Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 11:38:39 -0300 (ADT)
From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
To: Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com>
cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: List traffic
In-Reply-To: <90cc3663b615a43b8011a6337bafd9f3@biglumber.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1005141134450.22297@hub.org>
References: <90cc3663b615a43b8011a6337bafd9f3@biglumber.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

On Fri, 14 May 2010, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:

>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
>
>> ... is there a reason why, other the fact that we don't do now, that we
>> can't just put in a restriction against cross posting altogether?
>
> Because that would be shooting ourselves in the foot. Cross-posting
> is often desirable. If we had a clearer distinction of list topics, I
> might support such a move, but we don't, so I can't.

But, its the cross-posting, IMHO, that reduces the distinction ...

>> ... and, for those that have been here awhile, who "should know better",
>> why isn't there any self-management of this sort of stuff in the first
>> place?
>
> What would you have us do?

Redirect users ... if user sends a query performance related question to 
-general, respond back with -general as the CC, To as -performance and a 
Reply-To header of -performance ... that way those on -general know that 
its been redirected, but *hopefully* users replying will honor the 
-performance redirect ...

----
Marc G. Fournier                        Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A.
scrappy@hub.org                                     http://www.hub.org

Yahoo:yscrappy    Skype: hub.org    ICQ:7615664    MSN:scrappy@hub.org