Re: RFD: comp.databases.postgresql.general

At 10:20 PM 11/7/2004, you wrote:
>Andy wrote:
>
> > Someone posted this official proposal to create
> > comp.databases.postgresql.general again. He wrote his own charter. As
> > far as I know, he did not consult any of the postgresql groups first.
> > There may be an upcoming vote on this, so please stay informed and read
> > news.newgroups.announce for updates.
> >
> > Also see message <2uu44nF2eodc0U1(at)uni-berlin(dot)de> for an example of the
> > proponent's temperament.
> >
>
>I can see how this would ruffle some serious feathers.
>
>But if I can risk getting a smack, I'd like to say that I had a bit of
>trouble figuring out how to get on to this group. The "respectable" news
>server I use does not carry it, but it shows up on Google. What's that
>about?

Google tries to carry everything so it can archive it. The more group it
carries, the more it can charge its advertisers.

DataBasix carries it even though it wasn't an officially created group
because some of our users requested it and they read it.

>Then I've noticed some notes here and there that you are supposed to send
>some emails to a list-server if you post, to avoid messing up the mailing
>list? Is that right? Why would I be worried about a listserv?

Because it's gated. It flows both ways (although in a broken fashion.

Of course, posting through tle list serve, I see IT's broken too since the
setup has the reply going to the sending party instead of back to the list.

>Finally figured out this is some kind of hybrid newsgroup/mail-list. Is
>that right?

Not hybrid. Just a bit different.

> Real question is, why I am trying to figure this out? Why
>isn't it on the news server with all of the other technical groups?
>
>To make a long story short, the request might not have been made in the most
>diplomatic way, but it would, if adopted, solve some real anomalies that
>confuse newcomers to this group and its relatives.

Exactly.