Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, if you want to think along those lines, I believe that we (PGDG)
> currently hold these domain names:
> postgresql.org
> postgresql.com
> postgresql.net
> postgres.org
> postgres.com
> It looks like some domain squatter has his tentacles on postgres.net
> :-(. We are not doing much with any of these except redirecting to
> postgresql.org.
Looks like he hasn't been squatting all that long:
Domain Name: POSTGRES.NET
Created on..............: Wed, Aug 07, 2002
Expires on..............: Sat, Aug 07, 2004
Record last updated on..: Fri, Oct 31, 2003
Also note the expiration date. Maybe we can convince him to let us have
the domain. Is it worth asking?
> You could make a case that postgres.org for the projects would be the
> perfect complement to postgresql.org for the core.
>
> After looking at this list I'm sort of inclined to the idea that we
> should *not* use postgresql.net for much of anything ... that will just
> help drive traffic to that squatter at postgres.net.
Hmmm, perhaps you're right. Too bad, I was going to vote for
postgresql.net myself. If we could get control of postgres.net that
option would definitely get my vote.
> This also brings up the thought that if we do want to use pgfoundry.org,
> we'd better register pgfoundry.net and pgfoundry.com before someone
> else does.
I agree with the others who have said pgfoundry.org is not clearly
enough linked.
Joe