To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, pgsql-www@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [#14748606] comp.databases.postgresql hierarchy 
In-reply-to: <20040930144809.A3407@ganymede.hub.org> 
References: <#14.e10bbe.ec81ac43.415b2125.2@google.trakken.com>
	<200409300947.16471.josh@agliodbs.com>
	<20040930135209.R3407@ganymede.hub.org>
	<200409301007.30816.josh@agliodbs.com>
	<20040930144809.A3407@ganymede.hub.org>
Comments: In-reply-to "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>
	message dated "Thu, 30 Sep 2004 14:49:00 -0300"
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 14:01:42 -0400
Message-ID: <23761.1096567302@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes:
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Is it possible that our lists-to-newsgroups gateway is broken?   Before I
>> start getting pushy with Google, I want to make sure it's not our problem.

> Its actually redundant ... Oliver, in France, is running one also, same 
> hierarchy, same message-ids, so that there are no duplicates .. so both 
> would have to be broken at the same time ...

I don't believe that they really cut us off for inactivity, because they
have postings up through 16 Sept and we know that the cutoff occurred
then or within a very few days afterwards.

A different semi-legitimate reason for a cutoff is that, so far as I
know, the comp.databases.postgresql newsgroups never went through the
formal vote process to be recognized as legitimate mainstream
newsgroups.  Back when I was a netnews administrator for CMU, it was
common practice to refuse to carry groups that hadn't passed such a
vote, and I imagine it still is.  I haven't heard that Google is getting
strict about this (and they sure didn't mention it in their comments)
but if they are then we don't have much of a leg to stand on.

			regards, tom lane