Hijack!
Someone scolding wrote:
Please don't hijack other threads, the original thread was 'TIMESTAMP
difference'.
(don't answer to an arbitrary other mail and change the subject. Every
mail contains references-header)
I apologize; I had assumed that the threads were simply grouped by
subject. If this is such a problem, probably it should be laid out on
the list information page, otherwise how is anyone to know?
Putting this information here would be a good thing:
http://www.postgresql.org/community/lists/
Keith (not scolding, but Hijack is an accusative term)
Keith Turner wrote:
Someone scolding wrote:
Please don't hijack other threads, the original thread was 'TIMESTAMP
difference'.
I think it was probably intended as a *gentle* scolding. We try to be as
polite as possible on the PG lists. Particularly important given their
international nature of course.
(don't answer to an arbitrary other mail and change the subject. Every
mail contains references-header)
Yep - Thunderbird (for example) threads messages by this header. Your
original question was hidden two layers down and I'd never have seen it
if I hadn't been reading the one you replied to. That's the reason why
people say not to do it - if you reply to an existing question many
people will miss yours.
I apologize; I had assumed that the threads were simply grouped by
subject. If this is such a problem, probably it should be laid out on
the list information page, otherwise how is anyone to know?
It's one of those "common knowledge" things that are obvious to everyone
who's done it once themselves. It's just part of the nature of how email
works. Google around "mailing list etiquette" and you should see plenty
of guidelines.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
Thank you for your response. What may be obvious to some isn't always to
others. It's never a bad idea to remind users how you want your data
formatted if there are roadblocks that are not obvious on the surface.
Thanks again...
K.
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Huxton [mailto:dev@archonet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 6:58 AM
To: Keith Turner
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
Keith Turner wrote:
Someone scolding wrote:
Please don't hijack other threads, the original thread was 'TIMESTAMP
difference'.
I think it was probably intended as a *gentle* scolding. We try to be as
polite as possible on the PG lists. Particularly important given their
international nature of course.
(don't answer to an arbitrary other mail and change the subject. Every
mail contains references-header)
Yep - Thunderbird (for example) threads messages by this header. Your
original question was hidden two layers down and I'd never have seen it
if I hadn't been reading the one you replied to. That's the reason why
people say not to do it - if you reply to an existing question many
people will miss yours.
I apologize; I had assumed that the threads were simply grouped by
subject. If this is such a problem, probably it should be laid out on
the list information page, otherwise how is anyone to know?
It's one of those "common knowledge" things that are obvious to everyone
who's done it once themselves. It's just part of the nature of how email
works. Google around "mailing list etiquette" and you should see plenty
of guidelines.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
am Tue, dem 11.12.2007, um 14:57:57 +0000 mailte Richard Huxton folgendes:
Keith Turner wrote:
Someone scolding wrote:
I wrote this ;-)
Please don't hijack other threads, the original thread was 'TIMESTAMP
difference'.I think it was probably intended as a *gentle* scolding. We try to be as
Yes, of course. It was not my intention to displease someone.
polite as possible on the PG lists. Particularly important given their
international nature of course.
I'd like this PG lists. I know, my english is very ugly because it isn't
my native language. But PG is a really great Open Source Project and it
has a really large and userfriendly communitity. And, of course, i can
learn more about english and PG and i wish to help others if i can.
It's one of those "common knowledge" things that are obvious to everyone
who's done it once themselves. It's just part of the nature of how email
works. Google around "mailing list etiquette" and you should see plenty
of guidelines.
Right. There are other hints, for instance all about top-posting style.
If i search the archive and read answers and i see (i read normally
from top to bottom) first the answer and later the question, so this is
hard to understand. The rules for mailing lists etiquette are useful and
i wish, more people would follow this rules.
Andreas
--
Andreas Kretschmer
Kontakt: Heynitz: 035242/47150, D1: 0160/7141639 (mehr: -> Header)
GnuPG-ID: 0x3FFF606C, privat 0x7F4584DA http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:48:35 -0800
"Keith Turner" <kturner@cloudsystems.com> wrote:
I apologize; I had assumed that the threads were simply grouped by
subject. If this is such a problem, probably it should be laid out on
the list information page, otherwise how is anyone to know?
Because it is standard practice on the internet to have lists-headers?
And that is how every standard mail client deals with it?
Joshua D. Drake
- --
The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
SELECT 'Training', 'Consulting' FROM vendor WHERE name = 'CMD'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHXrilATb/zqfZUUQRAn1CAJwM5s5qBv9SvnWN3G2vyKtLZkGchACcCkUu
DlOPVMkYYBaoGgUUAuZFTGg=
=Y4IR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 11/12/2007 14:57, Richard Huxton wrote:
It's one of those "common knowledge" things that are obvious to everyone
who's done it once themselves. It's just part of the nature of how email
works. Google around "mailing list etiquette" and you should see plenty
of guidelines.
It might be a good idea to append a mini-FAQ, covering these items, to
the automatic email which is sent out to new list subscribers. For
example, something along these lines:
// >>>>
Please note in particular the following points of netiquette:
* Don't top-post, as it makes for confusing reading.
* Don't start a new thread by replying to an old one, because [insert
suitable technical explanation here].
Failure to observe the above may result in your question going unanswered.
// <<<<<
Ray.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond O'Donnell, Director of Music, Galway Cathedral, Ireland
rod@iol.ie
---------------------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:31:40 +0000
"Raymond O'Donnell" <rod@iol.ie> wrote:
// >>>>
Please note in particular the following points of netiquette:* Don't top-post, as it makes for confusing reading.
* Don't start a new thread by replying to an old one, because [insert
suitable technical explanation here].Failure to observe the above may result in your question going
unanswered. // <<<<<
O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If you
are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's
content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to not top post.
However, I would also note that in "windows" world, it is very common
to top post. I am constantly retraining very smart, just very ignorant
customers.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
- --
The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
SELECT 'Training', 'Consulting' FROM vendor WHERE name = 'CMD'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHXr5AATb/zqfZUUQRAolQAJ9MhHfioLWcA9iacC2U2yxpymk+twCcCU6k
6BjjQP25qcdqjfRzsVFFFqM=
=DYpd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 08:43:44AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If you
are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's
content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to not top post.
There are those who argue persuasively that emailing is more like letter
writing than conversation, and that it is better to reply with one single
set of paragraphs than with a set of replies interspersed with quotes.
Moreover, under such circumstances, it is utterly silly to quote the entire
original argument first, because the reader then has to plough through a
long block of reproduced content to get to the novel stuff.
On a mailing list, perhaps one can argue that the conventions simply have to
be followed. But I know I find it pretty annoying to get 36 lines of quoted
text followed by something like, "No: see the manual, section x.y.z."
I don't think top posting is always the crime it's made to be (and I get a
little tired of lectures to others about it on these lists).
A
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 08:43:44AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If you
are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's
content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to not top post.There are those who argue persuasively that emailing is more like letter
writing than conversation, and that it is better to reply with one single
set of paragraphs than with a set of replies interspersed with quotes.
Moreover, under such circumstances, it is utterly silly to quote the entire
original argument first, because the reader then has to plough through a
long block of reproduced content to get to the novel stuff.On a mailing list, perhaps one can argue that the conventions simply have to
be followed. But I know I find it pretty annoying to get 36 lines of quoted
text followed by something like, "No: see the manual, section x.y.z."I don't think top posting is always the crime it's made to be (and I get a
little tired of lectures to others about it on these lists).A
I agree. Obviously there is convention, and I will post in the style
generally accepted in the list, but to me it always made more sense to
top post. If you're keeping up on the conversation, then the relevant
information is right there, and if you weren't, it's not that difficult
to go through and catch up (it's not like the lines are in reverse
order, or the words spelled backwards or something).
I have a great deal of respect for you Joshua, and you've helped me out
of a jam more than once, but quite frankly, that is a bit snooty lol.
Still, there is a convention here, and I can respect that, but please
don't insult people who see the world in a different direction than you :-)
Tom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:49:54 -0500
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> wrote:
On a mailing list, perhaps one can argue that the conventions simply
have to be followed. But I know I find it pretty annoying to get 36
lines of quoted text followed by something like, "No: see the manual,
section x.y.z."
That is what <snip> is for :)
I don't think top posting is always the crime it's made to be (and I
get a little tired of lectures to others about it on these lists).
I can appreciate that but regardless of various "opinions" (mine
included). It is the PostgreSQL communities decision and I believe
except for newbies and a few long timers who should know better,
everyone avoids top posting.
Top posting makes it hard to read.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
- --
The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
SELECT 'Training', 'Consulting' FROM vendor WHERE name = 'CMD'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHXsIXATb/zqfZUUQRAni5AJ4n4UHJVrMyPmv55gAsBzk8IlSB/ACgienh
y+lxmDq+wIlAxJCD3J5v4eU=
=YbQ1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org on behalf of Joshua D. Drake
Sent: Tue 12/11/2007 9:43 AM
To: rod@iol.ie
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Hijack!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:31:40 +0000
"Raymond O'Donnell" <rod@iol.ie> wrote:
// >>>>
Please note in particular the following points of netiquette:* Don't top-post, as it makes for confusing reading.
* Don't start a new thread by replying to an old one, because [insert
suitable technical explanation here].Failure to observe the above may result in your question going
unanswered. // <<<<<O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If you
are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's
content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to not top post.However, I would also note that in "windows" world, it is very common
to top post. I am constantly retraining very smart, just very ignorant
customers.
* Not all mail clients deal well with inline/bottom quoting (manually added "> " to lines here since my mail reader does not do so automatically -- imagine doing so for a complex quote!)
* Top posting is very common in companies with lots of blackberry (etc) users since they seem to see only tops easily.
* my mail client *always* starts at the top of the message. For rapid/internal mails top posting works better because the answer/most recent is always at the top. Complex messages do deserve in-posting but not always easy, especially if you have to do it manually). Does your mail browser always start at the bottom ? I always see the top of a message first. Simple threads work very well this way -- complicated ones collapse under top-posting.
* a lot of us have to use what ever the company provides as mail server. Exchange sucks but I'd rather not quit my job just because _you_ have a problem reading mail that does not conform to the "T" to your expectations. And there is a limit to how much time I want to spend manually formatting your mail to respond to it. Note that a lot of postGIS mail list posts are top-posted and the complaint rate is vanishingly small. Yet somehow business clanks on. Imagine that! And I can't even use exchange/outlook -- web interface to Micro$soft really sucks.
* Try to see the world from a perspective other that your own (admittedly superior) one ! Not everyone is so advanced.
* Get a life -- how people post is _trivial_. *content* over *form* ! Beating dead horses is of no interest other than the inherent joy in the thing. Deal with the fact that an open mail ist will have users from *all* backgrounds and origins and it you can't make everything a fight. Pick the most important battles. Top-posting is not the worst sin. (not reading the manuals is the by the worst transgression, IMHO).
And for those who really care, email etiquette in painful detail here <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855>. Hijacking seems to be more of a Bozo No-No than top posting. Or maybe that's just me.
Greg Williamson
Senior DBA
GlobeXplorer LLC, a DigitalGlobe company
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information and must be protected in accordance with those provisions. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
(My corporate masters made me say this.)
On Dec 11, 2007 10:49 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 08:43:44AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If you
are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's
content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to not top post.There are those who argue persuasively that emailing is more like letter
writing than conversation, and that it is better to reply with one single
set of paragraphs than with a set of replies interspersed with quotes.
This would be true if we were writing to each other with letters of
friendly correspondence. We generally are not, but instead are
discussing technical issues. By chopping up the original post into
bite sized pieces and interleaving our answers, we give context to our
responses.
Moreover, under such circumstances, it is utterly silly to quote the entire
original argument first, because the reader then has to plough through a
long block of reproduced content to get to the novel stuff.
I do not believe anyone is arguing for including the entire previous
post. In fact, most netiquette guides quite clearly state you should
summarize the previous reponse instead of including it as one giant
blob.
On a mailing list, perhaps one can argue that the conventions simply have to
be followed.
The conventions exist for a reason, not unto themselves. It is far
easier to have a technical conversation with interleaved quoting than
with top or bottom posting.
But I know I find it pretty annoying to get 36 lines of quoted
text followed by something like, "No: see the manual, section x.y.z."
It is not made any better by having "No: see the manual, section
x.y.z" at the top of 36 quoted lines.
I don't think top posting is always the crime it's made to be (and I get a
little tired of lectures to others about it on these lists).
I agree. There are times it's just fine with me, like when someone is
posting a "Thanks!" message.
But when someone is asking a technical question, and someone has gone
to the trouble to interleave their answers so that they have context,
and then someone posts back, at the very top, "well what about if
change a to b?" And you have no idea what he means without reading
the whole thing, because there's no context.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:54:12 -0500
Thomas Hart <tomhart@coopfed.org> wrote:
I agree. Obviously there is convention, and I will post in the style
generally accepted in the list, but to me it always made more sense
to top post. If you're keeping up on the conversation, then the
relevant information is right there, and if you weren't, it's not
that difficult to go through and catch up (it's not like the lines
are in reverse order, or the words spelled backwards or something).I have a great deal of respect for you Joshua, and you've helped me
out of a jam more than once, but quite frankly, that is a bit snooty
lol. Still, there is a convention here, and I can respect that, but
Well I did say it might be :)
please don't insult people who see the world in a different direction
than you :-)
Don't put this one on me :). This is a community thing. AndrewS reply
aside, if you review the "will" of the community on this you will see
that top posting is frowned upon.
I will be the first to step up and pick a fight when I think the
community is being dumb (just read some of my threads ;)) but on this
one, I have to agree. We should discourage top posting, vehemently if
needed.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
- --
The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
SELECT 'Training', 'Consulting' FROM vendor WHERE name = 'CMD'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHXsU2ATb/zqfZUUQRAtNOAJ442Wi3GRNBPll/sFuUxl+klooryACfcGnV
4j59rc8SxJZ8w3r4DhB9VAk=
=5gEu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:54:12 -0500
Thomas Hart <tomhart@coopfed.org> wrote:I agree. Obviously there is convention, and I will post in the style
generally accepted in the list, but to me it always made more sense
to top post. If you're keeping up on the conversation, then the
relevant information is right there, and if you weren't, it's not
that difficult to go through and catch up (it's not like the lines
are in reverse order, or the words spelled backwards or something).I have a great deal of respect for you Joshua, and you've helped me
out of a jam more than once, but quite frankly, that is a bit snooty
lol. Still, there is a convention here, and I can respect that, butWell I did say it might be :)
please don't insult people who see the world in a different direction
than you :-)Don't put this one on me :). This is a community thing. AndrewS reply
aside, if you review the "will" of the community on this you will see
that top posting is frowned upon.I will be the first to step up and pick a fight when I think the
community is being dumb (just read some of my threads ;)) but on this
one, I have to agree. We should discourage top posting, vehemently if
needed.Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
As I mentioned I agree, and I realize this is a community thing, and the
community is awesome so I can respect their will.
Perhaps we should spend more time working, and spend less time debating
netiquette :-)
"Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> writes:
On a mailing list, perhaps one can argue that the conventions simply have to
be followed. But I know I find it pretty annoying to get 36 lines of quoted
text followed by something like, "No: see the manual, section x.y.z."
That's because the real sin is in quoting irrelevant text. The only reason to
quote text is to respond to it and then you would naturally respond after the
quote since the other way around makes no sense.
If anyone does make a FAQ make sure explain first *what* to quote.
And only having said that then say *how* to quote it.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's Slony Replication support!
On Dec 11, 2007, at 8:43 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:31:40 +0000
"Raymond O'Donnell" <rod@iol.ie> wrote:// >>>>
Please note in particular the following points of netiquette:* Don't top-post, as it makes for confusing reading.
* Don't start a new thread by replying to an old one, because [insert
suitable technical explanation here].Failure to observe the above may result in your question going
unanswered. // <<<<<O.k. this might be a bit snooty but frankly it is almost 2008. If you
are still a top poster, you obviously don't care about the people's
content that you are replying to, to have enough wits to not top post.However, I would also note that in "windows" world, it is very common
to top post. I am constantly retraining very smart, just very ignorant
customers.
In the business world it's common to top-post and not cut previous
content
- and often appropriate, as it tends to be a communication between a
smaller number of people, and the uncut content provides context for
future reference.
Those who rant about anyone who top posts, or state that you should
never top-post are mostly clueless or arrogant, or are making over-broad
generalizations.
That's an entirely different thing to observing that while on the
broader internet
you should follow local etiquette, and that here (as on most technical
lists that have
a fair number of posters with an, uh, old-school background) part of
that is the points listed above.
(And I'd probably add "and trim your response appropriately - removing
stuff not needed for context, but leaving enough to have enough
context").
Cheers,
Steve
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> writes:
On a mailing list, perhaps one can argue that the conventions simply have to
be followed. But I know I find it pretty annoying to get 36 lines of quoted
text followed by something like, "No: see the manual, section x.y.z."
Indeed, and that's why another one of the critical commandments is
"Thou shalt trim thy quotations".
regards, tom lane
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 09:00:05AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:49:54 -0500
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> wrote:On a mailing list, perhaps one can argue that the conventions simply
have to be followed. But I know I find it pretty annoying to get 36
lines of quoted text followed by something like, "No: see the manual,
section x.y.z."That is what <snip> is for :)
I don't think top posting is always the crime it's made to be (and I
get a little tired of lectures to others about it on these lists).I can appreciate that but regardless of various "opinions" (mine
included). It is the PostgreSQL communities decision and I believe
except for newbies and a few long timers who should know better,
everyone avoids top posting.Top posting makes it hard to read.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
Simply replying to an argument with an assertion to the contrary is, I
think, dogmatism. The argument for top posting is that it is _easier_ to
read for certain kinds of cases. I have already rehearsed those arguments;
I think they are both sound and valid, but they don't consider every
situation, and so they also lead to a wrong conclusion sometimes.
I would argue that this message is harder to read than if I'd just replied
at the top. It's pointlessly long -- but without including everything, you
wouldn't have all the context, and you might have missed something. (The
context argument is, of course, the usual one favoured by
call-and-response/"bottom posting" advocates. So, your context is above.)
As for the "snip" claim, it has several problems:
1. It is easy, by injudicious, careless, or malicious use of cutting
from others' posts, to change the main focus of their argument, and thereby
draw the thread in a completely new direction.
2. Owing to (1), snipping is a favourite tactic of trollers.
3. Owing to (1), snipping is a favourite target for cranks, who
immediately turn such threads into long _ad hominems_ about the malicious
slurs being heaped on them by others.
4. Poor editors often obscure enough in their editing that they provide
no more elucidation than nothing, and rather less than there might be with a
top-posted response and a complete copy of the earlier message below it.
I can, of course, produce equally good arguments for not top posting. My
point is not that we should change the convention; but rather, that we
should accept that this is a convention and nothing more. It makes reading
easier for you because it's the convention with which you're familiar. If
you were used to the alternative, you'd find this convention annoying and
pointlessly noisy.
I think it's worthwhile putting a note in the welcome-to-new-subscribers
that this community doesn't like top posting, and that top posting may well
cause your messages to be ignored. Those claims are both true, and we don't
need to justify it with jumped-up claims about the objective superiority of
one method over another. I think we should also avoid being too doctrinaire
about it.
A
Gregory Williamson wrote:
* Try to see the world from a perspective other that your own
(admittedly superior) one ! Not everyone is so advanced.* Get a life -- how people post is _trivial_. *content* over *form* !
Beating dead horses is of no interest other than the inherent joy in
the thing. Deal with the fact that an open mail ist will have users
from *all* backgrounds and origins and it you can't make everything a
fight. Pick the most important battles. Top-posting is not the worst
sin. (not reading the manuals is the by the worst transgression,
IMHO).
But "do not top post" and "don't reply to start a new thread" aren't for
the benefit of the people replying, it's for the benefit of the people
asking the question.
If I'm reading a message and all the information is to hand, I'm likely
to have an insight / spot mistakes.
It's the same as "Have a relevant subject-line". The easier you make it
for people to help you, the more help you'll get.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
"Gregory Williamson" <Gregory.Williamson@digitalglobe.com> writes:
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
privileged information and must be protected in accordance with those
provisions. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
FWIW this would be another item on the netiquette FAQ.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's On-Demand Production Tuning
