On Monday, in article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Tim Skirvin" wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) writes:
>
> >(Personally, I blame the original authors of Netscape for incorporating a
> >news "reader" that could access multiple servers. Before then, most
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) writes:
>(Personally, I blame the original authors of Netscape for incorporating a
>news "reader" that could access multiple servers. Before then, most
>readers of news had no option other than to read ALL their desired
>newsgroups from ONE server, that
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2004, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>
>> This isn't about encouraging ISP's to carry your lists. It's about
>> fixing a problem caused by your list's gateways.
>
> A problem that you perceive, yet nobody else seems to ... very isolated
> p
Seriously, the usenet people losing interest in this "problem" might
be the best case scenario.
Ya know, that's kinda like when a business owner hopes the neigborhood
will forget about a toxic waste spill.
In this case, it's not going to be forgotten as long as someone's
shoving your emails up
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
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? People aren't already annoyed?
Seriously, the usenet people losing interest in this "problem" might be
the best case scenario.
P
Mike Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I also offered to let him take over the process as he understands gatewaying
>and the details better than I. I also offered to let him create the next
>RFD, and hopefully he will agree to do it if he has the time. He is the
>most connected member of the postg
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) wrote:
> newsgroups from ONE server, that of their university/employer/ISP. Since
> that capability appeared in Netscape, and other browser/newsreaders,
> there has been a proliferation of *really* private newsgroups, suc
;, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
om>cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: [GENERAL] I
spoke with Marc from the p
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
This isn't about encouraging ISP's to carry your lists. It's about
fixing a problem caused by your list's gateways.
A problem that you perceive, yet nobody else seems to ... very isolated
problem ... of coufse, you *could* set the group to moderated on
On 11/7/2004 8:06 PM, Brian {Hamilton Kelly} wrote:
On Sunday, in article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Mike Cox" wrote:
Also, he pointed out that for those who want to get the postgresql groups
when their usenet sever doesn't carry them, the solution would be to point
their newsreade
--- Brian {Hamilton Kelly} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which only confirms my opinion that he's a fuckwit.
Evidently some of the nastiness out there on Usenet is
propagating into our lists in advance of any change.
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Check ou
On Sunday, in article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Mike Cox" wrote:
> Also, he pointed out that for those who want to get the postgresql groups
> when their usenet sever doesn't carry them, the solution would be to point
> their newsreaders to news.postgresql.org.
Which only confir
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
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 16:50:34 -0400 (AST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Marc
G. Fournier") wrote:
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Mike Cox wrote:
Also, he pointed out that for those who want to get the postgresql
groups when their usenet sever doesn't carry them, the solution wo
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 16:50:34 -0400 (AST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Marc
G. Fournier") wrote:
>On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Mike Cox wrote:
>
>> Also, he pointed out that for those who want to get the postgresql
>> groups when their usenet sever doesn't carry them, the solution would be
>> to point their newsre
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Mike Cox wrote:
Also, he pointed out that for those who want to get the postgresql
groups when their usenet sever doesn't carry them, the solution would be
to point their newsreaders to news.postgresql.org.
The other point I'd like to make ... we have two mail<->gateways setup
He wants to be in the big 8. He would like to be under the comp.databases.*
domain and will not to move it to something like postgresql.*.
So he seems to agree with what was my original intention, which was to make
the current groups proper members of the big 8.
I also offered to let him take
18 matches
Mail list logo
