At 11:56 PM 11/23/2004, Stephan Szabo wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> At 07:47 PM 11/23/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jim Seymour
> >
At 08:58 PM 11/23/2004, you wrote:
ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.interfaces.php
ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.ports.general
ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.interfaces
ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.ports
ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.interfac
At 08:12 PM 11/23/2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
BTW, you indicated that one of the reasons pressing you to move was that
Google had dropped indexing services for the comp.* groups. Have they
given you an indication that they would index pgsql.*, or are we just
out of luck on that service?
Just FYI,
At 07:47 PM 11/23/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jim Seymour
> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 5:18 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Upcoming Changes to News Server .
At 06:16 PM 11/23/2004, Tom Lane wrote:
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I've done doesn't eliminate (or shouldn't) the desire for a comp.*
> hierarchy of groups for postgresql, it just means that the what will end
> up still being considered bogus groups will be able to still
At 05:57 PM 11/23/2004, Jim Seymour wrote:
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Personally I think Marc should have waited awhile longer to see whether
> the news.groups process would produce a positive vote, but that's just
> my own $0.02.
That's the way *I* would've preferred to see i
At 05:43 PM 11/23/2004, Tom Lane wrote:
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> All I meant was, has core talked about it?
There has been no private discussion among core about it; it's not part
of our charter IMHO.
Personally I think Marc should have waited awhile longer to see whether
the
At 05:28 PM 11/23/2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Jim Seymour wrote:
"Gary L. Burnore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
It's ok. Mysql's better anyway.
Was that absolutely necessary?
Of course not.
Yes. It shows his lack of credibility ;)
My credibility isn't th
On 23 Nov 2004 21:57:22 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>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.
>>
>>
On 23 Nov 2004 21:41:16 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[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
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:23:19 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Patrick B
Kelly) wrote:
>
>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:
>>
>>>
>
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 were posted to the RFD thread in
news.groups?
Interesting point. What did
---
How you look depends on where you go.
-----------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³
At 01:54 AM 11/14/2004, Sim Zacks wrote:
BTW, in Outlook Express if you are posting to the news.postgresql.org server
it will not send a message to news.groups. So this message will not get
there unless someone puts it there.
If 4 are official and 16 are unofficial, why would that bother you?
Becau
At 11:54 AM 11/14/2004, you wrote:
The new proposal should have all of the lists.
This is true. All the mailing lists that gate to USENet should either be
legitimized or removed.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to
At 07:30 PM 11/13/2004, you wrote:
If the process drags on for too long, people will start to get annoyed
with the process and lose interest. I speak from experience.
This hasn't dragged on too long?
Not at all.
People aren't already annoyed?
Not those that matter.
Seriously, the usenet people lo
At 03:23 AM 11/11/2004, Net Virtual Mailing Lists wrote:
Hi Kevin,
I'm probably a bit more concerned about this than you are... I don't
want to have to post anonymously just to protect my email address...
That is precisely why I stopped using Usenet about 5 years ago - it just
got overwhelming...
At 11:48 AM 11/8/2004, you wrote:
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
At 11:01 PM 11/7/2004, you wrote:
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
User makes a comment in USENet. Post gets seen on usenet servers around
the world. Moderator chooses not to approve.
Unless ist Spam
At 10:20 PM 11/7/2004, you wrote:
Andy wrote:
> Someone posted this official proposal to create
> comp.databases.postgresql.general again. He wrote his own charter. As
> far as I know, he did not consult any of the postgresql groups first.
> There may be an upcoming vote on this, so please stay inf
-
How you look depends on where you go.
---
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
DataBasix |
On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 21:16:05 GMT, Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Gary L. Burnore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 19:26:42 GMT, Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>"Robert G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 08:29 AM 11/6/2004, edward ohare wrote:
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 08:42:40 -0800 (PST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy M)
wrote:
>ALERT
>
>There is a person by the name of Mike Cox who's trying
>to turn this mailing list into a Big-8 newsgroup. Many
>of you know that this and most of the other postresql
>mail
At 04:29 PM 11/7/2004, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
The groups aren't listed as moderated. Anyone who wants to post is
able to. Those not on the mailing list don't go through. That's the
problem.
As long as the posting gets to the gateway, i
At 12:16 AM 11/7/2004, Russ Allbery wrote:
In news.groups, Mike Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm pretty much done with this anyway. It is a waste of time putting in
> anymore effort since no one seems to want it.
Well, the problem from my perspective is that a lot of time and energy is
being
xt.usenetserver.com if anyone is intereste
>Retention is pretty darn good.
Define pretty darn good.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] dot com
---
How you look depends on where you go.
---
Gary L. Burno
ce?
It wasn't. It was yet anoter dumb thing to do.
>At least the RFD would move
>the list to being properly officially connect to usenet rather than making
>a new group that will likely not attract a large percentage of the people
>that answer the -general questions.
--
[EMAIL PROTEC
r your efforts to facilitate discussion of a fine RDMS, and
>thanks in advance for your cooperation.
So are you going to begin discussions on removing the gateway?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] dot com
---
27 matches
Mail list logo
