Re: Important Info on comp.databases.postgresql.general

Woodchuck Bill <bwr607(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote:
>Russ Allbery <rra(at)stanford(dot)edu> wrote in
>news:87d5ymu8pk(dot)fsf(at)windlord(dot)stanford(dot)edu:

>>> The UDP would be aimed at the news server(s) at which the mailing list
>>> is being improperly gated. It is their responsibility to reject
>>> improper traffic. As these same servers would also likely carry the
>>> group in question, I have serious doubts that they would remove them
>>> without the threat of a UDP hanging over their head. Whether just the
>>> group is blacklisted or the entire server would be the subject of
>>> another thread entirely.
>>
>> If someone actually seriously tries to do this, I will personally offer
>> that news server a feed to break the UDP.

>If you're willing to do that, then you should just issue the control
>messages for all 21 groups right now. Why would you want to block others
>from trying to hold a net abuser accountable? For the UDP to be successful,
>it would take more than two proponents. You would really override the
>outcome?

Who's being abused here? Russ & Co.? By their own admission, no.
The Big-8? No, the groups don't exist in the Big-8? The existing
readers? No, they can read the group. The rest of the world? No
more so than those that don't have groups specifically for their
pet interests, which as far as we are concerned is not sufficient
harm to act upon. The Big-8 process is partly predicated on only
providing groups for those with sufficient numbers, and since
the latter has not been established, there's no such harm. Even
then, if the CFV results in a pass, everyone that cares benefits,
and if the CFV results in a failure, the rest of the world doesn't
matter (until they can build up sufficient numbers to pass the
next time).

...
>> Now, please try to tone down the level of confrontation and act like
>> adults, okay?

>It was Marc who set the tone, by claiming that the rogue groups will
>continue to operate as they currently do, regardless of the CFV outcome.

That's his perogative. His server, his rules (or whoever's he set the
groups up on). We don't have the right to dictate what groups he puts
on his news server. If someone else decides to take a feed from him
and allow the group on their server, same story, their server, their
rules. That kind of independence is at the foundation of usenet.
While I may be displeased that the bogus groups exist, I'm similarly
not going to be supportive of moves to dictate what groups he puts
on his server.

ru

--
My standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.