| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Continuent & pgsql-announce ... please do not approve |
| Date: | 2010-07-29 21:50:05 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTindGrvD-uwSpZihrFoHGeeY=n0H7jnEeGoEw616@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-www |
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 5:11 PM, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 04:30:05PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>> > .Org is not the weight behind your SPAM complaints. You will need a
>> > different bully against that foe.
>>
>> I think JD has this one right. There may or may not be a reason to
>> ban Continuent (or anyone else) from our mailing lists, but the fact
>> that they've sent spam to David Fetter in his personal capacity is not
>> it.
>
> For future reference, what *would* be a sufficient reason? I have
> this feeling that this situation will recur, even if this particular
> outfit decides to play nice, so we might as well knock together some
> criteria in advance.
I presume that would be if they were spamming *the lists*, rather than
some individual.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-07-29 22:57:28 | Re: [pgbr-dev] consolidação das listas (round #1) ... ou não |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2010-07-29 21:11:00 | Re: Continuent & pgsql-announce ... please do not approve |