Jeff Eckermann wrote:
> The "problem" that is being solved is, as presented so
> far, too abstract to be convincing, at least for me.
If you say so. The problem that Mark (Marc?) is trying to solve is that his
ISP doesn't give access to this newsgroup because it is NOT in the Big-8.
The solution
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Eckermann) wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> --- "Gary L. Burnore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Please. We're trying to help you fix something
>> that's broken.
>
> ??? As a longstanding reader of the pgsql-
> mailinglists, (including via news.postgresql.org on
> occa
Joseph Daniel Zukiger wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> The lists are not bogus and your suggestion is not acceptable. Many of
>> the list subscribers have no connection to Usenet. They will be mailed
>> the ballots, regardless of what you or anyone else
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> The lists are not bogus and your suggestion is not acceptable. Many of
> the list subscribers have no connection to Usenet. They will be mailed
> the ballots, regardless of what you or anyone else say. They are the
> people who will b
Joseph Daniel Zukiger wrote:
>
> "Arthur L. Rubin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]>...
> > Rebecca Ore wrote:
> >
> > > Since they have traffic and are bidirectional, and since he doesn't have
> > > any objections, it looks like creating the groups by fiat would wor
"Arthur L. Rubin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>...
> Rebecca Ore wrote:
>
> > Since they have traffic and are bidirectional, and since he doesn't have
> > any objections, it looks like creating the groups by fiat would work
> > just fine and avoid a lot of misinfor
Woodchuck Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[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
Woodchuck Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If the NAN team announces a reversal of the rec.woodworking.all-ages
> result in the next few days, would you have any problem with the
> proponents sending out a control message anyway?
The proponents are entirely welcome to do so, so long as they send
Woodchuck Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> OK, so you think it is acceptable for anyone to create as many Big-8
> rogue groups as they like? Some servers will carry the groups, others
> will not. There should be no accountability for someone doing this.
> There is nothi
On 9 Nov 2004 20:36:47 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, so you think it is acceptable for anyone to create as many Big-8 rogue
> groups as they like? Some servers will carry the groups, others will not.
> There should be no accountability for someone doing this. There is n
[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
Woodchuck Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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 server
[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
A few more points --
> 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...
Just out of curiousity, does your ma
On Thu, 11 Nov 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...
I h
--- William Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ??? As a longstanding reader of the pgsql-
> > mailinglists, (including via news.postgresql.org
> on
> > occasion), all I see is some outsiders trying to
> help
> > us "fix" a problem that does not exist. And yes,
> I
> > have read most of the messag
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 01:23:08 -0700,
Net Virtual Mailing Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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...
The lists are already publically archived and
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...
I hope the owner of this list considers this issue very
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Net Virtual Mailing Lists") wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Yeah.. I'm with you.. I don't really know what all of this is about - I
> like the way the Postgres mailing list works as it is Are any of the
> changes being discussed here going to change the content or how w
Currently the mailing list is also hosted in a newsgroup at
new.postgresql.org. The news group is not "Official" so it is not
carried by all news servers. There are some users who can not
participate in a mailing list comfortably for one reason or another.
Some of these individuals would like t
Yeah.. I'm with you.. I don't really know what all of this is about - I
like the way the Postgres mailing list works as it is Are any of the
changes being discussed here going to change the content or how we
receive the mailing lists?..
.. The only change I've noticed is that in all the time o
??? As a longstanding reader of the pgsql-
mailinglists, (including via news.postgresql.org on
occasion), all I see is some outsiders trying to help
us "fix" a problem that does not exist. And yes, I
have read most of the messages that have passed by in
these threads. After all that, I still don
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Mike Nolan wrote:
Perhaps in parallel with the Usenet community voting whether they want
to receive posts from the mailing lists, we can have the mailing list
subscribers vote on whether they want to receive messages from the
Usenet or want to have their messages forwarded to t
> Perhaps in parallel with the Usenet community voting whether they want
> to receive posts from the mailing lists, we can have the mailing list
> subscribers vote on whether they want to receive messages from the
> Usenet or want to have their messages forwarded to the Usenet. That
> might be
Jeff Eckermann wrote:
> ??? As a longstanding reader of the pgsql-
> mailinglists, (including via news.postgresql.org on
> occasion), all I see is some outsiders trying to help
> us "fix" a problem that does not exist. And yes, I
> have read most of the messages that have passed by in
> these thr
--- "Gary L. Burnore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9 Nov 2004 15:51:24 -0800,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >This is a very unfair limitation.
>
> Stop top posting.
>
> >If there is a ballot, it should be posted to each
> of the individual mailing lists.
>
> That's not how it works.
>
>
Joseph Daniel Zukiger wrote:
> It looks like I'm may have to finally subscribe through my isp and
> learn how to configure a newsreader in order to vote in favor, instead
> of posting through google all the time. That should speed my access to
> usenet up quite a bit. Oh, well.
>
> JouDanZuki
Y
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The lists are not bogus and your suggestion is not acceptable. Many of
> the list subscribers have no connection to Usenet. They will be mailed
> the ballots, regardless of what you or anyone else say. They are the
> people who will be directly affected by this.
>
You
30 matches
Mail list logo
