Thread: Re: Important Info on comp.databases.postgresql.general
Yeah.. I'm with you.. I don't really know what all of this is about - I like the way the Postgres mailing list works as it is.... Are any of the changes being discussed here going to change the content or how we receive the mailing lists?.. .. The only change I've noticed is that in all the time of reading this list I've not seen jerks posting forged messages like that.... Certainly not a positive change, but I'm not sure it can be attributed to what is going on... - Greg >??? As a longstanding reader of the pgsql- >mailinglists, (including via news.postgresql.org on >occasion), all I see is some outsiders trying to help >us "fix" a problem that does not exist. And yes, I >have read most of the messages that have passed by in >these threads. After all that, I still don't see the >benefit. > >Perhaps that is why these conversations have been >carried on almost totally by people who do not post to >the pgsql lists.
Currently the mailing list is also hosted in a newsgroup at new.postgresql.org. The news group is not "Official" so it is not carried by all news servers. There are some users who can not participate in a mailing list comfortably for one reason or another. Some of these individuals would like their local USENET provider to carry the news group. Because postgresql isn't official they will not do this. So there is now a movement to make the list official. The extra traffic I believe is coming from the discussion of the USENET people trying to get this done. Most USENET folk are good manor people just like you find on the lists. There are a lot of politics involved in USENET that are not present in your typical mailing list. This is primarily because mailing lists are hosted by the project/group and involve a single mail server where as USENET is many servers and many topics. As near as I can tell the main person pushing for making the list an official news group has inadvertently, or maybe advertently, offended someone with his politics, and/or lack of knowledge of the USENET process. Nothing big but with politics comes grudges etc. The other thing that I have noticed is people seem to get into more flame wars on USENET compared to mailing lists. There are many reasons for this but they are irrelevant. Part of this process of flaming and what not is the jerk forged message to piss people off. In particular I think the forger was attempting to sway the creditability , of the person being forged, to the people that make the USENET decisions. The chatter is there to inform anyone who might be fooled. If this push is successful are we likely to see a few jerks posting on the list via USENET? Yes, but I believe we will see an increase in useful posts from people who would not otherwise participate. Another downside is the email addresses on the list will get spread around more which increase the change of them getting harvested by a spam mer. USENET people tend to get around this by using fake email addresses for USENET that can be modified by a human when the real address is needed. Mailing lists typically don't mask the email address, and since you can't fake an address if you wish to get email, everyone on the list will increase there changes of being spammed, but maybe only slightly. This isn't necessarily a big deal because several people have a separate mailing list address and/or have spam prevention in place. Wow this turned into a bigger message then I intended :-) On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 16:03:48 -0700, Net Virtual Mailing Lists <mailinglists@net-virtual.com> wrote: > Yeah.. I'm with you.. I don't really know what all of this is about - I > like the way the Postgres mailing list works as it is.... Are any of the > changes being discussed here going to change the content or how we > receive the mailing lists?.. > > .. The only change I've noticed is that in all the time of reading this > list I've not seen jerks posting forged messages like that.... > Certainly not a positive change, but I'm not sure it can be attributed to > what is going on... > > - Greg > > > > >??? As a longstanding reader of the pgsql- > >mailinglists, (including via news.postgresql.org on > >occasion), all I see is some outsiders trying to help > >us "fix" a problem that does not exist. And yes, I > >have read most of the messages that have passed by in > >these threads. After all that, I still don't see the > >benefit. > > > >Perhaps that is why these conversations have been > >carried on almost totally by people who do not post to > >the pgsql lists. > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster >
mailinglists@net-virtual.com ("Net Virtual Mailing Lists") wrote in
news:20041110230349.31866@mail.net-virtual.com:
> Yeah.. I'm with you.. I don't really know what all of this is about - I
> like the way the Postgres mailing list works as it is.... Are any of the
> changes being discussed here going to change the content or how we
> receive the mailing lists?..
As far as i think:
There will be no change to how the system is today. PostgreSQL mailing
lists is already gatewayed to news server all of the world. The process
which is ongoing only make the existing lists on usenet more approved and
therefor even more servers will caryy them.
Today we who want to access the lists through a news server need to connect
to news.postgresql.org or find another provider who support the
comp.databases.postgresql.*.
--
Rolf �stvik
Hi Kevin, I'm probably a bit more concerned about this than you are... I don't want to have to post anonymously just to protect my email address... That is precisely why I stopped using Usenet about 5 years ago - it just got overwhelming... I hope the owner of this list considers this issue very carefully.. I for one will probably find support for Postgres through other mechanisms (I'm not sure what those would be yet) if what you are suggesting may come to pass actually does.... The quality of this mailing list has always been extremely high and it would be a real shame to lose that.... I know that I surely do not need any more spam... To say nothing of jerks posting infantile messages... I have a job to do and this list (as it is now) is an integral part of that.... From what it sounds like the Usenet folks have decided up until now not to participate on the Postgres mailing list for whatever reason.. I can only surmise that it is not that important to them --- it is to me though (and I imagine a lot of other people)... Why do we need to suffer at their expense?..... I mean if they are going to actually contribute - great, but that is simply not what appears to be happening here.... I'm certainly trying to be open minded here, but what I've seen so far coming from them is not exactly impressing me and it is not too hard to imagine that it only will get worse from here. The reasons about "increased participation" only works if that participations is meaningful, which it simply doesn't seem to be. I'm not trying to be harsh, but a good portion of Usenet posters strike me as brats who don't know how to behave and whoever it is that is managing this "switch" has not done an adequate job of explaining why we should put up with them or in the alternative what is going to be done to keep it to a minimum (IMHO). - Greg >Currently the mailing list is also hosted in a newsgroup at >new.postgresql.org. The news group is not "Official" so it is not >carried by all news servers. There are some users who can not >participate in a mailing list comfortably for one reason or another. >Some of these individuals would like their local USENET provider to >carry the news group. Because postgresql isn't official they will not >do this. So there is now a movement to make the list official. > >The extra traffic I believe is coming from the discussion of the >USENET people trying to get this done. Most USENET folk are good >manor people just like you find on the lists. > >There are a lot of politics involved in USENET that are not present in >your typical mailing list. This is primarily because mailing lists >are hosted by the project/group and involve a single mail server where >as USENET is many servers and many topics. > >As near as I can tell the main person pushing for making the list an >official news group has inadvertently, or maybe advertently, offended >someone with his politics, and/or lack of knowledge of the USENET >process. Nothing big but with politics comes grudges etc. > >The other thing that I have noticed is people seem to get into more >flame wars on USENET compared to mailing lists. There are many >reasons for this but they are irrelevant. Part of this process of >flaming and what not is the jerk forged message to piss people off. >In particular I think the forger was attempting to sway the >creditability , of the person being forged, to the people that make >the USENET decisions. The chatter is there to inform anyone who might >be fooled. > >If this push is successful are we likely to see a few jerks posting on >the list via USENET? Yes, but I believe we will see an increase in >useful posts from people who would not otherwise participate. > >Another downside is the email addresses on the list will get spread >around more which increase the change of them getting harvested by a >spam mer. USENET people tend to get around this by using fake email >addresses for USENET that can be modified by a human when the real >address is needed. Mailing lists typically don't mask the email >address, and since you can't fake an address if you wish to get email, >everyone on the list will increase there changes of being spammed, but >maybe only slightly. This isn't necessarily a big deal because >several people have a separate mailing list address and/or have spam >prevention in place. > >Wow this turned into a bigger message then I intended :-) > >On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 16:03:48 -0700, Net Virtual Mailing Lists ><mailinglists@net-virtual.com> wrote: >> Yeah.. I'm with you.. I don't really know what all of this is about - I >> like the way the Postgres mailing list works as it is.... Are any of the >> changes being discussed here going to change the content or how we >> receive the mailing lists?.. >> >> .. The only change I've noticed is that in all the time of reading this >> list I've not seen jerks posting forged messages like that.... >> Certainly not a positive change, but I'm not sure it can be attributed to >> what is going on... >> >> - Greg >> >> >> >> >??? As a longstanding reader of the pgsql- >> >mailinglists, (including via news.postgresql.org on >> >occasion), all I see is some outsiders trying to help >> >us "fix" a problem that does not exist. And yes, I >> >have read most of the messages that have passed by in >> >these threads. After all that, I still don't see the >> >benefit. >> > >> >Perhaps that is why these conversations have been >> >carried on almost totally by people who do not post to >> >the pgsql lists. >> >> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster >> >
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 01:23:08 -0700, Net Virtual Mailing Lists <mailinglists@net-virtual.com> wrote: > Hi Kevin, > > I'm probably a bit more concerned about this than you are... I don't > want to have to post anonymously just to protect my email address... The lists are already publically archived and google groups already carries the newsgroups. So your email address is already pretty exposed.
At 03:23 AM 11/11/2004, Net Virtual Mailing Lists wrote: >Hi Kevin, > >I'm probably a bit more concerned about this than you are... I don't >want to have to post anonymously just to protect my email address... >That is precisely why I stopped using Usenet about 5 years ago - it just >got overwhelming... You're posting anonymously now. I have no clue who Net Virtual Mailing Lists" is. That said, your posts still appear in the USENet group so there's no difference for you. >I hope the owner of this list considers this issue very carefully.. I for >one will probably find support for Postgres through other mechanisms (I'm >not sure what those would be yet) if what you are suggesting may come to >pass actually does.... Why not just continue to use the list as you do now? >The quality of this mailing list has always been extremely high and it >would be a real shame to lose that.... That wouldn't change. >I know that I surely do not need any more spam... To say nothing of jerks >posting infantile messages... I have a job to do and this list (as it is >now) is an integral part of that.... > > From what it sounds like the Usenet folks have decided up until now not >to participate on the Postgres mailing list for whatever reason.. It may "sound" like that, but that's not how it is. Your email shows up in USENet. Either the two-was street needs to be repaired or it needs to go away (The feed to USENet). >I can only surmise that it is not that important to them You can only surmise because you don't have any facts to reach a valid conclusion. >--- it is to me though >(and I imagine a lot of other people)... Why do we need to suffer at >their expense? It's clear that you don't get it. USENet is suffering at your lists expense. This is merely an attempt to correct that. >..... I mean if they are going to actually contribute - >great, but that is simply not what appears to be happening here.... They? Who's they? >I'm certainly trying to be open minded here, but what I've seen so far >coming from them is not exactly impressing me and it is not too hard to >imagine that it only will get worse from here. If you really WERE trying to be open minded, you'd have a different point of view. >The reasons about "increased participation" only works if that >participations is meaningful, which it simply doesn't seem to be. Then vote to have the push to USENet from your list REMOVED. >I'm not trying to be harsh, but a good portion of Usenet posters strike >me as brats who don't know how to behave and whoever it is that is >managing this "switch" has not done an adequate job of explaining why we >should put up with them or in the alternative what is going to be done to >keep it to a minimum (IMHO). It's a good thing you put quote marks around the word switch. The RFD is to finally approve the group that are already receiving your emails. Not create something new. The request for discussion is to repair the mess your e-mail lists have caused. Those people emailing the list get their names plastered to USENet too, btw. That doesn't seem to concern you. Perhaps, rather than whining, you should get involved in the discussion to make sure the charters for the groups are sound. Sound charters in a comp group means the trolls and k00ks leave your group alone for fear they'll be ejected from their NSP. It would be a GOOD THING[tm] to repair this mess.
Hi all, Mike Cox sent an email to the newsgroup news.groups last night saying he's giving up the usenet effort because of resistance here. What a shame. I can't handle all the emails of this list on my mailbox, and quite frankly I am interested in reading 10% of the emails only. Someone said earlier that he does not see the benefit of a usenet group. Well then, let me explain my little very real situation: I am subscribed to maybe a good dozen mailing lists in the open source community, I get litterally a few hundreds emails a day. No need to mention that quite a few mailing lists do not filter viruses and spam. Another very high volume mailing list that I follow is the Mono project. The issue that I have with mailing lists is that I get hundreds of useless emails (in my case) that fill up my mailbox and eventually my provider will reject the emails that I actually am interested in. It's much easier from a reader point of view to deal with a newsgroup than a mailing list, in my opinion, because you can discard the hundreds of email you don't need to be bothered with and you can follow the threads that matter to you. I am starting to believe that the issue behind all this fuss is an identity problem: does postgresql want to play side-by-side with the big database players and have an official, legal and legitimate newsgroup, or does it want to stay in the closet ? Max
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Net Virtual Mailing Lists wrote: > Hi Kevin, > > I'm probably a bit more concerned about this than you are... I don't > want to have to post anonymously just to protect my email address... > That is precisely why I stopped using Usenet about 5 years ago - it just > got overwhelming... > > I hope the owner of this list considers this issue very carefully.. I for > one will probably find support for Postgres through other mechanisms (I'm > not sure what those would be yet) if what you are suggesting may come to > pass actually does.... Actually, what is being suggested is something that has been in place for the past, oh, 5 years now ... > The quality of this mailing list has always been extremely high and it > would be a real shame to lose that.... That won't change ... > I know that I surely do not need any more spam... To say nothing of > jerks posting infantile messages... I have a job to do and this list > (as it is now) is an integral part of that.... Spam is pre-filtered out of the lists ... what isn't auto-deleted by Majordomo due to a not high enough score gets dump'd into my lap to approve/reject according to content ... as for the infantile messages, with or without Usenet, that is a risk, as 'forging an email' is something that has *always* been a possibility ... > I'm certainly trying to be open minded here, but what I've seen so far > coming from them is not exactly impressing me and it is not too hard to > imagine that it only will get worse from here. You aren't seeing those participating in the pgsql related newsgroups, you are seeing a few net.kooks on the news.groups list itself ... I can assure you that a *very* large percentage of the postings you see come through the mailing lists have their origin in the newsgroups themselves ... > I'm not trying to be harsh, but a good portion of Usenet posters strike > me as brats who don't know how to behave and whoever it is that is > managing this "switch" has not done an adequate job of explaining why we > should put up with them or in the alternative what is going to be done to > keep it to a minimum (IMHO). Since the gateway has been in place for almost half a decade now, and you are only now seeing net.kooks that aren't posting to the pgsql newsgroups, but are cross-posting to it based on the discussions going on as regards formalizing the lists ... I think what is being done to 'minimize it' has been quite effective, no? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Nov 11, 2004, at 1:56 PM, Max wrote: > > I am starting to believe that the issue behind all this fuss is an > identity > problem: does postgresql want to play side-by-side with the big > database > players and have an official, legal and legitimate newsgroup, or does > it > want to stay in the closet ? > > Max > Sorry, but I think that's about as silly a statement as I've read on this list. I have never seen any Oracle, DB2, or Sybase materials that claim 'We're big time - we have a legit comp..... newsgroup' (that would imply you could get support without paying for it). Honestly, people here generally don't give a hoot what the other 'big' databases do (which is as opposite from an identity problem as I can think off). The by-far easiest way to get a proposed feature rejected is to say 'we should do this because xxxx does it this way'. PR and marketing are not huge concerns on any of the lists other than advocacy. The various attempts to promote postgres (commercial or not) have generally been dismal, but somehow the product advances.... That being said, most people can understand that there is/may be a problem with the way the group is accessed for many people, or the way it should have set up whenever. However, to a large portion of this group it isn't a pressing issue right off, so there is significant inertia to overcome. > > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings > -------------------- Andrew Rawnsley President The Ravensfield Digital Resource Group, Ltd. (740) 587-0114 www.ravensfield.com
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 15:26:21 -0500, Andrew Rawnsley
<ronz@ravensfield.com> wrote:
> Sorry, but I think that's about as silly a statement as I've read on
> this list. I have never seen
> any Oracle, DB2, or Sybase materials that claim 'We're big time - we
> have a legit comp..... newsgroup' (that would imply you could get support without
> paying for it).
I also think such "reasons" would be simply stupid.
Next thing would be maybe making sure PostgreSQL will be the
first thing returned whenever someone types in "database" into
Google. ;-)))
> Honestly, people here generally don't give a hoot what the other 'big'
> databases do (which is
I tend to look at it from complete different angle. Let's leave the
group stuff for a while and think about SQL. PostgreSQL seeks
to conform SQL standards as much as it is reasonable. I think
it is good approach, I feel it's much better than creating a new SQL
syntax for every obstacle encountered. And if there is some
"PostgreSQLism" which could be converted to SQL standard, then
I guess it's worth doing at least for the sake of following the standards.
And now, some time ago, PostgreSQL mailing lists were gatewayed
into Big8 namespace, to help people access them by other means.
Only it was done "unoffically", i.e. not following standard procedure
for such things. It could be thought of as "hooking up" to neighbour's
cable TV cables, only it does not involve stealing. ;) Well, I'm sure
it's easy to find many better comparable situations. ;)
Anyway, it's a bit kludgy, not following standards. It would be nice
however to maybe go to the cable guys and tell them -- connect us
officialy. Not because Oracle users did so. No, it's foolish reason.
Because it's Right, because it makes us closer to Standards, because
to be respected means to respect others. Etc, etc. etc.
It's sad that there was so much noise about it... I know I may not
be helping much to solve situation, but at least I'm trying.
Regards.
Dawid
> -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Andrew Rawnsley > Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 12:26 PM > To: Pgsql General > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] comp.database.postgresql.* > > > > On Nov 11, 2004, at 1:56 PM, Max wrote: > > > > > I am starting to believe that the issue behind all this fuss is an > > identity > > problem: does postgresql want to play side-by-side with the big > > database > > players and have an official, legal and legitimate newsgroup, or does > > it > > want to stay in the closet ? > > > > Max > > > > Sorry, but I think that's about as silly a statement as I've read on > this list. I have never seen > any Oracle, DB2, or Sybase materials that claim 'We're big time - we > have a legit > comp..... newsgroup' (that would imply you could get support without > paying for it). This is absolutely not what I am saying. I am saying that postgresql is perceived as a marginal database and that as such it would be a good thing for it to be on the big8 newsgroups, and make people realize that it's not that marginal at all. Readers watch out: I don't mean to bruise anybody's ego by saying this, and I am not trying to start a flame. I have just observed that whenever I suggest using postgresql instead of SQL server at work (because I *hate* SQL server), all our distributers start to scream. Because they don't know anything about it! heck! I love this product! Our customers pay big bucks for our systems, and they feel more comfortable buying SQL server licenses or Oracle than dealing with postgresql. And that pisses me off, because postgresql solves so many of our issues.... soooo... a small step towards not being that marginal could be towards having a legitimate newsgroup. > Honestly, people here generally don't give a hoot what the other 'big' > databases do (which is as opposite from an identity problem as I can think off). The by-far > easiest way to get a proposed > feature rejected is to say 'we should do this because xxxx does it > this way'. PR and marketing > are not huge concerns on any of the lists other than advocacy. The > various attempts to promote > postgres (commercial or not) have generally been dismal, but somehow > the product advances.... I agree 100%, but I think this is off topic. > That being said, most people can understand that there is/may be a > problem with the way the > group is accessed for many people, or the way it should have set up > whenever. However, > to a large portion of this group it isn't a pressing issue right off, > so there is significant inertia > to overcome. > Right. For me, the day (not that far) we do integrate postgresql into our product, I would like to point my customers to a newsgroup, not to a high volume mailing list. Max
> > > Honestly, people here generally don't give a hoot what the other 'big' > > databases do (which is > > I tend to look at it from complete different angle. Let's leave the > group stuff for a while and think about SQL. PostgreSQL seeks > to conform SQL standards as much as it is reasonable. I think > it is good approach, I feel it's much better than creating a new SQL > syntax for every obstacle encountered. Absolutely! > > And now, some time ago, PostgreSQL mailing lists were gatewayed > into Big8 namespace, to help people access them by other means. > Only it was done "unoffically", i.e. not following standard procedure > for such things. It could be thought of as "hooking up" to neighbour's > cable TV cables, only it does not involve stealing. ;) Well, I'm sure > it's easy to find many better comparable situations. ;) > Anyway, it's a bit kludgy, not following standards. It would be nice > however to maybe go to the cable guys and tell them -- connect us > officialy. Not because Oracle users did so. No, it's foolish reason. > Because it's Right, because it makes us closer to Standards, because > to be respected means to respect others. Etc, etc. etc. Nicely put ;) This is exactly what I was trying to say. Max
A few more points --
> I'm probably a bit more concerned about this than you are... I don't
> want to have to post anonymously just to protect my email address...
> That is precisely why I stopped using Usenet about 5 years ago - it just
> got overwhelming...
Just out of curiousity, does your mail reader do filtering?
> I hope the owner of this list considers this issue very carefully.. I for
> one will probably find support for Postgres through other mechanisms (I'm
> not sure what those would be yet) if what you are suggesting may come to
> pass actually does....
Watch the newsgroups on Google archives? ;-)
http://groups.google.com/groups?group=comp.databases.postgresql.general
> The quality of this mailing list has always been extremely high and it
> would be a real shame to lose that....
Well, until the kooks (one kook?) gets bored, there's not much to do
about it now. Mike stirred up the kooks, but we can't undo that. In the
meantime, if you see the f* word in a post, assume it's from the kook
and don't give it any further thought.
> I know that I surely do not need any more spam... To say nothing of jerks
> posting infantile messages... I have a job to do and this list (as it is
> now) is an integral part of that....
>
> From what it sounds like the Usenet folks have decided up until now not
> to participate on the Postgres mailing list for whatever reason.. I can
> only surmise that it is not that important to them --- it is to me though
> (and I imagine a lot of other people)...
It was not the USENET folks' decision. It was only that Marc had reasons
of his own (maybe just not enough time? Heh.) to formally request the
namespace allocation.
> Why do we need to suffer at
> their expense?..... I mean if they are going to actually contribute -
> great, but that is simply not what appears to be happening here....
Those were not typical. I'm not even sure they were posted to try to
push opinion against formalizing the groups. What I see in news.groups
indicates to me they are just trying to see how many people they can get
to gag. Ignore them and pretty seen they get bored and go look for other
prey.
> ...
--
Joel <rees@ddcom.co.jp>
> Mike Cox sent an email to the newsgroup news.groups last night saying he's > giving up the usenet effort because of resistance here. What a shame. Marc, Should we leave this as is, or would you like someone to pick the RFD back up? (Yes, I'm saying I can volunteer. My pace would be a bit slow, but that might actually be an advantage.) (And, BTW, Mike, thanks for trying.) -- Joel <rees@ddcom.co.jp>
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Joel wrote: >> Mike Cox sent an email to the newsgroup news.groups last night saying he's >> giving up the usenet effort because of resistance here. What a shame. > > Marc, > > Should we leave this as is, or would you like someone to pick the RFD > back up? I'm not in the resistance group, but I am in the 'makes no difference either way' one ... its up to you ... :) ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Dawid Kuroczko <qnex42@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> And now, some time ago, PostgreSQL mailing lists were gatewayed
> into Big8 namespace, to help people access them by other means.
> Only it was done "unoffically", i.e. not following standard procedure
> for such things. It could be thought of as "hooking up" to neighbour's
> cable TV cables, only it does not involve stealing. ;) Well, I'm sure
> it's easy to find many better comparable situations. ;)
> Anyway, it's a bit kludgy, not following standards. It would be nice
> however to maybe go to the cable guys and tell them -- connect us
> officialy. Not because Oracle users did so. No, it's foolish reason.
> Because it's Right, because it makes us closer to Standards, because
> to be respected means to respect others. Etc, etc. etc.
Another analogy would be to squatters building houses on public land.
Then, years later, one of them goes to the zoning commission and tries
to get the proper permits issued to give them legitimate use of the land
they're occupying... but some of the residents want to stay unofficial
because they're afraid outsiders will want to move into the community
if it becomes "legal."
--
Wayne Brown (HPCC #1104) | "When your tail's in a crack, you improvise
fwbrown@bellsouth.net | if you're good enough. Otherwise you give
| your pelt to the trapper."
"e^(i*pi) = -1" -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, "Silverlock"