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