much cesorship, now including the cp list
I imagine this is being done in the backbones. Most of my emails today are not getting through.
I had yesterday a similar expierence with Usenet. Posting from one server allowed me only to post to one group and not the other, so I had to switch the server for the second message. Regards Stefan On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 5:52 PM Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
I imagine this is being done in the backbones.
Most of my emails today are not getting through.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, January 9, 2021 4:55 PM, Stefan Claas <spam.trap.mailing.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
I had yesterday a similar expierence with Usenet.
Posting from one server allowed me only to post to one group and not the other, so I had to switch the server for the second message.
who remembers netsplits? (i did the other day, when slack went down :) best regards,
Need logs, and dialogue around the logs to make a clear case for decentralised cryptographic solutions. On 1/9/21, coderman <coderman@protonmail.com> wrote:
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, January 9, 2021 4:55 PM, Stefan Claas <spam.trap.mailing.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
I had yesterday a similar expierence with Usenet.
Posting from one server allowed me only to post to one group and not the other, so I had to switch the server for the second message.
who remembers netsplits?
(i did the other day, when slack went down :)
best regards,
On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 8:32 PM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Need logs, and dialogue around the logs to make a clear case for decentralised cryptographic solutions.
On 1/9/21, coderman <coderman@protonmail.com> wrote:
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, January 9, 2021 4:55 PM, Stefan Claas <spam.trap.mailing.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
I had yesterday a similar expierence with Usenet.
Posting from one server allowed me only to post to one group and not the other, so I had to switch the server for the second message.
who remembers netsplits?
(i did the other day, when slack went down :)
best regards,
Not sure what you mean with need logs, language barrier, but a couple of days ago I was thinking about going back to the roots. We all know that, for example, IPv6 would allow all citizens on this planet to have an own dedicated IPv6, if it would roll out. Since I doubt this will happen, because I see no advancements in this direction, when one thinks that it would already proposed in the 90s, I thought about to find a way, let's say with a Raspberry Pi to do good old UUCP somehow, without encryption (first), in such a way that we would have a global decentralized network (non-commercially) where users could use email and have Usenet. Simly a communication platform, like the list here, but denzentralised. Regards Stefan
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 22:03:23 +0100 Stefan Claas <spam.trap.mailing.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
We all know that, for example, IPv6 would allow all citizens on this planet to have an own dedicated IPv6, if it would roll out.
ah yes. And don't forget to tatoo the unique per-subject, SORRY, per 'citizen' address on the subject's, I MEAN 'citizen's' forehead.
Since I doubt this will happen, because I see no advancements in this direction, when one thinks that it would already proposed in the 90s, I thought about to find a way, let's say with a Raspberry Pi to do good old UUCP somehow, without encryption (first), in such a way that we would have a global decentralized network (non-commercially) where users could use email and have Usenet. Simly a communication platform, like the list here, but denzentralised.
Regards Stefan
On 1/9/21, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 22:03:23 +0100 Stefan Claas <spam.trap.mailing.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
We all know that, for example, IPv6 would allow all citizens on this planet to have an own dedicated IPv6, if it would roll out.
ah yes. And don't forget to tatoo the unique per-subject, SORRY, per 'citizen' address on the subject's, I MEAN 'citizen's' forehead.
too negative, harmful
Since I doubt this will happen, because I see no advancements in this direction, when one thinks that it would already proposed in the 90s, I thought about to find a way, let's say with a Raspberry Pi to do good old UUCP somehow, without encryption (first), in such a way that we would have a global decentralized network (non-commercially) where users could use email and have Usenet. Simly a communication platform, like the list here, but denzentralised.
Regards Stefan
brings to mind httpst I'm saying is that we need ://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns but what I'm saying is that we need logs of network activity demonstrating the problem, so that we can back up efforts to do something about the issue.
brings to mind httpst I'm saying is that we need ://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns
but what I'm saying is that we need logs of network activity
spasm, obviously should be
brings to mind https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns
must have typed "i'm saying is that we need" in the wrong spot without noticing, then retyped it.
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 17:07:05 -0500 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/9/21, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 22:03:23 +0100 Stefan Claas <spam.trap.mailing.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
We all know that, for example, IPv6 would allow all citizens on this planet to have an own dedicated IPv6, if it would roll out.
ah yes. And don't forget to tatoo the unique per-subject, SORRY, per 'citizen' address on the subject's, I MEAN 'citizen's' forehead.
too negative, harmful
Actually, you're completely wrong. My comment is perfectly valid and isn't harmful at all. What is harmful is the idea of LINKING EVEN MORE IDENTIFIERS TO PEOPLE. It's an idea that would make anonimity even weaker than it currently is. There is no need for more addresses and you can run servers at home without any New IPv6 Bullshit.
participants (5)
-
coderman -
Karl -
Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 -
Stefan Claas -
Zenaan Harkness