Where are all of them, with billions online and a form of english being required for technology literacy it seams like a super minority of maybe 10000 at most.

I'm not saying centrilised services don't play a role but those with literacy who could use alternative services can't all be sucked into gnusocial and oblivious of anonymity.

--
Posted on Rocksolid Light

Anonymous wrote:

Where are all of them, with billions online and a form of english being required for technology literacy it seams like a super minority of maybe 10000 at most.

There are probably more small anon communities than we might guess, and maybe they want to stay that way? I don't know. I usually get turned off by the ones I find that mostly end up being a chan, nothing against chans, but the content is pretty much useless. They seem to attract just people who want to act like children and not don't contain much serious or intelligent discussion

I'm not saying centrilised services don't play a role but those with literacy who could use alternative services can't all be sucked into gnusocial and oblivious of anonymity.

It amazes me how many tech savvy people don't seem to care at all about anonymity, being tracked, etc. Btw, this is an anonymous community were using right now. I don't see many users, but there are some and as long as you connect with tor or i2p, it's reasonably anonymous.

--
Posted on Rocksolid Light

There are probably more small anon communities than we might guess, and maybe they want to stay that way? I don't know. I usually get turned off by the ones I find that mostly end up being a chan, nothing against chans, but the content is pretty much useless. They seem to attract just people who want to act like children and not don't contain much serious or intelligent discussion

I'm convinced from experience and experimentation ibs and tbs are not a good format for serious discussion. I remember using some cryptokiddy platform that took days up to a month for messages to process and it worked, seams that artificially deterrents all the bad actors but isn't a real solution.
Really anything that functions like ibs and tbs aren't good but if it's not an ib or tb it isn't being searched by those children, bbses and the likes.

It amazes me how many tech savvy people don't seem to care at all about anonymity, being tracked, etc. Btw, this is an anonymous community were using right now. I don't see many users, but there are some and as long as you connect with tor or i2p, it's reasonably anonymous.

I'm on i2p and consider this site to be infected. It's not just a matter of the anonymity rainbow but I know of some pq encrypted mixnets on i2p that are now dead due to code rot.

--
Posted on Rocksolid Light

I'm on i2p and consider this site to be infected. It's not just a matter of the anonymity rainbow but I know of some pq encrypted mixnets on i2p that are now dead due to code rot.

Called the rocksolid hierarchy a site my bad.

--
Posted on Rocksolid Light

Anonymous wrote:

There are probably more small anon communities than we might guess, and maybe they want to stay that way? I don't know. I usually get turned off by the ones I find that mostly end up being a chan, nothing against chans, but the content is pretty much useless. They seem to attract just people who want to act like children and not don't contain much serious or intelligent discussion

I'm convinced from experience and experimentation ibs and tbs are not a good format for serious discussion. I remember using some cryptokiddy platform that took days up to a month for messages to process and it worked, seams that artificially deterrents all the bad actors but isn't a real solution.
Really anything that functions like ibs and tbs aren't good but if it's not an ib or tb it isn't being searched by those children, bbses and the likes.

What is ib and tb? I'm not familiar with the terms.

It amazes me how many tech savvy people don't seem to care at all about anonymity, being tracked, etc. Btw, this is an anonymous community were using right now. I don't see many users, but there are some and as long as you connect with tor or i2p, it's reasonably anonymous.

I'm on i2p and consider this site to be infected. It's not just a matter of the anonymity rainbow but I know of some pq encrypted mixnets on i2p that are now dead due to code rot.

How is a hierarchy infected? With what? Or do you mean non-anonymous?

--
Posted on Rocksolid Light

What is ib and tb? I'm not familiar with the terms.

Ib is imageboard tb is textboard, i've never seen tb used.

How is a hierarchy infected? With what? Or do you mean non-anonymous?

Obsessive children that have some comprehension of a newsgroup hierarchy and nntp is a drain of identifiable bits. There's already an issue where all the peers want an account for nntp but when it comes to news server peers this is irrelevant with the amount of identifiable bits generated from streaming and ihave. It's closer to the not anonymous side of the rainbow.

--
Posted on Rocksolid Light

Anonymous wrote:

What is ib and tb? I'm not familiar with the terms.

Ib is imageboard tb is textboard, i've never seen tb used.

Thank you. It's obvious now that you say it, it just didn't click for me.

How is a hierarchy infected? With what? Or do you mean non-anonymous?

Obsessive children that have some comprehension of a newsgroup hierarchy and nntp is a drain of identifiable bits. There's already an issue where all the peers want an account for nntp but when it comes to news server peers this is irrelevant with the amount of identifiable bits generated from streaming and ihave. It's closer to the not anonymous side of the rainbow.

That's true. a newsgroup post is easy to trace to the posting server. While the actual poster may not be identified, it's not hard to determine at what server the post originated. Then we come back to the chan problem when using mail2news type setups. The quality of posts degrades severely the more anonymous you make it.

--
Posted on Rocksolid Light

That's true. a newsgroup post is easy to trace to the posting server. While the actual poster may not be identified, it's not hard to determine at what server the post originated. Then we come back to the chan problem when using mail2news type setups. The quality of posts degrades severely the more anonymous you make it.

It is much worse streaming mode with nntp on an all onion routing network allows both news readers and news daemons to be easily deanonymised by correlation and timing attacks. Given the resources to mount those attacks and the tunneling isn't specially made for nntp with this in mind. Nntp mixnets can't get around news daemons being easily fingerprinted with stat and head.
Spoofing netnews paths is considered illegal sometimes, mixnets get around this by making them not netnews messages while going through the mixnet. Better check mail2news and news2mail code doesn't illegally corrupt the path if you're working with backwards jurisdictions.
I'm favoring technological barriers, it requires a basic literacy of the userbase and puts a cost on maliciously destroying the network instead of for fun when the userbase wants to. Nntp isn't high enough of a barrier, the dumbweb spammer this hierarchy has should make it obvious. Not that I'm not used to the dumbweb spammer but a majority of userbases I know leave over that spam.

--
Posted on Rocksolid Light

Anonymous wrote:

That's true. a newsgroup post is easy to trace to the posting server. While the actual poster may not be identified, it's not hard to determine at what server the post originated. Then we come back to the chan problem when using mail2news type setups. The quality of posts degrades severely the more anonymous you make it.

It is much worse streaming mode with nntp on an all onion routing network allows both news readers and news daemons to be easily deanonymised by correlation and timing attacks. Given the resources to mount those attacks and the tunneling isn't specially made for nntp with this in mind. Nntp mixnets can't get around news daemons being easily fingerprinted with stat and head.

Yes, nntp by design is not meant to hide paths, injection info, etc. It specifically designed to do otherwise.

I'm favoring technological barriers, it requires a basic literacy of the userbase and puts a cost on maliciously destroying the network instead of for fun when the userbase wants to. Nntp isn't high enough of a barrier, the dumbweb spammer this hierarchy has should make it obvious. Not that I'm not used to the dumbweb spammer but a majority of userbases I know leave over that spam.

What you describe makes good sense, and in one instance at least it's working on freenet. The main issue there is the closed group attitude, it's not very friendly to those who find their way in. Everyone is a suspected spammer or just beaten down for not understanding the way the system works which is basically all about how to stop spammers.

--
Posted on Rocksolid Light

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's true. a newsgroup post is easy to trace to the posting server. While the actual poster may not be identified, it's not hard to determine at what server the post originated. Then we come back to the chan problem when using mail2news type setups. The quality of posts degrades severely the more anonymous you make it.

It is much worse streaming mode with nntp on an all onion routing network allows both news readers and news daemons to be easily deanonymised by correlation and timing attacks. Given the resources to mount those attacks and the tunneling isn't specially made for nntp with this in mind. Nntp mixnets can't get around news daemons being easily fingerprinted with stat and head.

Yes, nntp by design is not meant to hide paths, injection info, etc. It specifically designed to do otherwise.

Speaking just for rocksolid, all the above comments are accurate. A newsgroup hierarchy really can't be anonymous. The goal in this instance is to simply provide web interfaces in i2p and tor and allow Anonymous posting. The anonymous part is really just who the poster is. At least for the rslight interfaces, the injection-info and the like starts at the (web) server and does not contain info client information. posting-host, messsage-id and path should all start at the web server address. rslight does not add to the Path: header.

The actual goal here was to provide redundancy for the groups. Sites can come and go, but the content remains. It's really a reaction to all the forums that pop up and down in tor and i2p, and wanting something that remains even when site admins do not.

--
Posted on RetroBBS

Yes, nntp by design is not meant to hide paths, injection info, etc. It specifically designed to do otherwise.

Was talking about something worse in this case. Streaming is a extension but you need it for something like standard i2p tunnels and big articles. Deanonymisation attacks can be mounted easier without streaming due to what your talking about but they are much more difficult.
If the rfc is the design nntp doesn't specifically define how path headers are handled in complete, it's by referencing both netnews articles and email articles that happens but it isn't strict, they go back on the word netnews articles must be supported and only supported, the older rfc makes this less clear but aitms are assumed then netnews as a secondary. The older rfc also makes it more clear by usenet being strictly referenced for the headers which has it's own rfc for message interchange. The usenet interchange rfc was obsoleted by the netnews rfcs, you can hope the older nntp rfc holds weight over the newer one here and then assume that means strict netnews headers which section 3.1 of rfc5536 seams to be what holds as the design for required nntp message headers in practice. You can have another article format like email articles that still has the required headers but they only need encoding considerations in the newer rfc not the strict usage of each header. The path can be corrupted and changed all you want and it still be following the exact rfc. Injection headers are optional even with the netnews rfc but they try to make one injection header mandatory for new softwa
re.
In practice I've found from subject and date aren't required headers with certain news daemons' rfc compliant nntpds.

What you describe makes good sense, and in one instance at least it's working on freenet. The main issue there is the closed group attitude, it's not very friendly to those who find their way in. Everyone is a suspected spammer or just beaten down for not understanding the way the system works which is basically all about how to stop spammers.

Fms currently is at the same level as nntp on tor it is not high enough of a barrier maybe your speaking of something else freenet has. If freenet was not a datastore fms would be wiped every 3 years and dead for a few following.
If you want to have a friendly technologically literate community you must be able to handle people acting like children for fun instead of malicious acts to destroy the network, it's the level of tolerance that allows learning after the baseline. Freenet's development attitude should tell you which side they sit on. Not as if an technological elitist community is no good if you fit in and it doesn't have painful requirements on your life but if there's only technological elitists communities it won't work and those communities will die off. That is anonymous, pseudoanonymous and nonanonymous hold differing weights on the users. Pseudoanonymous works really well when that same tolerance is applied still.

--
Posted on Rocksolid Light

Not speaking for the entirety of freenet but fms is too close.

--
Posted on Rocksolid Light

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, nntp by design is not meant to hide paths, injection info, etc. It specifically designed to do otherwise.

Was talking about something worse in this case. Streaming is a extension but you need it for something like standard i2p tunnels and big articles. Deanonymisation attacks can be mounted easier without streaming due to what your talking about but they are much more difficult.
If the rfc is the design nntp doesn't specifically define how path headers are handled in complete, it's by referencing both netnews articles and email articles that happens but it isn't strict, they go back on the word netnews articles must be supported and only supported, the older rfc makes this less clear but aitms are assumed then netnews as a secondary. The older rfc also

I guess the rfc applies to actual "Usenet" articles. Is there any reason nntp can't be used and not be part of Usenet and not comply with the rfc? I would think there would be no problem with that.

Timing stuff is always an issue, but theres no reason to add header stuff that gives tracking info if you don't want to.

--
Posted on Rocksolid Light

I guess the rfc applies to actual "Usenet" articles. Is there any reason nntp can't be used and not be part of Usenet and not comply with the rfc? I would think there would be no problem with that.

Netnews articles ~= usenet articles different rfcs, old rfcs still exist to be used and obsolete doesn't mean what you're thinking. Not complying with the rfc then claiming nntp is bad like claiming posix portability and not complying with set posix standard that was never named. You are better off making something else and not calling it nntp and writing a clear definition. There's a problem with rfc wording, vary common issue.
Remember I didn't say all some nntpds complained about no from subject or date. Others accepted an invalid date and subject. For an nntpd to work with these cases it would have to be strict with from subject and date but then allow no from subject or date and broken headers. This is why the rfc is worded bad, it is not strict enough and illogical. Referencing is always up to interpretation.
The rfc might as well be so freeform you can make two extension modes called anonymous and anonreader to use in place of stream and reader, those modes can then take a transit path violating the nntp's encoding rules and be in binary if that was necessary and have an encrypted newsgroup header longer than possible using : instead of. This would still comply with the nntp rfc.

Timing stuff is always an issue, but theres no reason to add header stuff that gives tracking info if you don't want to.

Timing stuff doesn't have to be an hopeless issue if you write the tunnel for it, same with correlation but you may need to share traffic. Mixnets that are proven with smtp would work with nntp for lessening correlation after scrapping the email article details but not for streaming.

--
Posted on Rocksolid Light

Anonymous wrote:

I guess the rfc applies to actual "Usenet" articles. Is there any reason nntp can't be used and not be part of Usenet and not comply with the rfc? I would think there would be no problem with that.

Netnews articles ~= usenet articles different rfcs, old rfcs still exist to be used and obsolete doesn't mean what you're thinking. Not complying with the rfc then claiming nntp is bad like claiming posix portability and not complying with set posix standard that was never named. You are better off making something else and not calling it nntp and writing a clear definition. There's a problem with rfc wording, vary common issue.

I agree there. Don't claim to be what you're not. But I would think using nntp as a basis for a server, renaming it something else but using the features would be fine.

The rfc might as well be so freeform you can make two extension modes called anonymous and anonreader to use in place of stream and reader, those modes can then take a transit path violating the nntp's encoding rules and be in binary if that was necessary and have an encrypted newsgroup header longer than possible using : instead of. This would still comply with the nntp rfc.

Why not? (p)rivate (n)ews (t)ransfer (p)rotocol

--
Posted on Rocksolid Light

Why not? (p)rivate (n)ews (t)ransfer (p)rotocol

It's still nntp if its an extension. The extension modes can be called pntp and pnrp.

--
Posted on Rocksolid Light