posts are not coming through.
Really?
posts are not coming through.
posts are not coming through.
don't use mail2news@tcpreset.net
It has group limits and blocking now.
Nomen Nescio wrote:
don't use mail2news@tcpreset.net
mail2news@mail2news.tcpreset.net
It has group limits and blocking now.
It's you with some sort of blocking
somewhere else
Have a nice day
On 20 Sep 2026, Gab_Virebent <gabriel1@virebent.invalid> posted some news:118ohb5$2028k$1@news.tcpreset.net:
Nomen Nescio wrote:
don't use mail2news@tcpreset.net
mail2news@mail2news.tcpreset.net
It has group limits and blocking now.
It's you with some sort of blocking
somewhere else
Have a nice day
"441 Forbidden crosspost."
So much for your braggadocious posuring and unwavering "committment" to
free speech.
What's the URL of the free speech server that you run?
And did you know that dizum blocks some groups?
Give your whining a rest a do something about it.
In article
<d7e9fd8a95b0f2e3a84c5cb85e350705@msgid.frell.theremailer.net> Nomen
Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
On 20 Sep 2026, Gab_Virebent <gabriel1@virebent.invalid> posted some
news:118ohb5$2028k$1@news.tcpreset.net:
Nomen Nescio wrote:
don't use mail2news@tcpreset.net
mail2news@mail2news.tcpreset.net
It has group limits and blocking now.
It's you with some sort of blocking
somewhere else
Have a nice day
"441 Forbidden crosspost."
So much for your braggadocious posuring and unwavering "committment"
to free speech.
What's the URL of the free speech server that you run?
And did you know that dizum blocks some groups?
Give your whining a rest a do something about it.
Nomen Nescio wrote:
What's the URL of the free speech server that you run?
It's publicly available
And did you know that dizum blocks some groups?
I don't think so
Give your whining a rest a do something about it.
Busy watching football, sorry !
Soccer !
In article <1789944279.C281243DF84AB4E9@mail2news.tcpreset.net>
Gab_Virebent <gabriel1@virebent.invalid> wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote:
What's the URL of the free speech server that you run?
It's publicly available
And did you know that dizum blocks some groups?
I don't think so
It really does. IIRC, a remailer-conf to dizum will list them.
Give your whining a rest a do something about it.
Busy watching football, sorry !
Soccer !
Umm, my post wasn't directed at you. Instead, at someone complaining
about your service.
BTW, check out the alt.test.test posts with the subject Dupe test.
BTW, check out the alt.test.test posts with the subject Dupe test.
Nomen Nescio wrote:
BTW, check out the alt.test.test posts with the subject Dupe test.
Two duplicates from dizum
In article <118r3i2$2ol26$1@news.tcpreset.net>
Gab_Virebent <gabriel1@virebent.invalid> wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote:
BTW, check out the alt.test.test posts with the subject Dupe test.
Two duplicates from dizum
Naah, only one of them is a dupe. I think the fact that tcpreset
generates its own MID is the cause. Shouldn't it retain the MID coming
from dizum?
Nomen Nescio wrote:
In article <118r3i2$2ol26$1@news.tcpreset.net>
Gab_Virebent <gabriel1@virebent.invalid> wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote:
BTW, check out the alt.test.test posts with the subject Dupe test.
Two duplicates from dizum
Naah, only one of them is a dupe. I think the fact that tcpreset
generates its own MID is the cause. Shouldn't it retain the MID coming
from dizum?
I misjudged the dizum duplicate is one.
I have changed the way tcpreset m2n generates MID.
Gabx
In article <118r3i2$2ol26$1@news.tcpreset.net>
Gab_Virebent <gabriel1@virebent.invalid> wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote:
BTW, check out the alt.test.test posts with the subject Dupe test.
Two duplicates from dizum
Naah, only one of them is a dupe. I think the fact that tcpreset
generates its own MID is the cause. Shouldn't it retain the MID coming
from dizum?
Whatever, not a big deal.
In article <118r3i2$2ol26$1@news.tcpreset.net>:
Gab_Virebent <gabriel1@virebent.invalid> wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote:
BTW, check out the alt.test.test posts with the subject Dupe test.
Two duplicates from dizum
Naah, only one of them is a dupe. I think the fact that tcpreset
generates its own MID is the cause. Shouldn't it retain the MID coming
from dizum?
Whatever, not a big deal.
Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
: On 21 Sep 2026, Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> posted some
: news:d8e9509403c13ce2e0308d6bf935bcd7@dizum.com:
:
In article <118r3i2$2ol26$1@news.tcpreset.net>:
Gab_Virebent <gabriel1@virebent.invalid> wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote:
BTW, check out the alt.test.test posts with the subject Dupe
test.
Two duplicates from dizum
Naah, only one of them is a dupe. I think the fact that tcpreset
generates its own MID is the cause. Shouldn't it retain the MID
coming from dizum?
Whatever, not a big deal.
: Easily fixed. Don't use tcpreset m2n with the other m2n gateways.
: Use it by itself. It's an SPOF of course, but it will work until
: the next time something changes. Maybe 2 days, a week, who knows?
I line with the Unix philosofy:
A m2n-gw sends messages form email to usenet. It does not perform any
other functions. (so it takes the MessageID and uses that)
A remailer/mixmaster anonymizes mail messages.
Both have their own function and complement each other :)
Cheers,
Alex
I line with the Unix philosofy:
A m2n-gw sends messages form email to usenet. It does not perform any other functions. (so it takes the MessageID and uses that)
A remailer/mixmaster anonymizes mail messages.
Both have their own function and complement each other:)
Alex de Joode wrote:
A m2n-gw sends messages form email to usenet. It does not perform any other >> functions. (so it takes the MessageID and uses that)
To settle the matter once and for all, i hace changed the Message-ID >generation behavior but that *does not address that issue*.
I line with the Unix philosofy:
A m2n-gw sends messages form email to usenet. It does not perform any other functions. (so it takes the MessageID and uses that)
A remailer/mixmaster anonymizes mail messages.
Both have their own function and complement each other :)
Cheers,
Alex
Gab_Virebent <gabriel1@virebent.invalid> wrote:
Alex de Joode wrote:
A m2n-gw sends messages form email to usenet. It does not perform any other >>> functions. (so it takes the MessageID and uses that)
To settle the matter once and for all, i hace changed the Message-ID
generation behavior but that *does not address that issue*.
For remailer users it's easy to settle that matter once and for all by continuing to ignore your deliberately incompatible, thus broken services.
Alex de Joode <usura@local.smersh.su> wrote:
I line with the Unix philosofy:
A m2n-gw sends messages form email to usenet. It does not perform any
other functions. (so it takes the MessageID and uses that)
A remailer/mixmaster anonymizes mail messages.
Both have their own function and complement each other :)
Cheers,
Alex
Alex, you're absolutely right. That's the only way to go.
And many thanks for your great service!
Gab_Virebent <gabriel1@virebent.invalid> wrote:
Alex de Joode wrote:
A m2n-gw sends messages form email to usenet. It does not perform
any other functions. (so it takes the MessageID and uses that)
To settle the matter once and for all, i hace changed the Message-ID >>generation behavior but that *does not address that issue*.
For remailer users it's easy to settle that matter once and for all by continuing to ignore your deliberately incompatible, thus broken
services.
Gab_Virebent <gabriel1@virebent.invalid> wrote:
Alex de Joode wrote:
A m2n-gw sends messages form email to usenet. It does not perform
any other functions. (so it takes the MessageID and uses that)
To settle the matter once and for all, i hace changed the Message-ID >>generation behavior but that *does not address that issue*.
For remailer users it's easy to settle that matter once and for all by continuing to ignore your deliberately incompatible, thus broken
services.
Alex de Joode wrote:
I line with the Unix philosofy:
A m2n-gw sends messages form email to usenet. It does not perform any other >> functions. (so it takes the MessageID and uses that)
A remailer/mixmaster anonymizes mail messages.
Both have their own function and complement each other:)
TCPResetrCOs Message-ID rewriting was intended as a privacy precaution for direct email submissions, which do not necessarily pass through a remailer.
However, I accept that this choice can interfere with
duplicate suppression when the same message is submitted through
multiple gateways...
RFC 5537 explicitly describes multiple injection as an unusual case, although a supported one. I hadnrCOt accounted for that workflow.
How widely is it actually used outside OmniMix?
To settle the matter once and for all, i hace changed the Message-ID generation behavior but that *does not address that issue*.
The relevant question is whether the same original message retains a consistent identity across those paths.
Your point about preserving an existing Message-ID in a remailer-to-news workflow is fair.
Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address
above. It was posted by the mail-to-news gateway at news.tcpreset.net.
Also, I noticed that your mail2news service inserts this line:
Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address
above. It was posted by the mail-to-news gateway at news.tcpreset.net.
This is not correct. This line should be inserted by anonymous
remailers, mail2news services themselves do not provide anonymity
(unless you also replace From header). My email address is where my
message originated from. I don't use mail2news service for "anonymity",
I'm just too lazy to register anywhere.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 03:38:06 |
| Calls: | 1,194 |
| Files: | 1,353 |
| D/L today: |
2 files (1,590K bytes) |
| Messages: | 291,364 |