🚀 go-pugleaf

"Industrial One" wrote (from GoogleGroups) ...
>  dizzy  wrote:
>> Industrial One wrote:
>> >dizzy  wrote:
>> >> Better yet, try Free Agent, which doesn't suck, as it can actually
>> >> post an unbroken long link.
>>
>> >Can it access alt.binaries?
>>
>> Sure.  Why would it not?  (Although the pay version (Agent) is needed
>> for automatic decoding of attachments.)
>
> Dunno, kinda new to the concept of Usenet. As far as I know, this is
> how them aging dork hackers used to share/grab their loot

"Back then" our "loot" was the exchange of text-based messages
(such as what you are reading right now).  For that matter, same
as today. The valuable content on Usenet is the text-based discussions.

> back in the dark ages before there was modern P2P networks.

Usenet was one of the forefathers of modern P2P technology. It
is still effectively "P2P". But it mostly uses newer ways of inter-
connecting, such as "the internet", rather than dialup, UUCP,
or even exchanging data tapes.

"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station-wagon on the
freeway with boxes of computer tapes in the back."

> But I've been told that you can max out any connection here,
> because the loot is stored on ISPs newservers.

Maybe. Depends on your definition of "max out", and
"connection". Note further than few and fewer newsservers
are being operated by ISPs.

> I got a couple questions:
>
> 1. Is the traffic encrypted?

No.

> 2. Is your IP concealed. If so, how?

No.

> 3. How does it compare to modern P2P networks (e.g. Gnutella/
> FastTrack) overall, in terms of security,

There is NO security at all. You can safely assume that any
message you send into Usenet can be read by anyone for the
rest of history.

> stability,

Since it is a grass-roots, peer-to-peer, store-n-forward network
system, it is not reliant on any one (or several) servers for the
normal flow of information.  This is generally the MOST reliable
system because not only doesn't it have a single point of failure,
but there is also no central management or support.

In much the same way that amateur radio ("ham operators")
constitute the most reliable short-range and long-range emergency
communication because it is NOT dependent on the power or telecom
grid (or any government acencies, etc.), it is mostly battery-operable,
and privately maintained by  hundreds of thousands of individuals
around the planet.

> upload/download

That depends entirely on what you conection is like, and who
your NNTP service is.

> querying etc.?

Since Usenet is only a real-time message exchange, there was no
intention of keeping archives. OTOH, there was nothing to stop
anyone with enough disc space from saving messages. In 1995, a
guy in Texas started "DejaNews" to do just that: archive Usenet
messages. The archive was later sold to Google who continues
to maintain a searchable online archive of Usenet message traffic.

From your message headers, you appear to be reading this on
the Google Groups web-based portal into Usenet. Note that
Google has no proprietary connection with Usenet. Google is
just annother of the thousands of peer Usenet servers on the
planet. They happen to have lots of disk space, so they can
continue to save Usenet messages essentially "forever" (vs.
the few days/weeks/months that most NNTP servers retain
messages.)

After Google bought the DejaNews Usenet archives, they
added the feature to allow users such as yourself to view the
current newsgroup traffic, and reply to it, effective setting up
a free web-based newsreader. Most of us despise both their
implementation of the web-based interface, but also their
corporate indifference to keeping Usenet relative clean.
Opening Usenet up to your average random web browwer
has made Google Groups clearly the curerent largest source
of spam and assorted rubbish on Usenet.

> I'm also aware that unpopular content untouched for a week is
> automatically removed,

I've only been on Usenet for ~15 years and I've never heard of
such a thing.  Different news servers have different policies for
retention time. Maybe some of it is based on access statistics,
but none of the ones I've ever used.

> which is one thing P2P networks have over Usenet,

You seem to think that "Usenet" is some monolithic, uniform
system where all the nodes are managed alike. It is none of
those things.

> but also makes it depend on a users will to share (usually
> bullshit dial-up speeds of like 5 KB/s), which Usenet has
> over P2P, so  meh.

You'll have to explain what that means if you want anyone to
respond to it.  Note further that "P2P networks" is not a
monolithic operation, either. They all have certain quirks and
design features different from one-another.

> And one more thing: you mentioned decoding. Did you mean
> decrypting?

Since Usenet traffic is not encrypted (unless you encrypt it
before sending), then he likely meant "decoding".

> I heard large files are split into chunks

Because Usenet was designed for text messages which are
not terribly long. A few KB at most.

> and re-ordering the chunks correctly requires much user input,
> and for the user to not be an average dipshit netizen who can >
> only use idiot-proof apps like BitTorrent.

Young children who have learned to count to 10 can do it.
If visible sequence numbers in the subject line (like "7/12")
is to difficult, then that is rather a good thing, IMHO, It keeps
the really stupid people away.

> I'm a fast learner, so that won't be a problem. Just put
> the process in a nutshell.

The subject line contains the sequence number. Simple as that.