From: | Marcel Beaudoin <mbeauINVALID(at)sympaINVALIDtico(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Important Info on comp.databases.postgresql.general |
Date: | 2004-11-09 20:41:35 |
Message-ID: | Xns959C9E0596951mbeausympaticoca@130.133.1.4 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Woodchuck Bill <bwr607(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote in
news:Xns959C804EC266Abswr607h4(at)130(dot)133(dot)1(dot)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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mike Cox | 2004-11-09 20:42:01 | I'm about to release the next postgresql RFD. Comments wanted. |
Previous Message | John Stanley | 2004-11-09 20:41:31 | Re: Important Info on comp.databases.postgresql.general |