I can't reply to the on-going thread since this is my new nntp/inn2
server and do not have the history, but today I found someone active
working on an activitypub(fediverse based protocol) and
NNTP https://koldfront.dk/git/illuminant/
Maybe if the person reads this forum can explain his work so we can help

Happy Hacking
ReK2
--
{gemini,https}://{,rek2.}hispagatos.org
https://hispagatos.space/@rek2
[https|gemini]://2600.Madrid

Thinking about it, is very easy to integrate, since activitypub
follows regulat internet/network standards so one could ping from
mastodon a usenet group like:
@news.software.nntp@news.eternal-september.org

so instead of "@name" will be "@newsgroup" @ nntp server

just thinking out loud.

On 2023-07-11, rek2 hispagatos <rek2@hispagatos.org.invalid> wrote:
> I can't reply to the on-going thread since this is my new nntp/inn2
> server and do not have the history, but today I found someone active
> working on an activitypub(fediverse based protocol) and
> NNTP https://koldfront.dk/git/illuminant/
> Maybe if the person reads this forum can explain his work so we can help
>
> Happy Hacking
> ReK2

--
{gemini,https}://{,rek2.}hispagatos.org
https://hispagatos.space/@rek2
[https|gemini]://2600.Madrid

rek2 hispagatos <rek2@hispagatos.org.invalid> wrote:
> Thinking about it, is very easy to integrate, since activitypub
> follows regulat internet/network standards so one could ping from
> mastodon a usenet group like:
> @news.software.nntp@news.eternal-september.org
>
> so instead of "@name" will be "@newsgroup" @ nntp server

I think that, if you want to try this, probably should be making the bridged
newsgroups read-only on ActivityPub/Mastodon (at least for now) if they
are bridged at all. (However, I do not believe that it will really work very
well; the format is significantly different. However, you could, if you want
to, make the ActivityPub "source" field contain the original message
(converted to quoted printable if it is not UTF-8 or pure ASCII) and then
convert it to HTML for the main part of the ActivityPub message.)

If you have a NNTP server with your own newsgroups (not part of the Usenet
hierarchies), then you could make two way bridging with the newsgroups
which are specifically designed to be bridged with NNTP. It might be helpful
so that a discussion forum is available on both protocols, in this case.

However, naming a NNTP server is unlikely to help unless a ActivityPub client
and server understand the use of NNTP servers, or if it is a NNTP server that
already implements both protocols (which might be the case for a discussion
forum outside of the main Usenet hierarchies which has been specifically set
up to be used in this way, as described in the previous paragraph).

(My opinion is that NNTP is much better, and that ActivityPub is complicated
and messy and has problems like is common in W3C documents. My opinion is also
that Unicode is no good.)

--
Don't laugh at the moon when it is day time in France.