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

#1

"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin (AT) sprintmail (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

Rebecca Ore wrote:

Since they have traffic and are bidirectional, and since he doesn't have
any objections, it looks like creating the groups by fiat would work
just fine and avoid a lot of misinformed "but we didn't ask for this"
squabbling. Same as with the scrapbook group.

It's NOT bidirectional, as I understand it. Posts to the newsgroup
go to the mailing list IF the sender is subcribed -- otherwise, they
go to the list owner for (possible) approval. If the list owner
is willing to unmoderate the mailing list, it WOULD be bidirectional.

Marc says he's looking into the setup, to see if he can fix that. I
think his primary problem is that he wants to devote full time to
postgresql development. He's part of the core team, as I recall.

Quote:

So -- either the list owner must unmoderate the mailing list,
or the groups must be moderated.

A moderationg policy of no SPAM should be sufficient, right?

Quote:

I see no reasonable third
option. Under the circumstances, I'm not sure I'd accept
Marc as moderator on the Usenet side.

Would a group of moderaters to help Marc carry the load be
appropriate? Or would it be preferable to not have Marc moderating
posts from usenet at all? (I'm thinking you mean the former.)

(Apologies for posting through Google.)

JDZ

#2

Joseph Daniel Zukiger wrote:

Quote:

"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin (AT) sprintmail (DOT) com> wrote

Rebecca Ore wrote:

Since they have traffic and are bidirectional, and since he doesn't have
any objections, it looks like creating the groups by fiat would work
just fine and avoid a lot of misinformed "but we didn't ask for this"
squabbling. Same as with the scrapbook group.

It's NOT bidirectional, as I understand it. Posts to the newsgroup
go to the mailing list IF the sender is subcribed -- otherwise, they
go to the list owner for (possible) approval. If the list owner
is willing to unmoderate the mailing list, it WOULD be bidirectional.

Marc says he's looking into the setup, to see if he can fix that. I
think his primary problem is that he wants to devote full time to
postgresql development. He's part of the core team, as I recall.

So -- either the list owner must unmoderate the mailing list,
or the groups must be moderated.

A moderationg policy of no SPAM should be sufficient, right?

I see no reasonable third
option. Under the circumstances, I'm not sure I'd accept
Marc as moderator on the Usenet side.

Would a group of moderaters to help Marc carry the load be
appropriate? Or would it be preferable to not have Marc moderating
posts from usenet at all? (I'm thinking you mean the former.)

Actually, I meant the latter, if (as it appears) he is responsible
for and unrepentant about the lists being gated to Usenet in
the first place. But it's too early in the process for that to
be my final conclusion.

--
This account is subject to a persistent MS Blaster and SWEN attack.
I think I've got the problem resolved, but, if you E-mail me
and it bounces, a second try might work.
However, please reply in newsgroup.

#3

Russ Allbery <rra (AT) stanford (DOT) edu> wrote in
news:87d5ymu8pk.fsf (AT) windlord (DOT) stanford.edu:

Quote:

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?

[I'm really not trying to flame Marc by calling him a net abuser, but isn't
that the category he would fall under, in all seriousness? You are giving
him the chance to fix his past mistakes. He won't enter the news.groups
discussion, and he stated that he will not break up *any* of the rogue
groups if the CFV fails.]

Quote:

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.

--
Bill

#4

Woodchuck Bill <bwr607 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

Russ Allbery <rra (AT) stanford (DOT) edu> wrote in
news:87d5ymu8pk.fsf (AT) windlord (DOT) stanford.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).

....

Quote:

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.

#5

ru.igarashi (AT) usask (DOT) ca wrote in news:cmr97f$t29$1 (AT) tribune (DOT) usask.ca:

Quote:

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).

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.

--
Bill

#6

Woodchuck Bill <bwr607 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote in
news:Xns959C804EC266Abswr607h4 (AT) 130 (DOT) 133.1.4:

Quote:

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

#7

ru.igarashi (AT) usask (DOT) ca wrote in news:cmr97f$t29$1 (AT) tribune (DOT) usask.ca:

Quote:

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.

Those groups are propagated to *other* servers, and they confuse lots of
people into thinking that they are bonafide Big-8 groups. Even Google is
either confused or careless about the status of those groups. 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? Archiving the rogue group in Google Groups? If
nothing else, taking no steps toward action sets a bad example, and might
encourage others to skip the RFD and create more rogue groups.

--
Bill

#8

stanley@a.shell.peak.org (John Stanley) wrote in
news:cmra1r$ujk$1@a.shell.peak.org:

Quote:

Obviously there is nothing wrong with it. As I seem to recall, one of
the admins who (routinely?) created bogus groups is now part of the NAN
moderating team.

Who would that be?

--
Bill

#9

On 9 Nov 2004 20:36:47 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <bwr607 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

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.

It is PERFECTLY acceptable for a server owner to configure their news
server to use whatever groups they wish. Nobody owns the Big 8 namespace;
nobody can force news admins to adhere to a single common version.

Russ et al offer an *advisory* service. That's all the Big-8 really is.
Commonly followed advice, yes, but advice nonetheless.

It would be nice if the admins who were using these feeds configured their
systems to only exchange these groups with other like-minded admins, given
the potential for confusion, but the failure to do so is NOT abuse of the
network.

--
Devin L. Ganger <devin (AT) thecabal (DOT) org>
"Aikido is based around the central precept of letting an attack take
its natural course. You, of course, don't want to impede that natural
flow by being in its way." -- overheard on the PyraMOO

#10

Woodchuck Bill <bwr607 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

ru.igarashi (AT) usask (DOT) ca wrote in news:cmr97f$t29$1 (AT) tribune (DOT) usask.ca:

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.

Those groups are propagated to *other* servers, and they confuse lots of
people into thinking that they are bonafide Big-8 groups.

I realize that, and that is part of the basis for my objection to
folks creating bogus newsgroups. But the fact remains that it's
their server, and thus, their rules.

Quote:

Even Google is
either confused or careless about the status of those groups.

Google is just one of those services that doesn't give a damn, and
thus exercising their perogative, just like any number of servers
that wish to collect as many groups as they can.

Quote:

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?

That's a separate, though related, matter. If the proponents owned
or had access to a server and decided to create r.w.a-a, that's
their perogative. If they wish to spread r.w.a-a, well, that turns
out to be their perogative, too. Anyone is allowed to do this.
It's totally up to rest of the news server admins to honor or reject
the newgroup. Again, their server, their rules. I wouldn't be
happy about it, but I'm not going to force them to do otherwise.

Quote:

Archiving the rogue group in Google Groups?

Google's choice.

Quote:

If
nothing else, taking no steps toward action sets a bad example, and might
encourage others to skip the RFD and create more rogue groups.

As Russ & Co. say, if it comes to that, then 1) the existing process
deserves to be ignored, 2) news admins have voted with their feet
and decided to go with another process, or found a better way. I
don't like the idea of being bypassed, but they are right. It's our
job to find ways to make "non-bogus groups" more attractive. This
process has always been predicated on voluntary acceptance of the
results. I don't think Russ & Co are willing to abandon that
philosophy, even if it means the (deserved) demise of the Big-8
process.

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.