🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6pjd18$79r$1@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
Kim DeVaughn <kimdv@best.com> wrote:
>What "plan" are you speaking of?

Real practical stuff... nothing like grandson-of-1036 which is
just spinning in circles, and will IMO never result in anything.
It didn't occur to me it would be a source of contention (wasn't
thinking), so, umm, if it doesn't happen, I'll retroactively end
my participation in the munging thread some other way. :-)

>OTOH, it does mention "authentication" of group control messages,
>but defers that as TBD, so I would expect it would do something
>similar for address authentication, if that were being contemplated.

Heh.  I don't think they've made one bit of progress since I left.

>There is also the issue of dealing with "anonymous" posting ability, for
>which there are *some* legitimate uses.

That's no issue at all... never has been.  It's just a red herring
mungers like.  Legitimate anonymous services can & have had real
email addresses.

>Such issues aside, I still maintain that any such change to existing
>usenet *practices* would take place extremely slowly

I think we're closer to a "backbone cabal" right now than we had
been for several years.  The transport (that the user doesn't really
see) moves fairly quickly in quasi-unison.  If something isn't
propagated there, it will be extremely spotty, but there will
definitely be random pockets for years.

I expect munged posts to be dropped from all the big sites within
about 2 years.  (I call that soon, because I reject "Internet time"
as a valid concept. :-) )