Обсуждение: Re: Important Info on comp.databases.postgresql.general
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
ru.igarashi@usask.ca wrote in news:cmr97f$t29$1@tribune.usask.ca: > That's his perogative. His server, his rules (or whoever's he set the > groups up on). We don't have the right to dictate what groups he puts > on his news server. If someone else decides to take a feed from him > and allow the group on their server, same story, their server, their > rules. That kind of independence is at the foundation of usenet. > While I may be displeased that the bogus groups exist, I'm similarly > not going to be supportive of moves to dictate what groups he puts > on his server. Those groups are propagated to *other* servers, and they confuse lots of people into thinking that they are bonafide Big-8 groups. Even Google is either confused or careless about the status of those groups. If the NAN team announces a reversal of the rec.woodworking.all-ages result in the next few days, would you have any problem with the proponents sending out a control message anyway? Archiving the rogue group in Google Groups? If nothing else, taking no steps toward action sets a bad example, and might encourage others to skip the RFD and create more rogue groups. -- Bill
ru.igarashi@usask.ca wrote in news:cmr97f$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
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.