move to usenet?

In response to "Jules Alberts":

This is not a troll and I certainly don't want to start a holy war but
wouldn't it be a good idea to move the postgresql lists from the
mailing list approach to usenet? IMHO it's more open and easier to
work with. As it is now, there are some postgreql usenet groups but
hardly anything happens there.

Just red your message in 'lists.pgsql.general' on usenet .... ;-)

Best to ask your provider to make the groups 'lists.pgsql.*' available.

HansH

On Tuesday 19 Aug 2003 09:06 in
<20030819080727.22F781CB1D0@koshin.dsl.systemec.nl>, Jules Alberts
(jules.alberts@arbodienst-limburg.nl) wrote:

This is not a troll and I certainly don't want to start a holy war but
wouldn't it be a good idea to move the postgresql lists from the
mailing list approach to usenet?

I don't know about anybody else, but I am already reading these messages
from a Usenet newsserver. I do not receive them as e-mail.

I agree that many messages are not formatted according to Usenet
conventions, but I normally attribute that to Windows users who know
nothing about the Internet. Thus, top-posting and full-quoting are rife all
across Usenet.

--
Regards,

Dave [RLU#314465]
======================================================
dwnoon@spamtrap.ntlworld.com (David W Noon)
Remove spam trap to reply via e-mail.
======================================================

I use outlook express to visit news.postgresql.org now.
It works well.

"David W Noon" <dwnoon@spamtrap.ntlworld.com>
news:1od911-17s.ln1@my-pc.ntlworld.com...

On Tuesday 19 Aug 2003 09:06 in
<20030819080727.22F781CB1D0@koshin.dsl.systemec.nl>, Jules Alberts
(jules.alberts@arbodienst-limburg.nl) wrote:

This is not a troll and I certainly don't want to start a holy war but
wouldn't it be a good idea to move the postgresql lists from the
mailing list approach to usenet?

I don't know about anybody else, but I am already reading these messages
from a Usenet newsserver. I do not receive them as e-mail.

I agree that many messages are not formatted according to Usenet
conventions, but I normally attribute that to Windows users who know
nothing about the Internet. Thus, top-posting and full-quoting are rife

all

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Jules Alberts wrote:

Hello everyone,

This is not a troll and I certainly don't want to start a holy war but
wouldn't it be a good idea to move the postgresql lists from the
mailing list approach to usenet? IMHO it's more open and easier to work
with. As it is now, there are some postgreql usenet groups but hardly
anything happens there.

Actually, the news feeds are supposed to be mirrored out to the individual
news groups, i.e. we gateway the mailing lists to usenet.

I think Spam is probably the main reason we stick with mailing lists. As
bad as email spam is, usenet spam is far worse, and harder to filter.

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Jules Alberts wrote:

Hello everyone,

This is not a troll and I certainly don't want to start a holy war but
wouldn't it be a good idea to move the postgresql lists from the
mailing list approach to usenet? IMHO it's more open and easier to work
with. As it is now, there are some postgreql usenet groups but hardly
anything happens there.

connect to news.us.postgresql.org or news.fr.postgresql.org if you want to
get all messages/groups ... they are all gate'd ... if anyone out there is
running a news server that is willing to provide a relay point, please
contact me, and we'll work on getting a feed in place ...

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, The Hermit Hacker wrote:

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Jules Alberts wrote:

Hello everyone,

This is not a troll and I certainly don't want to start a holy war but
wouldn't it be a good idea to move the postgresql lists from the
mailing list approach to usenet? IMHO it's more open and easier to work
with. As it is now, there are some postgreql usenet groups but hardly
anything happens there.

connect to news.us.postgresql.org or news.fr.postgresql.org if you want to
get all messages/groups ... they are all gate'd ... if anyone out there is
running a news server that is willing to provide a relay point, please
contact me, and we'll work on getting a feed in place ...

I'd also recommend groups.google.com for searching the archives.

When the updates weren't getting out for a bit after the most recent
server crash it was hard for me, since I use it to look up old threads
'cause I delete them in my email pretty quick.

On Tuesday 19 Aug 2003 15:43 in <bhtcr6$fpv$1@news.hub.org>, Chris M
(chris@none.none) wrote:

I use outlook express to visit news.postgresql.org now.
It works well.

Thank you for top-posting and full-quoting, just to prove my point. ... :-)

--
Regards,

Dave [RLU#314465]
======================================================
dwnoon@spamtrap.ntlworld.com (David W Noon)
Remove spam trap to reply via e-mail.
======================================================

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Jules Alberts wrote:

Op 19 Aug 2003 (15:35), schreef The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@postgresql.org>:

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Jules Alberts wrote:

Hello everyone,

This is not a troll and I certainly don't want to start a holy war but
wouldn't it be a good idea to move the postgresql lists from the
mailing list approach to usenet? IMHO it's more open and easier to
work with. As it is now, there are some postgreql usenet groups but
hardly anything happens there.

connect to news.us.postgresql.org or news.fr.postgresql.org if you want
to get all messages/groups ... they are all gate'd ... if anyone out
there is running a news server that is willing to provide a relay point,
please contact me, and we'll work on getting a feed in place ...

Thanks for the tip. I can't find these groups on usenet, but I will ask
my provider if he can get them, shouldn't be a problem. Another
question: are these groups only a reflection of the mailinglist, or is
it also possible to do postings there. Will these be visible to the
mailinglist?

The gateway is bi-directional, but unless you are actually subscribed to
the mailing list (there is a set nomail option available), your posting
has to go through the moderator (me) before it gets to the mailing list
*from* usenet ...

-----Original Message-----
From: David W Noon [mailto:dwnoon@spamtrap.ntlworld.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 4:20 AM
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] move to usenet?

I agree that many messages are not formatted according to Usenet
conventions, but I normally attribute that to Windows users who know
nothing about the Internet. Thus, top-posting and
full-quoting are rife all
across Usenet.

David,

What is the point of bottom posting anymore? I thought it had to do with turn-around time so that you could re-read whatever it is you wrote a "long time ago". I highly doubt you would know, but is there an easy way to make Outlook 2000 (not Express) bottom post? I've searched groups.google.com for it and found only things like "Copy & paste your signature", etc.

Full-quoting is just a pain when it comes to searching on google, since a reply may only consist of quoted messages and then a "read the whole message" link.

--------------------------
David Olbersen
iGuard Engineer
St. Bernard Software

I prefer NOT to have to scroll down to the bottom of an email anyway. I
think discussion list emails like ours need to be like your medical
records, the most important, recent stuff is at the top.

I'm not exactly sure what full quoting is.

David Olbersen wrote:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 14:44:28 -0700 David Olbersen <DOlbersen@stbernard.com> wrote:

What is the point of bottom posting anymore? I thought it had to do with
turn-around time so that you could re-read whatever it is you wrote a
"long time ago". I highly doubt you would know, but is there an easy way
to make Outlook 2000 (not Express) bottom post?

there are these powerful tools called mice and arrow keys. i find that they
work quite well if you want to bottom post in outlook.

cheers,
richard
--
Richard Welty rwelty@averillpark.net
Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592
Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security

Thus spake Richard Welty (mailto:rwelty@averillpark.net):

there are these powerful tools called mice and arrow keys. i find
that they work quite well if you want to bottom post in outlook.

And Hans van Harten found one that's even more powerful:

http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/outlook-quotefix/

--------------------------
David Olbersen
iGuard Engineer
St. Bernard Software
11415 West Bernardo Court
San Diego, CA 92127
1-858-676-2277 x2152

On Wednesday 20 Aug 2003 22:44 in
<E7E213858379814A9AE48CA6754F5ECB0D706B@mail01.stbernard.com>, David
Olbersen (DOlbersen@stbernard.com) wrote:

[snip]

What is the point of bottom posting anymore? I thought it had to do with
turn-around time so that you could re-read whatever it is you wrote a
"long time ago".

The reason for posting a follow-up below the text to which it is replying is
for readers who like to see the question before the answer, viz.,

A: Because it breaks the natural flow of discussion.

Q: Why is top-posting bad?

The most important point is that a message should not be viewed as a
monolithic block of text. Replies should be interpolated immediately below
the items to which they pertain.

I highly doubt you would know, but is there an easy way
to make Outlook 2000 (not Express) bottom post?

I haven't used Outlook for over 2 years. However, when I did I was able to
bottom-post my replies. I think the only option I selected was about cursor
positioning, but I don't remember clearly how I configured it.

Full-quoting is just a pain when it comes to searching on google, since a
reply may only consist of quoted messages and then a "read the whole
message" link.

Full-quoting wastes bandwidth, a somewhat moot point these days, and keeps
text that is not relevant to the follow-up message. The latter is more
important when searching on Google and the like, as false positives can be
returned due to matches on quoted text asking a question to which the
follow-up message does not supply an answer.

As a result, snipping irrelevant blocks of text makes a reply more precise
and more useful for archival searching. [As well as reducing download times
for those still using dial-up.]
--
Regards,

Dave [RLU#314465]
======================================================
dwnoon@spamtrap.ntlworld.com (David W Noon)
Remove spam trap to reply via e-mail.
======================================================

On Wednesday 20 Aug 2003 22:58 in <3F43EEEB.5010304@fireserve.net>, Dennis
Gearon (gearond@fireserve.net) wrote:

I prefer NOT to have to scroll down to the bottom of an email anyway. I
think discussion list emails like ours need to be like your medical
records, the most important, recent stuff is at the top.

This approach puts answers out of the context of their related questions.

Virtually all Usenet newsgroups and private mailing lists are Q&A style
technical support forums. They are not at all like medical records, which
are mostly logs of empirical data. Consequently, the "medical records"
analogy is really a poor one for a context like the one in which this
meta-discussion is occurring.

Instead, the person replying to a message should trim that message down to
the specific parts to which the follow-up will pertain, and then place each
answer immediately after the question or observation to which it is
replying.

This has been the Usenet convention for over 15 years [and a Fidonet
convention even before that].

I'm not exactly sure what full quoting is.

Full-quoting is the retention of those parts of a message to which the
follow-up message is not replying. See my follow-up to David Olbersen's
message for an explanation of why this is poor practice.
--
Regards,

Dave [RLU#314465]
======================================================
dwnoon@spamtrap.ntlworld.com (David W Noon)
Remove spam trap to reply via e-mail.
======================================================

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Jules Alberts wrote:

This is not a troll and I certainly don't want to start a holy war but
wouldn't it be a good idea to move the postgresql lists from the
mailing list approach to usenet? IMHO it's more open and easier to work
with. As it is now, there are some postgreql usenet groups but hardly
anything happens there.

If there are already postgresql usenet groups and they're going unused it
would seem the users of the lists have already voted with their feet...

I've never seen any development groups successfully use usenet groups. They
always end up moribund and development either crashes or migrates to a mailing
list. I think people just think about usenet groups and mailing lists
differently.

(The only counter-examples I know of are the php groups and the mozilla
groups. However, in reality both groups carry on a lot of their development
communication outside of the newsgroups.)

--
greg

Oh the irony.

"Chris M" <chris@none.none> writes:

I use outlook express to visit news.postgresql.org now.
It works well.

"David W Noon" <dwnoon@spamtrap.ntlworld.com>
news:1od911-17s.ln1@my-pc.ntlworld.com...

On Tuesday 19 Aug 2003 09:06 in
<20030819080727.22F781CB1D0@koshin.dsl.systemec.nl>, Jules Alberts
(jules.alberts@arbodienst-limburg.nl) wrote:

This is not a troll and I certainly don't want to start a holy war but
wouldn't it be a good idea to move the postgresql lists from the
mailing list approach to usenet?

I don't know about anybody else, but I am already reading these messages
from a Usenet newsserver. I do not receive them as e-mail.

I agree that many messages are not formatted according to Usenet
conventions, but I normally attribute that to Windows users who know
nothing about the Internet. Thus, top-posting and full-quoting are rife

all

across Usenet.

--
Regards,

Dave [RLU#314465]
======================================================
dwnoon@spamtrap.ntlworld.com (David W Noon)
Remove spam trap to reply via e-mail.
======================================================

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html

--
greg

Hee Hee, but I _**LIKE**_ top quoting.

Greg Stark wrote:

Dennis Gearon wrote:

I prefer NOT to have to scroll down to the bottom of an email anyway. I
think discussion list emails like ours need to be like your medical
records, the most important, recent stuff is at the top.

I do often top-post, and I didn't realize it was an issue until this
week. I usually top-post when I need to make a comment on the entire
email, like "Is there a TODO here?", "patch applied", or something like
that so people know what I am saying. If I want to respond in a
detailed way, I trim and post comments below each section. My top-posts
also have a horizontal line at the bottom so it is clear it is a top
post. Is that OK?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 08:40, Dennis Gearon wrote:

Hee Hee, but I _**LIKE**_ top quoting.

That's good. Top-quoting is good.

Top posting, on the other hand, is bad. It's also what you did.

Stephen
--
Stephen Robert Norris <srn@commsecure.com.au>
CommSecure Australia Pty Ltd