Обсуждение: Postresql RFD version 2.0 Help Wanted.

Since we have the discussion going, someone mentioned that the group name
should be comp.databases.postgresql.  I think this is a good name and I'd
like to see what everyone thinks of it.

There is also the issue of the charter.  I would like to get some feed back
on what the best charter could be for the revision of the RFD so it is a
strong as possible.

So the things I'm seeing that people are having the most problems with the
current RFD are:

1. The name.  They want a better name, and also one that doesn't clash with
the "bogus" (usenet terminology, no disrespect intended)
comp.databases.postgresql.general mailing-list newsgroup gateway name
space.

Someone suggested "comp.databases.postgresql".  I think that is a good one,
and if others agree (please respond in this thread), then that will be one
of the changes in the next version of the RFD.

2.  The charter.  A lot of people expressed feedback that my default charter
wasnt very good.  I'll agree with them as it was provided as a starting
point.  I would like the community to craft the charter and the one they
decide upon, I will include in the next RFD.

If there is anything else that would make the next postgresql RFD stronger,
and better, please discuss it in this thread.

I also think that a postgresql group should definately be in the big eight
under the comp.* hierarchy.  The (newly created) alt group should not be a
primary place for discussion because it is not guarenteed that all "proper"
usenet servers will carry it, as they would if it were in the big 8.  There
is also a certain air of respectablity to being in the big 8.  It means
that it has gone through a process and has passed scrutiny.  Then people
would find postgresql next to oracle in the comp.databases.* hierarchy! ;-)

Woodchuck Bill wrote:

> Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> wrote in news:2v4mbfF2i3beoU1@uni-
> berlin.de:
>
>> Since we have the discussion going, someone mentioned that the group name
>> should be comp.databases.postgresql.  I think this is a good name and I'd
>> like to see what everyone thinks of it.
>
> Much better, especially if you are only proposing a single newsgroup in
> the hierarchy. Use of the word "general" is unnecessary, and cumbersome.
>

My original intention was to make the comp.database.postgresql.* groups
proper members of the "big 8" managed hierarchy.  They are considered
"bogus" currently by many proper News providers because they haven't gone
through RFD and CFV.  I wanted to start slowly and with the most benefitial
group, comp.databases.postgresql.general, and then do the others in
accordance to traffic interest as measured by google groups.

There is resistance in the mailing lists however, even though the groups are
already on usenet and are in the  managed "big 8" name space without RFD
and CFV.

That is why I am now proposing to change it to comp.databases.postresql so
it doesn't clash with the mailing list name space of
comp.databases.postgresql.general.  If others on the
mailing-list/usenet-gateway do want to be proper members of the big 8, then
they should speak up.

There is also the issue of moving the postgresql mailing list/news gateway
to a private namespace like  postgresql.*.  This would be similar to gnu.*
and microsoft.*.  This would solve the problem of the postgresql groups
residing in a managed hierarchy without going through RFD and CFV, which
was the problem I was originally trying to solve.

Devin L. Ganger wrote:

> On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 11:11:09 -0800, Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>  Since we have the discussion going, someone mentioned that the group
>>  name
>>  should be comp.databases.postgresql.  I think this is a good name and
>>  I'd like to see what everyone thinks of it.
>
> I think you're pursuing this backwards, Mike. You should contact the
> current owner of the present mail-to-news gateway and build some sort of
> consensus with *him* on what the problem and proposed solution is, before
> trying to create a solution that will only muddy the waters up even
> farther.
>
> This person made a choice to use Big 8 namespace on his server (and other
> servers). His server, his rules. Maybe he can be brought to the table to
> discuss why that isn't the easy fix he thought it was and figure out what
> the best way to go is from here.
>

That is way beyond my technical scope I'm afraid.  I wouldn't know what the
correct solution would be.  Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>, seems very
knowledgable about this, and I would be pleased if you could mail the
postgresql list person about this discussion and Russ's email address.  If
the postgresql list manager and Russ decide it is a bad idea to be part of
the big 8, all the list maintainer has to do is post a message to
news.groups and I will not go any farther.

Basically if the mailing list-news-gateway doesn't want to be in the big 8
then I'm not going to continue in that process.

Polarhound wrote:

> Mike Cox wrote:
>
>> There is resistance in the mailing lists however, even though the groups
>> are
>> already on usenet and are in the  managed "big 8" name space without RFD
>> and CFV.
>
> This now brings up the question of traffic numbers.  Historically, if
> people are against a NG, or are already happy with their current method
> of communication, they are unlikely to switch.
>
>> That is why I am now proposing to change it to comp.databases.postresql
>> so it doesn't clash with the mailing list name space of
>> comp.databases.postgresql.general.  If others on the
>> mailing-list/usenet-gateway do want to be proper members of the big 8,
>> then they should speak up.
>
> Wasn't the original point of the whole proposal to legitimize the list
> owner's stupidity in creating the comp.* groups in the first place?

Yes it was.  It was to make them legitimate so I could post through my
usenet provider.  I will probably let the proposal die.  If I were to
create a seperate group, I've realized that then people would be split up
into the usenet and mailing list camps.  That is not my original intention.
My goal was to make the group a proper member of the comp.* hierarchy so
that more people could participate through usenet.

 I cannot handle the volume of email that a mailing list would place on my
inbox.  I will not be able to use the mailing list, only for dire
emergencies where I will have to constantly monitor my inbox so it doesn't
overflow.

I cannot understand why they wouldn't want to be part of the comp.*
hierarchy properly though.  They could still be a mail the list for those
that wanted it, just like they are doing now! The only change is that it
would allow people to post through usenet instead of just being able to get
them on non-standard usenet servers who don't follow the big 8 config file.

We can make the group moderated too if that's their concern.  If Marc or
anyone wants to be a moderator, I see why not.  They could probably have a
script that could allow those on the mailing list to get through faster
too.

Woodchuck Bill wrote:

> Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:2v5e77F2hdbblU1@uni-berlin.de:
>
>>  I cannot handle the volume of email that a mailing list would place
>>  on my
>> inbox.
>
> Ever heard of a digest version?
>

I don't care. Its too much of a hassle to dig through without being able to
google groups search it.

I'm pretty much done with this anyway.  It is a waste of time putting in
anymore effort since no one seems to want it.

Here are the steps I went through.

1.  I tried subscribing to comp.databases.postgresql.general through my
usenet provider thinking it was a regular big 8 group.  When it wasn't
found, I sent a request to my news provider to include it.

2. My news provider emailed me back saying it was "bogus" and they would not
carry it.

3.  How could it be "bogus" I thought.  It is a legitimate project with
years of history.  It has won numerous awards.  I did a search on google
and found out that it was indeed "bogus".  Simple enough I thought.
Obviously the postgresql folks are way too busy developing the features of
postgresql to have time to go through a rigerous process of RFD and CFV
which takes about a month to complete.

Given that they named their group under the big 8 namespace, it seemed
obvious to me that they wanted to be there.  I'm not a programmer so I
thought I could contribute by going through the process for them.  I tried
posting to the group but my mail bounced.  I searched but I couldn't find
out how to make it post to the mailing list.

Well, an RFD is a Request for Discussion so what better way to get the ball
rolling on what is basically a formality because they are *already* on
usenet, just in a "bogus" way.  I would go through the rigerous process and
get the group approved, with the knowlegde that the only thing that would
change is that they would be a legitimate member of the comp domain.

4. It seems that it was a much bigger issue than just completing a
formality, such as reminding someone that their domain name had expired.
The big 8 membership seemingly went over badly in private email discussions
between the list members from what I've heard from one usenet poster.  If
it is an ego thing, I've already said that I would let someone take over if
that was the issue.

I've heard a postive response initially from members of the news.groups
group, saying it was a good idea to put them in since they are established,
have readership in usenet, and are well liked.  Many usenet providers also
voiced their support.  They have a choice of bowing to user demand and have
a bogus group in their comp hierarchy or like my provider, refusing to
carry it.  Not pretty in either case.

Devin L. Ganger wrote:

> On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 18:03:57 -0800, Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>  Devin L. Ganger wrote:
>
>> > I think you're pursuing this backwards, Mike. You should contact the
>> > current owner of the present mail-to-news gateway and build some sort
>> > of consensus with *him* on what the problem and proposed solution is,
>> > before trying to create a solution that will only muddy the waters up
>> > even farther.
>> >
>> > This person made a choice to use Big 8 namespace on his server (and
>> > other servers). His server, his rules. Maybe he can be brought to the
>> > table to discuss why that isn't the easy fix he thought it was and
>> > figure out what the best way to go is from here.
>
>>  That is way beyond my technical scope I'm afraid.  I wouldn't know what
>>  the correct solution would be.
>
> No one ever said you have to do it *alone*. There are folks here who
> would be more than willing to *help* you do it, but they're not going
> to do it for you.
>
>>  Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>, seems very knowledgable about this,
>>  and I would be pleased if you could mail the postgresql list person
>>  about this discussion and Russ's email address.
>
> Russ is a busy person; don't be so quick to volunteer his time for him
> unless you're damn sure you have his permission. Even if he were not a
> busy person, most people consider it to be rude to be volunteered
> without their consent.
>
>>  Basically if the mailing list-news-gateway doesn't want to be in the big
>>  8 then I'm not going to continue in that process.
>
> Which is fair, but since you're the person who *did* kick this off, you
> should probably be the person to email the owner and ask him if he would
> be willing to have a conversation with you about the best way to proceed
> from here.

I'm frankly scared to talk to him.  I'm afraid he might scream at me or
something for starting this off without talking to him first.  I would be
pretty upset if someone just tried to promote my mailing-list/news-gateway
to the big 8 without consulting me first.  I do have ignorance as an excuse
since until a few days ago I didn't even know how usenet group creation
even worked.  Heck, I didn't even know that the postgresql groups were
connected to the mailing list!!!

I was like a regular person trying to litigate a complex legal case pro se.
Now I have egg on my face for biting off more than I could chew.

From what I've heard from someone on this newsgroup is that it didn't fly
over too well in the mailing list member's private emails.  I'm assuming
that the list owner was upset.  I seriously doubt I have the political
capital to complete the process.  I'm sure if someone else decides it is a
worthy cause, they will at least have the precedent of what I did to guide
them.

I tried googling to see if anyone had attempted to make the postgresql
groups non-bogus, but there were no pervious efforts.

>
> You should also probably take a step back and contact the group mentor
> list <group-mentors@lists.eyrie.org> and get some advice and participation
> from the folks there, no matter which way you intend to pursue this.
> Again, there are people who will help, but you need to be willing to run
> point on this even though it's likely not going to be the slam-dunk you
> thought it would be initially.
>

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Mike Cox wrote:

> 1.  I tried subscribing to comp.databases.postgresql.general through my
> usenet provider thinking it was a regular big 8 group.  When it wasn't
> found, I sent a request to my news provider to include it.

Most modern news readers allow for multiple news server ... just point
yours at news.postgresql.org, and you can read from there, which has
always been the case ...


----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Mike Cox wrote:
>
>> 1.  I tried subscribing to comp.databases.postgresql.general through my
>> usenet provider thinking it was a regular big 8 group.  When it wasn't
>> found, I sent a request to my news provider to include it.
>
>
> Most modern news readers allow for multiple news server ... just point
> yours at news.postgresql.org, and you can read from there, which has
> always been the case ...

As I already wrote, the actual postgres NG is missing some lists like: "www",
to complete the panorama news.us.postgresql.org have a slony list that does
not exist in the archives. I think that NG is the best way to follow
the discussion and shall be at least a complete container for them and a
complete archive mirror too.




Regards
Gaetano Mendola

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 11:11:09 -0800, Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> wrote:

>  Since we have the discussion going, someone mentioned that the group name
>  should be comp.databases.postgresql.  I think this is a good name and I'd
>  like to see what everyone thinks of it.

I think you're pursuing this backwards, Mike. You should contact the current
owner of the present mail-to-news gateway and build some sort of consensus
with *him* on what the problem and proposed solution is, before trying to
create a solution that will only muddy the waters up even farther.

This person made a choice to use Big 8 namespace on his server (and other
servers). His server, his rules. Maybe he can be brought to the table to
discuss why that isn't the easy fix he thought it was and figure out what
the best way to go is from here.

--
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

Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:2v5e77F2hdbblU1@uni-berlin.de:

>  I cannot handle the volume of email that a mailing list would place
>  on my
> inbox.

Ever heard of a digest version?

--
Bill

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 18:03:57 -0800, Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>  Devin L. Ganger wrote:

> > I think you're pursuing this backwards, Mike. You should contact the
> > current owner of the present mail-to-news gateway and build some sort of
> > consensus with *him* on what the problem and proposed solution is, before
> > trying to create a solution that will only muddy the waters up even
> > farther.
> >
> > This person made a choice to use Big 8 namespace on his server (and other
> > servers). His server, his rules. Maybe he can be brought to the table to
> > discuss why that isn't the easy fix he thought it was and figure out what
> > the best way to go is from here.

>  That is way beyond my technical scope I'm afraid.  I wouldn't know what the
>  correct solution would be.

No one ever said you have to do it *alone*. There are folks here who
would be more than willing to *help* you do it, but they're not going
to do it for you.

>  Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>, seems very knowledgable about this,
>  and I would be pleased if you could mail the postgresql list person
>  about this discussion and Russ's email address.

Russ is a busy person; don't be so quick to volunteer his time for him
unless you're damn sure you have his permission. Even if he were not a
busy person, most people consider it to be rude to be volunteered
without their consent.

>  Basically if the mailing list-news-gateway doesn't want to be in the big 8
>  then I'm not going to continue in that process.

Which is fair, but since you're the person who *did* kick this off, you
should probably be the person to email the owner and ask him if he would
be willing to have a conversation with you about the best way to proceed
from here.

You should also probably take a step back and contact the group mentor
list <group-mentors@lists.eyrie.org> and get some advice and participation
from the folks there, no matter which way you intend to pursue this.
Again, there are people who will help, but you need to be willing to run
point on this even though it's likely not going to be the slam-dunk you
thought it would be initially.

--
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

"Devin L. Ganger" <devin@thecabal.org> wrote in
news:slrncor6a5.6ju.devin@bofh.thecabal.internal:

>>  Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>, seems very knowledgable about this,
>>  and I would be pleased if you could mail the postgresql list person
>>  about this discussion and Russ's email address.
>
> Russ is a busy person; don't be so quick to volunteer his time for him
> unless you're damn sure you have his permission. Even if he were not a
> busy person, most people consider it to be rude to be volunteered
> without their consent.

Yeah, that was seriously rude.

--
Bill

In article <2v5jonF2hmf8kU1@uni-berlin.de>, Mike Cox
<mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I'm pretty much done with this anyway.  It is a waste of time putting in
> anymore effort since no one seems to want it.

You're way too impatient. Things don't happen here in time scales that
are measured in hours or days. Hang in there. You've got a good start
and some good people supporting what you want to do.

Relax, take your time (and the advise of the wise ones here (not me...
um well, whatever)) and work through the process.

Your proposal is, in its genesis, sound. Now, evolution.

djb

-----------
"No, no, no... you don't understand how radio works! First, I fade my
voice out like this, then cue the organist!"

Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> wrote in news:2v4mbfF2i3beoU1@uni-
berlin.de:

> Since we have the discussion going, someone mentioned that the group name
> should be comp.databases.postgresql.  I think this is a good name and I'd
> like to see what everyone thinks of it.

Much better, especially if you are only proposing a single newsgroup in the
hierarchy. Use of the word "general" is unnecessary, and cumbersome.

--
Bill

In news.groups, Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> writes:

> I'm pretty much done with this anyway.  It is a waste of time putting in
> anymore effort since no one seems to want it.

Well, the problem from my perspective is that a lot of time and energy is
being spent on worrying about how to propose something or what possible
problems there might be with the group and no one (and I'm not asking you
to do this -- I understand very well where you're coming from and am
extremely sympathetic) has not taken the simple first step of just asking
Marc what the status of the groups are.

If Marc was happy with them being turned into real Big Eight groups and
the technical issues of the gatewaying were worked out with Marco or
someone else, I think everything would fall in place very simply.  You'd
get a newsgroup, you wouldn't have to care about the gateway, and we'd be
down to arguing about which mailing lists should be gated.

As is, this thread is currently full of speculation about lots of things
that may or may not be problems and would be cleared up by getting all the
involved parties in the discussion.  And everyone seems to be wanting you
to do this, which I think is a little unfair since the gateways aren't
even what you're worried about in the first place and you'd just have to
play telephone.

I really need to *not* be volunteering to do this, since I have a dozen
other things that I've already promised other people to work on, but it's
really frustrating that no one else is doing it either.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

In news.groups, Devin L Ganger <devin@thecabal.org> writes:
> Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>  Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>, seems very knowledgable about this,
>>  and I would be pleased if you could mail the postgresql list person
>>  about this discussion and Russ's email address.

> Russ is a busy person; don't be so quick to volunteer his time for him
> unless you're damn sure you have his permission. Even if he were not a
> busy person, most people consider it to be rude to be volunteered
> without their consent.

No, this is fine, and this didn't bother me at all.  I'm happy to tell
Marc my opinion; I'm just going to also have to tell him that I don't have
time to do more than give my opinion right now and I don't know if there's
anyone else who's willing to do more of the footwork.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Russ Allbery wrote:

> If Marc was happy with them being turned into real Big Eight groups and
> the technical issues of the gatewaying were worked out with Marco or
> someone else

what 'techincal issues of the gatewaying'?


----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

At 12:16 AM 11/7/2004, Russ Allbery wrote:
>In news.groups, Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > I'm pretty much done with this anyway.  It is a waste of time putting in
> > anymore effort since no one seems to want it.
>
>Well, the problem from my perspective is that a lot of time and energy is
>being spent on worrying about how to propose something or what possible
>problems there might be with the group and no one (and I'm not asking you
>to do this -- I understand very well where you're coming from and am
>extremely sympathetic) has not taken the simple first step of just asking
>Marc what the status of the groups are.
>
>If Marc was happy with them being turned into real Big Eight groups and
>the technical issues of the gatewaying were worked out with Marco or
>someone else, I think everything would fall in place very simply.  You'd
>get a newsgroup, you wouldn't have to care about the gateway, and we'd be
>down to arguing about which mailing lists should be gated.
>
>As is, this thread is currently full of speculation about lots of things
>that may or may not be problems and would be cleared up by getting all the
>involved parties in the discussion.  And everyone seems to be wanting you
>to do this, which I think is a little unfair since the gateways aren't
>even what you're worried about in the first place and you'd just have to
>play telephone.
>
>I really need to *not* be volunteering to do this, since I have a dozen
>other things that I've already promised other people to work on, but it's
>really frustrating that no one else is doing it either.

I'll volunteer.  This shouldn't be ThAT hard to fix.

Marc G Fournier <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes:
> On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> If Marc was happy with them being turned into real Big Eight groups and
>> the technical issues of the gatewaying were worked out with Marco or
>> someone else

> what 'techincal issues of the gatewaying'?

There are a couple of things that would be ideal to fix.  One is that
currently the gateway isn't rewriting message IDs, which means that if
anyone else gates the same mailing lists into some other group, the posts
will conflict and posts will randomly disappear.  This isn't a huge issue,
but it would be nice to fix it, since this is a common problem.

The other one is that right now the newsgroup and the mailing list get
different traffic since posts are only gated to the mailing list if the
person is already a member.  This can cause confusion (like only half of a
thread being seen on the mailing list).  The ideal way to fix this is to
make the newsgroup moderated (which also simplifies the whole process
since then you don't need any news to mail gateway).  That way, things can
be set up so that only the messages that make it to the list make it to
the newsgroup.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Russ Allbery wrote:

> There are a couple of things that would be ideal to fix.  One is that
> currently the gateway isn't rewriting message IDs, which means that if
> anyone else gates the same mailing lists into some other group, the
> posts will conflict and posts will randomly disappear.  This isn't a
> huge issue, but it would be nice to fix it, since this is a common
> problem.

We are doing that specifically for that reason ... In order to provide
redundancy, we currently have two mail<->news gateways of the mailing
lists in place, and the MessageIds are what prevents duplicates ...

> The other one is that right now the newsgroup and the mailing list get
> different traffic since posts are only gated to the mailing list if the
> person is already a member.  This can cause confusion (like only half of a
> thread being seen on the mailing list).  The ideal way to fix this is to
> make the newsgroup moderated (which also simplifies the whole process
> since then you don't need any news to mail gateway).  That way, things can
> be set up so that only the messages that make it to the list make it to
> the newsgroup.

ppl keep saying this, but that is not how the groups are setup ... if
someone isn't subscribed to the list, the message goes to the mailing list
moderator (me) to approve to the list ... the only thing that doesn't go
to the lists is spam ...

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 22:27:08 -0600, Dave Balderstone
> You're way too impatient. Things don't happen here in time scales that
> are measured in hours or days. Hang in there. You've got a good start
> and some good people supporting what you want to do.
>
> Relax, take your time (and the advise of the wise ones here (not me...
> um well, whatever)) and work through the process.
>
> Your proposal is, in its genesis, sound. Now, evolution.

I agree.  The idea of the Usenet group comp.databases.postgresql is
sound, and I think it really should be created, so go on with the RFD
process.

I think group should NOT be mail-gated to pgsql maillists.  IMHO
"Big 8" groups and maillists serve different purposes.

I think having "local" mail-news gateways is good (like ones already
existing), but IMHO there is vast difference between "local" gateways
and full-blown "Big 8" network.

And finally, I think "comp.databases.postgresql.*" names are poor
choice for "local" gateway.  They clash with "Big 8" servers and most
properly configured newsservers will not pass such groups.  And in
future, when Big8 c.d.postgresql.* matures, some clashes are
inevitable.  I personally think postgresql.* names for "local" gate
is THE right way (and it would make it OK to pass the feed without said
clash).

  Regards,
    Dawid

PS: And I think one should ask if it is OK to propose someone else as
Big8 group gateway admin/moderator/etc before doing so.  It was...
uncourteous...

Brian {Hamilton Kelly} wrote:

> On Saturday, in article <2v5jonF2hmf8kU1@uni-berlin.de>
>      mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com "Mike Cox" wrote:
>
>> Woodchuck Bill wrote:
>>
>> > Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> > news:2v5e77F2hdbblU1@uni-berlin.de:
>> >
>> >>  I cannot handle the volume of email that a mailing list would place
>> >>  on my
>> >> inbox.
>> >
>> > Ever heard of a digest version?
>> >
>>
>> I don't care. Its too much of a hassle to dig through without being able
>> to google groups search it.
>
> Mike makes here a VERY valid point about the mailing list vs newsgroups
> controversy: often there is no means to search past articles from the
> mailing list unless one maintains one's own complete archive thereof.  In
> contrast, posts of articles to *public* newsgroups (which includes the
> Big-8, alt.*, and thousands of national and other hierarchies, such as
> demon.*) are generally[1] archived by GoogleGroups, and thereby readily
> searchable.
>

There is also the point of having to post.  If I post and I subscribe to the
digest version or if I post with the option of no emails (since my inbox
cannot handle the load), how would I respond to a thread I created?  Would
I have to create a new thread for each response nameing the Subject with
the previous one, and prefixing it with "RE:"?

The usenet experience is more seemless and efficient IMHO.  That is why I
rarely subscribe to mailing lists.  The KLM (kernel mailing list) destroyed
my inbox after a few hours and I bet the postgresql mailing list would do
the same if I didn't delete my inbox within a few days.

A news reader is meant for the high amount of posts that many groups get.
An email inbox is not meant to have hundreds of emails weekly (or daily in
the case of KLM).  Email is personal, so one knows that each messege is
addressed to you and could be very important.  In usenet, one can choose to
follow threads created by themselves or with browse, knowing that if they
miss an article it won't be something that can have a personal consequence
like email.

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 12:55:06 -0800
Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> wrote

> ...
> There is also the point of having to post.  If I post and I subscribe to the
> digest version or if I post with the option of no emails (since my inbox
> cannot handle the load), how would I respond to a thread I created?  Would
> I have to create a new thread for each response nameing the Subject with
> the previous one, and prefixing it with "RE:"?
>
> The usenet experience is more seemless and efficient IMHO.  That is why I
> rarely subscribe to mailing lists.  The KLM (kernel mailing list) destroyed
> my inbox after a few hours and I bet the postgresql mailing list would do
> the same if I didn't delete my inbox within a few days.
> ...

postgresql-general averages in the light-to-moderate range, between 30
to 80 posts a day. It's not that bad, although it would not feel so
great if you were on dial-up.

Incidentally, there are several archives, including the one at

    http://marc.theaimsgroup.com
    http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=postgresql-general&r=1&w=2

which picks posts up very quickly.

Might be useful until a charter can be worked out that reflects the list
policies.

    http://www.postgresql.org/lists.html
    http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/

For instance, as I understand it, you will need to specified that it is
moderated at the SPAM-block level.

Since they seem to be concerned about whether Marc (all by himself?)
would be appropriate, particularly on the usenet side, perhaps it would
be good to set up a group of moderators? Ideally, they could be spread
around the globe and take shifts, to get good time coverage.

Oh, and thanks, Mike, for stirring up the hornets' nest. ;-P
(Somebody had to take the brunt of it.)

--
Joel <rees@ddcom.co.jp>

On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 12:55:06PM -0800, Mike Cox wrote:
> There is also the point of having to post.  If I post and I subscribe to the
> digest version or if I post with the option of no emails (since my inbox
> cannot handle the load), how would I respond to a thread I created?  Would
> I have to create a new thread for each response nameing the Subject with
> the previous one, and prefixing it with "RE:"?

Some mail readers allow you to insert the In-Reply-To: header, which
would make your posts match the previous thread. But it is irritating.
Besides, I like being able to see from the subject what a post is
about.

> A news reader is meant for the high amount of posts that many groups get.
> An email inbox is not meant to have hundreds of emails weekly (or daily in
> the case of KLM).  Email is personal, so one knows that each messege is
> addressed to you and could be very important.  In usenet, one can choose to
> follow threads created by themselves or with browse, knowing that if they
> miss an article it won't be something that can have a personal consequence
> like email.

I must have missed the memo, I've been receiving hundreds of email per
week for quite a while now and it works for me. Obviously, I configured
my client to optimise for this. I have several views setup, one which
shows only personal email, one which only shows unread, etc. With
subsecond switching times between views, it makes handling large
amounts of email very efficicent.

I used to like usenet for handling really large volumes, but I couldn't
customise any clients to allow me to manage it efficiently.

Anyway, this whole debate is about making the current mail-news gateway
setup legitimate, so maybe we should get back to the issue at hand.
--
Martijn van Oosterhout   <kleptog@svana.org>   http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a
> tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone
> else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.

Marc G Fournier <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes:

> We are doing that specifically for that reason ... In order to provide
> redundancy, we currently have two mail<->news gateways of the mailing
> lists in place, and the MessageIds are what prevents duplicates ...

Yeah, I just found out about that today.  Well, that's a fairly good
reason... it means that you'll probably have to jump on anyone who also
tries to gateway the groups without changing message IDs, but if you're
willing to deal with the problems, other groups are using the same form of
gatewaying.

> ppl keep saying this, but that is not how the groups are setup ... if
> someone isn't subscribed to the list, the message goes to the mailing
> list moderator (me) to approve to the list ... the only thing that
> doesn't go to the lists is spam ...

Yeah, I understand it's not how the groups are set up, but it does seem a
little confusing.  (Posting to a Usenet newsgroup and getting an e-mail
reply saying that my mailing list message is being held for approval, for
example.)  I think it's a really good idea to make the groups official, at
least the ones that get enough traffic for it to be worth it, and there
are certainly other gatewayed mailing lists in comp.*, but it just seems
like while we're looking at this, it might be better to make them
moderated to make the whole process a bit more straightforward.

I could be convinced that it doesn't really matter, though.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Russ Allbery wrote:

> Yeah, I understand it's not how the groups are set up, but it does seem
> a little confusing.  (Posting to a Usenet newsgroup and getting an
> e-mail reply saying that my mailing list message is being held for
> approval, for example.)  I think it's a really good idea to make the
> groups official, at least the ones that get enough traffic for it to be
> worth it, and there are certainly other gatewayed mailing lists in
> comp.*, but it just seems like while we're looking at this, it might be
> better to make them moderated to make the whole process a bit more
> straightforward.

Note that I'm not against making them moderated ... it changes nothing as
far as how things are handled on the lists themselves, since the moderator
address would be the mailing list itself, not a single person ... either
way, they'd end up getting the "your post is yet to be approved" message
if they aren't already subscribed (with nomail option enabled, optimally)
...

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

On Saturday, in article <2v5jonF2hmf8kU1@uni-berlin.de>
     mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com "Mike Cox" wrote:

> Woodchuck Bill wrote:
>
> > Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > news:2v5e77F2hdbblU1@uni-berlin.de:
> >
> >>  I cannot handle the volume of email that a mailing list would place
> >>  on my
> >> inbox.
> >
> > Ever heard of a digest version?
> >
>
> I don't care. Its too much of a hassle to dig through without being able to
> google groups search it.

Mike makes here a VERY valid point about the mailing list vs newsgroups
controversy: often there is no means to search past articles from the
mailing list unless one maintains one's own complete archive thereof.  In
contrast, posts of articles to *public* newsgroups (which includes the
Big-8, alt.*, and thousands of national and other hierarchies, such as
demon.*) are generally[1] archived by GoogleGroups, and thereby readily
searchable.

Private so-called newsgroups, which are carried on only one (or a handful
of cooperating) server(s), and mailing lists ditto, need to make their
own arrangements for archiving (which they often do) and providing a
search capability (which they often don't).

Newsgroups are much more flexible from the end-users' POV; however, there
is a huge percentage of Internet users that are completely unaware of
the existence of the concept.  In contrast, they perceive using a mailing
list is no different to mailing one person (as, sadly, can often be
observed when mailing list participants use nasty habits picked up from
using Outlook Express in inter-office memoranda).

[1] Except, of course, where the poster uses X-No-Archive: Yes
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}                                     bhk@dsl.co.uk
   "I don't use Linux. I prefer to use an OS supported by a large multi-
   national vendor, with a good office suite, excellent network/internet
   software and decent hardware support."