Do you not use DNS to refresh your name -> IP mapping regularly?
Am 01.08.26 um 05:13 schrieb Nomen Nescio:
Do you not use DNS to refresh your name -> IP mapping regularly?IIRC INN resolved the names one time and then never does it again
until restarted. Although that is from hearsay.
Thus spake Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de>
Am 01.08.26 um 05:13 schrieb Nomen Nescio:
Do you not use DNS to refresh your name -> IP mapping regularly?IIRC INN resolved the names one time and then never does it again
until restarted. Although that is from hearsay.
That would indicate that a daily cron job is missing:
0 0 * * * test -x /usr/local/news/bin/ctlinnd &&
/usr/local/news/bin/ctlinnd -t 300 -s reload incoming.conf "flush cache"
Has been working for me for decades.
Do you not use DNS to refresh your name -> IP mapping regularly?
Thus spake Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de>
Am 01.08.26 um 05:13 schrieb Nomen Nescio:
Do you not use DNS to refresh your name -> IP mapping regularly?IIRC INN resolved the names one time and then never does it again until
restarted. Although that is from hearsay.
That would indicate that a daily cron job is missing:
0 0 * * * test -x /usr/local/news/bin/ctlinnd &&
/usr/local/news/bin/ctlinnd -t 300 -s reload incoming.conf "flush
cache"
Has been working for me for decades.
On 7/31/26 23:52, Ray Banana wrote:
Thus spake Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de>
Am 01.08.26 um 05:13 schrieb Nomen Nescio:
Do you not use DNS to refresh your name -> IP mapping regularly?IIRC INN resolved the names one time and then never does it again
until restarted. Although that is from hearsay.
That would indicate that a daily cron job is missing:
0 0 * * * test -x /usr/local/news/bin/ctlinnd &&
/usr/local/news/bin/ctlinnd -t 300 -s reload incoming.conf "flush
cache"
Has been working for me for decades.
Yeah you got it, that's the intention with inn right now and there's an
issue on GitHub describing how to fix: https://github.com/InterNetNews/inn/issues/89.
There are plenty of reasons to not expect a peer to be fixed to one IP
unless you have a mutual understanding of that case.
Regards,
Kevin
On Sat, 01 Aug 2026 01:10:08 -0700, Kevin Bowling wrote:
On 7/31/26 23:52, Ray Banana wrote:
Thus spake Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de>
Am 01.08.26 um 05:13 schrieb Nomen Nescio:
Do you not use DNS to refresh your name -> IP mapping regularly?IIRC INN resolved the names one time and then never does it again
until restarted. Although that is from hearsay.
That would indicate that a daily cron job is missing:
0 0 * * * test -x /usr/local/news/bin/ctlinnd &&
/usr/local/news/bin/ctlinnd -t 300 -s reload incoming.conf "flush
cache"
Has been working for me for decades.
Yeah you got it, that's the intention with inn right now and there's an
issue on GitHub describing how to fix:
https://github.com/InterNetNews/inn/issues/89.
There are plenty of reasons to not expect a peer to be fixed to one IP
unless you have a mutual understanding of that case.
Regards,
Kevin
even running multiple front ends using a load balancer which is what we
did at $previous_life -not here in my own organisation as these days
usage is obviously very different from 30 yrs ago, or even 10 years ago, everything can run on one server when doing text only groups, even with decades of retention, we have a HP dl380 gen4 in early days, only had 16G ram, it could happly handle 600 concurrent usenet sessions, and the load
was still under 1, I guess thats why its hard to get me to dump dnews.
Anyways I have enough peers, and as most my peers peer with each other
(why I've never approached Ray), I fail to see why I too need 30 peers,
I'm happy with the 5, I have (excluding another 4 what I call downstream peers which are universities and dont tend to post much outside their
local groups).
Some of my peers have changed IP's over time for various reasons, in
recent times, one we've probably all seen one with their thoughtful notifications, that are appreciated by some, and they should be seen as
an example on how to communicate changes, well done there, over the
ditch ;)
So Kevin I see no valid reason for a peer not to be fixed to one IP (if multiple you let your peers know -how its always been done), in fact isnt
it a case that most of us here have policies requiring a static IP to
even be considered for peering :)
All in all its just common courtesy to give your peers a heads up, itsMaybe look at the bigger picture of what he is doing and that most of
fine if Jesse no longer wants peering, jesus, it took me 3 weeks to
discover he was MIA courtesy of the pending articles list file hitting
10Mb which triggered the email alert, anyways he can either accept the
advice or ignore it, the sun will still rise in the morning.
Many larger providers use multiple A records for good reasons, it's
valid to design around articles flooding into networks and you really shouldn't put a load balancer in front of feeders.. just use the
protocols effectively. Inferring that there must be a relationship to
IPs or that an operator is forever bound to one set of systems/PoPs
doesn't reflect how these systems are run. You need to have proper rDNS
set up and the 3 major news server software handle this per design.
All in all its just common courtesy to give your peers a heads up, its
fine if Jesse no longer wants peering, jesus, it took me 3 weeks to
discover he was MIA courtesy of the pending articles list file hitting
10Mb which triggered the email alert, anyways he can either accept the
advice or ignore it, the sun will still rise in the morning.
Maybe look at the bigger picture of what he is doing and that most of
use are cramming administration into active life. Your server your
rules, so to each their own.
On Sat, 01 Aug 2026 08:52:09 +0200, Ray Banana wrote:
Thus spake Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de>
Am 01.08.26 um 05:13 schrieb Nomen Nescio:That would indicate that a daily cron job is missing:
Do you not use DNS to refresh your name -> IP mapping regularly?IIRC INN resolved the names one time and then never does it again until
restarted. Although that is from hearsay.
0 0 * * * test -x /usr/local/news/bin/ctlinnd &&
/usr/local/news/bin/ctlinnd -t 300 -s reload incoming.conf "flush
cache"
Has been working for me for decades.
That wont do shit for me, since we dont use INN :)
On Sat, 01 Aug 2026 04:50:28 -0700, Kevin Bowling wrote:
Many larger providers use multiple A records for good reasons, it's
yeah, they're too cheap to use what the big boys use hardware load
balancers
valid to design around articles flooding into networks and you really
shouldn't put a load balancer in front of feeders.. just use the
/me shakes head
protocols effectively. Inferring that there must be a relationship to
IPs or that an operator is forever bound to one set of systems/PoPs
doesn't reflect how these systems are run. You need to have proper rDNS
thats contrary to my experience in the real world of running ISP's and carriers for over 30 years, crap thats over 35 years now actiually
set up and the 3 major news server software handle this per design.
whoooooooooooppppieeeeeeeeeeeeeeee who cares, are you trying to tell me i should adjust the way i do things, the same way national carriers have
been doing this for over 30 years just because you say so, just to
resolve one persons M.O.O? you're a bigger fucking idiot than I was
starting to think if so.
All in all its just common courtesy to give your peers a heads up, its
fine if Jesse no longer wants peering, jesus, it took me 3 weeks to
discover he was MIA courtesy of the pending articles list file hitting
10Mb which triggered the email alert, anyways he can either accept the
advice or ignore it, the sun will still rise in the morning.
Maybe look at the bigger picture of what he is doing and that most of
use are cramming administration into active life. Your server your
rules, so to each their own.
ohh wow really, and i thought running my organisation 15 hours a day 6
days a week was because i was bored and wanted to avoid the family..
thats where i went wrong.. jesus fucking christ. Jesse miught lack common courtesy, but you lack common sense, and thats worse.
dont waste your time trolling me again.
ohh wow really, and i thought running my organisation 15 hours a day 6
days a week was because i was bored and wanted to avoid the family..
thats where i went wrong.. jesus fucking christ. Jesse miught lack common courtesy, but you lack common sense, and thats worse.
dont waste your time trolling me again.
No one's trolling you. And to add to what Jesse already said, to make a
long story short, it's your fault. If you'd bothered to read the RFCs
and all the manuals, you'd find it written practically EVERYWHERE that
they no longer use IPs but hosts. Because IPs change more frequently
than the hosts themselves.
I myself went through something similar recently. I went from having a
server to having an infrastructure. When I made the switch from a single server -> multiple feeder servers and played with the DNS, within an
On Sat, 01 Aug 2026 04:50:28 -0700, Kevin Bowling wrote:
Many larger providers use multiple A records for good reasons, it's
yeah, they're too cheap to use what the big boys use hardware load
balancers
valid to design around articles flooding into networks and you really
shouldn't put a load balancer in front of feeders.. just use the
/me shakes head
protocols effectively. Inferring that there must be a relationship to
IPs or that an operator is forever bound to one set of systems/PoPs
doesn't reflect how these systems are run. You need to have proper rDNS
thats contrary to my experience in the real world of running ISP's and carriers for over 30 years, crap thats over 35 years now actiually
set up and the 3 major news server software handle this per design.
whoooooooooooppppieeeeeeeeeeeeeeee who cares, are you trying to tell me i should adjust the way i do things, the same way national carriers have
been doing this for over 30 years just because you say so, just to
resolve one persons M.O.O? you're a bigger fucking idiot than I was
starting to think if so.
All in all its just common courtesy to give your peers a heads up, its
fine if Jesse no longer wants peering, jesus, it took me 3 weeks to
discover he was MIA courtesy of the pending articles list file hitting
10Mb which triggered the email alert, anyways he can either accept the
advice or ignore it, the sun will still rise in the morning.
Maybe look at the bigger picture of what he is doing and that most of
use are cramming administration into active life. Your server your
rules, so to each their own.
ohh wow really, and i thought running my organisation 15 hours a day 6
days a week was because i was bored and wanted to avoid the family..
thats where i went wrong.. jesus fucking christ. Jesse miught lack common courtesy, but you lack common sense, and thats worse.
dont waste your time trolling me again.
On 8/1/26 06:54, noel wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2026 04:50:28 -0700, Kevin Bowling wrote:
Many larger providers use multiple A records for good reasons, it's
yeah, they're too cheap to use what the big boys use hardware load
balancers
valid to design around articles flooding into networks and you really
shouldn't put a load balancer in front of feeders.. just use the
/me shakes head
protocols effectively.-a Inferring that there must be a relationship tothats contrary to my experience in the real world of running ISP's and
IPs or that an operator is forever bound to one set of systems/PoPs
doesn't reflect how these systems are run.-a You need to have proper rDNS >>
carriers for over 30 years, crap thats over 35 years now actiually
set up and the 3 major news server software handle this per design.
whoooooooooooppppieeeeeeeeeeeeeeee who cares, are you trying to tell me i
should adjust the way i do things, the same way national carriers have
been doing this for over 30 years just because you say so, just to
resolve one persons M.O.O? you're a bigger fucking idiot than I was
starting to think if so.
I was guiding you nicely to the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about.-a I've helped build two of the largest CDNs in the world,
and you do it by using the Internet Protocols as designed never hardware load balancers which cannot scale and are additional failure domain.
All in all its just common courtesy to give your peers a heads up, its >>>> fine if Jesse no longer wants peering, jesus, it took me 3 weeks to
discover he was MIA courtesy of the pending articles list file hitting >>>> 10Mb which triggered the email alert, anyways he can either accept the >>>> advice or ignore it, the sun will still rise in the morning.
Maybe look at the bigger picture of what he is doing and that most of
use are cramming administration into active life.-a Your server your
rules, so to each their own.
ohh wow really, and i thought running my organisation 15 hours a day 6
days a week was because i was bored and wanted to avoid the family..
thats where i went wrong.. jesus fucking christ. Jesse miught lack common
courtesy, but you lack common sense, and thats worse.
dont waste your time trolling me again.
The mercurial reaction to your own Dunning-Kruger limits is at least comical.-a If you don't want peers, drop them.-a You're the one making the spectacle and an ass out of yourself.
On 2/08/2026 9:25 am, Kevin Bowling wrote:
On 8/1/26 06:54, noel wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2026 04:50:28 -0700, Kevin Bowling wrote:
Many larger providers use multiple A records for good reasons, it's
yeah, they're too cheap to use what the big boys use hardware load
balancers
valid to design around articles flooding into networks and you really
shouldn't put a load balancer in front of feeders.. just use the
/me shakes head
protocols effectively.-a Inferring that there must be a relationship to >>>> IPs or that an operator is forever bound to one set of systems/PoPs
doesn't reflect how these systems are run.-a You need to have proper
rDNS
thats contrary to my experience in the real world of running ISP's and
carriers for over 30 years, crap thats over 35 years now actiually
set up and the 3 major news server software handle this per design.
whoooooooooooppppieeeeeeeeeeeeeeee who cares, are you trying to tell
me i
should adjust the way i do things, the same way national carriers have
been doing this for over 30 years just because you say so, just to
resolve one persons M.O.O? you're a bigger fucking idiot than I was
starting to think if so.
I was guiding you nicely to the fact that you have no idea what you
are talking about.-a I've helped build two of the largest CDNs in the
world, and you do it by using the Internet Protocols as designed never
hardware load balancers which cannot scale and are additional failure
domain.
Good grief, I can't remain silent in this who's got the bigger dick
contest any longer, how you do things today is nothing like how it was
done before, having worked at high levels in ATT for decades (thankfully
I am recently retired so I no longer need to deal with rubbish like
this), hardware load balancers have long and are still very common
today, or were 7 months ago anyway. So what if you have helped build
(I've never heard your name before a couple months ago when you started contributing to INN2)a CDN, a CDN is a CDN, it solves a-a mostly
different problem, or perhaps your CDN was at Alphabet or Facebook, it
would explain your arrogances.
All in all its just common courtesy to give your peers a heads up, its >>>>> fine if Jesse no longer wants peering, jesus, it took me 3 weeks to
discover he was MIA courtesy of the pending articles list file hitting >>>>> 10Mb which triggered the email alert, anyways he can either accept the >>>>> advice or ignore it, the sun will still rise in the morning.
Maybe look at the bigger picture of what he is doing and that most of
use are cramming administration into active life.-a Your server your
rules, so to each their own.
ohh wow really, and i thought running my organisation 15 hours a day 6
days a week was because i was bored and wanted to avoid the family..
thats where i went wrong.. jesus fucking christ. Jesse miught lack
common
courtesy, but you lack common sense, and thats worse.
dont waste your time trolling me again.
The mercurial reaction to your own Dunning-Kruger limits is at least
comical.-a If you don't want peers, drop them.-a You're the one making
the spectacle and an ass out of yourself.
On the contrary you all are making an ass out of yourselves. Both you
and Noel need time out, Jesse does need to learn if he wants to provide
a service, he needs to consider everyone he provides services to, or
request they use hostnames or thank but decline to peer, yes, stuff
happens, but it takes 30 seconds to post a note in here even after the
fact saying "hey guys" he instead probably spent more energy attacking
Noel then he did in putting in thought to how his consequences affect
other peers (and now prospective other peers who see how they get
treated), and yes Noel should have fired an Email to Jesse instead of venting here, it had merit, but should have been raised in private.
Although as he alludes, maybe in jest, that he wont be using Jesse's or anyone's peering shortly either way, a shame to see an apparently long
time service pulled because of usenet admin squabbles, and I find it
strange that Kevin thinks he can speak to this where from what I can
tell, he does not and has never run an NNTP server, let alone service,
so not sure where he thinks he can speak on this matter, only one who
has run them for a substantial amount of time actually understands,
perhaps his misguided beliefs that CDN and usenet are the same.
You all need time out to think and reflect.
Enjoy your weekend.
On 8/1/26 17:50, Eddie Martin wrote:
On 2/08/2026 9:25 am, Kevin Bowling wrote:
On 8/1/26 06:54, noel wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2026 04:50:28 -0700, Kevin Bowling wrote:
Many larger providers use multiple A records for good reasons, it's
yeah, they're too cheap to use what the big boys use hardware load
balancers
valid to design around articles flooding into networks and you really >>>>> shouldn't put a load balancer in front of feeders.. just use the
/me shakes head
protocols effectively.-a Inferring that there must be a relationship to >>>>> IPs or that an operator is forever bound to one set of systems/PoPs
doesn't reflect how these systems are run.-a You need to have proper >>>>> rDNS
thats contrary to my experience in the real world of running ISP's and >>>> carriers for over 30 years, crap thats over 35 years now actiually
set up and the 3 major news server software handle this per design.
whoooooooooooppppieeeeeeeeeeeeeeee who cares, are you trying to tell
me i
should adjust the way i do things, the same way national carriers have >>>> been doing this for over 30 years just because you say so, just to
resolve one persons M.O.O? you're a bigger fucking idiot than I was
starting to think if so.
I was guiding you nicely to the fact that you have no idea what you
are talking about.-a I've helped build two of the largest CDNs in the
world, and you do it by using the Internet Protocols as designed
never hardware load balancers which cannot scale and are additional
failure domain.
Good grief, I can't remain silent in this who's got the bigger dick
contest any longer, how you do things today is nothing like how it was
done before, having worked at high levels in ATT for decades
(thankfully I am recently retired so I no longer need to deal with
rubbish like this), hardware load balancers have long and are still
very common today, or were 7 months ago anyway. So what if you have
helped build (I've never heard your name before a couple months ago
when you started contributing to INN2)a CDN, a CDN is a CDN, it solves
a-a mostly different problem, or perhaps your CDN was at Alphabet or
Facebook, it would explain your arrogances.
The Internet Protocols are the same, only the L7 differs.-a Inbound NNTP
is basically the worst possible place to use a load balancer, you just
have the feeders peer with each other and outward and everything flood
fills without any additional complexity.-a Reader servers might benefit
from a sticky session LB, and a _proxy_ (not LB) would be less
ridiculous for inbound if it was providing routing or message oracle for some distributed backend.
All in all its just common courtesy to give your peers a heads up, >>>>>> its
fine if Jesse no longer wants peering, jesus, it took me 3 weeks to >>>>>> discover he was MIA courtesy of the pending articles list file
hitting
10Mb which triggered the email alert, anyways he can either accept >>>>>> the
advice or ignore it, the sun will still rise in the morning.
Maybe look at the bigger picture of what he is doing and that most of >>>>> use are cramming administration into active life.-a Your server your >>>>> rules, so to each their own.
ohh wow really, and i thought running my organisation 15 hours a day 6 >>>> days a week was because i was bored and wanted to avoid the family..
thats where i went wrong.. jesus fucking christ. Jesse miught lack
common
courtesy, but you lack common sense, and thats worse.
dont waste your time trolling me again.
The mercurial reaction to your own Dunning-Kruger limits is at least
comical.-a If you don't want peers, drop them.-a You're the one making
the spectacle and an ass out of yourself.
On the contrary you all are making an ass out of yourselves. Both you
and Noel need time out, Jesse does need to learn if he wants to
provide a service, he needs to consider everyone he provides services
to, or request they use hostnames or thank but decline to peer, yes,
stuff happens, but it takes 30 seconds to post a note in here even
after the fact saying "hey guys" he instead probably spent more energy
attacking Noel then he did in putting in thought to how his
consequences affect other peers (and now prospective other peers who
see how they get treated), and yes Noel should have fired an Email to
Jesse instead of venting here, it had merit, but should have been
raised in private. Although as he alludes, maybe in jest, that he wont
be using Jesse's or anyone's peering shortly either way, a shame to
see an apparently long time service pulled because of usenet admin
squabbles, and I find it strange that Kevin thinks he can speak to
this where from what I can tell, he does not and has never run an NNTP
server, let alone service, so not sure where he thinks he can speak on
this matter, only one who has run them for a substantial amount of
time actually understands, perhaps his misguided beliefs that CDN and
usenet are the same.
Another hyperbolic joker.-a I've run a peer for 15 years, not hard to observe.
On 2/08/2026 11:19 am, Kevin Bowling wrote:
On 8/1/26 17:50, Eddie Martin wrote:
On 2/08/2026 9:25 am, Kevin Bowling wrote:
On 8/1/26 06:54, noel wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2026 04:50:28 -0700, Kevin Bowling wrote:
yeah, they're too cheap to use what the big boys use hardware load
Many larger providers use multiple A records for good reasons, it's >>>>>
balancers
valid to design around articles flooding into networks and you really >>>>>> shouldn't put a load balancer in front of feeders.. just use the
/me shakes head
protocols effectively.-a Inferring that there must be a
relationship to
IPs or that an operator is forever bound to one set of systems/PoPs >>>>>> doesn't reflect how these systems are run.-a You need to have
proper rDNS
thats contrary to my experience in the real world of running ISP's and >>>>> carriers for over 30 years, crap thats over 35 years now actiually
set up and the 3 major news server software handle this per design. >>>>>
whoooooooooooppppieeeeeeeeeeeeeeee who cares, are you trying to
tell me i
should adjust the way i do things, the same way national carriers have >>>>> been doing this for over 30 years just because you say so, just to
resolve one persons M.O.O? you're a bigger fucking idiot than I was
starting to think if so.
I was guiding you nicely to the fact that you have no idea what you
are talking about.-a I've helped build two of the largest CDNs in the >>>> world, and you do it by using the Internet Protocols as designed
never hardware load balancers which cannot scale and are additional
failure domain.
Good grief, I can't remain silent in this who's got the bigger dick
contest any longer, how you do things today is nothing like how it
was done before, having worked at high levels in ATT for decades
(thankfully I am recently retired so I no longer need to deal with
rubbish like this), hardware load balancers have long and are still
very common today, or were 7 months ago anyway. So what if you have
helped build (I've never heard your name before a couple months ago
when you started contributing to INN2)a CDN, a CDN is a CDN, it
solves a-a mostly different problem, or perhaps your CDN was at
Alphabet or Facebook, it would explain your arrogances.
The Internet Protocols are the same, only the L7 differs.-a Inbound
NNTP is basically the worst possible place to use a load balancer, you
just have the feeders peer with each other and outward and everything
flood fills without any additional complexity.-a Reader servers might
benefit from a sticky session LB, and a _proxy_ (not LB) would be less
ridiculous for inbound if it was providing routing or message oracle
for some distributed backend.
All in all its just common courtesy to give your peers a heads
up, its
fine if Jesse no longer wants peering, jesus, it took me 3 weeks to >>>>>>> discover he was MIA courtesy of the pending articles list file
hitting
10Mb which triggered the email alert, anyways he can either
accept the
advice or ignore it, the sun will still rise in the morning.
Maybe look at the bigger picture of what he is doing and that most of >>>>>> use are cramming administration into active life.-a Your server your >>>>>> rules, so to each their own.
ohh wow really, and i thought running my organisation 15 hours a day 6 >>>>> days a week was because i was bored and wanted to avoid the family.. >>>>> thats where i went wrong.. jesus fucking christ. Jesse miught lack
common
courtesy, but you lack common sense, and thats worse.
dont waste your time trolling me again.
The mercurial reaction to your own Dunning-Kruger limits is at least
comical.-a If you don't want peers, drop them.-a You're the one making >>>> the spectacle and an ass out of yourself.
On the contrary you all are making an ass out of yourselves. Both you
and Noel need time out, Jesse does need to learn if he wants to
provide a service, he needs to consider everyone he provides services
to, or request they use hostnames or thank but decline to peer, yes,
stuff happens, but it takes 30 seconds to post a note in here even
after the fact saying "hey guys" he instead probably spent more
energy attacking Noel then he did in putting in thought to how his
consequences affect other peers (and now prospective other peers who
see how they get treated), and yes Noel should have fired an Email to
Jesse instead of venting here, it had merit, but should have been
raised in private. Although as he alludes, maybe in jest, that he
wont be using Jesse's or anyone's peering shortly either way, a shame
to see an apparently long time service pulled because of usenet admin
squabbles, and I find it strange that Kevin thinks he can speak to
this where from what I can tell, he does not and has never run an
NNTP server, let alone service, so not sure where he thinks he can
speak on this matter, only one who has run them for a substantial
amount of time actually understands, perhaps his misguided beliefs
that CDN and usenet are the same.
Another hyperbolic joker.-a I've run a peer for 15 years, not hard to
observe.
You are right Kevin, I apologize, I should have taken a moment to check
you out, I never really cared before.
Kevin, we have a problem, there appears no evidence you had any part in
a CDN development (anyone can set up reverse proxies, ATS, caches, etc),
you do however run a small MSP computer and software design business in Chino Valley, despite no real world peering presence with no AS in the routing databases, a cursory look shows you do lease a /29 prefix, but Kevin, you need a minimum of a /24 prefix for BGP, and anyone running
CDN's have decent IPAS, anything smaller and networks discard the route opting for the next up, unlike with csiph usenet I see you run Kevin,
where you could do that on dialup with single IP, so perhaps I am
starting to see Kevin, why you dislike networks using IP's and want them
to use host names, so much.
Another thing puzzles me Kevin, since you are the CDN expert, why is
there no talks at NANOG, why not share that all encompassing knowledge
to those mere mortals beneath you, I see you only graduated college in
2011, so I understand why you are confused and can not comprehend how
large networks are actually designed and run, since you were not even
born when some people here were running them, however Kevin, I can
respect the high bar you've set for yourself, I really do, and perhaps
one day, you'll get there, but I suspect because you detest humble pie,
it's a bit off yet, but that's not a real problem Kevin, as you're still
a young fellow.
The Internet Protocols are the same, only the L7 differs.-a Inbound NNTP
is basically the worst possible place to use a load balancer, you just
have the feeders peer with each other and outward and everything flood
fills without any additional complexity.-a Reader servers might benefit
from a sticky session LB, and a _proxy_ (not LB) would be less
ridiculous for inbound if it was providing routing or message oracle for some distributed backend.
On 8/1/26 17:50, Eddie Martin wrote:
On 2/08/2026 9:25 am, Kevin Bowling wrote:
On 8/1/26 06:54, noel wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2026 04:50:28 -0700, Kevin Bowling wrote:
Many larger providers use multiple A records for good reasons, it's
The Internet Protocols are the same, only the L7 differs. Inbound NNTP
is basically the worst possible place to use a load balancer, you just
have the feeders peer with each other and outward and everything flood
fills without any additional complexity. Reader servers might benefit
from a sticky session LB, and a _proxy_ (not LB) would be less
ridiculous for inbound if it was providing routing or message oracle for some distributed backend.
All in all its just common courtesy to give your peers a heads up, its >>>>>> fine if Jesse no longer wants peering, jesus, it took me 3 weeks to >>>>>> discover he was MIA courtesy of the pending articles list file hitting >>>>>> 10Mb which triggered the email alert, anyways he can either accept the >>>>>> advice or ignore it, the sun will still rise in the morning.
Maybe look at the bigger picture of what he is doing and that most of >>>>> use are cramming administration into active life.a Your server your
rules, so to each their own.
ohh wow really, and i thought running my organisation 15 hours a day 6 >>>> days a week was because i was bored and wanted to avoid the family..
thats where i went wrong.. jesus fucking christ. Jesse miught lack
common
courtesy, but you lack common sense, and thats worse.
dont waste your time trolling me again.
The mercurial reaction to your own Dunning-Kruger limits is at least
comical.a If you don't want peers, drop them.a You're the one making
the spectacle and an ass out of yourself.
On the contrary you all are making an ass out of yourselves. Both you
and Noel need time out, Jesse does need to learn if he wants to provide
a service, he needs to consider everyone he provides services to, or
request they use hostnames or thank but decline to peer, yes, stuff
happens, but it takes 30 seconds to post a note in here even after the
fact saying "hey guys" he instead probably spent more energy attacking
Noel then he did in putting in thought to how his consequences affect
other peers (and now prospective other peers who see how they get
treated), and yes Noel should have fired an Email to Jesse instead of
venting here, it had merit, but should have been raised in private.
Although as he alludes, maybe in jest, that he wont be using Jesse's or
anyone's peering shortly either way, a shame to see an apparently long
time service pulled because of usenet admin squabbles, and I find it
strange that Kevin thinks he can speak to this where from what I can
tell, he does not and has never run an NNTP server, let alone service,
so not sure where he thinks he can speak on this matter, only one who
has run them for a substantial amount of time actually understands,
perhaps his misguided beliefs that CDN and usenet are the same.
Another hyperbolic joker. I've run a peer for 15 years, not hard to observe.
Am 02.08.26 um 03:19 schrieb Kevin Bowling:
The Internet Protocols are the same, only the L7 differs.-a Inbound
NNTP is basically the worst possible place to use a load balancer, you
just have the feeders peer with each other and outward and everything
flood fills without any additional complexity.-a Reader servers might
benefit from a sticky session LB, and a _proxy_ (not LB) would be less
ridiculous for inbound if it was providing routing or message oracle
for some distributed backend.
Is a reader server for text-only groups in need of a load balancer or
can current hardware handle all the sessions?
ohh so its my fault i come from an ISP world - remember us, back in teh
day we were the only ones providing usenet, now any diskhead can lease a
VPS and spin one up.
my bad, then i might as well not only terminate jesse's peer, I might as well terminate all of them, I was looking for hardware to expand our
mirror service, now I found it.
Is a reader server for text-only groups in need of a load balancer or
can current hardware handle all the sessions?
ohh so its my fault i come from an ISP world - remember us, back in teh
day we were the only ones providing usenet, now any diskhead can lease a
VPS and spin one up.
my bad, then i might as well not only terminate jesse's peer, I might as well terminate all of them, I was looking for hardware to expand our
mirror service, now I found it.
noel,
for the record I also come from the ISP world. I worked in that
environment for years, and today I work in R&D, so I am reasonably
familiar both with how things used to be done and with the inconvenient modern habit of occasionally updating onerCOs knowledge.
Yes, there was a time when Usenet was largely operated by ISPs. Hardware
was expensive,
It must have been a comforting arrangement. A small number of
organisations had the infrastructure, the expertise and, apparently, the exclusive right to decide who was sufficiently qualified to participate.
Unfortunately, the calendar now says 2026.
Coming from the ISP world does not provide a permanent exemption from
reading current documentation, checking RFCs, or updating
configurations. Past experience is certainly valuable, but it is not a lifetime support contract for obsolete assumptions.
As for terminating JesserCOs peer rCoor perhaps all of themrCo because someone
pointed out that your configuration was wrong, that is of course your
choice. They are your machines, your bandwidth and your peers.
But announcing that you may shut everything down because the discussion
did not go your way does not sound particularly like the measured
decision of an experienced network operator, it sounds more like the
child who owns the football announcing that the match is over because
the other children had the audacity not to play according to his
personal rules.
I look at usenet once in a while when Im bored
MY whole point to my OP was communication or lack thereof, jesse's made
it clear to me what he thinks of communicating and then as good as told
me to fuck off, at a time I was considering doing exactly that, that is
not a case of take my bat and ball and go home, its a case of i was
already half way across teh fields on my way when he yelled out.
On Sun, 02 Aug 2026 12:54:01 +0200, Ivo Gandolfo wrote:
noel,
for the record I also come from the ISP world. I worked in that
environment for years, and today I work in R&D, so I am reasonably
familiar both with how things used to be done and with the inconvenient
modern habit of occasionally updating onerCOs knowledge.
I dont see the need to change here where everything else runs smooth like that, I look at usenet once in a while when Im bored, I guess all those
mail servers should have the backend shutdown and converted to hostname
CDN eh, nah, the load balancers do their job their too, I'm not going to
fux, whats not fuxed.
Yes, there was a time when Usenet was largely operated by ISPs. Hardware
was expensive,
considering the HP and Dell servers we use are 15K each, I'd argue still
are :) But yeah, these days anyone can put a 100 dollar refurbed PC with
a daemon on it.
It must have been a comforting arrangement. A small number of
It was actually incredibly involved to get peering back then, wasn't an overight Email or contact form request thing and your up and running.
organisations had the infrastructure, the expertise and, apparently, the
exclusive right to decide who was sufficiently qualified to participate.
and recall how litle garbage there was back then compared to today,
sometimes change is a good thing, but sometimes its not a good thing.
Unfortunately, the calendar now says 2026.
Which is a good thing for me, since it means almost retirement.
Coming from the ISP world does not provide a permanent exemption from
reading current documentation, checking RFCs, or updating
I must have missed teh RFC that says thou "MUST" use hostnames in usenet,
got that RFC No. handy? Might be worth a 5 minute read with my coffee.
configurations. Past experience is certainly valuable, but it is not a
lifetime support contract for obsolete assumptions.
But it also shows we learn from our mistakes and dont change what works, certainly not just because some kids who wouldnt survive in a NOC today thinks you're doing it wrong, because you surely are not so naive to
think I'm the only one running this way, Eddie from ATT (AT&T ? or is
there a closely named ATT as well?) appears to show I'm not, and if AT&T, they are one hell of a lot bigger and shows I'm not an outlier, and if we are, then i'm in some damn fine company lol.
As for terminating JesserCOs peer rCoor perhaps all of themrCo because someone
pointed out that your configuration was wrong, that is of course your
choice. They are your machines, your bandwidth and your peers.
No, my configuration is not wrong, it's different, especially to what
kids of today think because when they started running these out of their parents family basement 10-15 years ago they could only get one IP, so
had to share it.
I use what works and still works everywhere except for usenet - and only
one usenet peer at that, do you think I'm going to change for that or
because some snotty nosed kid who thanks to Eddie we see is not the big
megga network man he tried to have us all beleive, he's just a small fry,
and yes even he has a right to his beliefs, doesn't make them right, nor wrong.
But announcing that you may shut everything down because the discussion
did not go your way does not sound particularly like the measured
decision of an experienced network operator, it sounds more like the
child who owns the football announcing that the match is over because
the other children had the audacity not to play according to his
personal rules.
Did not go my way? what because some kid whos been caught out trying to
big note himself found to be full of shit, says I'm not doing it teh way
he thinks it should be done? ROFLMFAO I don't care what he or other
people think, the ONLY peoples whos opinion of me I care about are my
family and friends, the opinions of others means nothing, running this
and being an IRC oper for several decades, ensures you have very, VERY,
thick skin :)
And I was serious when I said our mirror service needs additional
hardware, its 15K I save by repurposing it, I am still favouring that direction, at least I'll have less fuxwits to deal with.
MY whole point to my OP was communication or lack thereof, jesse's made
it clear to me what he thinks of communicating and then as good as told
me to fuck off, at a time I was considering doing exactly that, that is
not a case of take my bat and ball and go home, its a case of i was
already half way across teh fields on my way when he yelled out.
That's all I have to say on teh matter, other flametards no doubt will continue becasue thats what kids caught lying do. Cheers Ivo.
Just discovered (after a 21 day grace period) an overnight alert from
our monitoring we weren't getting anything (since July 10) from
blueworld hosting, it seems after some checks his IP changed, and
i'll be fucked if I can find any reference or warning that was to
happen let alone an after the fact, all completed blah blah blah, and
of consequence to that fail2ban blackholed them for repeatedly trying
to send whilst getting denied :)
Now BWH is not the first peer who's done that, and sadly wont be the
last, but all it takes is a minute of time to send post to this group
if you dont bother keeping an internal email list of peers to
notify...
I'll rmeove the ban and correct IP's in access file, if feed returns
it returns, if not, it doesnt.
I use ipsets for blocking IPs but all my usenet peers are in their own
set which bypasses the blocks. It seems like BWH couldn't be bothered
to me know they changed their IP either.
toot@newsfeed:/news/spool/innfeed# host usenet.blueworldhosting.com usenet.blueworldhosting.com has address 76.235.89.209 toot@newsfeed:/news/spool/innfeed# ipset list |grep 76.235.89.209
Lucky for them I don't have 76.235.89.0/24 blocked so we're still
exchanging articles, but still, as a matter of courtesy, you need to
let your peers know if you change your config in some way that effects
them.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 54:48:10 |
| Calls: | 1,101 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 276,415 |