From Newsgroup: news.software.nntp
Nigel Reed wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 07:11:42 +0200
Gabx <info@tcpreset.invalid> wrote:
Onion: peannyjkqwqfynd24p6dszvtchkq7hfkwymi5by5y332wmosy5dwfaqd.onion
Hmm, I didn't know about this. Being on an anonymous network leaves it
well open to abuse. Do you limit public posting to people you know and
have approved accounts?
No,
our server intentionally operates as an open-access system: we do not
require registration or explicitly limit posting privileges only to
known users or pre-approved accounts.
However, to prevent abuse and spam effectively, we've implemented strong automated anti-abuse measures, including Cleanfeed, SpamAssassin, and a Hashcash-based proof-of-work mechanism.
A Hashcash token generation mechanism is designed to prevent automated
spam by requiring users to perform computational work (proof-of-work).
The higher the bits value, the greater the effort needed, significantly deterring spammers.
We are currently evaluating PyClean
https://github.com/crooks/PyClean/tree/master and NoCeM to further
enhance these protections.
Additionally, we will soon implement secure NNTP connections via port
563, supporting TLS v1.2 and v1.3 with mandatory authentication.
Additionally, we actively monitor and moderate public postings to
maintain high standards without sacrificing user privacy or openness.
I understand your suggestion about requiring, for example, email-based authentication and registration as a means of identifying potential
abusers.
However, relying solely on email addresses doesn't necessarily guarantee
a clear or reliable identification of malicious users.
Email addresses are trivially easy for abusers to obtain anonymously or through disposable services, and thus cannot unequivocally distinguish legitimate users from abusers.
Consequently, our technical anti-abuse strategies and active moderation policies offer more practical, robust, and privacy-respecting protection against spam and malicious activities than email-based identification alone.
Moreover, I believe there's a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the
Onion network and spam: spam activities typically rely heavily on
clearnet due to the ease of automated bulk distribution and openness to
mass harvesting techniques.
Conversely, the Onion network, by design, introduces *latency* and complexityrCoconditions fundamentally incompatible with large-scale spam operations.
Far from facilitating abuse, Tor's nature often discourages spam and
mass attacks by making automated, high-volume transmissions costly and impractical.
I'd be happy to further discuss alternative strategies or enhancements
to address your concerns effectively.
I apologize for my lengthy explanations; however, i anticipated concerns
being raised about the onion address and wanted to address them clearly.
Best regards
Gabx
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2