[ntp:questions] forwarding

Brad Knowles brad at stop.mail-abuse.org
Sun Mar 13 17:56:48 UTC 2005


At 10:43 AM -0600 2005-03-13, Frederick Bruckman wrote:

>  It's not a problem for Gmane, because they don't gate to Usenet *at*
>  *all*.  I offered them as an answer to Harlan's point that some people
>  like to read mailing lists with a newsreader (as I do).  Now, all the
>  issues that the bi-directional gateway causes seem to to be easily
>  avoided, by simply not doing that.

	Gmane doesn't solve our problem.  The comp.protocols.time.ntp 
newsgroup already exists.  The entire purpose of the "questions" 
mailing list was to function as an e-mail gateway to this newsgroup. 
Eliminate the gateway to this specific newsgroup, and you eliminate 
the reason for this mailing list to exist.

	Because of the way they've chosen to operate, Gmane can run a 
one-way mail-to-news gateway, and assuming they don't have any USENET 
feeds that touch those servers, there should be no risk of having 
that content leak out onto the wider Internet.  In that closed 
environment, there are a lot of things they can do that we cannot. 
We have to assume we're living in an open and hostile environment, 
whereas they can make many assumptions and cut many corners that we 
cannot.

>  I didn't say anything years ago, when you started the bi-directional
>  gateway, because I didn't understand what was going on -- I had been,
>  and still am, reading the newsgroup, so I undoubtedly missed parts
>  of the discussion on ntp.questions

	There is nothing that happens on the "questions" mailing list 
which is not gatewayed to the newsgroup.  If you monitor the 
newsgroup, you get it all.  Likewise, there is nothing that happens 
on the newsgroup that is not sent out to all recipients of the 
mailing list.  If you monitor the mailing list, you get it all.

	That is the purpose of a bi-directional gateway -- to make sure 
that everything that comes in from one side is seen by the other, and 
vice-versa.

>  You are also missing Ulrich's point entirely: comp.protocols.time.ntp
>  existed long before ntp.questions, as a light traffic newsgroup
>  containing interesting technical banter.

	If Gmane is running a gateway for the "questions" mailing list, 
that is unauthorized.  If they're doing that, I'm going to do 
everything in my power to make sure that they stop what they're 
doing, and disconnect their gateway for all of our mailing lists.

>                                            Why was this group taken for
>  ntp.questions, and not, say, for ntp.hackers?  Besides, the usual thing
>  is to set up an off-usenet newsserver to serve the mailing lists.

	No, it's not.  If you'd been using USENET for about twenty years, 
and administering USENET for five, then you'd know that.

>                                                 To simply "take over" an
>  existing Usenet newsgroup is unprecedented.

	Unprecedented?  Excuse me?  Just exactly how familiar are you 
with the concept of mail-to-news gateways?  This kind of 
bi-directional gateway has been going on for about as long as USENET 
news and e-mail have both been in existence.  People have been 
setting up new bi-directional gateways as they set up new news 
servers or new mailing list servers, about as long as those 
technologies have been in existence.

>  I have requested Gmane.org to add ntp.questions as
>  "gmane.network.ntp.questions", posting by subscription only.  They
>  already have "...ntp.announce" and "...ntp.bugs", by the way.

	Then I'm going to contact them and ask them to stop.  Their 
service is not authorized, and is not welcome.

-- 
Brad Knowles, <brad at stop.mail-abuse.org>

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

     -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania
     Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755

   SAGE member since 1995.  See <http://www.sage.org/> for more info.



More information about the questions mailing list