julieta Shem wrote:

You might be using a recent browser. There's a certain trend in
giving up on FTP for good. Chrome, for instance, doesn't allow such
URLs anymore.

I think that it's better said that contemporary web browsers have
stopped supporting FTP protocol themselves.

Most, if not all, can be configured to use an external FTP program.

"doesn't allow" suggests that they forbid the ftp:// scheme / FTP
protocol, which is not the case.



--
Grant. . . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In comp.mail.misc,
Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:

On 07/01/2021 22:27, Eli the Bearded wrote:

That's longer than usual for a response to me.

ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/Group_Lists

That's not available at my end, I get an error "FTP URLs are
disabled".

That's a you problem.

DoS by security? A signature would have sufficed.

Browser companies decided that they don't understand FTP and were tired
of fixing the bugs in their implementations. Meanwhile FTP clients have
no problems.

Elijah
------
misses the days of big FTP

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> writes:

On 3/12/24 08:31, Julieta Shem wrote:

You might be using a recent browser. There's a certain trend in
giving up on FTP for good. Chrome, for instance, doesn't allow such
URLs anymore.

I think that it's better said that contemporary web browsers have
stopped supporting FTP protocol themselves.

Most, if not all, can be configured to use an external FTP program.

"doesn't allow" suggests that they forbid the ftp:// scheme / FTP
protocol, which is not the case.

I thought they ignored it. I think you're saying that they'll happily
send it over, say, the Windows shell to handle it? I didn't know that.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/13/24 14:44, Julieta Shem wrote:

I thought they ignored it.

No, they don't ignore it. They actively say they don't support it
themselves.

At least that's my understanding.

I think you're saying that they'll happily send it over, say, the
Windows shell to handle it? I didn't know that.

That is my understanding.

It has LONG been possible to configure most / main stream web browsers
to support protocols, a.k.a. schemes, like ftp://, file://, telnet://, mailto://, etc.

For a long time, probably 20 years, web browsers included support for
the ftp:// protocol / scheme. It's been the last five or so years that
web browsers started removing support for the ftp:// protocol / scheme.

It was probably in the 10 years prior to that when they removed the
telnet:// protocol / scheme.

I can use the rdp:// and vnc:// protocols / schemes on macOS to open the
system default RDP / VNC client.

Once upon a time I configured Firefox to support the ssh:// protocol /
scheme to open ssh in an XTerm window.



--
Grant. . . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

with <eli$2403130150@qaz.wtf> Eli the Bearded wrote:

In comp.mail.misc,
Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:

On 07/01/2021 22:27, Eli the Bearded wrote:

*SKIP* [ 2 lines 1 level deep]

ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/Group_Lists

That's not available at my end, I get an error "FTP URLs are
disabled".

That's a you problem.

That's either a typo or very smart meme that went totally above my head.

DoS by security? A signature would have sufficed.

Browser companies decided that they don't understand FTP and were
tired of fixing the bugs in their implementations.

IOW, The Industry failed to invent ways to monetize it.

*CUT* [ 7 lines 1 level deep]

--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> writes:

[...]

It has LONG been possible to configure most / main stream web browsers
to support protocols, a.k.a. schemes, like ftp://, file://, telnet://, mailto://, etc.

Right. Can we add our own schemes now?

It was probably in the 10 years prior to that when they removed the
telnet:// protocol / scheme.

IIRC, even Windows removed telnet from the default installation. What a
shame. I have it here on Windows 10, but I might have explicitly asked
for it.

Once upon a time I configured Firefox to support the ssh:// protocol /
scheme to open ssh in an XTerm window.

So, I suppose we can register our own protocols. That's actually cool.
If that's so, I might start thinking up ways of using it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Eric Pozharski <apple.universe@posteo.net> writes:

with <eli$2403130150@qaz.wtf> Eli the Bearded wrote:

In comp.mail.misc,
Tristan Wibberley
<tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:

[...]

Browser companies decided that they don't understand FTP and were
tired of fixing the bugs in their implementations.

IOW, The Industry failed to invent ways to monetize it.

Well said.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

dbastos@ic.ufrj.br wrote:

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> writes:

[...]

It has LONG been possible to configure most / main stream web browsers
to support protocols, a.k.a. schemes, like ftp://, file://, telnet://, mailto://, etc.

Right. Can we add our own schemes now?

It was probably in the 10 years prior to that when they removed the telnet:// protocol / scheme.

IIRC, even Windows removed telnet from the default installation. What a shame. I have it here on Windows 10, but I might have explicitly asked
for it.

The telnet client has been optional for a long, long time, probably
Windows Vista if not earlier.

But it's still there in Windows 10 and 11: Control Panel -> Programs

Programs and Features -> Turn Windows features on or off -> Telnet

Client.

[...]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/14/24 06:12, dbastos@ic.ufrj.br wrote:

Right. Can we add our own schemes now?

I have in Firefox.

IIRC, even Windows removed telnet from the default installation.
What a shame. I have it here on Windows 10, but I might have
explicitly asked for it.

I get that the telnet protocol / server is usually a security risk. As
such I support not installing the telnet /server/ by default. But
telnet as a /client/ is valuable for multiple things. I dislike the
client being not installed.

That's sort of like saying "we want to cut down on pirate radio
stations, so we're going to stop selling radio receivers". <ASCII face
palm>

The ironic thing is that almost all of the times I use the telnet client
I'm not actually using the telnet protocol. Rather I'm using the telnet
client to make a raw TCP connection to a service I want to debug; HTTP,
POP3, IMAP, SMTP, etc.

I say /usually/ a security risk because telnet supports encryption with
TLS on some systems. Then there's VPNs (encrypted tunnels), IPsec
(transport mode), MACsec and the likes. Also, unencrypted traffic
across a 2' long cross over cable in a locked cabinet in a locked data
center in a secure building doesn't seem very risky to me.

So, I suppose we can register our own protocols. That's actually cool.
If that's so, I might start thinking up ways of using it.

}:-)



--
Grant. . . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:

On 3/14/24 06:12, dbastos@ic.ufrj.br wrote:

Right. Can we add our own schemes now?

I have in Firefox.

IIRC, even Windows removed telnet from the default installation.
What a shame. I have it here on Windows 10, but I might have
explicitly asked for it.

I get that the telnet protocol / server is usually a security risk. As
such I support not installing the telnet /server/ by default. But
telnet as a /client/ is valuable for multiple things. I dislike the
client being not installed.

As I mentioned [1], you only have to *enable* the Windows telnet
client (in the 'Programs and Features' section of Control Panel), so no downloading or installation is needed.

[...]

[1] Yesterday's
Message-ID: <usv1kr.i7g.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/15/24 09:20, Frank Slootweg wrote:

As I mentioned [1], you only have to*enable* the Windows telnet
client (in the 'Programs and Features' section of Control Panel), so no downloading or installation is needed.

What you call "enable" I call "install".

Just because it's a toggle in a Microsoft wizard doesn't mean that it's
not installing behind the scene.

This goes back to Windows 9x with CAB files.

The compressed / archived version is likely on the system and enabling
the option causes the system to extract the compressed version and to
install it into somewhere useful.



--
Grant. . . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> writes:

On 3/15/24 09:20, Frank Slootweg wrote:

As I mentioned [1], you only have to*enable* the Windows telnet
client (in the 'Programs and Features' section of Control Panel), so no
downloading or installation is needed.

What you call "enable" I call "install".

Same here.

Just because it's a toggle in a Microsoft wizard doesn't mean that
it's not installing behind the scene.

That's right. If I can't use it, it's not installed. Though if I can't
use it, it's not enabled for use. :)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/19/24 08:20, Frank Slootweg wrote:

Can we agree on that you don't have to *download* it!? :-)

Maybe.

If I look back at Windows 9x -- yes, I'm well aware that contemporary
windows is quite different, but I'm establishing an example -- it was
possible to copy the source CAB files to the hard drive which made
installing optional components a matter of extracting files from the CAB
to where they belonged. However if the CAB files weren't on the hard
drive you needed to insert the CD-ROM.

So I don't know if "download" (or lack there of) is a valid example / description or not. Admittedly the files didn't come over the Internet.
But the files may have needed to come from somewhere other than the
local hard drive.

If we expand the example to include a *nix that has the source code on
the local system; e.g. FreeBSD, then compiling can come into play. --
Does compiling (source code already on the drive) stand in for "download"?

To me the biggest differentiator is if the executable files are in the
byte for byte (as in diff would find no difference) on the drive or not.
Ideally the collection of bytes should be where they would be executed
from and not elsewhere on the drive.

OTOH, *this* 'enable' involves less work/interaction/thought/<whatever>
than your run of the mill 'install', so I'm *somewhat* right,
right!? :-)

How easy something is for a human to do doesn't change what is being done.

Is someone replying to a message to insult someone any less a reply than someone else replying to the same message with a polite well thought out
and worded message? Both are a reply. Admittedly the replies aren't
equal in many ways. ;-)

Bottom line: Tough crowd here, bit as this group is rather quiet,
anything goes.

I don't know about tough crowd. I'm participating in what I think is a
civil discussion / discourse. I hope to learn something or at least
understand something better. :-)



--
Grant. . . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Johanne Fairchild <jfairchild@tudado.org> wrote:

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> writes:

On 3/15/24 09:20, Frank Slootweg wrote:

As I mentioned [1], you only have to*enable* the Windows telnet
client (in the 'Programs and Features' section of Control Panel), so no
downloading or installation is needed.

What you call "enable" I call "install".

Same here.

Just because it's a toggle in a Microsoft wizard doesn't mean that
it's not installing behind the scene.

That's right. If I can't use it, it's not installed. Though if I can't
use it, it's not enabled for use. :)

Can we agree on that you don't have to *download* it!? :-)

OTOH, *this* 'enable' involves less work/interaction/thought/<whatever>
than your run of the mill 'install', so I'm *somewhat* right, right!? :-)

Bottom line: Tough crowd here, bit as this group is rather quiet,
anything goes.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/19/24 05:40, Johanne Fairchild wrote:

If I can't use it, it's not installed.

I'll allow for some wiggle room wherein I've had to add execute bit to
files that exist in *nix more times than I care to.

I think that's more "enable" than it is "install". Especially because
the bytes were on the disk already.

A very close second to that is a rename, as in `mv file.disabled file`
type thing. But that's borderline install because the bytes weren't in
the expected file name.



--
Grant. . . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:

On 3/19/24 08:20, Frank Slootweg wrote:

[...]

Bottom line: Tough crowd here, bit as this group is rather quiet,
anything goes.

I don't know about tough crowd. I'm participating in what I think is a
civil discussion / discourse. I hope to learn something or at least understand something better. :-)

Thanks for sharing your views. Taken in the same spirit.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 13/03/2024 02:45, Grant Taylor wrote:

I think that it's better said that contemporary web browsers have
stopped supporting FTP protocol themselves.

Most, if not all, can be configured to use an external FTP program.

Indeed that seems to be it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/19/24 09:45, Frank Slootweg wrote:

Thanks for sharing your views. Taken in the same spirit.

:-)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)