Looks like we’re going back to the Kremvax days.

How does this affect Usenet? Have any prominent providers stopped
allowing access from Russian IPs or ASNs?

On 3/4/22 5:51 PM, meff wrote:
> How does this affect Usenet?

It depends.

> Have any prominent providers stopped allowing access from Russian
> IPs or ASNs?

What do you consider "prominent providers" to be.

Cogent, a major backbone / connectivity provider is de-peering Russian
clients. So there is a good chance that Internet connectivity between
parts of Russia and other parts of the world will be less reliable if
not out & out broken (if more providers follow suit).

Other big names in tech, particularly social media, are blocking Russian
clients.

We are witnessing what may be the first steps of a significant fracture
of the Internet, and thus in many ways, Usenet. The coming days / weeks
will show ho significant the fracture will be.

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On 2022-03-04, Oregonian Haruspex <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> Looks like we’re going back to the Kremvax days.
>

I saw they're banning foreign reporters and cutting access to Facebook
and Twitter. Was just looking to see if they're cutting port 80 but
Usenet is still an option.

How do you know Usenet isn't accessible in Russia? Not doubting you,
just trying to figure out if it's true.

alt.russian.z1 is a Russian speaking newsgroup with a lot of activity.
Seems to have recent posts as of 4 March.

On 2022-03-05, Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
> Cogent, a major backbone / connectivity provider is de-peering Russian
> clients. So there is a good chance that Internet connectivity between
> parts of Russia and other parts of the world will be less reliable if
> not out & out broken (if more providers follow suit).

This is true and I'm certainly not a fan of what Cogent is doing. I
hope other backbones step up and use this opportunity to deploy more
links into Russia. Fracturing Internet connectivity this way is, IMO,
unacceptable.

That said, I'm not familiar with Russian ISPs and who peers with
them, so I'm not sure how big (or little) of an affect Cogent has.

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> writes:

> On 3/4/22 5:51 PM, meff wrote:
> Cogent, a major backbone / connectivity provider is de-peering Russian
> clients. So there is a good chance that Internet connectivity between
> parts of Russia and other parts of the world will be less reliable if
> not out & out broken (if more providers follow suit).
>
> Other big names in tech, particularly social media, are blocking
> Russian clients.
>
> We are witnessing what may be the first steps of a significant
> fracture of the Internet, and thus in many ways, Usenet. The coming
> days / weeks will show ho significant the fracture will be.

Interesting. Unlike the WWW though, Usenet was designed (back in the
Cold War, probably no coincidence) to be resistant to this sort of
thing. We're seeing an interesting experiment. Wish Russia still had
enough Usenet readers to make it a worthwhile channel of communication.

On 3/4/22 6:49 PM, meff wrote:
> This is true and I'm certainly not a fan of what Cogent is doing. I
> hope other backbones step up and use this opportunity to deploy more
> links into Russia. Fracturing Internet connectivity this way is,
> IMO, unacceptable.

I don't know how much of of a choice that Cogent, et al., feel like they
have. It seems as if federal sanctions are forcing some companies
hands. If not directly telling them to disconnect, then by saying that
payments for services rendered can't be conducted, thus causing
businesses bottom dollar to want to disconnect.

Keep in mind that the level of circuits that we are talking about could
be multiple thousands, if not tens of thousands, of dollars a month.
There's only so much generosity that can be had.

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On 3/4/22 6:58 PM, Retrograde wrote:
> Interesting. Unlike the WWW though, Usenet was designed (back in the
> Cold War, probably no coincidence) to be resistant to this sort of
> thing.

There is a saying, The Internet sees / views / detects censorship as
breakage and routes around it.

But that routing can only do so much and is reliant on /some/ path
existing as well as that path being able to support the demand.

Usenet, works by flooding articles between servers. So if there is a
communications path, then the articles will /eventually/ flow.

But, if there isn't a communications path, then the articles /can't/ flow.

> We're seeing an interesting experiment. Wish Russia still had enough
> Usenet readers to make it a worthwhile channel of communication.

I wonder what the BBS / FidoNet is looking like these days.

I would say that it's more difficult to block dial up connections
between systems. But when an entire country wants to prevent
international phone calls, they probably have ways to do that.

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On 2022-03-05, Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
> I don't know how much of of a choice that Cogent, et al., feel like they
> have. It seems as if federal sanctions are forcing some companies
> hands. If not directly telling them to disconnect, then by saying that
> payments for services rendered can't be conducted, thus causing
> businesses bottom dollar to want to disconnect.

Huh I hadn't thought of the payment perspective. Perhaps the costs of
doing business have become too expensive in Russia for Cogent to
continue operating. I'm curious whether the volatile banking situation
there will affect other providers as well.

> Keep in mind that the level of circuits that we are talking about could
> be multiple thousands, if not tens of thousands, of dollars a month.
> There's only so much generosity that can be had.

Fair enough.

On 2022-03-05, Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
> I would say that it's more difficult to block dial up connections
> between systems. But when an entire country wants to prevent
> international phone calls, they probably have ways to do that.

Is it even possible to get a "phone line" anymore? Most phone
traffic these days just flows over VoIP right?

On 3/4/22 10:13 PM, meff wrote:
> Is it even possible to get a "phone line" anymore?

Yes.

But you have to ask yourself, what is a phone line?

> Most phone traffic these days just flows over VoIP right?

Maybe.

It's almost certainly a /digital/ phone line. But that does not mean
that it's VoIP. The PSTN has been digital for decades. But ulaw / alaw
(64 kbps codec) used in the PSTN is decidedly NOT VoIP. The former will
happily carry faster (33.6 ~ 56 kbps) dial up modem connections under
questionable conditions while the latter struggles to do carry slower
(300 baud ~ 14.4 kbps) dial up modem connections under optimal conditions.

ISDN, both Primary Rate Interfaces (a.k.a. PRI) and Basic Rate
Interfaces (a.k.a. BRI) are completely digital and will happily carry
faster dial up modem connections. Many traditional PBXs / key systems
will support PRI and / or BRI interfaces.

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

Retrograde <fungus@amongus.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>How do you know Usenet isn't accessible in Russia? Not doubting you,
>just trying to figure out if it's true.

Usenet is hardly accessible at all anywhere. Used to be every ISP had
a fast local server, now basically everyone is on a handful of big servers
and that kind of defeats the whole purpose.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

with <svupne$fmk$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 3/4/22 6:49 PM, meff wrote:

>> This is true and I'm certainly not a fan of what Cogent is doing. I
>> hope other backbones step up and use this opportunity to deploy more
>> links into Russia. Fracturing Internet connectivity this way is, IMO,
>> unacceptable.
>
> I don't know how much of of a choice that Cogent, et al., feel like
> they have. It seems as if federal sanctions are forcing some
> companies hands. If not directly telling them to disconnect, then by
> saying that payments for services rendered can't be conducted, thus
> causing businesses bottom dollar to want to disconnect.
>
> Keep in mind that the level of circuits that we are talking about
> could be multiple thousands, if not tens of thousands, of dollars a
> month. There's only so much generosity that can be had.

As I see it, it's not "federal sanctions". It is about that Swift
thingy. Turn it off and operational costs doing any business with such
place become unaffordable (dealing with loads of cash costs loads of
money, it seems).

--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom

On Fri, 4 Mar 2022, Grant Taylor wrote:

> I wonder what the BBS / FidoNet is looking like these days.

Doing fine.

--
₪ BUD ₪

On 3/6/22 1:19 AM, Bud Spencer wrote:
> Doing fine.

I have little doubt that they are functioning.

I wonder if they are seeing any mentionable change in traffic, either up
or down.

I wonder how well the BBS / FidoNet / other FTNs will do if they can't
make Internet / TCP based connections because of filtering that I'm
seeing some people talking about.

Will FTNs find a way to remain functional in the face of adversity?
Will their addressing scheme be flexible enough to allow significant
changes in routing? -- My limited understanding of FTNs is that they
tend to be hierarchical in nature. So can the FTN function if two
(root) zone's can't communicate with each other, but two deep nodes or
points therein can talk to each other? Can messages flow that way?

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>
> Other big names in tech, particularly social media, are blocking Russian
> clients.
>
> We are witnessing what may be the first steps of a significant fracture
> of the Internet, and thus in many ways, Usenet. The coming days / weeks
> will show ho significant the fracture will be.

BTW, as a side question, does anybody knows how Usenet is doing in China?
A decade ago there were messages with originating paths like
!news.neu.edu.cn!news.cn99.com. I don't see them anymore.

Does China have any usenet servers at all nowadays? Is it possible to
host an independent server of any kind in China? Gopher or anything?

Regretably it looks like they want to copy the Chinese style internet
in the west. We will need to learn samizdat from the russians.

On Mon, 07 Mar 2022 09:13:03 -0600
Javier <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
> >
> > Other big names in tech, particularly social media, are blocking Russian
> > clients.
> >
> > We are witnessing what may be the first steps of a significant fracture
> > of the Internet, and thus in many ways, Usenet. The coming days / weeks
> > will show ho significant the fracture will be.
>
> BTW, as a side question, does anybody knows how Usenet is doing in China?
> A decade ago there were messages with originating paths like
> !news.neu.edu.cn!news.cn99.com. I don't see them anymore.
>
> Does China have any usenet servers at all nowadays? Is it possible to
> host an independent server of any kind in China? Gopher or anything?

I don't know but there is a regular poster on comp.unix.shell who I think
is Chinese and perhaps would be willing to discuss the issue through email.
He posts through googlegroups though. See for example
<a101ca81-0f9d-43bd-b750-8448693ef84bn@googlegroups.com> .
Sebz: "ubatl...@tznvy.pbz" <ubatlv.munb@tznvy.pbz>

> Regretably it looks like they want to copy the Chinese style internet
> in the west. We will need to learn samizdat from the russians.

If anyone has been thinking of starting their own newsserver , this is a
good time to do it. It's also good to visit every now and again
news.admin.peering to learn about new ones. A few weeks ago I learned
of news.cyber23.de which works fine. No registration required and you
can read and post.

Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2022 09:13:03 -0600
> Javier <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> BTW, as a side question, does anybody knows how Usenet is doing in China?
>> A decade ago there were messages with originating paths like
>> !news.neu.edu.cn!news.cn99.com. I don't see them anymore.
>>
>> Does China have any usenet servers at all nowadays? Is it possible to
>> host an independent server of any kind in China? Gopher or anything?
>
> I don't know but there is a regular poster on comp.unix.shell who I think
> is Chinese and perhaps would be willing to discuss the issue through email.
> He posts through googlegroups though. See for example
> <a101ca81-0f9d-43bd-b750-8448693ef84bn@googlegroups.com> .
> Sebz: "ubatl...@tznvy.pbz" <ubatlv.munb@tznvy.pbz>

Google (and googlegroups.com) are blocked by the Great Firewall of
China. So unless they're taking the significant risk of using a VPN
there, they can't be posting from mainland China.

Running some newsservers through the Chinese firewall test here:
https://viewdns.info/chinesefirewall/

The only one I found blocked (besides Google, which obviously isn't
targeted at their Usenet content specifically) is "giganews.com".
You need to use "nntp.aioe.org" and "news.eternal-september.org"
for those servers to be recognised by the tester, for some reason.

Of course they might be using some sort of packet inspection to
detect NNTP and block the protocol entirely. I believe they're
known to do similar things to prevent/track other activities such
as VPN usage. However I notice that "narkive.com" isn't blocked, so
it seems unlikely that they'd block the protocol and yet miss a
major web archive.

Curious about the same thing in the past, I've looked around for
Chinese groups but never found anything active. Maybe the Chinese
just aren't interested?

PS. "news.gmane.io" and "gwene.org" aren't blocked, so there's an
easy way for Chinese to tap into RSS feeds from blocked
websites!

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 2022-03-07, Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
> Of course they might be using some sort of packet inspection to
> detect NNTP and block the protocol entirely. I believe they're
> known to do similar things to prevent/track other activities such
> as VPN usage. However I notice that "narkive.com" isn't blocked, so
> it seems unlikely that they'd block the protocol and yet miss a
> major web archive.

If you're using NNTPS and you have a non-compromised certificate
chain, then you should generally be okay.

> Curious about the same thing in the past, I've looked around for
> Chinese groups but never found anything active. Maybe the Chinese
> just aren't interested?

I suspect this is the thing. Why spend the energy to block something
that very few folks use?

with <t02rre$8pg$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 3/6/22 1:19 AM, Bud Spencer wrote:

>> Doing fine.
>
> I have little doubt that they are functioning.
> I wonder if they are seeing any mentionable change in traffic, either
> up or down.

I've never had an option of getting sysop status, thus I can't say about
dynamics. I'll take a look (if I still can) to snapshot what's going
on, if you wish.

> I wonder how well the BBS / FidoNet / other FTNs will do if they can't
> make Internet / TCP based connections because of filtering that I'm
> seeing some people talking about.
> Will FTNs find a way to remain functional in the face of adversity?
> Will their addressing scheme be flexible enough to allow significant
> changes in routing? -- My limited understanding of FTNs is that they
> tend to be hierarchical in nature. So can the FTN function if two
> (root) zone's can't communicate with each other, but two deep nodes or
> points therein can talk to each other? Can messages flow that way?

FTN is technically more like uucp. Sure, netmail and arcmail may be
routed and pushed instantly but it doesn't have to. As technology goes
bundles will wait until picked up, may be never. Back then, I've seen
backlog was amassed for ten years.

There is that The Policy thing though. This might become an issue.

--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom

On 3/8/22 9:13 AM, Eric Pozharski wrote:
> I've never had an option of getting sysop status, thus I can't say
> about dynamics. I'll take a look (if I still can) to snapshot what's
> going on, if you wish.

I'm /curious/. But I'm not curios enough to invest more than about 5
minutes of my time.

> FTN is technically more like uucp.

I agree that FTN is a batched / store-and-forward network like UUCP.

But I was thinking more the hierarchical routing. At least as I
understand it, things flow up the hierarchy to a common or peer location
and then back down the other side. Up, over, and down if you will. I
was not aware that two nodes in separate regions / areas (?term?) could
exchange email with each other without doing the up, over, and down
routine. Thus you might be able to fracture chunks of the FTN if you
prevented the highest level systems from communicating.

> Sure, netmail and arcmail may be routed and pushed instantly but it
> doesn't have to.

I speculate that netmail uses the Internet as a BBS-to-BBS
communications mechanism, probably contrary to the historic FidoNet up,
over, and down architecture that I'm referring to.

I'm not familiar with "arcmail".

> As technology goes bundles will wait until picked up, may be never.

ACK

> Back then, I've seen backlog was amassed for ten years.

Wow. I would have assumed that someone would have cleared the queue by
then. Even most hardware gets replaced by then.

> There is that The Policy thing though. This might become an issue.

ACK

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

with <t09ef7$kph$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 3/8/22 9:13 AM, Eric Pozharski wrote:

>> I've never had an option of getting sysop status, thus I can't say
>> about dynamics. I'll take a look (if I still can) to snapshot what's
>> going on, if you wish.
> I'm /curious/. But I'm not curios enough to invest more than about 5
> minutes of my time.

Well, I was more generous (10min per question). It took about half an
hour ;) And so: people are aware of issues and perspectives (yup,
today is The Blackout Day), plan for and do damage control. Yup,
autopilot systmes are in need of immediate attention.

>> FTN is technically more like uucp.
> I agree that FTN is a batched / store-and-forward network like UUCP.
*SKIP*
> the FTN if you prevented the highest level systems from communicating.

I explicitly withhold all education because nobody cares about it.

>> Sure, netmail and arcmail may be routed and pushed instantly but it
>> doesn't have to.
> I speculate that netmail uses the Internet as a BBS-to-BBS
> communications mechanism, probably contrary to the historic FidoNet
> up, over, and down architecture that I'm referring to.

Yes, by design and history: up-over-down. Still, "stiches" are a thing
and as long as nobody complains nobody has issues with this. As I
see see it from afar, there are no that many defaults, almost everything
has to be manually labored out. Those relying on third-party automation
are eventually cut off. Because there's no automation that can handle
this mess.

> I'm not familiar with "arcmail".

(Withholding education here, again). In theory, netmail is plain and
routed (or sent directly, see -- mess). While arcmail is _arc_hived
(funny name for compression), tossed, re-tossed, spread, collapsed,
and sent around (definetely not in that order, if there is any).

*CUT*

I'm going to look at it again in two weeks :\

--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom

In article <svv2sn$eno$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>,
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>On 3/4/22 10:13 PM, meff wrote:
>> Is it even possible to get a "phone line" anymore?
>
>Yes.
>
>But you have to ask yourself, what is a phone line?
>
>> Most phone traffic these days just flows over VoIP right?
>
>Maybe.
>
>It's almost certainly a /digital/ phone line. But that does not mean
>that it's VoIP. The PSTN has been digital for decades. But ulaw / alaw
>(64 kbps codec) used in the PSTN is decidedly NOT VoIP. The former will
>happily carry faster (33.6 ~ 56 kbps) dial up modem connections under
>questionable conditions while the latter struggles to do carry slower
>(300 baud ~ 14.4 kbps) dial up modem connections under optimal conditions.
>
>ISDN, both Primary Rate Interfaces (a.k.a. PRI) and Basic Rate
>Interfaces (a.k.a. BRI) are completely digital and will happily carry
>faster dial up modem connections. Many traditional PBXs / key systems
>will support PRI and / or BRI interfaces.

While that's all true, I imagine that the centrally managed
telephone systems are more susceptible to severed links than the
Internet at large; it's certainly more susceptible to
wire-tapping by authoritarian dictatorships.

The idea that dial-up is a viable alternative to the Internet to
circumvent censorship is a fantasy people tell themselves. To
the extent that it's effective at all, it's because the powers
that be can't be bothered to shut it off.

- Dan C.

In article <t02rre$8pg$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>,
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>On 3/6/22 1:19 AM, Bud Spencer wrote:
>> Doing fine.
>
>I have little doubt that they are functioning.
>
>I wonder if they are seeing any mentionable change in traffic, either up
>or down.
>
>I wonder how well the BBS / FidoNet / other FTNs will do if they can't
>make Internet / TCP based connections because of filtering that I'm
>seeing some people talking about.

They will fare poorly.

>Will FTNs find a way to remain functional in the face of adversity?
>Will their addressing scheme be flexible enough to allow significant
>changes in routing? -- My limited understanding of FTNs is that they
>tend to be hierarchical in nature. So can the FTN function if two
>(root) zone's can't communicate with each other, but two deep nodes or
>points therein can talk to each other? Can messages flow that way?

Pretty much every FTN-style network is moving traffic over the
Internet these days, mostly on well-known ports. The entire
thing is based on a hub-and-spoke model, so while it _can_ be
point-to-point, most nodes send to a hub that then sends to
other nodes in the "network". Again, this is pretty much all
done over TCP/IP. Fidonet in particular has relied on the
Internet for trans-Atlantic communications since 1991; for all
intents and purposes, FTN networks are applications of the
Internet, so cutting Internet access cuts off FTNs, as does
shutting down the hubs.

Most of the hubs are either running on home machines or VPSen
somewhere, and most BBS "sysops" are not particularly technical.
State-level actors easily could knock FTN hubs offline using
DDoS attacks, or just infiltrate the nodes and watch the
(unencrypted and unauthenticated) traffic flow.

Some of the proponents will say, "but we can fall back to
dial-up!" But it is perhaps even easier to cut off dialup
access than the Internet. At that point you'd be better off
using UUCP anyway.

- Dan C.

Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
> In article <svv2sn$eno$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>,
> Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>>On 3/4/22 10:13 PM, meff wrote:
>>> Is it even possible to get a "phone line" anymore?
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>But you have to ask yourself, what is a phone line?
>>
>>> Most phone traffic these days just flows over VoIP right?
>>
>>Maybe.
>>
>>It's almost certainly a /digital/ phone line. But that does not mean
>>that it's VoIP. The PSTN has been digital for decades. But ulaw / alaw
>>(64 kbps codec) used in the PSTN is decidedly NOT VoIP. The former will
>>happily carry faster (33.6 ~ 56 kbps) dial up modem connections under
>>questionable conditions while the latter struggles to do carry slower
>>(300 baud ~ 14.4 kbps) dial up modem connections under optimal conditions.
>>
>>ISDN, both Primary Rate Interfaces (a.k.a. PRI) and Basic Rate
>>Interfaces (a.k.a. BRI) are completely digital and will happily carry
>>faster dial up modem connections. Many traditional PBXs / key systems
>>will support PRI and / or BRI interfaces.
>
> While that's all true, I imagine that the centrally managed
> telephone systems are more susceptible to severed links than the
> Internet at large;

Compared to the internet as originally intended, yes. But the modern
internet, with the small handfull of ISP's per geographical area, with
all customers connected in star patterns to those ISP's, has produced a
network wiring diagram reality that looks much like those "centrally
managed telephone systems" of old.

> it's certainly more susceptible to wire-tapping by authoritarian
> dictatorships.

And to court warrants for wiretaps in non-authoritarian locales.