"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 mind out of the gutter. ;-)
--
Bill
---(
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. If anything, the ungated comp.* group will confuse
newbies into thinking
On Saturday, in article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Robert McClenon" wrote:
> I think that the term that is occasionally used is that the hierarchy
> has a hierarchy czar. That is the most straightforward way to manage
> a hierarchy. I did not say that it was the best or the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Marc G. Fournier") wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Rolf Xstvik wrote:
>
>> I am curious. Where can i learn about these 'official newsgroups'?
>> I can't find any information about them on www.postgresql.org.
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-ann
On 3 Dec 2004 20:34:36 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Rolf Xstvik wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Marc G. Fournier") wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Net Virtual Mailing Lists wrote:
this RFD in no way affects the mailing lists, and is in no way an
'official PostgreSQL newsgruop' ... the 'official newsgroups' are the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Marc G. Fournier") wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Net Virtual Mailing Lists wrote:
>
> this RFD in no way affects the mailing lists, and is in no way an
> 'official PostgreSQL newsgruop' ... the 'official newsgroups' are the
> gated ones under pgsql.
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Mike Cox wrote:
If you want more news servers to carry pgsql.*, consider emailing
[EMAIL PROTECTED], and request them to carry pgsql.*.
I've done one better ... I email'd and arranged a direct peerage between
our servers, so that the groups are there, and all articles available
Mike Cox wrote:
> Jan Wieck wrote:
>
>> On 12/3/2004 3:32 PM, Woodchuck Bill wrote:
>>
>>> [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.* stuf
Jan Wieck wrote:
> On 12/3/2004 3:32 PM, Woodchuck Bill wrote:
>
>> [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
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.
>
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Net Virtual Mailing Lists wrote:
My only suggestion:
I don't care what you do with the newsgroups, just don't screw with the
mailing lists. If the mailing lists go away, I will be *EXTREMELY*
disappointed!
this RFD in no way affects the mailing lists, and is in no way an
'offi
My only suggestion:
I don't care what you do with the newsgroups, just don't screw with the
mailing lists. If the mailing lists go away, I will be *EXTREMELY*
disappointed!
- Greg
>Hopefully someone like Russ will tell us the correct term for domains like
>microsoft.* and gnu.*. Those on the m
Marc G. Fournier From: wrote:
> Mike Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> unmoderated group comp.databases.postgresql
>
>>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of
>>the worldwide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup
Marc G. Fournier From: wrote:
> Mike Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>Marc G. Fournier From: wrote:
>
>>> The pgsql.* hierarchy is a not a private one, it is a public one carried
>>> by several of the large usenet servers.
>
>>Doesn't "private" denote a hierarchy in its own domain such as
>>
16 matches
Mail list logo
