Adam H. Kerman a écrit ceci :

> What, by default, the browser refuses to load http? That's an incredibly
> stupid client.

I have no problem with most http URLs, but the Eternal-September one
only opens with https.

--
Denis

Serveurs de news et passerelles web : <http://usenet-fr.yakakwatik.org>
Lecteurs de news : <http://usenet-fr.yakakwatik.org/lecteurs-de-news.html>

Am 15.12.2023 um 14:42:27 Uhr schrieb Grant Taylor:

> It used to be assumed that unencrypted HTTP was the default and
> encrypted HTTPS was the exception. We're now probably two thirds the
> way along the migration to where encrypted HTTPS is assumed the
> default and unencrypted HTTP is the exception.

Much more.
Some years ago Google started to rank down sites that only had http, so
almost all webmasters decided to enable https.

Every common browser now displays warning messages when accessing an
http site.

Am 15.12.2023 um 20:45:06 Uhr schrieb Spiros Bousbouras:

> I don't seem able to connect to IPv6 addresses in general so that's not
> related to eternal-september.

Then check if your system has an IPv6 address (not fe80 or fd00, those
can't be used for internet communication).

Am 15.12.2023 um 20:43:07 Uhr schrieb Andy Burns:

> Marco Moock wrote:
>
> > schrieb Wally J:
> >
> >> the closest archive I know of that covers "most" (many?,
> >> some?) newsgroups is the narkive
> >
> > Sadly, there is no list of all groups hosted there.
>
> Nor is there any way to contact them and request adding newer groups.

Davide Cavion <davide@narkive.com>

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>On 12/15/23 14:34, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>What, by default, the browser refuses to load http? That's an
>>incredibly stupid client.

>No ... it's a byproduct of evolving security on the web for the last
>10-15 years.

>It used to be assumed that unencrypted HTTP was the default and
>encrypted HTTPS was the exception. We're now probably two thirds the
>way along the migration to where encrypted HTTPS is assumed the default
>and unencrypted HTTP is the exception.

>Some browsers have chosen to make it so that they won't try unencrypted
>HTTP without explicitly telling it to like many browsers years ago
>wouldn't try encrypted HTTPS without explicitly telling them to.

>It's an ongoing change.

Your comment is inapplicable to what the O.P. complained about. The URL
Ray provided was http://www.eternal-september.org so copy and paste into
the browser's address bar is indeed an explicit instruction to use http.

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 21:52:33 +0100
Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
> Am 15.12.2023 um 20:45:06 Uhr schrieb Spiros Bousbouras:
>
> > I don't seem able to connect to IPv6 addresses in general so that's not
> > related to eternal-september.
>
> Then check if your system has an IPv6 address (not fe80 or fd00, those
> can't be used for internet communication).

Thanks for the tip. I don't think it has one but I don't want to spend the
time now to investigate further and this isn't the right group. If I can't
figure it out on my own , I will start a thread on comp.os.linux.misc .

Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> composa la prose suivante:

>Am 15.12.2023 um 17:47:10 Uhr schrieb DV:
>
>> Hi Ray, the Eternal-September URL seems to no longer work in http, as
>> it appears in your signature. It's OK in https though:
>
>Works for me.

Works for me too.

--
Liste de serveurs offrant un accès gratuit à la hiérarchie FR.*
http://usenet.ovh/?article=faq_serveur_gratuit

Recherche d'article Usenet
http://usenet.ovh/?article=ual

In article <ulid3g$ni1$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>,
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>On 12/15/23 10:11, The Doctor wrote:
>> Hence incompetence.
>
>Lack of caring and incompetence are two very different things.
>
>

And then you have politicians.

>
>--
>Grant. . . .

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

Marco Moock wrote:

> schrieb Andy Burns:
>
>> Nor is there any way to contact them and request adding newer groups.
>
> Davide Cavion <davide@narkive.com>

I think that bounced when I tried it a few years ago.

"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote

> Like Marco, I confirm that I can reach http://www.eternal-september.org/
> which does not redirect to https://www.eternal-september.org/

I too can reach both on a slightly hardened (for privacy) web browser.
<http://www.eternal-september.org/>
<https://www.eternal-september.org/>

BTW, I love Ivo & Ray for what they do, but I need _both_ because paganini
is such a pita when it comes to posting more than a few times in a day.

About half the time bofh fails such that I have to flip over to Ray's
server. I thank them both where Ivo's server is completely different in how
it deals with more than a small handful of posts per day per IP address.
--
It's also Draconian on senseless "badword" or "badurl" or poisoned ngs.

llp <llp@usenet.ovh.invalid> wrote:

> Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> composa la prose suivante:
>
> >Am 15.12.2023 um 17:47:10 Uhr schrieb DV:
> >
> >> Hi Ray, the Eternal-September URL seems to no longer work in http, as
> >> it appears in your signature. It's OK in https though:
> >
> >Works for me.
>
> Works for me too.

For me, using <http://www.eternal-september.org> with Safari on
macOS 10.13 showed a warning and required the Security Policy to be
overridden. Safari on macOS 14.1 just complained that it can't connect.

<https://www.eternal-september.org> gives no problems on either OS.

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator
<snipeco.1@gmail.com>
Google to end Usenet gateway - My pet rock Gordon just cheered.
<https://support.google.com/groups/answer/11036538>

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote

>> Their excuse is completely bogus though,
>
> No, it's not. It's not an excuse either. It's a reason. The reason
> can be shortened to the last word.

Hmmm... well... ah... um... er... ok. I don't disagree with you as I never
disagree with anyone (no matter who it is) who says something reasonable.

> They just fail to tell the whole truth -- that the vast majority of the
> spam was originating from them -- and nothing but the truth -- the rest
> of the fluff that they padded their statement with.

OK. Again. I can't disagree. I never disagree with a fact.
Only fools do that. (That's why they're fools after all.)
> The fact that they are not discontinuing Google Groups supports that
> people still use (news)groups to communicate. So any comment about
> newer social media is a lie.

The part about social media is what got me on flaming Baby Cuomo's assault
on the binary Usenet newsgroups - where he "conveniently forgot" that
almost all of us post on the text-only newsgroups which have no porn.

What irked me was AT&T (who was my cable supplier at that time) dropped
Usenet piggybacking on Cuomo's lies - which was an introduction to lies^2.

> But, Google did admit why they were discontinuing support for Usenet;
> "spam". They were just a little bit shy on other necessary details.

Heh heh heh... yeah. The spam was originating from Google after all. :)

What still tells me there's more to the story than we know is that it's
trivial (IMHO) for Google to filter out the spam originating from their
servers.

Even I could do that. And I don't know a damn thing about Google's servers.
What's so hard about filtering their own users' Google-Groups-Usenet posts
when they do effective filtering with their email servers already?

Something very critical is missing from the information we're faced with.
> This perfectly matches things that I've experienced with them multiple
> times before.

I worked for a decade alongside two of the smartest people in the world who
ended up working for Google on their search engine team, where even They
were impressed with how sophisticated the "normal" Google search was.

If you know them, I'll say their initials, where both worked in the Silicon
Valley with me, one of whom is D.G. and the other B.A. if you know them.

Also W.T. worked at Google who has argued with me many times that they're
not stupid (just like you argue here) but that they're told what to code.
--
The problem with knowing a lot is others know a lot - just different stuff.

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote

>>> Nor is there any way to contact them and request adding newer groups.
>>
>> Davide Cavion <davide@narkive.com>
>
> I think that bounced when I tried it a few years ago.

I sent him an email when I first saw this email address, oh, about an hour
or so ago - so let me check for a bounceback... looks good. No return.

I asked David to look at this thread (which, let's be clear to the
naysayers, I conveniently referenced by URL) to see if he could help out.
I even suggested some of you guys might offer him improvement advice.

Now that you reminded us of the rocksolid URL, we have two search engines
to test out to see if either works as we would have wanted dejagoogle to.

<https://news.software.nntp.narkive.com>
<https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com>
<https://news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.narkive.com>
and
<https://www.novabbs.com/rocksolid/thread.php?group=news.software.nntp
<https://www.novabbs.com/rocksolid/thread.php?group=news.admin.peering
<https://www.novabbs.com/rocksolid/thread.php?group=news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
which redirects to:
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/thread.php?group=news.software.nntp>
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/thread.php?group=news.admin.peering>
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/thread.php?group=news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>

Note that I only realized the redirect when I saw this in my old notes.
<https://www.novabbs.com/rocksolid/thread.php?group=rocksolid.shared.helpdesk>
--
Usenet is a team of intelligent experienced people who help each other out.

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 09:43:52 -0600
candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:

> On 12/15/23 06:38, Marc Haber wrote:
> > doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> >> They are covering their incompetence!
> >
> > And they even say one of the reasons is spam, while they're being
> > the ONE BIGGEST source of Usenet spam. Blame their own doing on
> > others while being on their own way out.
> >
> > Greetings
> > Marc
>
> I am a bit worried that their statement could end up turning people
> away from pursuing Usenet.

We need to reach out to those legitimate users that are using Google
Groups and offer them alternative access.

--
End Of The Line BBS - Plano, TX
telnet endofthelinebbs.com 23

Nigel Reed <sysop@endofthelinebbs.com> wrote

> We need to reach out to those legitimate users that are using Google
> Groups and offer them alternative access.

The good news is there are a plethora of free news servers they can employ.
<http://groups.google.com/g/alt.free.newsservers>
<https://alt.free.newsservers.narkive.com>
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/thread.php?group=alt.free.newsservers>
--
Note I wouldn't recommend paganini for new users but the rest work well.

On 12/15/23 12:38, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>> On 12/15/23 06:38, Marc Haber wrote:
>
>>> And they even say one of the reasons is spam, while they're being the
>>> ONE BIGGEST source of Usenet spam. Blame their own doing on others
>>> while being on their own way out.
>
>> I am a bit worried that their statement could end up turning people away
>>from pursuing Usenet.
>
> Somehow Usenet will survive without the people who refuse to try Usenet
> due to believing Google's lies.

Yes, but it could still have SOME impact on new users.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 12/15/23 16:47, Wally J wrote:
> Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote
>> But, Google did admit why they were discontinuing support for Usenet;
>> "spam". They were just a little bit shy on other necessary details.
>
> Heh heh heh... yeah. The spam was originating from Google after all. :)
>
> What still tells me there's more to the story than we know is that it's
> trivial (IMHO) for Google to filter out the spam originating from their
> servers.
>
> Even I could do that. And I don't know a damn thing about Google's servers.
> What's so hard about filtering their own users' Google-Groups-Usenet posts
> when they do effective filtering with their email servers already?
>
> Something very critical is missing from the information we're faced with.
>
>> This perfectly matches things that I've experienced with them multiple
>> times before.
>
> I worked for a decade alongside two of the smartest people in the world who
> ended up working for Google on their search engine team, where even They
> were impressed with how sophisticated the "normal" Google search was.
>
> If you know them, I'll say their initials, where both worked in the Silicon
> Valley with me, one of whom is D.G. and the other B.A. if you know them.
>
> Also W.T. worked at Google who has argued with me many times that they're
> not stupid (just like you argue here) but that they're told what to code.

My guess is either they were looking for an excuse to shut down the
service (maybe to save server space?), throwing a bone to get us to stop
complaining, or they legitimately forgot about the gateway.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Thus spake Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com>
> For me www.eternal-september.org resolves to
> 135.181.20.170 and 2a01:4f9:4b:44c2::2 .For the former wget says
> "failed: Connection refused" .I can't connect to the latter either but I
> don't seem able to connect to IPv6 addresses in general so that's not
> related to eternal-september .So possibly the reason that some people
> can connect and some cannot is that the people who cannot have problems
> handling IPv6 addresses in general.

Thank you for a meaningful and helpful error report. Fixed.

--
Пу́тін — хуйло́
https://www.eternal-september.org

On 12/15/23 21:39, candycanearter07 wrote:
> My guess is either they were looking for an excuse to shut down the
> service (maybe to save server space?),

Maybe.

Though Google has not needed an excuse to do things in the past. Quite
the contrary, they do things that have upset people to the point of an
anti-excuse / reason to keep things.

> throwing a bone to get us to stop complaining,

I doubt that.

> or they legitimately forgot about the gateway.

I highly doubt it.

I saw hints of them pondering shutting down the Google Groups Usenet
gateway around when the new Mozilla Firefox / Thunderbird and Windows 11
newsgroups became a thing.

The shutdown has been coming.

The shutdown may have been expedited by recent events.

--
Grant. . . .

Ray Banana wrote:

> Thank you for a meaningful and helpful error report. Fixed.

No more error in my browser. Thank you too!

--
Denis

Serveurs de news et passerelles web : <http://usenet-fr.yakakwatik.org>
Lecteurs de news : <http://usenet-fr.yakakwatik.org/lecteurs-de-news.html>

Am 15.12.2023 um 21:45:15 Uhr schrieb Andy Burns:

> Marco Moock wrote:
>
> > schrieb Andy Burns:
> >
> >> Nor is there any way to contact them and request adding newer
> >> groups.
> >
> > Davide Cavion <davide@narkive.com>
>
> I think that bounced when I tried it a few years ago.

It worked some weeks ago.

Marco Moock wrote:

> schrieb Andy Burns:
>
>> Marco Moock wrote:
>>
>>> Davide Cavion <davide@narkive.com>
>>
>> I think that bounced when I tried it a few years ago.
>
> It worked some weeks ago.

Since Davide has surfaced in n.a.peering, I've replied to him there.

DV <dv@yakakwatik.invalid> wrote:

> Ray Banana wrote:
>
> > Thank you for a meaningful and helpful error report. Fixed.
>
> No more error in my browser. Thank you too!

Ditto, thanks.

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator
<snipeco.1@gmail.com>
Google to end Usenet gateway - My pet rock Gordon just cheered.
<https://support.google.com/groups/answer/11036538>

In article <uljdsc$7en$2@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>,
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>On 12/15/23 21:39, candycanearter07 wrote:
>> My guess is either they were looking for an excuse to shut down the
>> service (maybe to save server space?),
>
>Maybe.
>
>Though Google has not needed an excuse to do things in the past. Quite
>the contrary, they do things that have upset people to the point of an
>anti-excuse / reason to keep things.
>
>> throwing a bone to get us to stop complaining,
>
>I doubt that.
>
>> or they legitimately forgot about the gateway.
>
>I highly doubt it.
>
>I saw hints of them pondering shutting down the Google Groups Usenet
>gateway around when the new Mozilla Firefox / Thunderbird and Windows 11
>newsgroups became a thing.
>
>The shutdown has been coming.
>
>The shutdown may have been expedited by recent events.
>
>

After a year's worth of complaints ...

>
>--
>Grant. . . .

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

The Doctor wrote:

> In article <uljdsc$7en$2@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>,
> Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
> >
> > The shutdown has been coming.
> >
> > The shutdown may have been expedited by recent events.
>
> After a year's worth of complaints ...

Just a year?!

The Google Groups spamflood of Usenet might have become a bigger
issue in recent months but people have been complaining about Google
Groups and the people who use it to post to Usenet for years.

Blinky the Shark might be gone but I'm sure Lee is up there smiling
somewhere...