|From:||Brian Edmonds <brian(at)gweep(dot)ca>|
|Subject:||Re: Important Info on comp.databases.postgresql.general|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Woodchuck Bill <bwr607(at)hotmail(dot)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
> 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
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.
|Next Message||Marcel Gsteiger||2004-11-09 21:41:53||Antw: Re: trouble with rpmbuild on WBEL3.0/x86_64|
|Previous Message||Tom Lane||2004-11-09 21:38:08||Re: Creating DB with pass, but pass not required to connect|