From Newsgroup: news.software.nntp

On Tue, 08 Apr 2025 06:07:43 -0000, Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:

My router can see about a dozen WAPs, each of them can likely see
more than a dozen each. If I could peer with just a few of them and
we all agreed to share some fraction of our bandwidth back to our
ISP and other peers it would make for a rather dense mesh.

https://freifunk.net/en/

could be that most users really don't mind being tracked and spied
on (big brother already does that anyway, so why worry about wifi?)

(using Tor Browser 14.0.9)
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=community+wifi+spy

seriously, it could be that community wifi users actually want the
attention, and there's safety in numbers, so if enough people join
these burgeoning wireless communities it would be too overwhelming
for any spook to track and spy on billions of users simultaneously

but then again, on the other hand, it's a jungle out there, caveat
emptor; storefront marketing schemes "you can trust us" are common

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.software.nntp

On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 19:23:35 -0000 (UTC)
bp@www.zefox.net wrote:

Toaster <news@dne3.net> wrote:

On 4/4/2025 7:54 PM, bp@www.zefox.net wrote:
snip

I don't think it required unique hostnames, though they were
preferred, since the bang paths generally were different for
different hosts even if the had the same name. In a sense the bang
path was the identity of any given host.

UUCP died out because DNS and ICANN made TCP/IP much easier to
administer and was incomparably faster. With with some thought it
might be useful again.

Thanks for reading,

bob prohaska

I'd like to experiment around with uucp and nncp. looking at nncp
protocol currently.

Are you thinking of using WiFi LANs as the transport layer?

My router can see about a dozen WAPs, each of them can likely see
more than a dozen each. If I could peer with just a few of them and
we all agreed to share some fraction of our bandwidth back to our
ISP and other peers it would make for a rather dense mesh.

bob prohaska

Yes, that's the idea. I'm also looking into yggdrasil network. Zero configuration, end to end encrypted. The idea would be everyone peers
together via wifi, directional links or omni-directional. Directional
is more scalable. Then you share resources with people you know
(internet access, files, etc) via public key. I.e. my friend and I
trust each other, we both share our internet access to each other and
allow default routing out.

If enough people do this then it would be a good auxilliary to standard internet access, good for low to mid bandwidth localized traffic. Right
now most traffic on the internet goes to a few centralized sites, but
does that have to be the case?

In a peer to peer network, you just install an application that
communicates directly with the person you are trying to reach, no
server needed. All it would take is a small shift in which applications
are used.

Another idea is to ditch IP communication altogether and just use the
mesh as a news network. Articles bounce around the mesh like they do on
usenet. That's a tough sell, can't do much other than post like we do
here on usenet.

Zero infrastructure cost, run by volunteers = free communications. I
could see using it for out-of-band access to home servers, private sms,
zero infrastructure chat applications. I'd put a news server and irc on
it, make a phone app and dress it up nice and pretty for my friends
that aren't technical. Could even support voip to your landline/hotspot.

The dream is the ability to connect your phone to this free net, and
talk to your friends in your community directly instead of trusting
some far off thing. Battery powered nodes would work when nothing else
would (i.e. tornado took out most of everything, enough nodes remain
and the network persists). All this needs is enough buy in from people
to make a minimal network. I'd even pay for the units because im weird
like that.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.software.nntp

Toaster <toaster@dne3.net> wrote:

On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 19:23:35 -0000 (UTC)
bp@www.zefox.net wrote:

Toaster <news@dne3.net> wrote:

On 4/4/2025 7:54 PM, bp@www.zefox.net wrote:
snip

I don't think it required unique hostnames, though they were
preferred, since the bang paths generally were different for
different hosts even if the had the same name. In a sense the bang
path was the identity of any given host.

UUCP died out because DNS and ICANN made TCP/IP much easier to
administer and was incomparably faster. With with some thought it
might be useful again.

Thanks for reading,

bob prohaska

I'd like to experiment around with uucp and nncp. looking at nncp
protocol currently.

Are you thinking of using WiFi LANs as the transport layer?

My router can see about a dozen WAPs, each of them can likely see
more than a dozen each. If I could peer with just a few of them and
we all agreed to share some fraction of our bandwidth back to our
ISP and other peers it would make for a rather dense mesh.

bob prohaska

Yes, that's the idea. I'm also looking into yggdrasil network. Zero configuration, end to end encrypted. The idea would be everyone peers together via wifi, directional links or omni-directional. Directional
is more scalable. Then you share resources with people you know
(internet access, files, etc) via public key. I.e. my friend and I
trust each other, we both share our internet access to each other and
allow default routing out.

If enough people do this then it would be a good auxilliary to standard internet access, good for low to mid bandwidth localized traffic. Right
now most traffic on the internet goes to a few centralized sites, but
does that have to be the case?

In principle, no. In practice, it simplifies matters enormously. There's
a reason central authorities tend to outcompete egalitarians, at least initially 8-)

In a peer to peer network, you just install an application that
communicates directly with the person you are trying to reach, no
server needed. All it would take is a small shift in which applications
are used.

Another idea is to ditch IP communication altogether and just use the
mesh as a news network. Articles bounce around the mesh like they do on usenet. That's a tough sell, can't do much other than post like we do
here on usenet.

Zero infrastructure cost, run by volunteers = free communications.

What!!!, who do you think pays for all the infrastructure needed for
this scheme? We all do. It isn't free, it's shared, hopefully in an
equitable way.

I could see using it for out-of-band access to home servers, private sms, zero infrastructure chat applications. I'd put a news server and irc on
it, make a phone app and dress it up nice and pretty for my friends
that aren't technical. Could even support voip to your landline/hotspot.

One of the key points about uucp is that it wasn't, and could not be, "predictable delay" (there's no such thing as "real time"). At least
some of those features (voip) need short, predictable delays to work.

The dream is the ability to connect your phone to this free net, and
talk to your friends in your community directly instead of trusting
some far off thing. Battery powered nodes would work when nothing else
would (i.e. tornado took out most of everything, enough nodes remain
and the network persists). All this needs is enough buy in from people
to make a minimal network. I'd even pay for the units because im weird
like that.

Again, nothing is free. All users have to share each other's costs. High bandwidth, low-latency traffic likely won't work well, if at all. Don't underestimate the routing overhead that such a system entails. For uucp
that fell on administrators to sort out manually, and they deserted uucp
in droves as soon as they got a T1 link. Perhaps some of that can be automated.

These comments aren't meant to be _very_ discouraging, just realistic.
Some may find them very discouraging anyway.

Thanks for writing,

bob prohaska

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.software.nntp

On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 19:23:35 -0000 (UTC)
bp@www.zefox.net wrote:

Toaster <news@dne3.net> wrote:

On 4/4/2025 7:54 PM, bp@www.zefox.net wrote:
snip

I don't think it required unique hostnames, though they were
preferred, since the bang paths generally were different for
different hosts even if the had the same name. In a sense the bang
path was the identity of any given host.

UUCP died out because DNS and ICANN made TCP/IP much easier to
administer and was incomparably faster. With with some thought it
might be useful again.

Thanks for reading,

bob prohaska

I'd like to experiment around with uucp and nncp. looking at nncp
protocol currently.

Are you thinking of using WiFi LANs as the transport layer?

My router can see about a dozen WAPs, each of them can likely see
more than a dozen each. If I could peer with just a few of them and
we all agreed to share some fraction of our bandwidth back to our
ISP and other peers it would make for a rather dense mesh.

bob prohaska

Yes, that's the idea. I'm also looking into yggdrasil network. Zero configuration, end to end encrypted. The idea would be everyone peers
together via wifi, directional links or omni-directional. Directional
is more scalable. Then you share resources with people you know
(internet access, files, etc) via public key. I.e. my friend and I
trust each other, we both share our internet access to each other and
allow default routing out.

If enough people do this then it would be a good auxilliary to standard internet access, good for low to mid bandwidth localized traffic. Right
now most traffic on the internet goes to a few centralized sites, but
does that have to be the case?

In a peer to peer network, you just install an application that
communicates directly with the person you are trying to reach, no
server needed. All it would take is a small shift in which applications
are used.

Another idea is to ditch IP communication altogether and just use the
mesh as a news network. Articles bounce around the mesh like they do on
usenet. That's a tough sell, can't do much other than post like we do
here on usenet.

Zero infrastructure cost, run by volunteers = free communications. I
could see using it for out-of-band access to home servers, private sms,
zero infrastructure chat applications. I'd put a news server and irc on
it, make a phone app and dress it up nice and pretty for my friends
that aren't technical. Could even support voip to your landline/hotspot.

The dream is the ability to connect your phone to this free net, and
talk to your friends in your community directly instead of trusting
some far off thing. Battery powered nodes would work when nothing else
would (i.e. tornado took out most of everything, enough nodes remain
and the network persists). All this needs is enough buy in from people
to make a minimal network. I'd even pay for the units because im weird
like that.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.software.nntp

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 19:12:13 -0000 (UTC)
bp@www.zefox.net wrote:

<snip>
Perhaps some of that can be automated.

These comments aren't meant to be _very_ discouraging, just
realistic. Some may find them very discouraging anyway.

Thanks for writing,

bob prohaska

No no, I agree with much of what you said. Real-time traffic on a mesh
network would be very hard. I do think if the traffic was something
akin to usenet articles (batches sent out to peers), then it could be
very workable. I just don't think anyone other than me would appreciate
the alternate communications avenue.

It could work - even simpler, no addresses, peers just flood messages
ala usenet. No routing, no administration. Could be a raspberry pi on a
rooftop with a small omni. Maybe chunk up messages so the traffic is
quick bursts, re-assemble and retransmit. Not fast, but cheap and
resilient (with enough participation).

It should be a fun pilot project for a few friends in the neighborhood
if nothing else.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2