Your posting and other info which includes your IP is not in NNTP until 10 minutes grace time has passed. But your IP is in the HTTP logs already if you posted from there.
As for your desire to not have your IP publicly displayed, that’s up to the forum admins. My attitude is meh.
Hi
In actual fact I use my own email slightly munged 
I have a static IP here for the last few years without issues, I don’t
really care one way or the other.
Maybe you should try nntp to see what we can see? I wrote a couple of
howtos and submitted them.
–
Cheers Malcolm °¿° (Linux Counter #276890)
openSUSE 11.1 (i586) Kernel 2.6.27.21-0.1-pae
up 1 day 22:10, 1 user, load average: 0.32, 0.27, 0.18
ASUS eeePC 1000HE ATOM N280 1.66GHz | GPU Mobile 945GM/GMS/GME
How do you think I know my IP addy is being sent from the web forum 
It isn’t for me I do see how some people may prefer it but I’m more a browser than lets go to this… I use todays posts frequently, yes I know i could sort by date, but just isn’t for me.
I re-iterate I have nothing against it, I just see no reason for sending my IP to NTTP. Not one and I haven’t had anyone give me a reason yet either.
I have to admit I don’t care if my email addy goes out as I don’t use sensible email addys for forums or such like. They get my spam acc, so they’re welcome to harvest it and send it spam why I have it.
So I could say just show every ones addy, doesn’t bother me but I bet it would bother others.
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 09:56:01 +0000, FeatherMonkey wrote:
> As some seem to be implying it’s a feature not a bug.
It’s a required component of the open standard for NNTP.
> May I ask what do I get by having my IP address passed through the nttp
> gateway, what is the reason or benefit?
You get nothing personally, but again it’s a question of being a standard
component of the NNTP protocols/headers.
> I guess people are struggling to find forum software that has this
> feature.
NNTP provides the ability to do offline reading and is an open standard
for doing so. Chrysantine hates when I point out that I participate in
some 200+ forums using NNTP, but it is an extremely efficient way to do
so. I also participate in a handful of communities where there is no
NNTP available, and the amount of time spent scanning those forums is
infinitely longer - as such, I tend to only post and follow my own
threads and not participate in a broader manner as I do in other forums
that do provide NNTP access.
I used to, for example, participate in a couple of VMware’s newsgroups
very heavily. They dropped NNTP support, and have by doing so have lost
my years of experience in working with VMware because it takes too long
to do anything in their forums (which are, I beileve, based on vBulletin).
The openSUSE community is in part about accepting that different people
use different tools, and that diversity is something that makes our
community stronger.
Yet there are some in the community who seem hell-bent on making the web
interface the ONE TOOL for accessing the forums. I find this very
curious. Using Linux is about choice, whether it be KDE vs. GNOME vs.
FVMW vs. ICEWM vs. E - and so on. So why all this noise about “there
must be one way and one way ONLY to participate in the community”? Why
is there this NEED for some people to RESTRICT the membership of the
community from using something they don’t use to participate?
Jim
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 14:16:01 +0000, FeatherMonkey wrote:
> I re-iterate I have nothing against it, I just see no reason for
> sending my IP to NTTP. Not one and I haven’t had anyone give me a reason
> yet either.
If you have nothing against it, then why are we having this discussion?
> I have to admit I don’t care if my email addy goes out as I don’t use
> sensible email addys for forums or such like. They get my spam acc, so
> they’re welcome to harvest it and send it spam why I have it.
So what exactly is your concern about the IP address being visible?
You haven’t articulated this, just made a lot of noise about it without
any real concern being expressed.
> So I could say just show every ones addy, doesn’t bother me but I bet it
> would bother others.
It does show everyone’s address. It doesn’t seem to bother anyone who
understands what NNTP is all about and the benefits of using it over a
web forum interface.
Jim
It’s a required component of the open standard for NNTP
I’m not using NTTP I use the web forum. Was I using the NTTP interface I wouldn’t be bothered. Or if someone could find forum software with this feature where anyone can see anyones IP.
Strange how we’re asked to compromise but you lot wont. Like 10 min edits consideration when moving threads etc…
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:56:01 +0000, FeatherMonkey wrote:
>> It’s a required component of the open standard for NNTP
>
> I’m not using NTTP I use the web forum. Was I using the NTTP interface I
> wouldn’t be bothered. Or if someone could find forum software with this
> feature where anyone can see anyones IP.
You can. It’s called an NNTP reader. What benefit do you see in being
able to see a poster’s IP anyways? You’re looking for feature parity for
a feature that by your own admission you don’t understand the benefit of.
> Strange how we’re asked to compromise but you lot wont. Like 10 min
> edits consideration when moving threads etc…
How exactly are “we lot” not compromising?
10 minutes for editing is a compromise. With NNTP, once the message is
posted, it can be canceled or one can post a reply.
What’s wrong with making sure that you’ve written what you meant before
you actually hit the “post” button? I never understood the reason for
being allowed to edit posts, quite frankly. It’s not how I work. I
accept that it’s how you work - and that the decision of the
administrators was to allow a 10 minute editing period and a delay of new
posts to the NNTP interface in order to enable that.
That seems like a pretty good compromise, if you ask me. I don’t give up
never seeing changes to messages, and you get the chance to go “oops, I
mean to say this” or “I should’ve included this additional detail” for a
period of time.
Jim
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:59:59 +0000, Jim Henderson wrote:
> That seems like a pretty good compromise, if you ask me. I don’t give
> up never seeing changes to messages, and you get the chance to go “oops,
> I mean to say this” or “I should’ve included this additional detail” for
> a period of time.
I should also add that it strikes me as quite funny that a few vocal web
users seem to think that they should be able to bend those using NNTP to
their will, but not a single NNTP user that I recall seeing has said
“quit using the web interface and use the NNTP interface instead” - a few
have suggested that you might give it a try, and that you might like it
if you did. But I recall no instance of anyone insisting that we cut off
the web interface users because there are idiosyncrasies of the web
interface that drive us bonkers, like the bizzare quoting style (at least
that’s how it appears on the NNTP interface - some sort of fake markup
language).
Is there some reason why we can’t just get along and accept that
different people work in different ways and with different tools that
work well for them, and that CHOICE is a positive thing, not a negative
thing?
Why do we even have to talk about the benefits of having choices in an
open source community? That seems very ironic to me.
Jim
I’m still waiting for one good reason instead of all this fluff.
Or one example of web forum software with this feature.
It’s not against NTTP standards to use a generic IP.
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 22:06:01 +0000, FeatherMonkey wrote:
> I’m still waiting for one good reason instead of all this fluff.
I don’t need to justify it to you. That’s the way it’s set up - I still
haven’t heard one reason from you as to why it’s such a major problem.
You seem to have latched onto this as being some sort of massive security
issue but haven’t articulated any reason (good or otherwise) why it is.
> Or one example of web forum software with this feature.
I don’t use web forum software, so I’m afraid you’ll have to do your own
research on that one.
Jim
I didn’t know about the subject until you raised it, but glad you did, so it could meet the fresh air and be exposed to the members’ scrutiny.
Unfortunately you chose that analogy:).
I don’t know what burglars do in your location, but in mine they wander or drive by, with no interest in the address, only the property before them, and scan it for ease of entry. If they find an unsecured way in (or an attack dog or C… hmm don’t let’s go therelol!), you get burgled. If not they quickly move onto the next property.
In other words, they are opportunist criminals. I am sure that’s how it works with Mr Malicious on the internet.
However, I will read all the more technical responses just to be sure;).
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 22:06:01 +0000, FeatherMonkey wrote:
> It’s not against NTTP standards to use a generic IP.
So what? You still haven’t articulated why this is such a major
problem. In the arena of making mountains out of molehills (or pick
whatever idiom you want), this ranks pretty high in my book until you
provide a concrete example of why this is such a huge issue.
Jim
**** this no edit thing:shame:! It should have read:
If they find an unsecured way in you get burgled. If not (or an attack dog or C… hmm don’t let’s go there), they quickly move onto the next property.
> I’m still waiting for one good reason instead of all this fluff.
It’s interesting… what more reason do you need? What we really need is a reason not to, but you haven’t answered that yet. Let me think of a better reason… okay, here’s one. A while back somebody was posting in a foreign language that I couldn’t guess at (wasn’t Spanish, French, or German) and I wanted to use a translation tool on what they wrote so I could get a really bad version of what they posted to responded to. How could I do that? Quick check of their IP… voila. Once I knew they were from a certain country I could easily guess at the right language and translate it to try to give a post back. So there you go… a good reason. Here’s another one… I am going to (just for you) write an application that pulls the last-used IP address from the forum and uses it (combined with some other randomness) as a seed for a random number generator. This way my randomness will depend on everybody in the community as well as my own box. I’m so happy!!!
> Or one example of web forum software with this feature.
You mean, besides this one? Considering the triviality of implementing this feature I guess I’m surprised it’s not out there. Which ones have you seen?
What really pisses me off, right in the beginning my first post.
I said this wasn’t a nttp vs web but that is exactly what the NTTP users have turned it into.
It was never aimed at the NTTP users but they just felt they had to stick there oar in.
It was aimed at web forum users and still is I wish I had allowed the poll to show the users I wonder how many no’s are NTTP users.
I know you lot don’t care, and if you didn’t know your IP was being sent out using a mail client I would call you naive. But web forum users don’t know.
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 02:06:01 +0000, FeatherMonkey wrote:
> It was never aimed at the NTTP users but they just felt they had to
> stick there oar in.
You asked a question that pertained to NNTP users, and while you said it
was for web users, you’ve made it perfectly clear that you’re not happy
with the fact that NNTP is turned on.
So excuse us if it looks to us like you’re looking for ammunition to try
to build a case that “NNTP = bad”.
If that wasn’t your intention, then you have my apologies. But from
reading your posts on this topic before, it sure looked to me like yet
another attempt to try to exclude the NNTP-using community from the
community at large by inventing what looks like a false reason to shut
the interface down by creating some FUD around the exposure of IP
addresses.
I don’t disagree that the web users should know that that is something
the NNTP interface does provide. But when someone who has a clear bias
presents a poll like this, it does tend to raise a few eyebrows about the
motivation.
Again, if I misjudged that, you have my apologies for misjudging it - but
I stand by what I’ve said in the discussion.
Jim
I agree with one that someone what you sayed windows Pc no firewall of course we should have a good firewall.
But there is another one have a second computer only use for Linux firewall only;).
Cheers
Mike
@Jim
I really don’t know how you got to that conclusion.
NOTE:=
I do agree that losing them isn’t an option but losing the headers IP’s is.I just see it this way NTTP users know that there IP address is going out but many/most web forum users don’t.
END NOTE:=\quote]And the very last line
[quote]This isn’t a web forum vs nttp poll but to see if web forum users expected this and there feelings on it. I suspect most nttp users know they are sending it.
Seriously I haven’t got a clue how you reached that unless it was without reading I even admitted my bias…
Regardless of my own thoughts of nttp. I really don’t like the fact that Annie Anybody and Jo Everybody can associate my UserID with my IP.
To be brutishly honest I think there is some NTTP participants that give more to the forum many moderators and would be missed.
Then pander me for a minute, just one lets say that for some god unforseen reason this was actually taken on board and any posts from the forum had a generic IP. May I ask exactly how this would affect NTTP usage.
And yes you and AB both are participants that I suspect would be greatly missed and the type of contributors that the old foums where missing.