From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

On Fri, 24 Oct 2025 04:26:52 -0400, Marco Moock wrote:

On 24.10.2025 04:20 Uhr noel wrote:

Is it any wonder he's picking on technical groups when he doesnt know
the simplest of things, like configuring ntp, I refer to his question
in comp.protocols.time.ntp 2 days ago, I didnt repond because I was
too busy laughing since I no longer take that person as serious and
suspect marco is unsurprisingly being deceitful and aiming at nuking
that group as well.

Please reread my post there and reread the documentation of IBM. Then
you might see why I asked that question.

TLDR: IPv6 networks are usually specified with the /<netbits amount> notation. The mask notation is very, very uncommon and is not documented
in the IBM documentation.

That's why I asked.

Is asking questions about non-documented configuration options now
making me look stupid?

undocumented? so your ntp/ntp.conf man pages dont exist huh

let me see, who "mandates" /net-bits...

ntp i:p:v:6 optional i:p:v:6/96 nope
postfix [i:p:v:6] optional [i:p:v:6]/96 nope
apache [i:p:v:6] nope
dovecot i:p:v:6 nope
bind i:p:v:6 nope

and the last time I CBF tpying an ipv6 address to ssh into it didnt need
it either, in fact, nor did telnet.

As to stupidity, no, not bothering to reading a man file when you dont
know it is just lazy, but you run ipv6 on debian and (or did) slackware,
so you would know how to configure ntp already, especially since you went
to great pains to tell us in slackware that you dont run ipv4.

I noticed you failed to address the other comments, in particular from
Kev, but I guess it doesnt suite you, you'd rather try bury it in noise.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

Hi Jesse,

For the health and relevancy of Usenet, I support removing unused groups. I've
been around long enough and still don't always know where to post about a topic I haven't discussed on Usenet before. If one looks for "unix" against my
active file there are 269 groups, "linux" has 455. How does a new/naive Usenet
user determine the most appropriate group(s)?

He can't, and will give up.

There may be over 1,000,000 articles making the group appear active
at first glance, but upon inspection there hasn't been discussion
about that topic for over 10 years.

I am also unsure a user will quickly find the information he needs in
all these archived articles. He will need a good search engine at the
server side, or he will have to download everything and search with his newsreader capabilities.

Usenet has shrank dramatically, whether we like it or not. In September 2025, there were 780 total hosts reported by 73 participating servers in the top1000
stats. If you take out duplicate hosts per site and FIDO nodes it's closer to 200 sites. In 2005 the top1000 routinely reported over 6,500 hosts seen by 356
participating servers.

Only 200 sites in 2025 :-(
Thanks for sharing these stats.

In Usenet's current state, in my opinion, it is appropriate to remove unused groups.

It is the best we can do to improve user experience for the remaining
users and possible future ones (unless we want to discourage them in 10 minutes to try this media).
--
Julien |eLIE

-2-a|o temps suspends ton vol-a! Et vous heures propices, Suspendez votre
cours.-a-+ (Alphonse de Lamartine)

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

On Fri, 24 Oct 2025 10:51:29 -0400, John D Groenveld wrote:

Are you conflating two different posters?

No.

In article <10coosn$l42m$2@matrix.hispagatos.org>,
ReK2 Hispagatos <rek2@usenet_reborn.tui> wrote:

Nobody uses Solaris/AIX/.....

In article <10dctfs$1q1r6$2@paganini.bofh.team>, Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de>,

On AIX I have

John groenveld@acm.org

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

On 23.10.2025 11:07 Uhr Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

So you end up with behaviour like in comp.os.linux.misc at the
moment where people just talk about anything vaguely technology
related (or now not even that) because people will repond there.

Killfiling people who crosspost non-Linux related (mostly political)
topics there is mostly a good decision, although, people need to decide
that themselves.

Certain NNTP servers also reject the messages that are crossposted to
many political groups and comp.os.linux.misc.
--
kind regards
Marco

Send spam to 1761210471muell@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

On 25.10.2025 11:36 Uhr noel wrote:

On Fri, 24 Oct 2025 04:26:52 -0400, Marco Moock wrote:

On 24.10.2025 04:20 Uhr noel wrote:

Is it any wonder he's picking on technical groups when he doesnt
know the simplest of things, like configuring ntp, I refer to his
question in comp.protocols.time.ntp 2 days ago, I didnt repond
because I was too busy laughing since I no longer take that person
as serious and suspect marco is unsurprisingly being deceitful and
aiming at nuking that group as well.

Please reread my post there and reread the documentation of IBM.
Then you might see why I asked that question.

TLDR: IPv6 networks are usually specified with the /<netbits amount> notation. The mask notation is very, very uncommon and is not
documented in the IBM documentation.

That's why I asked.

Is asking questions about non-documented configuration options now
making me look stupid?

undocumented? so your ntp/ntp.conf man pages dont exist huh

On the AIX system I was working on, the manpages are not installed. As
this is not "my" system, I cannot just install stuff.

The IBM online documentation is an HTML copy of the manpages.

let me see, who "mandates" /net-bits...

It is the most common notation for IPv6 networks.
I was talking about a network and not a single address.

ntp i:p:v:6 optional i:p:v:6/96 nope

The documentation doesn't show that notation.

As to stupidity, no, not bothering to reading a man file when you
dont know it is just lazy,

Common, didn't I let you know that I read it?
Have a look at my first post, I even linked it, so you can confirm that
the IBM documentation (which looks like a slightly modified version of https://www.ntp.org/documentation/4.2.8-series/ntp.conf/) doesn't
explain the mask option for IPv6.

The ntp.org stuff is better, as it explicitly says that the
default option is to set all bits.
The IBM documentation says it defaults to 255.255.255.255, which only
makes sense for IPv4.

but you run ipv6 on debian and (or did)
slackware, so you would know how to configure ntp already,

I was never in need to use the restrict option there.
On Debian, I don't even use ntpd, as the system comes with timesyncd by default, which fits my need to sync the RTC with a remote server.

especially since you went to great pains to tell us in slackware that
you dont run ipv4.

I do have some systems that don't have IPv4 connectivity, mostly test
systems.
Is there any problem with that?

I noticed you failed to address the other comments, in particular
from Kev, but I guess it doesnt suite you, you'd rather try bury it
in noise.

I now replied to that.
--
kind regards
Marco

Send spam to 1761384991muell@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote:

On 23.10.2025 11:07 Uhr Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

So you end up with behaviour like in comp.os.linux.misc at the
moment where people just talk about anything vaguely technology
related (or now not even that) because people will repond there.

Killfiling people who crosspost non-Linux related (mostly political)
topics there is mostly a good decision, although, people need to decide
that themselves.

Certain NNTP servers also reject the messages that are crossposted to
many political groups and comp.os.linux.misc.

I never mentioned crossposted political trolling, that's easy to
killfile because the users posting it aren't regular participants
in on-topic threads. The trouble is the regulars who want to
discuss everything in one busy group rather than in more specific
groups which are quieter. At some point filtering out the noise
without breaking up on-topic discussion gets too complicated and
you might as well give up and mark everything as read, hoping
things will improve later, or unsubscribe completely. Some of that
discussion is on-topic in other (often very dead) groups, so that
problem would only be worse without those other groups for people
to choose from in the first place.
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

Hi Jesse,

Usenet has shrank dramatically, whether we like it or not. In September 2025, there were 780 total hosts reported by 73 participating servers in the top1000
stats.

FWIW, I've just came across:
https://usenet.rexum.space/tree

"Have you ever wondered how the vast network of Usenet is interconnected?"

They do not even speak about news servers carrying Usenet outside "their backbone"...
--
Julien |eLIE

-2-aLes cur|-s se consolent de n'|-tre pas mari|-s quand ils entendent les
femmes se confesser.-a-+ (Armand Salacroix)

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2