4 ms·
The problem is that binaries are transferred in a non-binary manner. Base64 was the preferred way. Except it was also used to push images back and forth as well
by crankylinuxuser 7y ago
The problem is that binaries are transferred in a non-binary manner. Base64 was the preferred way. Except it was also used to push images back and forth as well for pertinent conversations.
For any method of communication, you can transfer content that someone else tries to prevent.
- chalst 7y agoUpper bounds on per-user bandwidth would work. Implementing this is nontrivial, but it's an essentially easier problem than spam.
- kick 7y agoWho cares about piracy? It exists over HTTP, too, and in a far greater volume than a modern USENET-equivalent could ever hope to achieve, and it's not like ISPs need to be sucked up to anymore: they've already taken their ball and went home on this matter, proverbially-speaking.
- shadowgovt 7y agoUpper bounds on per-user bandwidth would help. Though for significant messages, one still has sock-puppet accounts (or aggregates of like-minded individuals with copies of the source message pooling their resources). And, of course, upper bounds create knock-on restrictions (should the system be allowed to transmit public-domain large-volume data? A bandwidth limit blocks that "valid" use too). It's fun to game-theory how such limits can be broken.
- ape4 7y agoThey were uuencoded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uuencoding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uuencoding