Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Why the current setup of pgsql.* and comp.databases.postresql.general are BROKEN

From: Woodchuck Bill <bwr607(at)hotmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Why the current setup of pgsql.* and comp.databases.postresql.general are BROKEN
Date: 2004-11-27 00:09:48
Message-ID: Xns95ADC2E153BA7bswr607h4@130.133.1.4 (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general
Gary L. Burnore <gburnore(at)databasix(dot)com> wrote in 
news:co8frd$ktk$1(at)blackhelicopter(dot)databasix(dot)com:

> I'm posting to a USENet group.  I shouldn't be receiving an email from
> the list.  If the groups had been generated as MODERATED newsgroups,
> my post wouldn't hit MY spool, then go to HIS server for some
> approval, later to appear a second time and AFTER I receive this
> STUPID message in email.
> 
> Of course, he doesn't CARE.

Just think about how easy it would be for a forging troll to mailbomb 
anyone he wanted to by flooding the newsgroup with posts under the victim's 
spoofed e-mail address. This system is too vulnerable to abuse. The groups 
should be moderated, for one. Second, Marc needs to decide whether he wants 
the groups to be in pgsql.*, *or* comp.* ... not both. The lists and gating 
methods should all be explained in detail on the final RFD, so they appear 
on the CFV. 

-- 
Bill

Responses

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Kamil KaczkowskiDate: 2004-11-27 00:31:10
Subject: Re: row-level deadlock problem
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-11-27 00:04:26
Subject: Re: row-level deadlock problem

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group