X-Original-To: pgsql-www-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E5A8D1EDA3; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:39:33 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 71402-01; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:39:14 -0300 (ADT) Received: from emo.org.tr (emo.org.tr [195.142.105.9]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DF09D1ED91; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:39:12 -0300 (ADT) Received: by emo.org.tr (Postfix, from userid 41643) id 205DC2FF17; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 23:39:11 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by emo.org.tr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BA05111ED4; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 23:39:11 +0300 (EEST) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 23:39:11 +0300 (EEST) From: Devrim GUNDUZ X-X-Sender: devrim2@emo.org.tr To: "Marc G. Fournier" Cc: PostgreSQL WWW Mailing List , Ben Abdallah Abdel Karim , Robby Russell Subject: Re: First two requests for PUGs In-Reply-To: <20040429173420.O45839@ganymede.hub.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200404/272 X-Sequence-Number: 4376 Hi Marc, On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > I'd go for that. > > k, so .. ? :) > > first off, should we change sfpug to pug-sf, with an alias from > sfpug->pug-sf, so that it falls under the convention? Ok, god. > second, pug-? for the two new lists? How about these? pug-pdx@postgresql.org pug-tunesia@postgresql.org Regards, -- Devrim GUNDUZ devrim~gunduz.org devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.TDMSoft.com http://www.gunduz.org