Re: [GENERAL] 3rd RFD: comp.databases.postgresql (was: comp.databases.postgresql.*)
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 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] 3rd RFD: comp.databases.postgresql (was: comp.databases.postgresql.*)
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. If anything, the ungated comp.* group will confuse newbies into thinking that that is the best forum for PostGreSQL advice ... instead of the PGSQL.* hierarchy. None of the developers and power users of these lists will be answering questions in the comp.* group, if created, so it would be better to not create the group at all. I still haven't decided which way to vote. I'm lingering in between NO and ABSTAIN. I was originally in favor of a single, non-gated Postgresql newsgroup in the comp* hierarchy. I'm no longer sure if it would be a good thing or not. The proponent certainly left a bad taste in my mouth after his little crossposting stunt - but I will still vote on the *proposal*, and not the *proponent*. -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [GENERAL] 3rd RFD: comp.databases.postgresql
[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 reminder posting on the comp.* side set up, pointing out that these are not official groups and that real PostgreSQL questions are better asked somewhere else, if the intention is to reach real developers and get real help. I don't want to see people wasting a lot of time or getting confused because they found the wrong newsgroups first. Why would the comp.* group be the *wrong* group? Just an additional resource. The proponent said that he would post weekly pointers about the pgsql.* hierarchy to the comp.* group, but expecting him to post something negative about the comp.* group is asking too much of him. This group is not meant to be a competing resource..it is just another channel, and another plug for the open-source community. Stop treating it like a bad thing. You are insulting non-developer advanced pgsql.* users that would be using the comp.* group by inferring that only the developers are capable of answering questions. Do the Oracle developers, or MSsql developers participate in the respective comp.* groups for their products? Most probably not. Are those newsgroups extremely useful resources for users of those products? Very much so. That could easily be botted :) I am not sure if the charter would allow for bot postings. Mike Cox should decide in advance if that should be written into the charter or not. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] 3rd RFD: comp.databases.postgresql (was: comp.databases.postgresql.*)
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. What are the rules for creating new groups in pgsgl.*? Fiat-only by Marc. ;-) -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [GENERAL] Upcoming Changes to News Server ...
[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 harassment. I'm not on your list. _I_ am posting to a USENet discussion group. Your list is broken. Do NOT email me again. Oh my, after reading this he really caught my attention. You have to google for Gary Burnore a little. This guy has a record ... It seems to me that the whole RFD/CFV thing has attracted a bunch of net kooks and individuals who have nothing better to do than wasting other peoples time. Marc, can you add a kill line on the mail/news gateway so that messages from this guy (and as they pop up more of his kind) don't pollute our mailing lists and stay on the news side of it only? If not I will just add a /dev/null line for this idiot to my procmail config. Jan Jan, Gary may be blunt at times, but try to understand things from his perspective. He is posting to Usenet. He expects his replies to appear on Usenet. You are accustomed to your way of writing and reading messages. He is accustomed to his way. Perhaps a bit overstated, his point is that if one or more comp.databases.postgresql.* Big Eight newsgroups are created, and they are gated to these mailing lists, it would open the doors for potentially many more participants from the Usenet side. Some of these participants will be just as confused and annoyed about why they are receiving so many e-mails after they post to Usenet. New posters will probably not even know that the groups were gated to the lists, so they expect unmoderated responses to Usenet, not messages from people they don't know, or messages from a moderator's auto-robot. This is a difficult situation, and it does not look like a balance to satisfy both sides is anywhere in sight. That is probably why the proponent (Mike Cox) decided that it was best to create a new comp.* group with a new, simpler name, with no gating to any of the lists. There has been a great deal of emotional spirit involved in this proposal. I apologize if I personally offended anyone, but there were some things that needed to be said. Now that the smoke is clearing, look at the benefits of what has happened so far. PostgreSQL has its own dedicated, ISC-recognized hierarchy. Some of the biggest NSPs in the world are carrying (or soon-to-be carrying) all the groups in the hierarchy..Supernews, Altopia, Newsreader.com, Newsfeeds, Usenetserver.com are currently carrying all 29 groups. Individual.net and Google Groups have confirmed that they will be adding them within several weeks (I put in both requests myself, and they replied). Even Gary Burnore has agreed to add the groups to his spool, at the request of one of his customers. There is already enough peering and propagation for the groups so that anyone could make a simple request from their news provider to carry the groups, and those requests are usually honored if the hierarchy is recognized and the groups are well-propagated. The ungated comp.* group is icing on the cake. It will not hurt Pgsql if it passes, it will compliment it..another resource for a top-notch work of software. If you are worried about brain-drain (good people leaving the lists for the comp.* group), then you have nothing to worry about. Everything seems to be working out for the best, even as ugly as the situation has appeared at times. At 10:31 AM 11/30/2004, you wrote: On 11/29/2004 11:53 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote: Stay out of my email. This ia a PostgreSQL related topic discussed on PostgreSQL mailing lists and you react like this to a mail from a PostgreSQL CORE team member? Rethink your attitude. Jan At 11:50 PM 11/29/2004, you wrote: On 11/23/2004 4:46 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote: It's ok. Mysql's better anyway. This is the attitude I've seen from many of the pro-usenet people. If I don't get it my way I will bash your project and try to do harm. I am too one of those who have left usenet many years ago. Partly because of people with this attitude. And I don't consider it much of a loss if we lose the message to these people. Jan -- #=== ===# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #== [EMAIL PROTECTED] # -- #= =# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #== [EMAIL PROTECTED] # ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8:
Re: [GENERAL] [ANNOUNCE] USENET vs Mailing Lists Poll ...
[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 drop the combative tone? Please follow your own advice, Barbara. -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [GENERAL] [ANNOUNCE] USENET vs Mailing Lists Poll ...
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 news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Just as an FYI ... the latest RFD is for *one* comp.databases.postgresql group to be created, that is not-gated ... this means that those using it would not have the benefit(s) that those using the pgsql.* hierarchy do, namely access to the wealth of knowledge/experience of those on the mailing lists ... I had posed the 'who would use USENET' question on -hackers previous to the poll, and the general opinion was not in this life time by ppl like PeterE, TomL, JoshuaD, etc ... the thread can be seen: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-11/msg01110.php 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. Bill, is it possible for you to drop the combative tone? It's not that helpful to constantly raise the temperature of the discussion. Actually, I didn't find Bill's comment 'combative' ... :) Nor was it intended to be that way. :-) -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [GENERAL] USENET vs Mailing Lists Poll ...
[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: (1) If there were a USENET newsfeed, under comp.databases.postgresql.*, of one or more of the current postgresql mailing lists, I would (a) use USENET primarily, (b) use both USENET and the mailing lists, (c) use the mailing lists primarily, (d) unsubsribe from the mailing lists and use neither, or (e) not sure at this time. That is not likely to happen. The proponent has already submitted a new proposal for a single standalone comp.* group (comp.databases.postgresql), with no gating to any of the lists. (2) If there were a separate USENET comp.databases.postgresql newsgroup created, I would (a) use the separate USENET newsgroup primarily, (b) use both the separate USENET newsgroup and the mailing lists, (c) use the mailing lists primarily, (d) unsubsribe from the mailing lists and use neither, or (e) not sure at this time. (3) Concerning USENET, I would prefer (a) that the mailing lists be gated to USENET, (b) that the mailing lists and USENET be kept seperate, (c) that USENET go take a leap ;-/, or (d) not sure at this time. (4) If the mailing lists are gated to USENET, I would prefer (a) that the current SPAM moderation policy apply to both, (b) that no moderation occur on either USENET or the lists, (c) that kooks who post to USENET be tarred and feathered 8-*, or (d) not sure at this time. I like C. ;-) Please not that this is not an attempt at a survey, see 3c and 4c. It is only a suggestion. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [GENERAL] [ANNOUNCE] USENET vs Mailing Lists Poll ...
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? As a side note, for those that do vote 'yes', please note that there is an official pgsql.* hierarchy gated from the mailing lists, that is available at news.postgresql.org, if you do wish to use a news reader vs a mail reader ... FWIW, I voted yes, but my vote depended upon it being a comp.databases.postgresql.* hierarchy, done according to USENET guidelines. I sense that would be a lot more important for PostgreSQL in the long term and a lot more sustainable in general than a pgsql.* hierarchy. It's been my experience that processes done outside the norm tend to have extra problems along the way that cost more than the immediate gratification is worth, even if it does seem more painful at the time. Just as an FYI ... the latest RFD is for *one* comp.databases.postgresql group to be created, that is not-gated ... this means that those using it would not have the benefit(s) that those using the pgsql.* hierarchy do, namely access to the wealth of knowledge/experience of those on the mailing lists ... I had posed the 'who would use USENET' question on -hackers previous to the poll, and the general opinion was not in this life time by ppl like PeterE, TomL, JoshuaD, etc ... the thread can be seen: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-11/msg01110.php Trying to sway the vote? -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] PGSQL: The Gateway will be kept.
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 with how INN works with them, and I just re-issued it ... They will also be in the ISC list after the next archive push. What problem was this? If my own checkgroups processor is more tolerant than INN's, I want to know why... The pgsql.* groups are now on the ISC list.. ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/CONFIG/newsgroups -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] comp.databases.postgresql.* groups and RFD
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? Supernews is already carrying all 29 of the new groups in the pgsql.* hierarchy. That alone makes them worldwide groups, as SN is a major peer to other severs. 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. I just tried it on a server that carries the new groups, and the only newsgroup that comes up when I search for PostgreSQL is alt.comp.databases.postgresql. The name of the hierarchy should have been postgresql.* instead. Even with the rogue comp.* groups, the word PostgreSQL appeared in each of the bogus group names. -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [GENERAL] Why the current setup of pgsql.* and comp.databases.postresql.general are BROKEN
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 appear a second time and AFTER I receive this STUPID message in email. Of course, he doesn't CARE. Just think about how easy it would be for a forging troll to mailbomb anyone he wanted to by flooding the newsgroup with posts under the victim's spoofed e-mail address. This system is too vulnerable to abuse. The groups should be moderated, for one. Second, Marc needs to decide whether he wants the groups to be in pgsql.*, *or* comp.* ... not both. The lists and gating methods should all be explained in detail on the final RFD, so they appear on the CFV. -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] comp.databases.postgresql.* groups and RFD
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. Newbies would, yeah. but pgsql is a common reference to it. Newbies looking for an entry level group might pass novice or general and find a dead alt.* group as the only newsgroup with postgresql in the name. Something to consider. -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [GENERAL] comp.databases.postgresql.* groups and RFD
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 pgsql.general. I then got a message from the list gateway saying that my post was stalled awaiting moderator approval because I was not on the list of list subscribers. As I made mention in another thread, the lists are not moderated past the fact that you need to be subscribed in order to post directly through to the list ... and subscribed does not mean 'receiving email', as that would defeat the point ... if you send a quick: subscribe-set listname email nomail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to get yourself subscribed in a 'do not send me email' way, then that would eliminate the requirement for me to approve your posting ... This applies to anyone either reading through usenet, or trying to post directly to the lists through email ... You're missing the point. You are still looking at things from the point of view of a list subscriber. The RFD is to focus on the experience of a Usenet poster. Take your average Usenet poster..he finds one of the PostGreSQL groups, and sees that they are listed as unmoderated groups. He posts a question. He gets an e-mail from a moderator's robot. This creates major confusion. He is not aware that 99 percent of the NG volume comes from e-mails to mailing lists. -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] Why the current setup of pgsql.* and comp.databases.postresql.general are BROKEN
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 opinion be harmful to good management of the Big Eight, unless some solution to this misconfiguration is proposed. I will vote no on all five of the new groups, unless some serious changes are made in the next RFD. For one, Marc needs to decide which hierarchy he wants to use..comp.* or pgsql.*..NOT BOTH. The groups need to be declared as moderated groups, the annoying e-mail confirmation needs to be dropped, and the entire system needs to be layed out in the next RFD. I don't see a reason for making the groups be moderated. That would solve the asymmetry. However, I would then want to see the moderation plan, and to know whether the moderators understood the subtleties of how moderation works in connection with a gateway. It appears that Marc does not understand the subtleties of an unmoderated group and a gateway that acts as a robomoderator, but maybe his understanding is too subtle for me. Think about a typical Usenet poster, with a question about PostgreSQL. He does a keyword search in his newsreader for postgresql. The only group that comes up is a dead alt.* group, alt.comp.databases.postgresql. He subscribes, sees no traffic, unsubscibes. The pgsql.* hierarchy, even if his news server carries the groups, does not display in his keyword search because postgresql does not appear in any of the newsgroup names. He tries again in a few months. Five of the comp.* groups pass the CFV and they appear in his newsreader during a keyword search. He posts his question to *.novice or *.general, and he sees the post appear immediately on his server..thus he assumes that the group is not moderated. Then he gets that annnoying and confusing e-mail. The typical person finding the comp.* postgresql groups, if they pass, will have no knowledge that his posts are being redistributed to several thousand inboxes via a (moderated) mailing list. Is that ethical redistribution of his articles? He does not know that 99 percent of the traffic he sees is coming from the mailing list, and that almost none of his responses will come from Usenet. The whole system stinks. The proponent might want to consider distancing his five postgresql comp.* groups in this proposal from the mailing lists enitirely. One of more standalone newsgroups with no connection to the mailing lists might be a better idea, and I would not vote against that. That sounds like the best idea. The pgsql.* hierarchy can continue to interface in the current eccentric way with the lists, and one or more comp.* newsgroups can stand on their own. Now that Marc has created his own dedicated hierarchy, and all 29 lists are gated to individual groups..picked up by Supernews and soon-to-be Stanford..the best thing for the proponent to do from now on is to go back to the single group for PostgreSQL..named comp.databases.postgresql..with no connection to any of the mailing lists. Nice and simple, just like the MySQL proposal on the floor: a single, truly unmoderated newsgroup that follows the standard comp.databases.* naming convention as opposed to having a cumbersome top-level name like the currently proposed comp.databases.postgresql.general. -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [GENERAL] Upcoming Changes to News Server ...
[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 hierarchy that were posted to the RFD thread in news.groups? Interesting point. What did come of all the arguments? These news server changes seem to be fairly arbitrary and one lined. Perhaps this should be taken up as a whole? Setting this up outside of the comp. groups tells everyone you want to be more like microsoft.* and less like major databases. Moreover, it means less propagation since not all servers will carry them. And if he plans on having *2* newsgroups for each list (one in comp.* and one in pgsql.*) then the credibility of his hierarchy will go further down the drain. So much for working out the problems. No further comment. -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] Google (was RFD: comp.databases.postgresql.*)
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=enlr=group=comp.databases.postgresql Just goes to show you, there are things that can be done about rogue groups. I'm sure that there are others servers that would do the same if they were made aware that the PostgreSQL groups were bogus. Have you looked at the control messages for those groups? Most of them were sent by a forger of tale..that *is* net abuse. Sending control messages for rogue groups may not be considered net abuse if the creator does it in his own name, but to forge the name and address of the hierarchy manager is serious abuse to me. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 29 05:53:57 1998 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David C Lawrence) Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David C Lawrence) Organization: The Cabal Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.databases.postgresql.patches Subject: cmsg newgroup comp.databases.postgresql.patches Control: newgroup comp.databases.postgresql.patches Approved: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 21:46:15 - X-Info: ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/pgpcontrol/README.html ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/pgpcontrol/README X-PGP-Sig: 2.6.2 Subject,Control,Message-ID,Date,From,Sender RAtprOR02HfdmTHtHwBKa8kHV7Sw2Pjb58GN7fALja0hPhEQZoYmXuSlsqH0WU8i yK0Q_lyDycEujbMNRVNmKj2ILZHCSWdZdMs9Q2_zvEyrJPL2d5Oq30pcLlyldCzA B4TGYbXA3vdSus8D_deKEkEuy_WAd_FN9sRDjqM6FaIQLK8OFWJtE_FPp7OiyEX_ 9cLCcaTHuV5= =yJRr X-No-Archive: Yes Path: news.isc.org!uunet!in2.uu.net!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu! news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup- east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.hyperion.com!news Lines: 9 Xref: news.isc.org control.newgroup:25822 comp.databases.postgresql.patches is an unmoderated newsgroup which passed its vote for creation by 191:27 as reported in news.announce.newgroups on 28 Aug 1998. For your newsgroups file: comp.databases.postgresql.patches Patches for Postgress. Meow! David C Lawrence Thank you, Google, if you have changed your policies. Yes, they appear to be more responsive and reactive to complaints. They have even reinstated the posting host IP in their outgoing news articles, added reference headers, and now allow the poster to set a follow-up group on crossposted articles. Applause! -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [GENERAL] Upcoming Changes to News Server ...
[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, and the lists have been dropped from google. The lists were dropped from Google because the newsgroups are using unauthorized (*stolen*) comp.* namespace. The groups were created by identity theft and criminal e-mail forgery of the comp.* hierarchy manager at the time. Did you know that? Marc can use this as an opportunity to start fresh, but now he wants to have 2 newsgroups for each list? And you say that he is making things better? -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [GENERAL] RFD: comp.databases.postgresql.*
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 were to start their own hierarchy postgresql.*, they could keep all 21 of the groups, all of the groups would be available upon request to news servers around the world, Google would pick them up again in a heartbeat, they would not need to pass a vote, and PostgreSQL would have even more prestige by having a dedicated net news hierarchy. Even if they were to be moved to alt.comp.*, they would be legitimate and available by request, no vote required, back in Google, and they could keep all 21 of the groups. But no, our defiant list owner prefers to be stubborn and keep things the way they are, which has already resulted in fragmentation of his rogue hierarchy as Google has dropped them, and other servers will probably follow now that the rogue nature of these groups is being more publicized due to this RFD. Something to think about, Marc. -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] Upcoming Changes to News Server ...
[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.databases.postgresql.* from the mailing lists will cease and be re-routed to pgsql.* instead ... on our server (and we encourage others to do the same), the comp.* groups will be aliased to the new pgsql.* hierarchy, so that posts to the old groups will still get through ... In order to improve propogation, as always, we welcome anyone wishing to carry these groups to email [EMAIL PROTECTED] to get added on as a direct peer ... Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 You can't have it both ways, Marc. If you are starting your own hierarchy, fine, but you still insist on keeping them in comp.* too? You obviously have zero respect for all of the people that have been involved in this RFD. Drop the comp.* names entirely unless each individual group passes a CFV. If not, your new pgsql.* hierarchy will be just as bogus as the current groups, and don't expect Google to pick them up either. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] Upcoming Changes to News Server ...
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 of the dupes. -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [GENERAL] Upcoming Changes to News Server ...
[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 made to a similar suggestion. (I.e.: Propagation might be poor.) It might take a long time for a new hierarchy to become universally accepted and well propagated, but it is marginally better than having rogue groups in unauthorized namespace the way it is now. -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [GENERAL] Upcoming Changes to News 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 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.databases.postgresql.* from the mailing lists will cease and be re-routed to pgsql.* instead ... on our server (and we encourage others to do the same), the comp.* groups will be aliased to the new pgsql.* hierarchy, so that posts to the old groups will still get through ... So you're basically going to make it worse than it already was and to hell with everyone who was working to correct it, right? We'll surely block propigation with that setup. Marc appears to be the only one NOT making this situation worse. Let's review. Since Mike Cox's unsolicited attempt to fix a problems that he perceived, what has happened? 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, and the lists have been dropped from google. This seems like it was a fool's errand from the beginning and Marc has done nothing but try to cooperate to the extent reasonable. That does not include jumping through every hoop that anyone holds up for him. In order to improve propogation, as always, we welcome anyone wishing to carry these groups to email [EMAIL PROTECTED] to get added on as a direct peer ... You're still trying to shove your list up USENet's ass instead of doing it the proper way. Why is that? I will not speak for Marc but say that as a member of the mailing list, I think he does an excellent job of advocating the best interests of the postgres community and I support his decisions. You can make any accusations you like but we know what a good job Marc does and appreciate Marc's efforts on our behalf. By helping the postgres community in the way you describe, he is screwing over the Usenet community. -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
[GENERAL] List of postgresql rogue groups (was Re: Important Info on comp.databases.postgresql.general)
[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.databases.postgresql.*, and I highly doubt Marc would want to eliminate them. I will have to include them all and have a heavy postgresql presense in the comp.databases.* hierarchy. I have no advice to offer on this. How many are there exactly? 21, at least. comp.databases.postgresql.admin comp.databases.postgresql.advocacy comp.databases.postgresql.announce comp.databases.postgresql.bugs comp.databases.postgresql.committers comp.databases.postgresql.docs comp.databases.postgresql.general comp.databases.postgresql.hackers comp.databases.postgresql.interfaces comp.databases.postgresql.interfaces.jdbc comp.databases.postgresql.interfaces.odbc comp.databases.postgresql.interfaces.pgadmin.hackers comp.databases.postgresql.interfaces.pgadmin.support comp.databases.postgresql.interfaces.php comp.databases.postgresql.novice comp.databases.postgresql.patches comp.databases.postgresql.performance comp.databases.postgresql.ports comp.databases.postgresql.ports.cygwin comp.databases.postgresql.questions comp.databases.postgresql.sql -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [GENERAL] The Big 9?
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 those customers who demanded certain rogue groups would have them, only they would be moved under rogue. Say someone sets up a rogue group like comp.muffins. All the usenet providers would then just move it to rogue.comp.muffins. That way their status is clear to all subscribers, the commercial usnet providers would have a well managed big 9, and would not be forced to choose between having a well managed hierarchy or doing carrying the groups customers demand. You frighten me. ;-) -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] RFD: comp.databases.postgresql.general
[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 Usenet, but not the mailing lists. The mailing lists may be moderated, but the newsgroups are not. That needs to be changed. Marc, please stop removing news.groups from your replies. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [GENERAL] RFD: comp.databases.postgresql.general
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. -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [GENERAL] Important Info on comp.databases.postgresql.general
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 question, I have serious doubts that they would remove them without the threat of a UDP hanging over their head. Whether just the group is blacklisted or the entire server would be the subject of another thread entirely. If someone actually seriously tries to do this, I will personally offer that news server a feed to break the UDP. If you're willing to do that, then you should just issue the control messages for all 21 groups right now. Why would you want to block others from trying to hold a net abuser accountable? For the UDP to be successful, it would take more than two proponents. You would really override the outcome? [I'm really not trying to flame Marc by calling him a net abuser, but isn't that the category he would fall under, in all seriousness? You are giving him the chance to fix his past mistakes. He won't enter the news.groups discussion, and he stated that he will not break up *any* of the rogue groups if the CFV fails.] Now, please try to tone down the level of confrontation and act like adults, okay? It was Marc who set the tone, by claiming that the rogue groups will continue to operate as they currently do, regardless of the CFV outcome. -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [GENERAL] Important Info on comp.databases.postgresql.general
[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 broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [GENERAL] Important Info on comp.databases.postgresql.general
[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 their server, same story, their server, their rules. That kind of independence is at the foundation of usenet. While I may be displeased that the bogus groups exist, I'm similarly not going to be supportive of moves to dictate what groups he puts on his server. Those groups are propagated to *other* servers, and they confuse lots of people into thinking that they are bonafide Big-8 groups. Even Google is either confused or careless about the status of those groups. 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? Archiving the rogue group in Google Groups? If nothing else, taking no steps toward action sets a bad example, and might encourage others to skip the RFD and create more rogue groups. -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [GENERAL] Important Info on comp.databases.postgresql.general
[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 groups specifically for their pet interests, which as far as we are concerned is not sufficient harm to act upon. The Big-8 process is partly predicated on only providing groups for those with sufficient numbers, and since the latter has not been established, there's no such harm. Even then, if the CFV results in a pass, everyone that cares benefits, and if the CFV results in a failure, the rest of the world doesn't matter (until they can build up sufficient numbers to pass the next time). 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 nothing wrong with it. -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [GENERAL] RFD: comp.databases.postgresql.general
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 responded in the mailing list to an issue being raised here. That does him about as much good as wiping his rear with 20 grit sandpaper. He's being defiant .. Rebel without a CFV! ;-) -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [GENERAL] I'm about to release the next postgresql RFD. Comments
[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 more servers around the world carry them ... [reply from list owner crossposted to news.groups] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] I resign as the promoter of the PostgreSQL groups.
[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 fooled by those forged emails. PLEASE do not give up. What you are facing is an identity issue with the postgresql users. It's also quite likely, as Rebecca Ore said, that the forged emails really have nothing to do with the postgresql users. news.groups and its denizens have been under attack for the past several months by a troll who, among other things, forges offensive posts to groups affected by current proposals. I think he had taken a short vacation and is now back to again disrupt proceedings here by making life miserable for people discussing new groups. Kathy and Rebecca are right. I just looked at the mailing list. The headers are the same as those of the usual forger, and at least one person has named one of the same suspects[1]. This is a disgrace. Mike, please reconsider your position. Your second RFD looks really good, and the 5 groups that you chose are right on the money. You are a good proponent. You've taken all of the feedback into account, good and bad, and implemented the appropriate changes. Don't let this kook thwart your efforts. [1] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tinyurl.com/624dy -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [GENERAL] I spoke with Marc from the postgresql mailing list.
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 system if you are correct in that the problem is unsolveable without it becoming a moderated newsgroup. That 'bug' might bring some unwanted NO votes your way. I have never voted against a proposal, but there is a first time for everything. My suggestions: -Cut it down to about 3 to 5 groups maximum. A 20-group reorganization of the comp.databases.* hierarchy is ridiculous. I would be inclined to vote against it on principle. If you and Marc agree that 20 groups are *really* necessary, then fine..create the POSTGRESQL hierarchy and notify ISC. -Propose your second RFD with any added groups as soon as possible. Remember, your 21-day minimum discussion period will reset as soon as you add any other groups to the proposal, so figure out which groups are the most important and propose them ASAP. If the process drags on for too long, people will start to get annoyed with the process and lose interest. I speak from experience. I was one of the proponents for a multi group proposal that started out as a single group proposal. -Try to get Marc in on the news.groups discussion. Even if he won't become the primary proponent, he should *at least* weigh in on the proposal. Maybe you could remain the primary proponent, and Marc would come aboard as a second? You can have as many proponents as you like. We had six on our proposal. -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] Postresql RFD version 2.0 Help Wanted.
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 ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [GENERAL] Postresql RFD version 2.0 Help Wanted.
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; don't be so quick to volunteer his time for him unless you're damn sure you have his permission. Even if he were not a busy person, most people consider it to be rude to be volunteered without their consent. Yeah, that was seriously rude. -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] RFD: comp.databases.postgresql.general
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 rather common for an RFD to be proposed for several groups at once. The CFV contains one voting option per group. [comp.databases.postgresql.general added] Russ and would probably consider waiving the vote, and creating a group for each of the popular lists that have a tested popularity base. He already said that he was in favor of one group per list. One question is..would creating one comp.* group for *each* of the lists (the way the rogue groups are currently structured) be too many PostgreSql Big-8 groups? Or, could it be cut down to, say, four or five groups/lists? -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [GENERAL] Postresql RFD version 2.0 Help Wanted.
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 are only proposing a single newsgroup in the hierarchy. Use of the word general is unnecessary, and cumbersome. -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
