Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The End of Gmane? (ingebrigtsen.no)

Posted by msmash on from the all-good-things-come-to-end dept.

If any of you use mailing list archive Gmane, you would want to start looking at its alternative. Gmane developer Lars Ingebrigtsen announced Thursday that he is thinking about ending the decade-old email-to-news gateway. But first, for those unaware about Gmane, here's is what it does: It allows users to access electronic mailing lists as if they were Usenet newsgroups, and also through a variety of web interfaces. Gmane is an archive; it never expires messages (unless explicitly requested by users). Gmane also supports importing list postings made prior to a list's inclusion on the service.Ingebrigtsen said Gmane machines are under numerous DDoS attacks -- coupled with some other issues -- that have made him wonder whether it is worth the time and effort to keep Gmane ticking. He writes: I'm thinking about ending Gmane, at least as a web site. Perhaps continue running the SMTP-to-NNTP bridge? Perhaps not? I don't want to make 20-30K mailing lists start having bouncing addresses, but I could just funnel all incoming mail to /dev/null, I guess... The nice thing about a mailing list archive (with NNTP and HTTP interfaces) is that it enables software maintainers to say (whenever somebody suggests using Spiffy Collaboration Tool of the Month instead of yucky mailing lists) is "well, just read the stuff on Gmane, then". I feel like I'm letting down a generation here.As Gmane's future remains uncertain, Ingebrigtsen recommends people to have a look at Mail Archive.

39 comments

  1. Gmane Over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  2. ObPFCHudson by Zephyn · · Score: 3, Funny

    Gmane over, man! Gmane over!

    1. Re:ObPFCHudson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wa das it gmane?

  3. Nothing of value was lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Newsgroups are obsolete, and they've been obsolete for 20 years. And email is rapidly dying, too. I send and receive far fewer emails than 10 years ago. Sharing has replaced forwarding and chat systems have replaced a lot of the other messages. Newsgroups are obsolete and mailing lists are rapidly heading in that direction. So, who cares that Gmane is dead? Unless you haven't moved on from the 1990s, you shouldn't care at all.

    1. Re:Nothing of value was lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're missing the bigger picture -- whether Usenet itself is dead or not, the fact that we're replacing open protocols with closed, proprietary web interfaces controlled by a single entity is a huge regression. Replacing Usenet with 8 million different web forums that I have to register with individually and use a different interface to read is not an improvement.

      NNTP and SMTP may be old protocols but the problems they solve haven't gone away, only changed somewhat. People still talk about stuff in public. People still exchange private messages with each other. None of that is obsolete. That doesn't mean old protocols can't change or new ones can't be invented, but if you don't understand why and how the old stuff worked, all you're doing is jerking yourself off with a shiny Javascript widget. We don't need any more of that, thanks.

    2. Re: Nothing of value was lost by hawguy · · Score: 2

      Does it bother anyone else that a single moderator can decide that a post is without merit and greatly decrease its visibility?

      Newsgroups are dead. I've been using the internet since the early 1990s and I've never used and newsgroup once. I don't know anyone who does. Maybe they once had value a long time ago, but they're obsolete. As for email, I rarely use email to contact anyone outside of work. Even businesses don't like providing email support any longer, instead moving to chat-based support. I don't email friends much. I text them or send them messages on social media. I've always thought email forwards were obnoxious, but now people just share stuff on social media and don't forward stuff. I still get a lot of spam, but I don't use email much. And I don't know a lot of people who use email much for stuff that's not formal. Email is dying, though it's not obsolete yet.

      If you disagree, fine. But reply instead of using moderation as a -1 disagree. That's an abuse.

      Try logging in instead of posting as an AC if you want more respect. The Slashdot moderation scheme explicitly discourages moderators from explaining their mods since their mod go away if they post anywhere else the thread. So if someone disagrees with you, they'll either downmod you (if they have modpoints) or tell you why they disagree, but they can't do both.

    3. Re: Nothing of value was lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those old protocols do need to go away. Simply put, they're not secure. I don't like being locked into closed protocols using services like Facebook Messenger, either. Rather, I'm saying there's a trend toward more instant messaging and social networking. There are older protocols for chatting that still have value today; as I understand it, IRC was extended a long time ago to allow for encrypted connections. Even services like Twitter are quite a bit more open than Facebook. Social media and instant messaging need not necessarily be closed protocols; they're better off when they're open, secure, and encrypted.

    4. Re: Nothing of value was lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People shouldn't be moderating based on whether they agree or disagree with posts, period. If the post is garbage, it belongs at -1 because it's garbage, not because someone disagrees with the garbage. I consider it a valid point that people don't really use newsgroups anymore and email use seems to be on the decline, so perhaps there's not nearly as much of a need for services like this one. At a minimum, it's a legitimate point that can be debated, thus I don't consider it trollish. Also, someone who moderates a post can log out and post anonymously in the discussion without undoing moderation.

    5. Re:Nothing of value was lost by Kjella · · Score: 2

      You're missing the bigger picture -- whether Usenet itself is dead or not, the fact that we're replacing open protocols with closed, proprietary web interfaces controlled by a single entity is a huge regression. Replacing Usenet with 8 million different web forums that I have to register with individually and use a different interface to read is not an improvement.

      Well the nice things about web forums is that they can set their own terms for registration, moderation, user behavior and so on and if people don't like it they can move to a different one. Newsgroups kinda worked so long as bandwidth was a scarce resource and you wouldn't just waste it needlessly. You had moderated groups but that was very rudimentary and not very popular, but the rest was just open season for spam and trolls and bots. Without changing signup captchas to keep mass signups at bay most forums would be nothing but trash. Same thing about email, once the spammers got hold of it you'd see an endless number of trash emails.

      Unfortunately applying the same rules uniformly more or less means you have to have one entity controlling it all, it's no good if I have a strict policy and you allow every rabble in. Same thing with who gets moderator privileges or moderator points, any form of assignment or formula needs someone controlling it. I suppose you could have a somewhat decentralized organization like IRC networks, where some servers belong to the same network and some don't all while running the same protocol, but still. To be honest, I don't think the market wants more protocols since most everything now runs over HTTP, almost totally regardless of what it is. At best maybe you could make some kind of HTTP "API" so you could use different messaging software but I doubt it. Most sites actually like being in control of layout and such.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re: Nothing of value was lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Those old protocols do need to go away. Simply put, they're not secure.

      *cough* https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4642 *cough* https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3207 *cough*.

      Unless "wrapping it in TLS" isn't secure, in which case HTTPS is not secure. I bet that's a claim that you don't want to make.

      > Social media and instant messaging need not necessarily be closed protocols; they're better off when they're open, secure, and encrypted.

      See above.

    7. Re: Nothing of value was lost by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Unless "wrapping it in TLS" isn't secure, in which case HTTPS is not secure. I bet that's a claim that you don't want to make

      Don't follow security news much do you?

    8. Re: Nothing of value was lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      > Don't follow security news much do you?

      I do. There's BEAST (2011, SSL3/TLS1.0 only), CRIME (2012, TLS1.0->1.2), BREACH (2013, TLS1.0->1.2), and POODLE (mid 2014, SSL 3.0). In late 2014, it was discovered that a few faulty TLS implementations were also vulnerable to POODLE. They have since been fixed. BEAST mitigations have been in place for *ages*. CRIME and BREACH only work when TLS compression is enabled, so the fix for that is fairly trivial.

      Are there any significant recent ones that I missed? (Implementation bugs like Heartbleed don't count. One doesn't point to a screwed up implementation of a protocol and say "That protocol is insecure.", one says "That implementation is fucked up.". A protocol *can* be too complicated to reliably implement correctly... but the wide array of correct TLS implementations strongly suggests that the OpenSSL guys just fucked up.)

      Or are you talking about the politics of the infrastructure that was set up to distribute and validate X.509 certificates for use with TLS? If you're talking about *that*, then know that the TLS spec leaves unspecified how X.509 certs are issued and managed. That is to say that Certificate Authorities and the management of the same have nothing to do with the security of the TLS protocol, but might be a concern for a particular site that *uses* TLS. You can -after all- use TLS with no loss of security guarantees without ever speaking to a CA.

    9. Re: Nothing of value was lost by mrbester · · Score: 2

      You haven't been using the internet since the early 1990s. You used a small subset of it, namely the web with a splash of email, probably through the AOL portal you got off the first CD-ROM they posted through your door. If that was enough for you, fine, but don't declare anything is of no use if you never used it or have no idea of what you're talking about.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    10. Re: Nothing of value was lost by red+crab · · Score: 2

      There isn't any replacement coming for email in the workplace at least. Email is vendor-neutral and hence is available on all connected devices, technically has no limit on the text that can be typed or data sent as attachments in it, can be locally archived and restored and has other significant advantages over social media that I can't think of at the moment. And heck, anybody can set up his or her private mail server and ensure confidentiality of all email communications. I don't see email dying in any form.

    11. Re: Nothing of value was lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you disagree, fine. But reply instead of using moderation as a -1 disagree. That's an abuse.

      That there was a sensible point underneath all the trolling doesn't mean it didn't deserve a downvote. If you are going to offer a contentious opinion, take care to argue clearly and be polite. Your second post was much better, apart from whining about moderation which is always lame.

      Not my mod BTW, but it might have been.

    12. Re: Nothing of value was lost by loufoque · · Score: 1

      What is this chat you're speaking of?
      I don't see too many people on IRC. Perhaps you mean something as backward as Skype? No thanks.

      Anyway, sorry but mail and mailing lists still are very relevant. I'll miss GMane dearly myself and wouldn't mind donating a few grands to keep it alive.
      It's still the best format for discussion with people in open-source and other projects.

    13. Re:Nothing of value was lost by evilviper · · Score: 2

      Replacing Usenet with 8 million different web forums that I have to register with individually and use a different interface to read is not an improvement.

      You don't have to visit any web forums to read them. Nearly every site has an RSS feed, and those which don't can be scraped and converted into RSS with something like Feed43.com.

      I would HATE using my smart phone to read the news if it wasn't for RSS. /.'s mobile site is the single worst piece of crap I've ever seen. But with RSS I'm fortunately able to read any and every site out there, in a uniform "eBook"-like format.

      You can read my RSS tips here:

      http://evilviper.pipedot.org/j...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    14. Re: Nothing of value was lost by SylvesterTheCat · · Score: 1

      I used news groups a lot in the 90s. After I went to a provider that didn't have decent news group coverage, I subscribed to (Free)Agent's service and even bought the full of Agent.

      In the last 10 years, my use has decline to pretty much nothing.

  4. Thanks Lars! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In an experimental (and futile) project where I attempted to delete all references about myself from the Internet, Lars graciously deleted an article for me. Thanks Lars!

  5. Fuck mailing lists by geek · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Seriously, fuck mailing lists. I've hated lists for 25 years. Nothing but flamewars and pretentious douche bags yelling at everyone to not use HTML and top post. If you need a 20 page etiquette manual for how to use the fucking things then they suck. Full stop. I've never understood why they are so prevalent in software development. All anyone does is bitch about how much email they get and spend countless hours dicking with filters.

    1. Re:Fuck mailing lists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one cares what you think. Something smells, go change your mother's diaper.

    2. Re:Fuck mailing lists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHOA MAN! What's that smell? What died up your ass?

    3. Re:Fuck mailing lists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All anyone does is bitch about how much email they get and spend countless hours dicking with filters.

      That's what's nice about using the nntp feed of Gmane. You can selectively read and filter mailing lists posts with a newsreader without actually dealing with the hassle of sorting through a large volume of email generated by the lists.

  6. Poisoned search results for years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Often when searching for something linux related I'd stumble upon some fossil of a Gmane conversation about the topic. Fortunately Google and some other search engines allow you to search for more recently indexed results.

  7. NSA by 110010001000 · · Score: 1, Troll

    Sounds like a NSA honeypot. It never deletes messages? Also, what is SMTP and NNTP? Sounds like spy stuff. We better get rid of this.

  8. An unique and great service by BillKaos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Considering Gmane has been for the most part a one-man effort on his free time, what Lars achieved is truly impressive.

    I am a newsreader user, and I will certainly miss Gmane. If you will miss it too, show your support to Lars!

  9. Blame the Assholes... by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Anyone DDOSing is a complete worthless asshole.
    Anyone doing this to Gmane is the worlds biggest asshole.

    So shut it down, the current generation of little shits dont deserve the cool stuff we had when the internet was started.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Blame the Assholes... by bug_hunter · · Score: 1

      Fair call, but remember that the little shits of every generation since the internet got up to the same kind of shit - causing destruction and stress for the sake of impacting the world.
      Everyone grows out of it, but then new kids grow into it.
      Wash, rinse, repeat.

      --
      It's turtles all the way down.
    2. Re:Blame the Assholes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It costs like $100 to buy a DDoS these days. Cheap shits that do this don't deserve the satisfaction.

  10. Kids... by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    ...what the summary tries to say: this was peepaw's twitter at the time, just with more possibilities.

  11. DDOS Problems by pheedruss · · Score: 1

    Yes, I know it will cost some, but just put the servers behind Cloudflare.

  12. TLS duh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The protocols don't need to go away, but they should be updated the way SSL era stuff should have been with a TLS capable frontend handler and a backend server that actually touches requests. Make sure the frontend is secure and heavily vetted, then just relay plaintext or encrypted smtp/nntp content via the channel. If you want to provide secure-only smtp/nntp, you just reject connections that don't start with a STARTTLS and move on from there.

    I don't think either of them are datagram, but even if they are, there is DTLS for exactly that purpose today.

    That said, what usenet really needs is some backend work to allow bittorrent or a similiar swarming p2p backend to transmit message packets between servers to help them reach a unified state for whatever tiers of messages they choose to store.

  13. FUCK CLOUDFLARE.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Second or third biggest fingerprinting technique on the internet. And a huge thorn for Tor users, since recaptcha or cloudflare itself could be fingerprinting you across sites. (wayback.archive.org is a really easy way to get around that for static content while also archiving it for future generations!)

  14. Why no Automatic upstream blacklisting of DDOS IPs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe he should just turn it into a pay service, take it NNTP only, or add some ads to the site, And isnt there some blacklisting software he can use and a way to report abusive IP addresses? You would think ISPs would offer someway to configure a blacklist at their gateways to stop DDOS congestion on their networks.

  15. Gmane is the only way to reply to messages on list by tap · · Score: 4, Informative

    I do lots of Linux development. Often I'll find kernel patch that's not in the mainline kernel yet, or was just recently added, that has some issues with it. With gmane I can browse the original discussion threads about the patch, import them into evolution, and then reply to one of the messages. And get the proper in-reply-to headers on my email, cc the proper groups and people, etc. I don't have the original thread in my inbox because I'm not subscribed to 200 different lists that I save all the messages from. But gmane is.

    None of the other list archives (which aren't as good as gmane anyway) allow you do this.

  16. Glimmer of hope by Sits · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It sounds like Lars (owner/creator) is burned out by the ordeal but a handoff of GMANE might be possible. No matter what, I hope Lars is rewarded for all the effort he put into GMANE - it's a fantastic tool.