Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
Keith Turner wrote: Thank you for your response. What may be obvious to some isn't always to others. It's never a bad idea to remind users how you want your data formatted if there are roadblocks that are not obvious on the surface. Most newsreaders, not just Thunderbird, use the posts' headers to support the threading feature - whether or not that's obvious to one as a new user notwithstanding. It is what it is. It won't be obvious to the newcomer what the problem is until someone lets them know. It would be unfortunate if that newcomer were to take such education as a scolding and take offense. -- Lew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org/
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
Gregory Williamson wrote: Well, off to top post on some other forums ... ;-) statman wrote: Mr. Picky Mode Should that not be Well, off to post on some other fora? /Mr. Picky Mode 8¬ No. It /can/ be, but it /needn't/ be. Actually, saying fora is variously considered affected, pompous or silly, and is done either out of excessive pedantry or humorous rhetorical style. As in this instance. The English plural forums is preferred to the Latin plural fora in normal English usage. * Ref: Modern English Usage, 2nd Edition, ed. Sir Ernest Gowers, Oxford 1968 (article '-um', p.658). From http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/forum -- Lew You want picky? I got picky! ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
Lew wrote: Trevor Talbot wrote: On 12/11/07, Guy Rouillier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now, a gripe rightly attributable to the to PG mailing list setup is that every time I reply, I have to: (1) use reply all, because reply is set to go to the individual rather than the list (2) delete all the individual addressees so only the list is left, then change that from CC to TO Actually, another convention on this list is to reply all and leave the individual addresses. I'm really glad that people don't do that on this list. I /hate/ getting individual email copies from list posters. I'm going to read it on the list; why in the world would I want that clutter in my inbox? Huh, you know you can de-duplicate them at your end, right? Actually I prefer to get the private copy, so that I get the email immediately even if the list server is down or slow. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/CTMLCN8V17R4 Ninguna manada de bestias tiene una voz tan horrible como la humana (Orual) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org/
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
Gregory Williamson wrote: * Get a life -- how people post is _trivial_. *content* over *form* ! Beating dead horses is of no interest other than the inherent joy in the thing. Deal with the fact that an open mail ist will have users from *all* backgrounds and origins and it you can't make everything a fight. Pick the most important battles. Top-posting is not the worst sin. (not reading the manuals is the by the worst transgression, IMHO). Posting in HTML is kind of a no-no. And for those who really care, email etiquette in painful detail here http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855. Hijacking seems to be more of a Bozo No-No than top posting. Or maybe that's just me. Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information and must be protected in accordance with those provisions. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. (My corporate masters made me say this.) Are they aware that your confidential messages are on a public board? Are they aware that routinely and indiscriminately marking all communications as confidential when some go to a public venue, can reduce or even eliminate the protection of confidentiality from such marked communications in certain jurisidictions? IANAL, but as I understand it from /The Hacker Crackdown/ by Bruce Sterling, it figured into the defense of a BBS operator accused of disseminating confidential ATT information in the U.S. ca. 1990. -- Lew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
Lew wrote: Trevor Talbot wrote: On 12/11/07, Guy Rouillier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now, a gripe rightly attributable to the to PG mailing list setup is that every time I reply, I have to: (1) use reply all, because reply is set to go to the individual rather than the list (2) delete all the individual addressees so only the list is left, then change that from CC to TO Actually, another convention on this list is to reply all and leave the individual addresses. I'm really glad that people don't do that on this list. I /hate/ getting individual email copies from list posters. I'm going to read it on the list; why in the world would I want that clutter in my inbox? That's why my email address here is a separate one just for Usenet; I can pretty much ignore replies that come directly to it. Actually that's set up that way (I'm purely guessing here) for people who subscribe on a digest basis, so they can still receive timely replies to their issues without having to read every message as it comes through. I think. Plus, if you'd like (I do), set up a folder for this list, and set up a mail rule that forwards anything with [GENERAL] in the name to the folder. Keeps it nice and clean (even with a couple other pg lists, and a couple apache lists). -- Tom Hart IT Specialist Cooperative Federal 723 Westcott St. Syracuse, NY 13210 (315) 471-1116 ext. 202 (315) 476-0567 (fax) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
Trevor Talbot wrote: On 12/11/07, Guy Rouillier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now, a gripe rightly attributable to the to PG mailing list setup is that every time I reply, I have to: (1) use reply all, because reply is set to go to the individual rather than the list (2) delete all the individual addressees so only the list is left, then change that from CC to TO Actually, another convention on this list is to reply all and leave the individual addresses. I'm really glad that people don't do that on this list. I /hate/ getting individual email copies from list posters. I'm going to read it on the list; why in the world would I want that clutter in my inbox? That's why my email address here is a separate one just for Usenet; I can pretty much ignore replies that come directly to it. -- Lew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
Leif B. Kristensen wrote: I me too. t ' On Wednesday 12. December 2007, Gregory Stark wrote: s Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thomas Kellerer wrote: n Joshua D. Drake, 11.12.2007 17:43: o O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If t you are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to t not top post. h I personally find non-trimmed bottom postings at lot more annoying e than top-postings. But then that's probably just me. It's not just you. Much as I am annoyed by top-posting, I am much w more so by people who top-post at the bottom. Hey, did I say o something stupid? No -- think about it. These guys do exactly the r same thing as top-posters, except it is much worse because the s actual text they wrote is harder to find. t -- w Alvaro Herrera a http://www.flickr.com/photos/alvherre/ In fact, the basic problem y with Perl 5's subroutines is that they're not crufty enough, so the cruft leaks out into user-defined code instead, by the Conservation o of Cruft Principle. (Larry Wall, Apocalypse 6) f ---(end of r broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our e extensive FAQ? p l http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq y I agree. i n g -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
On 12/15/07, Richard Huxton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: L Leif B. Kristensen wrote: O I me too. L t ' On Wednesday 12. December 2007, Gregory Stark wrote: s Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thomas Kellerer wrote: n Joshua D. Drake, 11.12.2007 17:43: o O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If t you are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to t not top post. h I personally find non-trimmed bottom postings at lot more annoying e than top-postings. But then that's probably just me. It's not just you. Much as I am annoyed by top-posting, I am much w more so by people who top-post at the bottom. Hey, did I say o something stupid? No -- think about it. These guys do exactly the r same thing as top-posters, except it is much worse because the s actual text they wrote is harder to find. t -- ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org/
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 01:55:04PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: I'm really glad that people don't do that on this list. I /hate/ getting individual email copies from list posters. I'm going to read it on the list; why in the world would I want that clutter in my inbox? Huh, you know you can de-duplicate them at your end, right? Actually I prefer to get the private copy, so that I get the email immediately even if the list server is down or slow. Or even better, the list server has options like eliminatecc and rewritefrom and others that can be set on a per user basis, so you can configure the list exactly how you like it... No need to complain to anyone else that it not your preferred way. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://svana.org/kleptog/ Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. -- John F Kennedy signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 01:55:04PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: I'm really glad that people don't do that on this list. I /hate/ getting individual email copies from list posters. I'm going to read it on the list; why in the world would I want that clutter in my inbox? Huh, you know you can de-duplicate them at your end, right? Actually I prefer to get the private copy, so that I get the email immediately even if the list server is down or slow. Or even better, the list server has options like eliminatecc and rewritefrom and others that can be set on a per user basis, so you can configure the list exactly how you like it... No need to complain to anyone else that it not your preferred way. Have a nice day, Let's have three cheers for an answer that works for everybody :-) (can we stop posting on this thread now? pretty please?) -- Tom Hart IT Specialist Cooperative Federal 723 Westcott St. Syracuse, NY 13210 (315) 471-1116 ext. 202 (315) 476-0567 (fax) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
On 11/12/2007, Obe, Regina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well said Greg. I have the same problem too of having a crippled mail reader :) Really I find mid posting hard to follow especially if I'm the one that posted the question. I hope we aren't going to hit people with hammers over this minor infraction. It really makes one feel unwelcome. I guess we have beaten this horse enough though. -- ** Hmm Can't stop laughing I think you managed to break every rule in the book with that post. Peter.
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
Peter Childs caused electrons to shape a message: On 11/12/2007, Obe, Regina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well said Greg. I have the same problem too of having a crippled mail reader :) Really I find mid posting hard to follow especially if I'm the one that posted the question. I hope we aren't going to hit people with hammers over this minor infraction. It really makes one feel unwelcome. I guess we have beaten this horse enough though. -- Hmm Can't stop laughing I think you managed to break every rule in the book with that post. Peter. And as they say where I come from, there is _no_ point to beating a dead horse, aside from the sheer joy of the thing. Seriously -- top posting bad, bottom posting good also misses all kinds of points -- intelligent quoting and interspersing comments / answers where they belong is the ticket, when it can be done. Well, off to top post on some other forums ... ;-) Greg W. yadda yadda
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
Guy Rouillier wrote: (2) delete all the individual addressees so only the list is left, then change that from CC to TO Why do you do that? It's unnecessary. (3) change my from identity to the one used for the list; although the list always posts to the identity I have set up for mailing lists, for some reason Thunderbird selects a different identity when I reply. Probably the easiest way to handle this on the postgresql.org server side is to configure the other identity as an alias, so that it allows you to post unmoderated with both. For this, see http://mail.postgresql.org/mj/mj_wwwusr?domain=postgresql.org -- Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.advogato.org/person/alvherre I love the Postgres community. It's all about doing things _properly_. :-) (David Garamond) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
Joshua D. Drake, 11.12.2007 17:43: O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If you are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to not top post. I personally find non-trimmed bottom postings at lot more annoying than top-postings. But then that's probably just me. Thomas ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org/
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
Thomas Kellerer wrote: Joshua D. Drake, 11.12.2007 17:43: O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If you are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to not top post. I personally find non-trimmed bottom postings at lot more annoying than top-postings. But then that's probably just me. It's not just you. Much as I am annoyed by top-posting, I am much more so by people who top-post at the bottom. Hey, did I say something stupid? No -- think about it. These guys do exactly the same thing as top-posters, except it is much worse because the actual text they wrote is harder to find. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.flickr.com/photos/alvherre/ In fact, the basic problem with Perl 5's subroutines is that they're not crufty enough, so the cruft leaks out into user-defined code instead, by the Conservation of Cruft Principle. (Larry Wall, Apocalypse 6) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thomas Kellerer wrote: Joshua D. Drake, 11.12.2007 17:43: O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If you are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to not top post. I personally find non-trimmed bottom postings at lot more annoying than top-postings. But then that's probably just me. It's not just you. Much as I am annoyed by top-posting, I am much more so by people who top-post at the bottom. Hey, did I say something stupid? No -- think about it. These guys do exactly the same thing as top-posters, except it is much worse because the actual text they wrote is harder to find. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.flickr.com/photos/alvherre/ In fact, the basic problem with Perl 5's subroutines is that they're not crufty enough, so the cruft leaks out into user-defined code instead, by the Conservation of Cruft Principle. (Larry Wall, Apocalypse 6) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq I agree. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's 24x7 Postgres support! ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
Gregory Williamson wrote: Peter Childs caused electrons to shape a message: On 11/12/2007, Obe, Regina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well said Greg. I have the same problem too of having a crippled mail reader :) Really I find mid posting hard to follow especially if I'm the one that posted the question. I hope we aren't going to hit people with hammers over this minor infraction. It really makes one feel unwelcome. I guess we have beaten this horse enough though. -- Hmm Can't stop laughing I think you managed to break every rule in the book with that post. Peter. And as they say where I come from, there is _no_ point to beating a dead horse, aside from the sheer joy of the thing. Seriously -- top posting bad, bottom posting good also misses all kinds of points -- intelligent quoting and interspersing comments / answers where they belong is the ticket, when it can be done. Well, off to top post on some other forums ... ;-) Greg W. yadda yadda Mr. Picky Mode Should that not be Well, off to post on some other fora? /Mr. Picky Mode 8¬ Mike ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org/
Re #1: top posting (was: [GENERAL] Hijack!)
You criticize that Joshua's reply was dogmatism but was yours any better?
I think people can see through these weak ad hominem arguments; no matter how
much you try to cast the technique in a negative light, that doesn't really
make it wrong, and in fact, there are many reasons to encourage people to do
it (bandwidth saving alone is one benefit)
Adding something to the FAQ/Subscribe message certainly couldnt hurt.
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 12:23, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 09:00:05AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:49:54 -0500
Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a mailing list, perhaps one can argue that the conventions simply
have to be followed. But I know I find it pretty annoying to get 36
lines of quoted text followed by something like, No: see the manual,
section x.y.z.
That is what snip is for :)
I don't think top posting is always the crime it's made to be (and I
get a little tired of lectures to others about it on these lists).
I can appreciate that but regardless of various opinions (mine
included). It is the PostgreSQL communities decision and I believe
except for newbies and a few long timers who should know better,
everyone avoids top posting.
Top posting makes it hard to read.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
Simply replying to an argument with an assertion to the contrary is, I
think, dogmatism. The argument for top posting is that it is _easier_ to
read for certain kinds of cases. I have already rehearsed those arguments;
I think they are both sound and valid, but they don't consider every
situation, and so they also lead to a wrong conclusion sometimes.
I would argue that this message is harder to read than if I'd just replied
at the top. It's pointlessly long -- but without including everything, you
wouldn't have all the context, and you might have missed something. (The
context argument is, of course, the usual one favoured by
call-and-response/bottom posting advocates. So, your context is above.)
As for the snip claim, it has several problems:
1.It is easy, by injudicious, careless, or malicious use of cutting
from others' posts, to change the main focus of their argument, and thereby
draw the thread in a completely new direction.
2.Owing to (1), snipping is a favourite tactic of trollers.
3.Owing to (1), snipping is a favourite target for cranks, who
immediately turn such threads into long _ad hominems_ about the malicious
slurs being heaped on them by others.
4.Poor editors often obscure enough in their editing that they provide
no more elucidation than nothing, and rather less than there might be with
a top-posted response and a complete copy of the earlier message below it.
I can, of course, produce equally good arguments for not top posting. My
point is not that we should change the convention; but rather, that we
should accept that this is a convention and nothing more. It makes reading
easier for you because it's the convention with which you're familiar. If
you were used to the alternative, you'd find this convention annoying and
pointlessly noisy.
I think it's worthwhile putting a note in the welcome-to-new-subscribers
that this community doesn't like top posting, and that top posting may well
cause your messages to be ignored. Those claims are both true, and we
don't need to justify it with jumped-up claims about the objective
superiority of one method over another. I think we should also avoid being
too doctrinaire about it.
A
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
me too. On Wednesday 12. December 2007, Gregory Stark wrote: Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thomas Kellerer wrote: Joshua D. Drake, 11.12.2007 17:43: O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If you are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to not top post. I personally find non-trimmed bottom postings at lot more annoying than top-postings. But then that's probably just me. It's not just you. Much as I am annoyed by top-posting, I am much more so by people who top-post at the bottom. Hey, did I say something stupid? No -- think about it. These guys do exactly the same thing as top-posters, except it is much worse because the actual text they wrote is harder to find. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.flickr.com/photos/alvherre/ In fact, the basic problem with Perl 5's subroutines is that they're not crufty enough, so the cruft leaks out into user-defined code instead, by the Conservation of Cruft Principle. (Larry Wall, Apocalypse 6) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq I agree. -- Leif Biberg Kristensen | Registered Linux User #338009 http://solumslekt.org/ | Cruising with Gentoo/KDE My Jazz Jukebox: http://www.last.fm/user/leifbk/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
Em Tuesday 11 December 2007 15:47:27 Joshua D. Drake escreveu: On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:37:27 + Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gregory Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information and must be protected in accordance with those provisions. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. FWIW this would be another item on the netiquette FAQ. O.k. but the above is *not* user controlled. I think the community needs to suck it up and live with that. And the good thing is that the indiscriminate use of those disclaimers tend to make them void when really needed. After all, if there are lots of legitimate and intended posts to public mailing lists, who would guess something that is there shouldn't be? :-) Always a good reference: http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ -- Jorge Godoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
Em Wednesday 12 December 2007 10:39:32 Alvaro Herrera escreveu: It's not just you. Much as I am annoyed by top-posting, I am much more so by people who top-post at the bottom. Hey, did I say something stupid? No -- think about it. These guys do exactly the same thing as top-posters, except it is much worse because the actual text they wrote is harder to find. The worst thing is people who bottom-posts at top-posted messages... Can you see the mess? -- Jorge Godoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
[GENERAL] Hijack!
Someone scolding wrote: Please don't hijack other threads, the original thread was 'TIMESTAMP difference'. (don't answer to an arbitrary other mail and change the subject. Every mail contains references-header) I apologize; I had assumed that the threads were simply grouped by subject. If this is such a problem, probably it should be laid out on the list information page, otherwise how is anyone to know? Putting this information here would be a good thing: http://www.postgresql.org/community/lists/ Keith (not scolding, but Hijack is an accusative term)
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
Keith Turner wrote: Someone scolding wrote: Please don't hijack other threads, the original thread was 'TIMESTAMP difference'. I think it was probably intended as a *gentle* scolding. We try to be as polite as possible on the PG lists. Particularly important given their international nature of course. (don't answer to an arbitrary other mail and change the subject. Every mail contains references-header) Yep - Thunderbird (for example) threads messages by this header. Your original question was hidden two layers down and I'd never have seen it if I hadn't been reading the one you replied to. That's the reason why people say not to do it - if you reply to an existing question many people will miss yours. I apologize; I had assumed that the threads were simply grouped by subject. If this is such a problem, probably it should be laid out on the list information page, otherwise how is anyone to know? It's one of those common knowledge things that are obvious to everyone who's done it once themselves. It's just part of the nature of how email works. Google around mailing list etiquette and you should see plenty of guidelines. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
Thank you for your response. What may be obvious to some isn't always to others. It's never a bad idea to remind users how you want your data formatted if there are roadblocks that are not obvious on the surface. Thanks again... K. -Original Message- From: Richard Huxton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 6:58 AM To: Keith Turner Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Hijack! Keith Turner wrote: Someone scolding wrote: Please don't hijack other threads, the original thread was 'TIMESTAMP difference'. I think it was probably intended as a *gentle* scolding. We try to be as polite as possible on the PG lists. Particularly important given their international nature of course. (don't answer to an arbitrary other mail and change the subject. Every mail contains references-header) Yep - Thunderbird (for example) threads messages by this header. Your original question was hidden two layers down and I'd never have seen it if I hadn't been reading the one you replied to. That's the reason why people say not to do it - if you reply to an existing question many people will miss yours. I apologize; I had assumed that the threads were simply grouped by subject. If this is such a problem, probably it should be laid out on the list information page, otherwise how is anyone to know? It's one of those common knowledge things that are obvious to everyone who's done it once themselves. It's just part of the nature of how email works. Google around mailing list etiquette and you should see plenty of guidelines. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
am Tue, dem 11.12.2007, um 14:57:57 + mailte Richard Huxton folgendes: Keith Turner wrote: Someone scolding wrote: I wrote this ;-) Please don't hijack other threads, the original thread was 'TIMESTAMP difference'. I think it was probably intended as a *gentle* scolding. We try to be as Yes, of course. It was not my intention to displease someone. polite as possible on the PG lists. Particularly important given their international nature of course. I'd like this PG lists. I know, my english is very ugly because it isn't my native language. But PG is a really great Open Source Project and it has a really large and userfriendly communitity. And, of course, i can learn more about english and PG and i wish to help others if i can. It's one of those common knowledge things that are obvious to everyone who's done it once themselves. It's just part of the nature of how email works. Google around mailing list etiquette and you should see plenty of guidelines. Right. There are other hints, for instance all about top-posting style. If i search the archive and read answers and i see (i read normally from top to bottom) first the answer and later the question, so this is hard to understand. The rules for mailing lists etiquette are useful and i wish, more people would follow this rules. Andreas -- Andreas Kretschmer Kontakt: Heynitz: 035242/47150, D1: 0160/7141639 (mehr: - Header) GnuPG-ID: 0x3FFF606C, privat 0x7F4584DA http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:48:35 -0800 Keith Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I apologize; I had assumed that the threads were simply grouped by subject. If this is such a problem, probably it should be laid out on the list information page, otherwise how is anyone to know? Because it is standard practice on the internet to have lists-headers? And that is how every standard mail client deals with it? Joshua D. Drake - -- The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/ Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate SELECT 'Training', 'Consulting' FROM vendor WHERE name = 'CMD' -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHXrilATb/zqfZUUQRAn1CAJwM5s5qBv9SvnWN3G2vyKtLZkGchACcCkUu DlOPVMkYYBaoGgUUAuZFTGg= =Y4IR -END PGP SIGNATURE- ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
On 11/12/2007 14:57, Richard Huxton wrote: It's one of those common knowledge things that are obvious to everyone who's done it once themselves. It's just part of the nature of how email works. Google around mailing list etiquette and you should see plenty of guidelines. It might be a good idea to append a mini-FAQ, covering these items, to the automatic email which is sent out to new list subscribers. For example, something along these lines: // Please note in particular the following points of netiquette: * Don't top-post, as it makes for confusing reading. * Don't start a new thread by replying to an old one, because [insert suitable technical explanation here]. Failure to observe the above may result in your question going unanswered. // Ray. --- Raymond O'Donnell, Director of Music, Galway Cathedral, Ireland [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:31:40 + Raymond O'Donnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: // Please note in particular the following points of netiquette: * Don't top-post, as it makes for confusing reading. * Don't start a new thread by replying to an old one, because [insert suitable technical explanation here]. Failure to observe the above may result in your question going unanswered. // O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If you are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to not top post. However, I would also note that in windows world, it is very common to top post. I am constantly retraining very smart, just very ignorant customers. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake - -- The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/ Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate SELECT 'Training', 'Consulting' FROM vendor WHERE name = 'CMD' -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHXr5AATb/zqfZUUQRAolQAJ9MhHfioLWcA9iacC2U2yxpymk+twCcCU6k 6BjjQP25qcdqjfRzsVFFFqM= =DYpd -END PGP SIGNATURE- ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
top posting (was: [GENERAL] Hijack!)
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 08:43:44AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If you are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to not top post. There are those who argue persuasively that emailing is more like letter writing than conversation, and that it is better to reply with one single set of paragraphs than with a set of replies interspersed with quotes. Moreover, under such circumstances, it is utterly silly to quote the entire original argument first, because the reader then has to plough through a long block of reproduced content to get to the novel stuff. On a mailing list, perhaps one can argue that the conventions simply have to be followed. But I know I find it pretty annoying to get 36 lines of quoted text followed by something like, No: see the manual, section x.y.z. I don't think top posting is always the crime it's made to be (and I get a little tired of lectures to others about it on these lists). A ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: top posting (was: [GENERAL] Hijack!)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:49:54 -0500 Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On a mailing list, perhaps one can argue that the conventions simply have to be followed. But I know I find it pretty annoying to get 36 lines of quoted text followed by something like, No: see the manual, section x.y.z. That is what snip is for :) I don't think top posting is always the crime it's made to be (and I get a little tired of lectures to others about it on these lists). I can appreciate that but regardless of various opinions (mine included). It is the PostgreSQL communities decision and I believe except for newbies and a few long timers who should know better, everyone avoids top posting. Top posting makes it hard to read. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake - -- The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/ Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate SELECT 'Training', 'Consulting' FROM vendor WHERE name = 'CMD' -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHXsIXATb/zqfZUUQRAni5AJ4n4UHJVrMyPmv55gAsBzk8IlSB/ACgienh y+lxmDq+wIlAxJCD3J5v4eU= =YbQ1 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Joshua D. Drake Sent: Tue 12/11/2007 9:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Hijack! -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:31:40 + Raymond O'Donnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: // Please note in particular the following points of netiquette: * Don't top-post, as it makes for confusing reading. * Don't start a new thread by replying to an old one, because [insert suitable technical explanation here]. Failure to observe the above may result in your question going unanswered. // O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If you are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to not top post. However, I would also note that in windows world, it is very common to top post. I am constantly retraining very smart, just very ignorant customers. * Not all mail clients deal well with inline/bottom quoting (manually added to lines here since my mail reader does not do so automatically -- imagine doing so for a complex quote!) * Top posting is very common in companies with lots of blackberry (etc) users since they seem to see only tops easily. * my mail client *always* starts at the top of the message. For rapid/internal mails top posting works better because the answer/most recent is always at the top. Complex messages do deserve in-posting but not always easy, especially if you have to do it manually). Does your mail browser always start at the bottom ? I always see the top of a message first. Simple threads work very well this way -- complicated ones collapse under top-posting. * a lot of us have to use what ever the company provides as mail server. Exchange sucks but I'd rather not quit my job just because _you_ have a problem reading mail that does not conform to the T to your expectations. And there is a limit to how much time I want to spend manually formatting your mail to respond to it. Note that a lot of postGIS mail list posts are top-posted and the complaint rate is vanishingly small. Yet somehow business clanks on. Imagine that! And I can't even use exchange/outlook -- web interface to Micro$soft really sucks. * Try to see the world from a perspective other that your own (admittedly superior) one ! Not everyone is so advanced. * Get a life -- how people post is _trivial_. *content* over *form* ! Beating dead horses is of no interest other than the inherent joy in the thing. Deal with the fact that an open mail ist will have users from *all* backgrounds and origins and it you can't make everything a fight. Pick the most important battles. Top-posting is not the worst sin. (not reading the manuals is the by the worst transgression, IMHO). And for those who really care, email etiquette in painful detail here http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855. Hijacking seems to be more of a Bozo No-No than top posting. Or maybe that's just me. Greg Williamson Senior DBA GlobeXplorer LLC, a DigitalGlobe company Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information and must be protected in accordance with those provisions. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. (My corporate masters made me say this.)
Re: top posting (was: [GENERAL] Hijack!)
On Dec 11, 2007 10:49 AM, Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 08:43:44AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If you are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to not top post. There are those who argue persuasively that emailing is more like letter writing than conversation, and that it is better to reply with one single set of paragraphs than with a set of replies interspersed with quotes. This would be true if we were writing to each other with letters of friendly correspondence. We generally are not, but instead are discussing technical issues. By chopping up the original post into bite sized pieces and interleaving our answers, we give context to our responses. Moreover, under such circumstances, it is utterly silly to quote the entire original argument first, because the reader then has to plough through a long block of reproduced content to get to the novel stuff. I do not believe anyone is arguing for including the entire previous post. In fact, most netiquette guides quite clearly state you should summarize the previous reponse instead of including it as one giant blob. On a mailing list, perhaps one can argue that the conventions simply have to be followed. The conventions exist for a reason, not unto themselves. It is far easier to have a technical conversation with interleaved quoting than with top or bottom posting. But I know I find it pretty annoying to get 36 lines of quoted text followed by something like, No: see the manual, section x.y.z. It is not made any better by having No: see the manual, section x.y.z at the top of 36 quoted lines. I don't think top posting is always the crime it's made to be (and I get a little tired of lectures to others about it on these lists). I agree. There are times it's just fine with me, like when someone is posting a Thanks! message. But when someone is asking a technical question, and someone has gone to the trouble to interleave their answers so that they have context, and then someone posts back, at the very top, well what about if change a to b? And you have no idea what he means without reading the whole thing, because there's no context. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
On Dec 11, 2007, at 8:43 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:31:40 + Raymond O'Donnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: // Please note in particular the following points of netiquette: * Don't top-post, as it makes for confusing reading. * Don't start a new thread by replying to an old one, because [insert suitable technical explanation here]. Failure to observe the above may result in your question going unanswered. // O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If you are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to not top post. However, I would also note that in windows world, it is very common to top post. I am constantly retraining very smart, just very ignorant customers. In the business world it's common to top-post and not cut previous content - and often appropriate, as it tends to be a communication between a smaller number of people, and the uncut content provides context for future reference. Those who rant about anyone who top posts, or state that you should never top-post are mostly clueless or arrogant, or are making over-broad generalizations. That's an entirely different thing to observing that while on the broader internet you should follow local etiquette, and that here (as on most technical lists that have a fair number of posters with an, uh, old-school background) part of that is the points listed above. (And I'd probably add and trim your response appropriately - removing stuff not needed for context, but leaving enough to have enough context). Cheers, Steve ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: top posting (was: [GENERAL] Hijack!)
Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On a mailing list, perhaps one can argue that the conventions simply have to be followed. But I know I find it pretty annoying to get 36 lines of quoted text followed by something like, No: see the manual, section x.y.z. Indeed, and that's why another one of the critical commandments is Thou shalt trim thy quotations. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: top posting (was: [GENERAL] Hijack!)
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 09:00:05AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:49:54 -0500 Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On a mailing list, perhaps one can argue that the conventions simply have to be followed. But I know I find it pretty annoying to get 36 lines of quoted text followed by something like, No: see the manual, section x.y.z. That is what snip is for :) I don't think top posting is always the crime it's made to be (and I get a little tired of lectures to others about it on these lists). I can appreciate that but regardless of various opinions (mine included). It is the PostgreSQL communities decision and I believe except for newbies and a few long timers who should know better, everyone avoids top posting. Top posting makes it hard to read. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake Simply replying to an argument with an assertion to the contrary is, I think, dogmatism. The argument for top posting is that it is _easier_ to read for certain kinds of cases. I have already rehearsed those arguments; I think they are both sound and valid, but they don't consider every situation, and so they also lead to a wrong conclusion sometimes. I would argue that this message is harder to read than if I'd just replied at the top. It's pointlessly long -- but without including everything, you wouldn't have all the context, and you might have missed something. (The context argument is, of course, the usual one favoured by call-and-response/bottom posting advocates. So, your context is above.) As for the snip claim, it has several problems: 1. It is easy, by injudicious, careless, or malicious use of cutting from others' posts, to change the main focus of their argument, and thereby draw the thread in a completely new direction. 2. Owing to (1), snipping is a favourite tactic of trollers. 3. Owing to (1), snipping is a favourite target for cranks, who immediately turn such threads into long _ad hominems_ about the malicious slurs being heaped on them by others. 4. Poor editors often obscure enough in their editing that they provide no more elucidation than nothing, and rather less than there might be with a top-posted response and a complete copy of the earlier message below it. I can, of course, produce equally good arguments for not top posting. My point is not that we should change the convention; but rather, that we should accept that this is a convention and nothing more. It makes reading easier for you because it's the convention with which you're familiar. If you were used to the alternative, you'd find this convention annoying and pointlessly noisy. I think it's worthwhile putting a note in the welcome-to-new-subscribers that this community doesn't like top posting, and that top posting may well cause your messages to be ignored. Those claims are both true, and we don't need to justify it with jumped-up claims about the objective superiority of one method over another. I think we should also avoid being too doctrinaire about it. A ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
Gregory Williamson wrote: * Try to see the world from a perspective other that your own (admittedly superior) one ! Not everyone is so advanced. * Get a life -- how people post is _trivial_. *content* over *form* ! Beating dead horses is of no interest other than the inherent joy in the thing. Deal with the fact that an open mail ist will have users from *all* backgrounds and origins and it you can't make everything a fight. Pick the most important battles. Top-posting is not the worst sin. (not reading the manuals is the by the worst transgression, IMHO). But do not top post and don't reply to start a new thread aren't for the benefit of the people replying, it's for the benefit of the people asking the question. If I'm reading a message and all the information is to hand, I'm likely to have an insight / spot mistakes. It's the same as Have a relevant subject-line. The easier you make it for people to help you, the more help you'll get. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
Gregory Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information and must be protected in accordance with those provisions. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. FWIW this would be another item on the netiquette FAQ. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's On-Demand Production Tuning ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:03:39 -0700 Gregory Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, I would also note that in windows world, it is very common to top post. I am constantly retraining very smart, just very ignorant customers. * Not all mail clients deal well with inline/bottom quoting (manually added to lines here since my mail reader does not do so automatically -- imagine doing so for a complex quote!) Get a client that works? :) * Top posting is very common in companies with lots of blackberry (etc) users since they seem to see only tops easily. Uhmm yuck. O.k. you have a point here but still , yuck. * my mail client *always* starts at the top of the message. For I have yet to see a client where that is not configurable. * a lot of us have to use what ever the company provides as mail server. Exchange sucks but I'd rather not quit my job just because _you_ have a problem reading mail that does not conform to the T to Which is 100% fair. I would prefer you keep your job and work on convincing your company to get a clue :P. However... it isn't _me_ that has a problem reading your email. It is the _majority_ (by far) of the community that has a problem reading your email. If it was just me, I would tell you to tell me to go jump a fish. * Try to see the world from a perspective other that your own (admittedly superior) one ! Not everyone is so advanced. Please see my remark about community :). This really isn't about me. It is about generally accepted community practice. * Get a life -- how people post is _trivial_. *content* over *form* ! If I can't follow the content without effort, the form is utterly important. Or do you feel ebonics is valid as well? Just like code, the structure of content is of utmost importance to convey your meaning. If I have to bounce all over an email to figure out what you are having issues with, I will likely ignore that email. As will a great many of the most qualified people that are here to help you. And for those who really care, email etiquette in painful detail here http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855. Hijacking seems to be more of a Bozo No-No than top posting. Or maybe that's just me. Oh certainly Hi-jacking is bad as well. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake - -- The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/ Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate SELECT 'Training', 'Consulting' FROM vendor WHERE name = 'CMD' -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHXssjATb/zqfZUUQRAorwAJ9xMC7hXSkeTO5WdGOWAXecxW86aACbBu4U hVUpysURoOsSIvQmUAp2l/8= =Zs9r -END PGP SIGNATURE- ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
Steve Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In the business world it's common to top-post and not cut previous content - and often appropriate, as it tends to be a communication between a smaller number of people, and the uncut content provides context for future reference. Those who rant about anyone who top posts, or state that you should never top-post are mostly clueless or arrogant, or are making over-broad generalizations. Sure, there are contexts where that makes sense. On the PostgreSQL lists, however, you are writing for the archives as much as for the immediate readers (and if you don't understand that, *that* is the first thing you need to learn). The in-line, trimmed-quotations style is a lot easier to read when looking through a thread in the archives. Another advantage is that trimming quoted text reduces the number of useless matches when searching the archives. In short: this is the community consensus on how to post, there are good reasons for it, and we need to try to educate newbies in it. Not just say it's okay to ignore the conventions. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org/
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
In response to Gregory Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Joshua D. Drake Sent: Tue 12/11/2007 9:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Hijack! -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:31:40 + Raymond O'Donnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: // Please note in particular the following points of netiquette: * Don't top-post, as it makes for confusing reading. * Don't start a new thread by replying to an old one, because [insert suitable technical explanation here]. Failure to observe the above may result in your question going unanswered. // O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If you are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to not top post. However, I would also note that in windows world, it is very common to top post. I am constantly retraining very smart, just very ignorant customers. * Not all mail clients deal well with inline/bottom quoting (manually added to lines here since my mail reader does not do so automatically -- imagine doing so for a complex quote!) I recommend finding a better mail program. There are lots out there. Being forced to use substandard software in this day and age is a crime. * Top posting is very common in companies with lots of blackberry (etc) users since they seem to see only tops easily. Illicit drug use is very common in many areas. Denigration of women simply because they are women is common in many parts of the world. Crying everyone else is doing it is not a valid argument in my book. * my mail client *always* starts at the top of the message. For rapid/internal mails top posting works better because the answer/most recent is always at the top. Complex messages do deserve in-posting but not always easy, especially if you have to do it manually). Does your mail browser always start at the bottom ? I always see the top of a message first. Simple threads work very well this way -- complicated ones collapse under top-posting. This is a tired, overused argument that has little value. * a lot of us have to use what ever the company provides as mail server. Are you saying your mail server forces you to top post? That's a new one. Exchange sucks but I'd rather not quit my job just because _you_ have a problem reading mail that does not conform to the T to your expectations. And there is a limit to how much time I want to spend manually formatting your mail to respond to it. There's a limit to the amount of time I'm willing to spend trying to make heads/tails of an incomprehensible email. I think I deleted over 100 emails last week after seeing how badly formatted they were, even though I probably had the expertise to offer helpful information. I don't complain about people top-posting because I don't like it. I complain because it makes it more difficult for me to help, and thus less likely to do so, and I know that other, knowledgeable people feel the same way. I complain about top-posting because I know that the person is less likely to get helpful replies if they format their email poorly. Note that a lot of postGIS mail list posts are top-posted and the complaint rate is vanishingly small. Yet somehow business clanks on. Imagine that! And I can't even use exchange/outlook -- web interface to Micro$soft really sucks. Again, you're asking a community to offer you free help in spite of the fact that your tools suck. I'm not saying nobody will do it, all I'm saying is that if you make it too difficult for people to help, they won't. * Try to see the world from a perspective other that your own (admittedly superior) one ! Not everyone is so advanced. I do see it from other perspectives. I can still see it from the perspective of a Bill Moran from 10 years ago who got chewed out for top-posting because I didn't know anything and didn't get very good help because I didn't formulate good questions. That's a Bill Moran who learned _because_ people pointed out what I was doing wrong. I'm trying to pass the favor on when I point out problems with folks emails. I'm not trying to be an asshole -- that happens naturally. * Get a life Of course. How about: 1) I'll stop replying to emails that are formatted too badly to understand. 2) You accept that the rules of this community are no top posting and stop dragging this discussion out and accept that top-posted emails won't be responded to. Since nobody smart will offer advice on how to better format emails any more, the newbies will remain ignorant and never learn. That's obviously the best thing we can do for the community. Actually, I'd rather just continue to politely point out the rules of the list to newbies and help the world become a better place
Re: top posting (was: [GENERAL] Hijack!)
On Tuesday 11. December 2007, Andrew Sullivan wrote: I don't think top posting is always the crime it's made to be (and I get a little tired of lectures to others about it on these lists). It certainly isn't a crime. But it's a bit like thread hijacking in the sense that a well-formed inline posting is more likely to attract intelligent replies. I don't think that I'm the only one who tends to skip top posting replies on mailing lists. -- Leif Biberg Kristensen | Registered Linux User #338009 http://solumslekt.org/ | Cruising with Gentoo/KDE My Jazz Jukebox: http://www.last.fm/user/leifbk/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:37:27 + Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gregory Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information and must be protected in accordance with those provisions. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. FWIW this would be another item on the netiquette FAQ. O.k. but the above is *not* user controlled. I think the community needs to suck it up and live with that. Joshua D. Drake - -- The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/ Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate SELECT 'Training', 'Consulting' FROM vendor WHERE name = 'CMD' -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHXs0vATb/zqfZUUQRAt0jAKCn1nzb2sVPgYQmvJVCFYqSgoBR0gCfbr9Y UBA0ffWd3K/x+3zT0iDO6c8= =4OLK -END PGP SIGNATURE- ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
On Dec 11, 2007, at 9:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Steve Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In the business world it's common to top-post and not cut previous content - and often appropriate, as it tends to be a communication between a smaller number of people, and the uncut content provides context for future reference. Those who rant about anyone who top posts, or state that you should never top-post are mostly clueless or arrogant, or are making over- broad generalizations. Sure, there are contexts where that makes sense. On the PostgreSQL lists, however, you are writing for the archives as much as for the immediate readers (and if you don't understand that, *that* is the first thing you need to learn). The in-line, trimmed-quotations style is a lot easier to read when looking through a thread in the archives. Another advantage is that trimming quoted text reduces the number of useless matches when searching the archives. Which is pretty much what I said in the relevant context you removed. The risk of removing the wrong context is that it makes it look like we're disagreeing. :) In short: this is the community consensus on how to post, there are good reasons for it, and we need to try to educate newbies in it. Not just say it's okay to ignore the conventions. Cheers, Steve ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: top posting (was: [GENERAL] Hijack!)
On Dec 11, 2007 11:41 AM, Leif B. Kristensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It certainly isn't a crime. But it's a bit like thread hijacking in the sense that a well-formed inline posting is more likely to attract intelligent replies. I don't think that I'm the only one who tends to skip top posting replies on mailing lists. You're certainly not. I can't tell you how many times I've carefully replied to someone with inline quoting, only to get some top post response. I then ask them politely not to top post, fix the format, reply, and get another top post reponse. At that point I just move on to the next thread. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: top posting (was: [GENERAL] Hijack!)
On Dec 11, 2007, at 12:00 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: On Dec 11, 2007 11:41 AM, Leif B. Kristensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It certainly isn't a crime. But it's a bit like thread hijacking in the sense that a well-formed inline posting is more likely to attract intelligent replies. I don't think that I'm the only one who tends to skip top posting replies on mailing lists. You're certainly not. I can't tell you how many times I've carefully replied to someone with inline quoting, only to get some top post response. I then ask them politely not to top post, fix the format, reply, and get another top post reponse. At that point I just move on to the next thread. The funniest is when that second top post response is What's a top post? Erik Jones Software Developer | Emma® [EMAIL PROTECTED] 800.595.4401 or 615.292.5888 615.292.0777 (fax) Emma helps organizations everywhere communicate market in style. Visit us online at http://www.myemma.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re #3: top posting (was: [GENERAL] Hijack!)
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 12:23, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Simply replying to an argument with an assertion to the contrary is, I
think, dogmatism. The argument for top posting is that it is _easier_ to
read for certain kinds of cases. I have already rehearsed those arguments;
I think they are both sound and valid, but they don't consider every
situation, and so they also lead to a wrong conclusion sometimes.
You criticize that Joshua's reply was dogmatism but was yours any better?
I would argue that this message is harder to read than if I'd just replied
at the top. It's pointlessly long -- but without including everything, you
wouldn't have all the context, and you might have missed something. (The
context argument is, of course, the usual one favoured by
call-and-response/bottom posting advocates. So, your context is above.)
As for the snip claim, it has several problems:
1.It is easy, by injudicious, careless, or malicious use of cutting
from others' posts, to change the main focus of their argument, and thereby
draw the thread in a completely new direction.
2.Owing to (1), snipping is a favourite tactic of trollers.
3.Owing to (1), snipping is a favourite target for cranks, who
immediately turn such threads into long _ad hominems_ about the malicious
slurs being heaped on them by others.
I think people can see through these weak ad hominem arguments; no matter how
much you try to cast the technique in a negative light, that doesn't really
make it wrong, and in fact, there are many reasons to encourage people to do
it (bandwidth saving alone is one benefit)
snip
I think it's worthwhile putting a note in the welcome-to-new-subscribers
that this community doesn't like top posting, and that top posting may well
cause your messages to be ignored. Those claims are both true, and we
don't need to justify it with jumped-up claims about the objective
superiority of one method over another. I think we should also avoid being
too doctrinaire about it.
Adding something to the FAQ/Subscribe message certainly couldnt hurt.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re #2: top posting (was: [GENERAL] Hijack!)
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 12:23, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 09:00:05AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:49:54 -0500
Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a mailing list, perhaps one can argue that the conventions simply
have to be followed. But I know I find it pretty annoying to get 36
lines of quoted text followed by something like, No: see the manual,
section x.y.z.
That is what snip is for :)
I don't think top posting is always the crime it's made to be (and I
get a little tired of lectures to others about it on these lists).
I can appreciate that but regardless of various opinions (mine
included). It is the PostgreSQL communities decision and I believe
except for newbies and a few long timers who should know better,
everyone avoids top posting.
Top posting makes it hard to read.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
Simply replying to an argument with an assertion to the contrary is, I
think, dogmatism. The argument for top posting is that it is _easier_ to
read for certain kinds of cases. I have already rehearsed those arguments;
I think they are both sound and valid, but they don't consider every
situation, and so they also lead to a wrong conclusion sometimes.
I would argue that this message is harder to read than if I'd just replied
at the top. It's pointlessly long -- but without including everything, you
wouldn't have all the context, and you might have missed something. (The
context argument is, of course, the usual one favoured by
call-and-response/bottom posting advocates. So, your context is above.)
As for the snip claim, it has several problems:
1.It is easy, by injudicious, careless, or malicious use of cutting
from others' posts, to change the main focus of their argument, and thereby
draw the thread in a completely new direction.
2.Owing to (1), snipping is a favourite tactic of trollers.
3.Owing to (1), snipping is a favourite target for cranks, who
immediately turn such threads into long _ad hominems_ about the malicious
slurs being heaped on them by others.
4.Poor editors often obscure enough in their editing that they provide
no more elucidation than nothing, and rather less than there might be with
a top-posted response and a complete copy of the earlier message below it.
I can, of course, produce equally good arguments for not top posting. My
point is not that we should change the convention; but rather, that we
should accept that this is a convention and nothing more. It makes reading
easier for you because it's the convention with which you're familiar. If
you were used to the alternative, you'd find this convention annoying and
pointlessly noisy.
I think it's worthwhile putting a note in the welcome-to-new-subscribers
that this community doesn't like top posting, and that top posting may well
cause your messages to be ignored. Those claims are both true, and we
don't need to justify it with jumped-up claims about the objective
superiority of one method over another. I think we should also avoid being
too doctrinaire about it.
A
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
You criticize that Joshua's reply was dogmatism but was yours any better?
I think people can see through these weak ad hominem arguments; no matter how
much you try to cast the technique in a negative light, that doesn't really
make it wrong, and in fact, there are many reasons to encourage people to do
it (bandwidth saving alone is one benefit)
Adding something to the FAQ/Subscribe message certainly couldnt hurt.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org/
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
Steve Atkins wrote: In the business world it's common to top-post and not cut previous content - and often appropriate, as it tends to be a communication between a smaller number of people, and the uncut content provides context for future reference. And it is quite common for tractor trailers to take wide right turns at intersections, but it's quite foolish for a car to do the same. There are approaches that are accepted depending on the vehicle and environment in use. Those who rant about anyone who top posts, or state that you should never top-post are mostly clueless or arrogant, or are making over-broad generalizations. Actually, it appears to me that those folks generally are clued into the acceptable approach in the environment they are posting. Also, they probably spend more time posting to technical lists and not in clueless corporate speak html email conversations. -- Until later, Geoffrey Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: top posting (was: [GENERAL] Hijack!)
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:00:00 -0600 Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're certainly not. I can't tell you how many times I've carefully replied to someone with inline quoting, only to get some top post response. I then ask them politely not to top post, fix the format, reply, and get another top post reponse. Jumping in here just cos I got tired to read here (nothing personal Scott). It is generally fun to read this kind of never-die thread in search of the most stubborn reply but at the 4th reply they start to look all equally stubborn. a) people that have used email more than the average newcomers and tried more clients they can remember agree that top posting in technical discussions is generally[1] not efficient b) this community agree that top posting is not welcome c) replaying contextually and snipping will give people more chances to get a reply d) people here continue to remember that top posting is not efficient to educate newcomers I'd suggest to people that think differently to just conform to the rule. I'd suggest to idealists to avoid to convince stubborn people and as a retaliation to their anti-social behaviour to avoid to reply to their questions if they insist in not conforming to the rules or pollute the list with pro top posting arguments. This thread comes over and over and over on every mailing list. We'd have a link pointing to the reasons why there are generally better alternatives to top posting and cut the thread ASAP. It is surprising how people with more experience than me on the Internet get trapped in this kind of thread. *Especially because we could use their time much better.* Every time people like Tom Lane and Joshua D. Drake waste their time in such kind of dump people on this list lose the chance to read interesting stuff about Postgres, SQL and DB. [1] In general; commonly; extensively, __though not universally__; most frequently. BTW it is not a case that Computer Science and *Information* Technology are strict relatives -- Ivan Sergio Borgonovo http://www.webthatworks.it ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
Well said Greg. I have the same problem too of having a crippled mail reader :) Really I find mid posting hard to follow especially if I'm the one that posted the question. I hope we aren't going to hit people with hammers over this minor infraction. It really makes one feel unwelcome. I guess we have beaten this horse enough though. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gregory Williamson Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 12:04 PM To: Joshua D. Drake; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Hijack! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Joshua D. Drake Sent: Tue 12/11/2007 9:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Hijack! -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:31:40 + Raymond O'Donnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: // Please note in particular the following points of netiquette: * Don't top-post, as it makes for confusing reading. * Don't start a new thread by replying to an old one, because [insert suitable technical explanation here]. Failure to observe the above may result in your question going unanswered. // O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If you are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to not top post. However, I would also note that in windows world, it is very common to top post. I am constantly retraining very smart, just very ignorant customers. * Not all mail clients deal well with inline/bottom quoting (manually added to lines here since my mail reader does not do so automatically -- imagine doing so for a complex quote!) * Top posting is very common in companies with lots of blackberry (etc) users since they seem to see only tops easily. * my mail client *always* starts at the top of the message. For rapid/internal mails top posting works better because the answer/most recent is always at the top. Complex messages do deserve in-posting but not always easy, especially if you have to do it manually). Does your mail browser always start at the bottom ? I always see the top of a message first. Simple threads work very well this way -- complicated ones collapse under top-posting. * a lot of us have to use what ever the company provides as mail server. Exchange sucks but I'd rather not quit my job just because _you_ have a problem reading mail that does not conform to the T to your expectations. And there is a limit to how much time I want to spend manually formatting your mail to respond to it. Note that a lot of postGIS mail list posts are top-posted and the complaint rate is vanishingly small. Yet somehow business clanks on. Imagine that! And I can't even use exchange/outlook -- web interface to Micro$soft really sucks. * Try to see the world from a perspective other that your own (admittedly superior) one ! Not everyone is so advanced. * Get a life -- how people post is _trivial_. *content* over *form* ! Beating dead horses is of no interest other than the inherent joy in the thing. Deal with the fact that an open mail ist will have users from *all* backgrounds and origins and it you can't make everything a fight. Pick the most important battles. Top-posting is not the worst sin. (not reading the manuals is the by the worst transgression, IMHO). And for those who really care, email etiquette in painful detail here http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855. Hijacking seems to be more of a Bozo No-No than top posting. Or maybe that's just me. Greg Williamson Senior DBA GlobeXplorer LLC, a DigitalGlobe company Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information and must be protected in accordance with those provisions. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. (My corporate masters made me say this.)
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
On 11/12/2007 17:41, Bill Moran wrote: Again, you're asking a community to offer you free help in spite of the fact that your tools suck. I'm not saying nobody will do it, all I'm saying is that if you make it too difficult for people to help, they won't. I think this is the most important point. Given that highly skilled people on this list give their time freely to help others, I reckon it's simple good manners not to make them spend an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out what it is you're asking. If the Tom Lanes of this world were paid commercial rates for all the free help they've given on this lists, I wonder how much they'd have made by now? :-) Ray. --- Raymond O'Donnell, Director of Music, Galway Cathedral, Ireland [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: top posting (was: [GENERAL] Hijack!)
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:00:00 -0600 Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're certainly not. I can't tell you how many times I've carefully replied to someone with inline quoting, only to get some top post response. I then ask them politely not to top post, fix the format, reply, and get another top post reponse. Jumping in here just cos I got tired to read here (nothing personal Scott). It is generally fun to read this kind of never-die thread in search of the most stubborn reply but at the 4th reply they start to look all equally stubborn. a) people that have used email more than the average newcomers and tried more clients they can remember agree that top posting in technical discussions is generally[1] not efficient b) this community agree that top posting is not welcome c) replaying contextually and snipping will give people more chances to get a reply d) people here continue to remember that top posting is not efficient to educate newcomers I'd suggest to people that think differently to just conform to the rule. I'd suggest to idealists to avoid to convince stubborn people and as a retaliation to their anti-social behaviour to avoid to reply to their questions if they insist in not conforming to the rules or pollute the list with pro top posting arguments. This thread comes over and over and over on every mailing list. We'd have a link pointing to the reasons why there are generally better alternatives to top posting and cut the thread ASAP. It is surprising how people with more experience than me on the Internet get trapped in this kind of thread. *Especially because we could use their time much better.* Every time people like Tom Lane and Joshua D. Drake waste their time in such kind of dump people on this list lose the chance to read interesting stuff about Postgres, SQL and DB. [1] In general; commonly; extensively, __though not universally__; most frequently. BTW it is not a case that Computer Science and *Information* Technology are strict relatives -- Ivan Sergio Borgonovo http://www.webthatworks.it ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
Obe, Regina [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well said Greg. I have the same problem too of having a crippled mail reader :) Really I find mid posting hard to follow especially if I'm the one that posted the question. I hope we aren't going to hit people with hammers over this minor infraction. It really makes one feel unwelcome. I'm sorry, to what were you referring? To which Greg were you responding to? -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's 24x7 Postgres support! ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org/
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
Greg Stark shaped the electrons to read: Obe, Regina [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well said Greg. I have the same problem too of having a crippled mail reader :) Really I find mid posting hard to follow especially if I'm the one that posted the question. I hope we aren't going to hit people with hammers over this minor infraction. It really makes one feel unwelcome. I'm sorry, to what were you referring? To which Greg were you responding to? I'd like to think my post, but yours are more polite ... the politeness factor is a major thing in making a list work. Comparing Blackberry users to wife-beating zealots is not being nice (or making a good case). My point was not that people shouldn't follow the rules / preferences of a news group, but rather that there are reasons why people sometimes transgress (habit, software, ignorance). This is an issue best dealt with in the initial sign up mails (repeating the basics of not hijacking threads, not top posting, etc. is always good), and politely thereafter. I sympathize with frustration at repeat transgressions, but in the end this *not* a moral issue, let alone a religious one, which it seems to be for some, judging by the # of posts. Now back to work ! Greg W. DBA, GlobeXplorer ... usual corporate warning deleted because (a) already posted in first comment and (b) it _is_ silly and (c) I don't wanna tick anyone off anymore...
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
Gregory Williamson wrote: * a lot of us have to use what ever the company provides as mail server. Exchange sucks but I'd rather not quit my job just because _you_ have a problem reading mail that does not conform to the T to your expectations. I'm guessing you use Outlook to connect to your Exchange server. In that case, Outlook is the one that top posts, not Exchange. I found a utility which can address the Outlook posting style: http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/outlook-quotefix/ That site has a similar add-on for Outlook Express. Now, a gripe rightly attributable to the to PG mailing list setup is that every time I reply, I have to: (1) use reply all, because reply is set to go to the individual rather than the list (2) delete all the individual addressees so only the list is left, then change that from CC to TO (3) change my from identity to the one used for the list; although the list always posts to the identity I have set up for mailing lists, for some reason Thunderbird selects a different identity when I reply. -- Guy Rouillier ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
On 12/11/07, Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:48:35 -0800 Keith Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I apologize; I had assumed that the threads were simply grouped by subject. If this is such a problem, probably it should be laid out on the list information page, otherwise how is anyone to know? Because it is standard practice on the internet to have lists-headers? And that is how every standard mail client deals with it? FWIW, this is becoming less true in terms of common clients. Google Mail, for instance, groups primarily by subject. I find it irritating, but it's still a more convenient interface than my other clients for working with mailing lists. The point here is that a lot of people are going to be used to dealing with these other clients that mostly ignore the list headers, so it's less likely to be common knowledge. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org/
Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
On 12/11/07, Guy Rouillier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now, a gripe rightly attributable to the to PG mailing list setup is that every time I reply, I have to: (1) use reply all, because reply is set to go to the individual rather than the list (2) delete all the individual addressees so only the list is left, then change that from CC to TO Actually, another convention on this list is to reply all and leave the individual addresses. It's one of those things that varies wildly between list communities, but there it is. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org/
