Re: Important Info on comp.databases.postgresql.general

Joseph Daniel Zukiger wrote:

"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:<418F7FD3.156C@sprintmail.com>...

Rebecca Ore wrote:

Since they have traffic and are bidirectional, and since he doesn't have
any objections, it looks like creating the groups by fiat would work
just fine and avoid a lot of misinformed "but we didn't ask for this"
squabbling. Same as with the scrapbook group.

It's NOT bidirectional, as I understand it. Posts to the newsgroup
go to the mailing list IF the sender is subcribed -- otherwise, they
go to the list owner for (possible) approval. If the list owner
is willing to unmoderate the mailing list, it WOULD be bidirectional.

Marc says he's looking into the setup, to see if he can fix that. I
think his primary problem is that he wants to devote full time to
postgresql development. He's part of the core team, as I recall.

So -- either the list owner must unmoderate the mailing list,
or the groups must be moderated.

A moderationg policy of no SPAM should be sufficient, right?

I see no reasonable third
option. Under the circumstances, I'm not sure I'd accept
Marc as moderator on the Usenet side.

Would a group of moderaters to help Marc carry the load be
appropriate? Or would it be preferable to not have Marc moderating
posts from usenet at all? (I'm thinking you mean the former.)

Actually, I meant the latter, if (as it appears) he is responsible
for and unrepentant about the lists being gated to Usenet in
the first place. But it's too early in the process for that to
be my final conclusion.

--
This account is subject to a persistent MS Blaster and SWEN attack.
I think I've got the problem resolved, but, if you E-mail me
and it bounces, a second try might work.
However, please reply in newsgroup.

Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote in
news:87d5ymu8pk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu:

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

Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> wrote:

Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote in
news:87d5ymu8pk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu:

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?

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).

...

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.

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.

ru

--
My standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.

ru.igarashi@usask.ca wrote in news:cmr97f$t29$1@tribune.usask.ca:

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

In article <Xns959C804EC266Abswr607h4@130.133.1.4>,
Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> wrote:

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.

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. So, not only is there nothing wrong with it, it is a way
of getting a "promotion" into the cabal.

Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns959C804EC266Abswr607h4@130.133.1.4:

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.

I think that the question is will the "rogue" groups being created do a
significant amount of damage to the rest of usenet that a UDP is warranted.
In this case, recommending a UDP for a set of groups that is, from what I
can tell, pretty much self-contained, sorta like using a shotgun to open a
peanut. It does the job but is way out of scale.
--
Marcel

ru.igarashi@usask.ca wrote in news:cmr97f$t29$1@tribune.usask.ca:

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

stanley@a.shell.peak.org (John Stanley) wrote in
news:cmra1r$ujk$1@a.shell.peak.org:

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

On 9 Nov 2004 20:36:47 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> wrote:

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.

It is PERFECTLY acceptable for a server owner to configure their news
server to use whatever groups they wish. Nobody owns the Big 8 namespace;
nobody can force news admins to adhere to a single common version.

Russ et al offer an *advisory* service. That's all the Big-8 really is.
Commonly followed advice, yes, but advice nonetheless.

It would be nice if the admins who were using these feeds configured their
systems to only exchange these groups with other like-minded admins, given
the potential for confusion, but the failure to do so is NOT abuse of the
network.

--
Devin L. Ganger <devin@thecabal.org>
"Aikido is based around the central precept of letting an attack take
its natural course. You, of course, don't want to impede that natural
flow by being in its way." -- overheard on the PyraMOO

Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> wrote:

ru.igarashi@usask.ca wrote in news:cmr97f$t29$1@tribune.usask.ca:

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.

I realize that, and that is part of the basis for my objection to
folks creating bogus newsgroups. But the fact remains that it's
their server, and thus, their rules.

Even Google is
either confused or careless about the status of those groups.

Google is just one of those services that doesn't give a damn, and
thus exercising their perogative, just like any number of servers
that wish to collect as many groups as they can.

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?

That's a separate, though related, matter. If the proponents owned
or had access to a server and decided to create r.w.a-a, that's
their perogative. If they wish to spread r.w.a-a, well, that turns
out to be their perogative, too. Anyone is allowed to do this.
It's totally up to rest of the news server admins to honor or reject
the newgroup. Again, their server, their rules. I wouldn't be
happy about it, but I'm not going to force them to do otherwise.

Archiving the rogue group in Google Groups?

Google's choice.

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.

As Russ & Co. say, if it comes to that, then 1) the existing process
deserves to be ignored, 2) news admins have voted with their feet
and decided to go with another process, or found a better way. I
don't like the idea of being bypassed, but they are right. It's our
job to find ways to make "non-bogus groups" more attractive. This
process has always been predicated on voluntary acceptance of the
results. I don't think Russ & Co are willing to abandon that
philosophy, even if it means the (deserved) demise of the Big-8
process.

ru

--
My standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.

Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> writes:

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?

The proponents are entirely welcome to do so, so long as they send it
in their own name(s). That's the way Usenet is supposed to work.
Operationally their control messages will be ignored at many to most
sites, as those site admins have chosen to follow the NAN Big-8 group
list. That's also the way Usenet is supposed to work.

If they consulted with me in advance, I would not recommend it, since
so far as I have been able to determine, groups which go through the
NAN process get better distribution than those which do not. If it
was better, or even equivalent, to be a "rogue" group, then we would
not have these discussions about the scrapbooks group and now the
PostgreSQL groups.

Archiving the rogue group in Google Groups?

Google is a private site, they can carry whatever groups and whatever
content they wish to. That is the way Usenet is supposed to work.

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.

As Russ has pointed out more than once, if so called "rogue" groups
are equally successful as groups that go through the NAN process, this
exposes a problem with the NAN process, not the rogue groups.

Brian.

pvaurio@solaris.polarhome.com wrote:

The lists are not bogus and your suggestion is not acceptable. Many of
the list subscribers have no connection to Usenet. They will be mailed
the ballots, regardless of what you or anyone else say. They are the
people who will be directly affected by this.

You should direct them to usenet so they can get offical legal ballots.
Ballots obtained the way you say may be invalidated!

For those without usenet access, www.individual.net has a free usenet sever
you can use. It does not carry the postgresql groups BUT it does have
news.groups.

In article <Xns959C804EC266Abswr607h4@130.133.1.4>,
Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> wrote:

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.

Almost no servers create every group from every control message. Many
servers add groups that their customers request if there's a valid
control message somewhere, or if the group is carried by Google.

On 9 Nov 2004 15:51:24 -0800, pvaurio@solaris.polarhome.com wrote:

This is a very unfair limitation.

Stop top posting.

If there is a ballot, it should be posted to each of the individual mailing lists.

That's not how it works.

When/if a ballot appears in News Announce Newgroups, I will copy/paste and e-mail the
ballot to each of the PostgreSql mailing lists, once per week during
the 3 weeks of voting. The mailing list users will be most affected by
any voting outcome. I will not allow them to be left out of the
process. Many of the list subscribers do not use Usenet. I never posted
to a newsgroup before today.

Additionally, I encourage all list members to vote yes. Please get
everyone you know to vote. We need to exceed the no votes by 100 in
order to pass. I am affiliated with a network of over 60 PostgreSql
users/developers, and I will e-mail each one of those people a ballot,
and it is safe to presume that essentially all of them will vote yes. I
encourage all proponents of saving the lists to do exactly the same,
within their scope of influence.

You're trying to get it to fail, eh? Nice going.

I am stupefied by the downright arrogance of most of the news.groups
readership.

Please. We're trying to help you fix something that's broken.

You people have the audacity try and dictate rules of
matters that do not affect your lives in the least.

I've dealt with the day to day workings of USENet for more than 10
years and there are a LOT of people who've been doing it longer.

Try not making so many assumptions.

Mr. Pauli Vaurio

--
gburnore@databasix dot com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | �۳�ݳ޳�ݳ��ۺݳ޳�ݳݳ޳�ݳ��۳
| �۳�ݳ޳�ݳ��ۺݳ޳�ݳݳ޳�ݳ��۳
DataBasix | �۳�ݳ޳�ݳ��ۺݳ޳�ݳݳ޳�ݳ��۳
| �۳ 3 4 1 4 2 ݳ޳ 6 9 0 6 9 �۳
Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division | Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
Want one? GET one! http://signup.databasix.com
===========================================================================

Joseph Daniel Zukiger wrote:

It looks like I'm may have to finally subscribe through my isp and
learn how to configure a newsreader in order to vote in favor, instead
of posting through google all the time. That should speed my access to
usenet up quite a bit. Oh, well.

JouDanZuki

You can go to www.individual.net and get a free usenet account.

pvaurio@solaris.polarhome.com wrote in message news:<1100045294.247165.11750@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...

The lists are not bogus and your suggestion is not acceptable. Many of
the list subscribers have no connection to Usenet. They will be mailed
the ballots, regardless of what you or anyone else say. They are the
people who will be directly affected by this.

Mr. Pauli Vaurio
...

Pauli --

"Bogus" is being used here in a technical sense. It is not a judgement
of value.

The groups in question have not conformed to certain rules/customs. In
that sense, their names are "bogus" -- not official, conforming use of
the namespaces the usenet organization has reserved.

The fact that these groups apparently have the most right to the names
in question is a big point in their favor, but the group maintainer
did not go through the customary processes in reserving the names and
requesting listing. So they are not official, thus they are "bogus".

It looks like I'm may have to finally subscribe through my isp and
learn how to configure a newsreader in order to vote in favor, instead
of posting through google all the time. That should speed my access to
usenet up quite a bit. Oh, well.

JouDanZuki

Joseph Daniel Zukiger wrote:

pvaurio@solaris.polarhome.com wrote in message
news:<1100045294.247165.11750@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...

The lists are not bogus and your suggestion is not acceptable. Many of
the list subscribers have no connection to Usenet. They will be mailed
the ballots, regardless of what you or anyone else say. They are the
people who will be directly affected by this.

Mr. Pauli Vaurio
...

Pauli --

"Bogus" is being used here in a technical sense. It is not a judgement
of value.

The groups in question have not conformed to certain rules/customs. In
that sense, their names are "bogus" -- not official, conforming use of
the namespaces the usenet organization has reserved.

The fact that these groups apparently have the most right to the names
in question is a big point in their favor, but the group maintainer
did not go through the customary processes in reserving the names and
requesting listing. So they are not official, thus they are "bogus".

It looks like I'm may have to finally subscribe through my isp and
learn how to configure a newsreader in order to vote in favor, instead
of posting through google all the time. That should speed my access to
usenet up quite a bit. Oh, well.

JouDanZuki

Joe, your access to ng's will speed up *dramatically* when you go through a
news server. The one Mike Cox recommended in his reply is very reliable.

--
Kenneth Downs
Use first initial plus last name at last name plus literal "fam.net" to
email me

--- "Gary L. Burnore" <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote:

On 9 Nov 2004 15:51:24 -0800,
pvaurio@solaris.polarhome.com wrote:

This is a very unfair limitation.

Stop top posting.

If there is a ballot, it should be posted to each

of the individual mailing lists.

That's not how it works.

When/if a ballot appears in News Announce

Newgroups, I will copy/paste and e-mail the

ballot to each of the PostgreSql mailing lists,

once per week during

the 3 weeks of voting. The mailing list users will

be most affected by

any voting outcome. I will not allow them to be

left out of the

process. Many of the list subscribers do not use

Usenet. I never posted

to a newsgroup before today.

Additionally, I encourage all list members to vote

yes. Please get

everyone you know to vote. We need to exceed the no

votes by 100 in

order to pass. I am affiliated with a network of

over 60 PostgreSql

users/developers, and I will e-mail each one of

those people a ballot,

and it is safe to presume that essentially all of

them will vote yes. I

encourage all proponents of saving the lists to do

exactly the same,

within their scope of influence.

You're trying to get it to fail, eh? Nice going.

I am stupefied by the downright arrogance of most

of the news.groups

readership.

Please. We're trying to help you fix something
that's broken.

??? As a longstanding reader of the pgsql-
mailinglists, (including via news.postgresql.org on
occasion), all I see is some outsiders trying to help
us "fix" a problem that does not exist. And yes, I
have read most of the messages that have passed by in
these threads. After all that, I still don't see the
benefit.

Perhaps that is why these conversations have been
carried on almost totally by people who do not post to
the pgsql lists.

You people have the audacity try and dictate rules

of

matters that do not affect your lives in the least.

I've dealt with the day to day workings of USENet
for more than 10
years and there are a LOT of people who've been
doing it longer.

Try not making so many assumptions.

Mr. Pauli Vaurio

--
gburnore@databasix dot com

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

How you look depends on where you
go.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gary L. Burnore |
���������������������������������������������������
|
���������������������������������������������������
DataBasix |
���������������������������������������������������
| ����� 3 4 1 4
2 ���� 6 9 0 6 9 �����
Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division | Official
Proof of Purchase

===========================================================================

Want one? GET one!
http://signup.databasix.com

===========================================================================

---------------------------(end of
broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com

Jeff Eckermann wrote:

??? As a longstanding reader of the pgsql-
mailinglists, (including via news.postgresql.org on
occasion), all I see is some outsiders trying to help
us "fix" a problem that does not exist. And yes, I
have read most of the messages that have passed by in
these threads. After all that, I still don't see the
benefit.

Perhaps in parallel with the Usenet community voting whether they want
to receive posts from the mailing lists, we can have the mailing list
subscribers vote on whether they want to receive messages from the
Usenet or want to have their messages forwarded to the Usenet. That
might be interesting.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/