Re: [GENERAL] Why the current setup of pgsql.* and

2004-11-28 Thread Net Virtual Mailing Lists
If you mean that the mailing list will stay in-tact with no connection to Usenet I'm all for that Why not let everyone use whichever works best for them and if one of them fades away over time, so be it I happen to like the mailing list and dislike the news groups, perhaps I'm just too jad

Re: [GENERAL] Why the current setup of pgsql.* and comp.databases.postresql.general are BROKEN

2004-11-27 Thread Woodchuck Bill
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 will vote NO on the new group, because >>> it will in my o

Re: [GENERAL] Why the current setup of pgsql.* and comp.databases.postresql.general are BROKEN

2004-11-27 Thread Woodchuck Bill
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