Обсуждение: move to usenet?
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. Just an idea...
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.
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?
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 ...
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 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. ======================================================
> -----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 whateverit is you wrote a "long time ago". I highly doubt you would know, but is there an easy way to make Outlook 2000 (notExpress) 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 thena "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: >>-----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 whateverit is you wrote a "long time ago". I highly doubt you would know, but is there an easy way to make Outlook 2000 (notExpress) 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 andthen a "read the whole message" link. > >-------------------------- >David Olbersen >iGuard Engineer >St. Bernard Software > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings > > >
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 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
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. > ======================================================
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
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
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
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
Hee Hee, but I _**LIKE**_ top quoting. Greg Stark wrote: >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 >> >> >> > > >
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
well I meant top posting, sorry about that, and I do like it. the whole idea of these computer thingies is to save time and make us more efficient. (At least that's what I tell the boss when I ask for more speed, ram, and better disks :-) Scrolling down to the bottom of 100 emails a day takes time. Stephen Robert Norris wrote: >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 > >
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. ======================================================
At 8/26/03 12:56 AM, Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote: >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? Actually, the horizontal line looks almost exactly like the message separator to those receiving the list in digest mode (it's just a little wider), and has confused me a number of times. Since you're asking, please don't do that :-) -- Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies
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. ======================================================
Dennis Gearon <gearond@fireserve.net> writes: > Scrolling down to the bottom of 100 emails a day takes time. Well that's why it's silly to quote entire messages. People can always go back and read the old messages if that's what they want to do. No need to have umpteen copies of them flying back and forth. -- greg
Depends, for short statements as a general reply to a whole message, top posting is OK. But for in depth, paragraph by paragraph analyzis of technical topics I will continue with inline quoting. Jan Stephen Robert Norris wrote: > 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
Robert L Mathews wrote: > At 8/26/03 12:56 AM, Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote: > > >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? > > Actually, the horizontal line looks almost exactly like the message > separator to those receiving the list in digest mode (it's just a little > wider), and has confused me a number of times. > > Since you're asking, please don't do that :-) Oh, interesting --- digest mode. I think in top-posting, it is important to clearly show where your posting stops. If not, you get the comment, then a "XXX Wrote:" which isn't a very clear delimiter. Is there some other way I could mark the end of a top comment? In my case, when I top post, I need to retain the entire text so people will recognize it. -- 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