tm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Woodchuck Bill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The proponent certainly left a bad taste in my mouth after his
little ...
Too much information.
LOL. Get your mind out of the gutter. ;-)
--
Bill
---(end
Vern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Marc G. Fournier wrote in Msg [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
it can't *hurt* to have the group ...
I respectfully disagree with you, Marc. :)
The PGSQL* hierarchy is now well distributed, and there is no need
for a comp.* group. If
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joshua D. Drake) wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So the current state of affairs is that we have the gated, official
pgsql.* newsgroups, and the comp.* stuff is not gated in either
direction?
Yes.
If that's the case, there should be a weekly/monthly reminder posting
David Harmon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 00:29:40 + (UTC) in news.groups, Marc G.
Fournier From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote,
The pgsql.* hierarchy is a not a private one, it is a public one
carried by several of the large usenet servers.
What are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jan Wieck) wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 11/30/2004 2:37 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't care WHO you are. I've already asked
you once to stay out of my email. Further emails from you will be
reported to both Yahoo and Comcast as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Trying to sway the vote?
There has been no CFV. During an RFD, he's completely entitled to try
to persuade others people to vote yes or no when the time comes.
I didn't say that he was not entitled.
Bill, is it possible for you to drop
Marc G. Fournier From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 30 Nov 2004 22:55:00 GMT, Woodchuck Bill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Marc G. Fournier From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Just as an FYI ... the latest RFD is for *one
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joel) wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
(crosspost added to news.groups)
As long as the web page maintainers are going to the trouble of taking a
survey, might I (at the risk of being tarred and feathered :-p) suggest
a more thorough survey?
Suggested questions:
(1) If
Marc G. Fournier From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Harris) writes:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If there was an official newsgroup for postgresql, would you switch
to using Usenet from using the mailing lists?
As a side note,
Andrew - Supernews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 2004-11-29, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marc G Fournier From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Stanford is now carrying the groups ... Russ got me to fix a problem
with my checkgroups message to deal with how INN
Woodchuck Bill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Adam H. Kerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
news:pIOdndYMRqGJ7DrcRVn- [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Are these meant to be worldwide Usenet groups
or newsgroups local to your server?
Supernews is already carrying all 29 of the new
Gary L. Burnore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm posting to a USENet group. I shouldn't be receiving an email from
the list. If the groups had been generated as MODERATED newsgroups,
my post wouldn't hit MY spool, then go to HIS server for some
approval, later to
Gary L. Burnore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I just realized what a bad name pgsql.* is for a hierarchy. If someone
wants to look for a newgroup for PostgreSQL, he will type that
word/string into his newsreader and it will not bring up any of these
newsgroups.
Newbies
Marc G. Fournier From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Robert McClenon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Another thread on the topic of this RFD was cross-posted to
pgsql.general. I didn't notice that it was cross-posted, and so
cross-posted a reply to news.groups and
Robert McClenon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 27 Nov 2004 18:32:35 GMT, Woodchuck Bill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Robert McClenon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
However, I will vote NO on the new group, because
it will in my opinion be harmful
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary L. Burnore) wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
At 03:44 PM 11/23/2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Did you warn the proponent of comp.databases.postgresql.* that you
were going to do this? Did you read any of the arguments for and
against a completely separate hierarchy that
Robert McClenon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I have not checked that out, but am very pleased to hear it.
Have a look..
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=enlr=group=comp.databases.postgresql
Just goes to show you, there are things that can be done about rogue
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Patrick B Kelly) wrote in news:E55E257B-3D95-11D9-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The list has been deluged with
countless angry process oriented messages filled with vitriol and
devoid of any content regarding the purpose of this forum, we have been
bombarded with profanity, and
Patrick May [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Interesting. Does this affect anyone's views on the group name
(yes, I'm looking at you, Ms. Morgan) or is the feeling that existing
users wouldn't switch to a new name, even if it were archived by
Google?
If they were to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marc G. Fournier) wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Due to recent action by Google concerning the
comp.databases.postgresql.* hierarchy, we are going to make some
changes that should satisfy just about everyone ... over the next
24hrs or so, traffic *to*
Gary L. Burnore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
And not helping postgres since less NSP's will carry the groups and
the postgres message.
It's ok. Mysql's better anyway.
Gary, why do your posts show up twice in postgresql.general? Different
message IDs for each of the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Seymour) wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The key words there being think about, IMO. For example, the part
about would have even more prestige. Really? My news server at work
doesn't carry such newsgroups at all. Which is pretty much the point
somebody else made
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Patrick B Kelly) wrote in news:E55E257B-3D95-11D9-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Nov 23, 2004, at 3:59 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:37:56 -0400 (AST), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Marc G. Fournier) wrote:
Due to recent action by Google concerning the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The other issue is that I would like to add the other postgresql
groups for consideration to be included into the big 8. However there
are quite a few of them, and I don't know if all of them deserve to be
there. They are all under
Mike Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Wouldn't a good solution to the bogus and rogue groups be a creation
of a new domain in the big 8? Suppose there was a rogue.* domain.
All the groups that were rogue would be placed there by the usenet
providers. Therefore those
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marc G. Fournier) wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Unless its spam, it goes through ... I don't (nor have I ever) refused a
post based on content other then spam ... even if its anti-PostgreSQL
*shrug*
The problem with the system is that the spam *all* gets posted to
Andrew - Supernews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Marc, please stop removing news.groups from your replies.
He's posting to the mailing list; he probably can't avoid dropping the
crosspost.
He can make a nominal effort and post *something* to news.groups.
--
Bill
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The UDP would be aimed at the news server(s) at which the mailing list
is being improperly gated. It is their responsibility to reject
improper traffic. As these same servers would also likely carry the
group in question, I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Stanley) wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Obviously there is nothing wrong with it. As I seem to recall, one of
the admins who (routinely?) created bogus groups is now part of the NAN
moderating team.
Who would that be?
--
Bill
---(end of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
That's his perogative. His server, his rules (or whoever's he set the
groups up on). We don't have the right to dictate what groups he puts
on his news server. If someone else decides to take a feed from him
and allow the group on their
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Who's being abused here? Russ Co.? By their own admission, no.
The Big-8? No, the groups don't exist in the Big-8? The existing
readers? No, they can read the group. The rest of the world? No
more so than those that don't have groups
Polarhound [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:kM2dnd_0xq99yw3cRVn-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
(BTW, since the person responsible for setting up the rogue groups
appears to be aware of the discussion to legitimize the groups, why
isn't he taking part in it?)
That's my whole point.. He's responded in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marc G. Fournier) wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As a side note ... if/when the CFV is called and those 4 are
approved/rejected, that will not change what is available on
news.postgresql.org, it will only improve the propogation of those 4
specific groups so that more
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kathy Morgan) wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Max [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, I've seen these forged emails on the mailing list, plus a few
other colorfull ones. You should see that people on the list are not
completely against this idea, and they are not fooled by
Mike Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
berlin.de:
Uhh. My head is spinning with the complexity of this. Marc is fine with
being in the big eight official *if* the groups stay the same and it
doesn't affect the mailing list. This will just have to be a bug in the
system if
Mike Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I cannot handle the volume of email that a mailing list would place
on my
inbox.
Ever heard of a digest version?
--
Bill
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: the planner will ignore
Devin L. Ganger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED], seems very knowledgable about this,
and I would be pleased if you could mail the postgresql list person
about this discussion and Russ's email address.
Russ is a busy person; don't be so
Klaas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
No that is not what I'm proposing. Each group MUST go through the
RFD and CFV seperately. I started off with the most popular group
first. After It was done, I would have started on the rest.
Not true. It is actually rather
Mike Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
berlin.de:
Since we have the discussion going, someone mentioned that the group name
should be comp.databases.postgresql. I think this is a good name and I'd
like to see what everyone thinks of it.
Much better, especially if you are
39 matches
Mail list logo
