Re: Upcoming Changes to News Server ...
Woodchuck Bill
news:2004112315...@ganymede.hub.org:
>
> 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 use...@hub.org to get added on as a
> direct peer ...
>
> ----
> Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services
> (http://www.hub.org) Email: scr...@hub.org 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.
Woodchuck Bill
news:6.1.1.1.2.200411...@popd.databasix.com:
> 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
Woodchuck Bill
BD24-000...@patrickbkelly.org:
> 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
Woodchuck Bill
BD24-000...@patrickbkelly.org:
> On Nov 23, 2004, at 3:59 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:37:56 -0400 (AST), scr...@postgresql.org
>> ("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 use...@hub.org 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
Woodchuck Bill
news:co0b1q$5n5$2...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
> 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
Woodchuck Bill
news:200411232149...@jimsun.linxnet.com:
> 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
Klaas
> 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?
Stolen from whom? What does it mean to "own" the big8 namespace?
-Mike