From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

Hi,
news.tcpresetnet operates on principles of open access, anonymity, and censorship resistance.
We run with no authentication, text-only content (65KB limit avoids binary), and Tor hidden service integration.
However, we recognize our responsibility to avoid becoming an open spam relay.

THE CHALLENGE

We initially considered closing port 119 to clearnet entirely, maintaining access exclusively through our Tor hidden service.
Tor's architecture allows the hidden service daemon to act as a reverse proxy to localhost,
traversing our perimeter firewall even when port 119 is blocked externally. This would provide complete anonymity and natural rate limiting.

However, this conflicts with our commitment to openness.
Many legitimate users cannot or prefer not to use Tor.

CURRENT SOLUTION (TESTING PHASE)

We're testing a defense-in-depth approach that keeps port 119 open to
clearnet with aggressive anti-abuse measures:

rCo Content Filtering: Cleanfeed + SpamAssassin,iptables rate limit, fail2ban filters with aggressive thresholds.

Gabx

--- Digital Signature --- zThTFc450sbAOrCMzbb72qQ7lehFySEQ/HHbF8vuDkeG5WfHyF9e9UT5wbeLMbU6SIR2dwHrQiBjxiSPIcMNDg==


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

Gabx wrote:

Hi,
news.tcpresetnet operates on principles of open access, anonymity, and censorship resistance.
We run with no authentication, text-only content (65KB limit avoids
binary), and Tor hidden service integration.
However, we recognize our responsibility to avoid becoming an open spam relay.

THE CHALLENGE

We initially considered closing port 119 to clearnet entirely,
maintaining access exclusively through our Tor hidden service.
Tor's architecture allows the hidden service daemon to act as a reverse
proxy to localhost,
traversing our perimeter firewall even when port 119 is blocked
externally.
This would provide complete anonymity and natural rate limiting.

However, this conflicts with our commitment to openness.
Many legitimate users cannot or prefer not to use Tor.

CURRENT SOLUTION (TESTING PHASE)

We're testing a defense-in-depth approach that keeps port 119 open to clearnet with aggressive anti-abuse measures:

rCo Content Filtering: Cleanfeed + SpamAssassin,iptables rate limit,
fail2ban filters with aggressive thresholds.

Gabx

--- Digital Signature ---
zThTFc450sbAOrCMzbb72qQ7lehFySEQ/

HHbF8vuDkeG5WfHyF9e9UT5wbeLMbU6SIR2dwHrQiBjxiSPIcMNDg==

ok, tks

--- Digital Signature --- nfaH6V8fASH4DBgd2ALB4j8h0GXmJ4XUexgyFDpjS60Av9lpp39HVpTosA8/FNFdlIYxX9q/jeG1SDvebf5DAw==


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

In article <20251012.1760268809.903363.9271@m2usenet.local>
Gabx <virebent@tcpreset.invalid> wrote:

Hi,
news.tcpresetnet operates on principles of open access, anonymity, and censorship resistance.
We run with no authentication, text-only content (65KB limit avoids binary), and Tor hidden service integration.
However, we recognize our responsibility to avoid becoming an open spam relay.

THE CHALLENGE

We initially considered closing port 119 to clearnet entirely, maintaining access exclusively through our Tor hidden service.
Tor's architecture allows the hidden service daemon to act as a reverse proxy to localhost,
traversing our perimeter firewall even when port 119 is blocked externally. This would provide complete anonymity and natural rate limiting.

However, this conflicts with our commitment to openness.
Many legitimate users cannot or prefer not to use Tor.

CURRENT SOLUTION (TESTING PHASE)

We're testing a defense-in-depth approach that keeps port 119 open to clearnet with aggressive anti-abuse measures:

rCo Content Filtering: Cleanfeed + SpamAssassin,iptables rate limit, fail2ban filters with aggressive thresholds.

Gabx

Thanks for the service you provide!

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

Gabx <virebent@tcpreset.invalid> wrote:

news.tcpresetnet operates on principles of open access, anonymity, and >censorship resistance. . . .

Servers like yours have gotten "the principle of censorship resistance"
wrong. In all the years I've participated on Usenet, do you know how
many instances of censorship there have been against me by News
administrators?

Does anybody wanna guess?

Instead, the adverse actions taken against me have been by various
fellow Usenet users committing forgery and acting like moderators in unmoderated Usenet. They have been facilitated by both open access
servers and paid servers who don't have forgery countermeasures. It's
always on me to request a forgery countermeasure. Paolo, an extremely
nice guy who had run AIOE before he was no longer able to, blocked any
use of my email address on From when there were forgeries. I had long
used his server as an alternate means of reading and posting to Usenet
and. because a different user committed abuse, I could no longer do so.

But there have been numerous administrators of open access News servers
of the years who flat out refused to take any forgery countermeasures.

The other principle that these servers end up protecting is the right to
take an article written by someone else and published on a Web site and
repost it to Usenet. You aren't protecting the author's rights at all,
The author should have final say in what publisher he submits his work
to and absolutely has the right not to have his copyright infringed.

Now, there are numerous full-text instances of copyright infringement
through both free and paid servers that require accounts, so this is not
unique to open access News servers. Nevertheless, the users think that
open access better protects them from getting caught, having taken away
another author's right to speak and publish for himself.

As far as using an open access server to post some important information
to Usenet anonymously that actually true and not just a lame insult or deliberately spreading a falsehood or starting malicious gossip, in
which the motivation for using open access is because there is a
legitimate fear of reprisal, has it ever happened?

I've seen the abuse but I don't recall the good and I have learned that
there's simply no reason at all to read articles posted through open
access unless I recognize the author who wasn't hiding his identity in
the first place.

The good is potential, only. It's not real world experience. It does not outweigh the harm.

Posting to Usenet with an account requires nothing more than an email
address. It can be an email address one uses on From of Usenet articles
and is never otherwise used for personal nor business correspondence.
One doesn't have to read messages received.

This is not and never has been a barrier to preserving privacy on
Usenet.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

On Sun, 12 Oct 2025 15:38:02 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Gabx <virebent@tcpreset.invalid> wrote:

news.tcpresetnet operates on principles of open access, anonymity, and >>censorship resistance. . . .

Servers like yours have gotten "the principle of censorship resistance" >wrong. In all the years I've participated on Usenet, do you know how
many instances of censorship there have been against me by News >administrators?

Almost 500 words of gobbledygook,

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Posting to Usenet with an account requires nothing more than an email address. It can be an email address one uses on From of Usenet articles
and is never otherwise used for personal nor business correspondence.
One doesn't have to read messages received.

This is not and never has been a barrier to preserving privacy on
Usenet.

You make valid points, and I can't argue with real-world experience.

About forgery: I agree that registration makes it easier for admins to
block impersonation, tying a From: header to an authenticated account is definitely more effective than blocking IPs or patterns.

But when we talk about copyright enforcement or legal accountability for
what someone posts, just having an email isn't enough anyway.

You'd need real identity data - full name, address, phone number, etc.
And that goes way beyond what our mission is about and what great part
of users want/do.

Here's where I draw the line: blocking spam and forgeries or censuring
and persecuting, are admin choices, sure.

But requiring real identities also means legitimate users can be
targeted, censored, or prosecuted for what they say.

Where do we stand on free speech and protection from retaliation?

We live in times where there's no middle ground anymore, and preserving
these principles still matters to me.

I listen to constructive criticism and try to accommodate as many users
as possible, but always staying true to my principles.

Yeah, it's on us to build our reputation and deal with the consequences.

But I think some things are worth protecting, even if the current
reality is messy.

Gabx
--
0745 074D FEAA 9CB7 62E9 D89D 3E54 F490 F2CC 5A82
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

Adam H. Kerman wrote:

This is not and never has been a barrier to preserving privacy on
Usenet.

An email is just an email for anything, it remains arbitrary.
I see authentication/registration just as a measure as well as a PoW or
a captcha can be.

Forgery and copyright are different busineses.

Gabx
--
0745 074D FEAA 9CB7 62E9 D89D 3E54 F490 F2CC 5A82
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

Gabx <virebent@tcpreset.invalid> wrote:

Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Posting to Usenet with an account requires nothing more than an email >>address. It can be an email address one uses on From of Usenet articles
and is never otherwise used for personal nor business correspondence.
One doesn't have to read messages received.

This is not and never has been a barrier to preserving privacy on
Usenet.

You make valid points, and I can't argue with real-world experience.

About forgery: I agree that registration makes it easier for admins to
block impersonation, tying a From: header to an authenticated account is >definitely more effective than blocking IPs or patterns.

But when we talk about copyright enforcement or legal accountability for >what someone posts, just having an email isn't enough anyway.

You'd need real identity data - full name, address, phone number, etc.
And that goes way beyond what our mission is about and what great part
of users want/do.

I don't expect you to enforce copyright. I think much of copyright law
is harmful, especially that copyright protections lasts longer than a
lifetime. I think 20 years is more reasonable.

My bright line is the full-text copyright infringement the same day the
article was published on a Web site.

People infringe copyright like this from Usenet sites that require
accounts too.

Again, I don't expect you to enforce this.

My other complaint, which has nothing to do with open sites versus sites requiring an account to post, is that I read Usenet to interact with
authors. Reposting what someone else wrote in lieu of commenting on it
has never been what I want from Usenet.

Here's where I draw the line: blocking spam and forgeries or censuring
and persecuting, are admin choices, sure.

But requiring real identities also means legitimate users can be
targeted, censored, or prosecuted for what they say.

Where do we stand on free speech and protection from retaliation?

I happily interact with people who use consistent pseudonyms and their
own email addresses (which again, they don't have to read incoming
messages received). I don't know the real identities of numerous people
on Usenet.

As long as I recognize their writing style and Usenet identies, I'm fine
with that. As long as they don't morph or forge or pretend to have
numerous identies, I'm fine with that.

We live in times where there's no middle ground anymore, and preserving >these principles still matters to me.

An account after verifying an email address is adequate, and the News administrator doesn't necessarily need to demand use of this address on
From. Surely that can be done in a way that preserves real-world privacy.

Account information on the Injection-info header using a modern INN or
other News server, even though the account is known only to you (and
changes from article to article), would allow you to check your logs and
follow through on a legitimate abuse complaint. The reader doesn't have
access to your logs and that should be adequate for privacy.

I listen to constructive criticism and try to accommodate as many users
as possible, but always staying true to my principles.

Yeah, it's on us to build our reputation and deal with the consequences.

But I think some things are worth protecting, even if the current
reality is messy.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

Adam H. Kerman wrote:

I don't expect you to enforce copyright.

Ok ! :)

is harmful, especially that copyright protections lasts longer than a lifetime. I think 20 years is more reasonable.

My bright line is the full-text copyright infringement the same day the article was published on a Web site.

People infringe copyright like this from Usenet sites that require
accounts too.

I don't think article reposts are what's killing communication on Usenet. People with something worthwhile to say always find each other, it's
almost metaphysical.

It just happens, regardless of the surrounding chaos.
And those articles, if they're interesting, proper discussions can emerge.

My other complaint, which has nothing to do with open sites versus sites requiring an account to post, is that I read Usenet to interact with
authors. Reposting what someone else wrote in lieu of commenting on it
has never been what I want from Usenet.

I agree that would be preferable, but it's rather a matter of personal
taste.
I do appreciate you sharing your perspective, though.

I happily interact with people who use consistent pseudonyms and their
own email addresses (which again, they don't have to read incoming
messages received). I don't know the real identities of numerous people
on Usenet.

As long as I recognize their writing style and Usenet identies, I'm fine
with that. As long as they don't morph or forge or pretend to have
numerous identies, I'm fine with that.

I quote what you just said and yes, it would be better.

Account information on the Injection-info header using a modern INN or
other News server, even though the account is known only to you (and
changes from article to article), would allow you to check your logs and follow through on a legitimate abuse complaint. The reader doesn't have access to your logs and that should be adequate for privacy.

Fair point about Injection-Info, yes, INN does that, and I do check my
logs when needed.

It's not about whether I CAN track users, it's about whether I SHOULD
require them to identify themselves before they can speak.

Gabx
https://news.tcpreset.net
--
0745 074D FEAA 9CB7 62E9 D89D 3E54 F490 F2CC 5A82
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

Gabx wrote:

Adam H. Kerman wrote:

I don't expect you to enforce copyright.

Ok ! :)

What I mean is that everyone wants Usenet their own way.

There are even those who say it's dead, and those who even claim to know
who killed it.

By the old Usenet dinosaurs are only willing to talk about the good old
days and about how much today's Usenet admins suck, all while staying
glued here, spreading discontent and directly/indirectly triggering
trolls against this or that person's posts.

What do I think? Freedom is difficult. It's frightening.

Gabx
--
0745 074D FEAA 9CB7 62E9 D89D 3E54 F490 F2CC 5A82
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

On 10/13/25 00:30, Gabx wrote:

...
What do I think? Freedom is difficult. It's frightening.

Gabx

what? there is freedom behind or in front of a screen? :D
--
.......
Billy G. (go-while)
https://pugleaf.net
@Newsgroup: rocksolid.nodes.help
irc.pugleaf.net:6697 (SSL) #lounge
TOR-IRC: ij7fmstcudrwyty5p6iloodeenur4wksovlhbyrfubat7eixplmrxvqd.onion:6667 --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

Gabx <virebent@tcpreset.invalid> wrote:

. . .

It's not about whether I CAN track users, it's about whether I SHOULD >require them to identify themselves before they can speak.

The identification might be as minimal as sending a token to the
potential user's email address.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

On Sun, 12 Oct 2025 15:38:02 +0000, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Servers like yours have gotten "the principle of censorship resistance" wrong. In all the years I've participated on Usenet, do you know how
many instances of censorship there have been against me by News administrators?

Does anybody wanna guess?

I'd never cull you kermit, you're too much fun to piss on

But there have been numerous administrators of open access News servers
of the years who flat out refused to take any forgery countermeasures.

its usenet, unless you are going to use pgp on every article you have no
hope, then again, its usenet.

The other principle that these servers end up protecting is the right to
take an article written by someone else and published on a Web site and repost it to Usenet. You aren't protecting the author's rights at all,
The author should have final say in what publisher he submits his work
to and absolutely has the right not to have his copyright infringed.

I'm sure nothing you write Adam is worth a courts time to listen to what
it has already called in some countries "childish tantrums".

many countries have fair use provisions, if it is publicly available on a website, providing they credit the author, or, use a passage or two and
give a link to the full article, all fine here.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 02:44:39 +0000, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Gabx <virebent@tcpreset.invalid> wrote:

. . .

It's not about whether I CAN track users, it's about whether I SHOULD >>require them to identify themselves before they can speak.

The identification might be as minimal as sending a token to the
potential user's email address.

Email addresses are useless, I could get a mail.ru email in 3 minutes, do
you think the Russian orgs or govt will hand anything to do with me to a western world power, not a chance in hell.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> wrote:

On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 02:44:39 +0000, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Gabx <virebent@tcpreset.invalid> wrote:

. . .

It's not about whether I CAN track users, it's about whether I SHOULD >>>require them to identify themselves before they can speak.

The identification might be as minimal as sending a token to the
potential user's email address.

Email addresses are useless, I could get a mail.ru email in 3 minutes, do >you think the Russian orgs or govt will hand anything to do with me to a >western world power, not a chance in hell.

Yes. Yes I do.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 04:39:41 +0000, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Email addresses are useless, I could get a mail.ru email in 3 minutes,
do you think the Russian orgs or govt will hand anything to do with me
to a western world power, not a chance in hell.

Yes. Yes I do.

More fool you

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 02:30:57 +0200
Gabx <info@tcpreset.invalid> wrote:

Gabx wrote:

Adam H. Kerman wrote:

I don't expect you to enforce copyright.

Ok ! :)

What I mean is that everyone wants Usenet their own way.

There are even those who say it's dead, and those who even claim to
know who killed it.

It's not dead. It's resting.
--
End Of The Line BBS - Plano, TX
telnet endofthelinebbs.com 23


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> wrote:

On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 04:39:41 +0000, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Email addresses are useless, I could get a mail.ru email in 3 minutes,
do you think the Russian orgs or govt will hand anything to do with me
to a western world power, not a chance in hell.

Yes. Yes I do.

More fool you

I'm not the fool who believes Russia would act to maintain and not
violate my privacy. If they have a dossier on you and it's in their
interest to reveal it, they will do so. What would they care? I assume
you don't live there,

But you do you regardless of logic.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 17:38:34 +0000, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> wrote:

On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 04:39:41 +0000, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Email addresses are useless, I could get a mail.ru email in 3 minutes, >>>>do you think the Russian orgs or govt will hand anything to do with me >>>>to a western world power, not a chance in hell.

Yes. Yes I do.

More fool you

I'm not the fool who believes Russia would act to maintain and not
violate my privacy. If they have a dossier on you and it's in their
interest to reveal it, they will do so. What would they care? I assume
you don't live there,

But you do you regardless of logic.

you've edited so many quotes you dont remember what we were discussing.

hint: if I sign up to X.server using an x.ru email and copy/paste some
article you dream you have written, they wont give a flying fuck if a
certain bully boy govt makes demands for my info, nor would China if I
used an accessible email from there,m but as an Amercian, I can
understand you think the whole world bends over and takes it up the arse
from you, its your delusions, thankfully many Americans have an IQ higher
than the typcial maga wankers like you and do realise that, you should
watch a few youtube videos from iwrocker to see the self entitlment
fools who think the way you do.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

On 10/13/25 5:38 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> wrote:

On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 04:39:41 +0000, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Email addresses are useless, I could get a mail.ru email in 3 minutes, >>>> do you think the Russian orgs or govt will hand anything to do with me >>>> to a western world power, not a chance in hell.

Yes. Yes I do.

More fool you

I'm not the fool who believes Russia would act to maintain and not
violate my privacy. If they have a dossier on you and it's in their
interest to reveal it, they will do so. What would they care? I assume
you don't live there,

The Russian Federation would never ever hand over any data to the west,
from users of the west, which they are protecting! Except from Ukrainian
Nazis, of course!
--
-y-+ -a-+-U-U-+-+ -U -+-A-#-+-#-i-A.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> wrote:

On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 17:38:34 +0000, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> wrote:

On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 04:39:41 +0000, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Email addresses are useless, I could get a mail.ru email in 3 minutes, >>>>>do you think the Russian orgs or govt will hand anything to do with me >>>>>to a western world power, not a chance in hell.

Yes. Yes I do.

More fool you

I'm not the fool who believes Russia would act to maintain and not
violate my privacy. If they have a dossier on you and it's in their >>interest to reveal it, they will do so. What would they care? I assume
you don't live there,

But you do you regardless of logic.

you've edited so many quotes you dont remember what we were discussing.

Now you are just lying. The quote in question is there, above. You are
the one who removed its associated attribution line. I never do that.

As you have resumed your default asshole mode, the rest is snipped
unread.

. . .

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 16:00:54 +0000, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> wrote:

On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 17:38:34 +0000, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> wrote:

On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 04:39:41 +0000, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Email addresses are useless, I could get a mail.ru email in 3 >>>>>>minutes,
do you think the Russian orgs or govt will hand anything to do with >>>>>>me to a western world power, not a chance in hell.

Yes. Yes I do.

More fool you

I'm not the fool who believes Russia would act to maintain and not >>>violate my privacy. If they have a dossier on you and it's in their >>>interest to reveal it, they will do so. What would they care? I assume >>>you don't live there,

But you do you regardless of logic.

you've edited so many quotes you dont remember what we were discussing.

Now you are just lying. The quote in question is there, above. You are
the one who removed its associated attribution line. I never do that.

As you have resumed your default asshole mode, the rest is snipped
unread.

. . .

lol the usual response you give when you dont have a come back.

hardyl surprising from someone well known and remembered as an abusive
troll in many many groups.

kermit, you might be able to fool some people youve changed, but a
leopard never changes its spots, and everytime you hit your keyboard you
prove me right.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2