free collaborative tools for low BW and losy connections

[gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor)]

On 3/25/20 5:39 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:> One of the tools that we've 
had for a very long time but which is
> often overlooked is NNTP. It's an excellent way to move information 
> around under exactly these circumstances: low bandwidth, lossy 
> connections -- and intermittent connectivity, limited resources, 
> etc.

I largely agree.  Though NNTP does depend on system-to-system TCP/IP 
connectivity.  I say system-to-system instead of end-to-end because 
there can be intermediate systems between the end systems.  NNTP's store 
and forward networking quite capable.

Something that might make you groan even more than NNTP is UUCP.  UUCP 
doesn't even have the system-to-system (real time) requirement that NNTP 
has.  It's quite possible to copy UUCP "Bag" files to removable media 
and use sneaker net t transfer things.  I've heard tell of people 
configuring UUCP on systems at the office, their notebook that they take 
with them, and systems at home.  The notebook (push or poll) connects to 
the systems that it can currently communicate with and transfers files.

UUCP can also be used to transfer files, news (NNTP: public (Usenet) and 
/ or private), email, and remote command execution.

> Nearly any laptop/desktop has enough computing capacity to run an 
> NNTP server

Agreed.  I dare say that anything that has a TCP/IP stack is probably 
capable of running an NNTP server (and / or UUCP).

> depending on the quantity of information being moved 
> around, it's not at all out of the question to do exactly that, so 
> that every laptop/desktop (and thus every person) has their own copy 
> right there, thus enabling them to continue using it in the absence 
> of any connectivity.

I hadn't considered having a per system NNTP server.  I sort of like the 
idea.  I think it could emulate the functionality that I used to get out 
of Lotus Notes & Domino with local database replication.  I rarely 
needed the offline functionality, but having it was nice.  I also found 
that the local database made searches a lot faster than waiting on them 
to traverse the network.

> Also note that bi- or unidirectional NNTP/SMTP gateways are useful.

Not only that, but given the inherent one-to-many nature of NNTP, you 
can probably get away with transmitting that message once instead of 
(potentially) once per recipient.  (Yes, I know that SMTP is supposed to 
optimize this, but I've seen times when it doesn't work, properly.)

> It's not fancy, but anybody who demands fancy at a time like this is 
> an idiot.  It *works*, it gets the basics done, and thanks to decades 
> of development/experience, it holds up  well under duress.

I completely agree with your statement about NNTP.  I do think that UUCP 
probably holds up even better.  UUCP bag files make it easy to bridge 
communications across TCP/IP gaps.  You could probably even get NNTP and 
/ or UUCP to work across packet radio.  }:-)



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4013 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20200325/675287d4/attachment.bin>