Thread: Database access over the Internet...
************************************************************************
* Do not Cc: me, because I READ THIS LIST, if I write here *
* Keine Cc: am mich, ich LESE DIESE LISTE wenn ich hier schreibe *
************************************************************************
...because using 2-3 differnet databases sucks!
Hello *,
After IRC'ing with some peoples and discusing about PostgreSQL, MySQL,
SQlite, Oracle Informix and others I like to know, if you use a database
access over the Internet what your experience is with...
My problem is, that I am using PostgreSQL since version 6.4 (March 1999)
and most Hosting-Provides offer only MySQL which let me run into trouble
with my nicely designed database.
So my idea is now, to install a small 19"/1U (maybe 2U) RackServer which
hold (at least for the data) four SAS drives of 76/147 GByte in Raid-1
with 2 Hotfix (and maybe 3-4 smaller 36 GByte drives for the OS+Logs.
It seems, I can have 1U racks with 4 drives and hardware Raid-1 for less
then 1400 Euro and the 2U ones for arround 1800 Euro.
Of course, without the SAS drives...
Now the problem is availability... Installing 3-4 Racks all over the
world and clustering it? The database would have only the data of my
OnlineStore (with data of currently arround 140.000 customers and
increasing) and my website. So, for this Base-Database I need only
arround 1-2 GByte for now but if my website is entirely online, the data
volume increase rapidely.
How do you manage such case?
Are there Hosting-Provider where I can cluster my Database with the
Database on another ISP? E.g. One in the USA, one in Germany and one in
Swiss?
How do you manage Backups for the Database?
Note 1: I live in a MobilHome (generaly two and a MobilOffice) and have
no ADSL availlable here. Only GSM/UMTS/HSDPA (up to 3.6 MBit).
Maybe I will install Astra2connect which give me a bidirectional
satelit connection but this is currently future for me even if
it cost only 20 Euro per month prepayed for 2 years.
Note 2: I am working 95% mobil, which is WHY I use GSM/UMTS/HSDPA. (cost
only 25 Euro/month with unlimited traffic at "O2" in Germany)
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
24V Electronic Engineer
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant
--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
##################### Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #####################
Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886
+49/177/9351947 50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
+33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)
Attachment
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Michelle Konzack <linux4michelle@tamay-dogan.net> wrote: > ************************************************************************ > * Do not Cc: me, because I READ THIS LIST, if I write here * > * Keine Cc: am mich, ich LESE DIESE LISTE wenn ich hier schreibe * > ************************************************************************ Again, you get to look up the options for major domo to alleviate the problem. > ...because using 2-3 differnet databases sucks! Agreed. especially if they are supposed to hold the same data set. > After IRC'ing with some peoples and discusing about PostgreSQL, MySQL, > SQlite, Oracle Informix and others I like to know, if you use a database > access over the Internet what your experience is with... Depends. I've used "extranet" connections that worked quite well. If you can talk your hosting provider(s) into setting them up for you they're still way cheaper than having monstrous database servers all over the place. You can also look into using a VPN connection between hosting centers. This would go across the regular old internet but have the advantage of making it look, from a networking perspective, like your machines were sitting next to each other (except for the increase in latency of course).
Am 2008-11-07 07:51:37, schrieb Scott Marlowe:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Michelle Konzack
> <linux4michelle@tamay-dogan.net> wrote:
> > ************************************************************************
> > * Do not Cc: me, because I READ THIS LIST, if I write here *
> > * Keine Cc: am mich, ich LESE DIESE LISTE wenn ich hier schreibe *
> > ************************************************************************
>
> Again, you get to look up the options for major domo to alleviate the problem.
What does this have to do, if peoples are bombing my <linux4michelle>
account? I have set my account to "nomail" or "delivery off" but peoples
continuing to send me tonns of PM's as CC.
If you look in the Header of my message you will see, that my access
provider is the german GSM operator O2.
Bombing my public account with useless messages is terroism...
And of course, even if I am set to NOMAIL, I read the messages.
(otherwise I would not able to answer...)
> Depends. I've used "extranet" connections that worked quite well. If
> you can talk your hosting provider(s) into setting them up for you
> they're still way cheaper than having monstrous database servers all
> over the place.
>
> You can also look into using a VPN connection between hosting centers.
> This would go across the regular old internet but have the advantage
> of making it look, from a networking perspective, like your machines
> were sitting next to each other (except for the increase in latency of
> course).
Hmmm...
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
24V Electronic Engineer
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant
--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
##################### Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #####################
Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886
+49/177/9351947 50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
+33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)
Attachment
On Saturday 08 November 2008 4:37:57 pm Michelle Konzack wrote: > Am 2008-11-07 07:51:37, schrieb Scott Marlowe: > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Michelle Konzack > > > > <linux4michelle@tamay-dogan.net> wrote: > > > *********************************************************************** > > >* * Do not Cc: me, because I READ THIS LIST, if I write here > > > * * Keine Cc: am mich, ich LESE DIESE LISTE wenn ich hier schreibe > > > * > > > *********************************************************************** > > >* > > > > Again, you get to look up the options for major domo to alleviate the > > problem. > > What does this have to do, if peoples are bombing my <linux4michelle> > account? I have set my account to "nomail" or "delivery off" but peoples > continuing to send me tonns of PM's as CC. See: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs.FAQ.html#item1.15 > > If you look in the Header of my message you will see, that my access > provider is the german GSM operator O2. > > Bombing my public account with useless messages is terroism... > > > Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening > Michelle Konzack > Systemadministrator > 24V Electronic Engineer > Tamay Dogan Network > Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Adrian Klaver aklaver@comcast.net
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Michelle Konzack <linux4michelle@tamay-dogan.net> wrote: > Am 2008-11-07 07:51:37, schrieb Scott Marlowe: >> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Michelle Konzack >> <linux4michelle@tamay-dogan.net> wrote: >> > ************************************************************************ >> > * Do not Cc: me, because I READ THIS LIST, if I write here * >> > * Keine Cc: am mich, ich LESE DIESE LISTE wenn ich hier schreibe * >> > ************************************************************************ >> >> Again, you get to look up the options for major domo to alleviate the problem. > > What does this have to do, if peoples are bombing my <linux4michelle> > account? I have set my account to "nomail" or "delivery off" but peoples > continuing to send me tonns of PM's as CC. > > If you look in the Header of my message you will see, that my access > provider is the german GSM operator O2. > > Bombing my public account with useless messages is terroism... No, your histrionics aside, it's the way this list works by default, and for good reason. If you need it to work differently, there's a setting which has been pointed out to you at two times now. Please take responsibility for your own life and fix the configuration and stop whinging.
Am 2008-11-08 17:03:39, schrieb Adrian Klaver: > See: > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs.FAQ.html#item1.15 And what does this have to do with CC? The CCs come in without passing the listserver and I do not want this mail! I want only PM if I request it OR, in case of urgence! So I add the banner to let peoples know I DO NOT WANT CCS. Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator 24V Electronic Engineer Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ ##################### Debian GNU/Linux Consultant ##################### Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 +49/177/9351947 50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi +33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)
Attachment
Am 2008-11-08 19:07:35, schrieb Scott Marlowe:
> No, your histrionics aside, it's the way this list works by default,
> and for good reason. If you need it to work differently, there's a
> setting which has been pointed out to you at two times now. Please
> take responsibility for your own life and fix the configuration and
> stop whinging.
It does not work since the CCs are coming FROM the sender and NOT from
the mailinglist.
And since most peoples hiting <Reply-All> they should delete my address
from the recipients...
It is very annoying, if I work Outside and must read my WORK E-Mails
with my GSM and haf to walk trough 100 of CCs which are definitively not
important.
And of course, each CC cost me money... 0.009 Euro/kByte.
Getting per day 1 MByte of CC is annoying.
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
24V Electronic Engineer
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant
--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
##################### Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #####################
Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886
+49/177/9351947 50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
+33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)
Attachment
On Nov 8, 2008, at 8:10 PM, Michelle Konzack wrote: > Am 2008-11-08 17:03:39, schrieb Adrian Klaver: >> See: >> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs.FAQ.html#item1.15 > > And what does this have to do with CC? The CCs come in without > passing the listserver and I do not want this mail! > > I want only PM if I request it OR, in case of urgence! > > So I add the banner to let peoples know I DO NOT WANT CCS. You, presumably, want the mail that's sent to the list (if you don't, go away and stop annoying everyone else). So, you want one copy of each email sent to the list, rather than two copies. So, if the listserver suppresses list email to you in the case where you've already been CCed on the mail you get... one copy of each email sent to the list. Which is what you seem to be claiming you want. All you'd need to do to get that would be to stop behaving as you are, read the FAQ you've been pointed at and configure your majordomo account appropriately. (If you're doing something different, such as reading the list solely via usenet or something, then that may not work for you, but at that point it's your problem). Cheers, Steve
On Saturday 08 November 2008, Michelle Konzack wrote: > Am 2008-11-08 19:07:35, schrieb Scott Marlowe: > > No, your histrionics aside, it's the way this list works by default, > > and for good reason. If you need it to work differently, there's a > > setting which has been pointed out to you at two times now. Please > > take responsibility for your own life and fix the configuration and > > stop whinging. > > It does not work since the CCs are coming FROM the sender and NOT from > the mailinglist. > > And since most peoples hiting <Reply-All> they should delete my address > from the recipients... > > It is very annoying, if I work Outside and must read my WORK E-Mails > with my GSM and haf to walk trough 100 of CCs which are definitively not > important. > > And of course, each CC cost me money... 0.009 Euro/kByte. > Getting per day 1 MByte of CC is annoying. So basically you want everyone here to accomodate your wishes, just because you have a GSM plan that sucks? Get yourself a hotmail or google address and use that to subscribe to this list. Then you can read the responses from a normal computer when you choose to. Actually it's polite and pretty much standard to hit "reply all" and I for one appreciate it when I'm kept on CC, just because originally I was interested in the topic discussed and I might miss the response otherwise. It's really not anyone's responsibility to pay attention to this. If you don't want CC's to your GSM, don't use the GSM's email address to sign up to the list - simple as that. Note: I manually took you off the CC - don't want to be the reason you have to file for bancruptcy. Uwe
On 09/11/2008 04:32, Uwe C. Schroeder wrote: > Actually it's polite and pretty much standard to hit "reply all" and I for one > appreciate it when I'm kept on CC, just because originally I was interested > in the topic discussed and I might miss the response otherwise. There's also the fact that people quite often post to the list without actually being subscribed - so if there were no CC they'd never get an answer to their question. Ray. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Raymond O'Donnell, Director of Music, Galway Cathedral, Ireland rod@iol.ie Galway Cathedral Recitals: http://www.galwaycathedral.org/recitals ------------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Konzack wrote: > Am 2008-11-08 19:07:35, schrieb Scott Marlowe: >> No, your histrionics aside, it's the way this list works by default, >> and for good reason. If you need it to work differently, there's a >> setting which has been pointed out to you at two times now. Please >> take responsibility for your own life and fix the configuration and >> stop whinging. > > It does not work since the CCs are coming FROM the sender and NOT from > the mailinglist. I'm thinking that if you check the setting per the faq that has been pointed out, that majordomo will note that you've been cc'd directly, and so will not send you the copy from the mailing list.
> And what does this have to do with CC? The CCs come in without > passing the listserver and I do not want this mail! And if someone makes a mistake and accidentally emails you directly, WHILE TRYING TO HELP YOU AND ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, perhaps you should react gracefully instead of being a whiny rude jackass. This message sent to the list at your request ;-) -- Scott Ribe scott_ribe@killerbytes.com http://www.killerbytes.com/ (303) 722-0567 voice
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Scott Ribe <scott_ribe@killerbytes.com> wrote: >> And what does this have to do with CC? The CCs come in without >> passing the listserver and I do not want this mail! > > And if someone makes a mistake and accidentally emails you directly, WHILE > TRYING TO HELP YOU AND ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, perhaps you should react > gracefully instead of being a whiny rude jackass. What's mess up is that the solution given the user DOES work. She just refuses to try it, because she assumes that the mailing list server doesn't see the exact same CC list as her email server. Well, it does, and it then drops the message outbound for her so she ONLY gets it from the original sender.
> What's mess up is that the solution given the user DOES work. What's messed up is that a person asking for free help from a group of volunteers would insistently place unusual restrictions on how she will accept that help, then lecture those who tried to help but hadn't noticed her specific terms. I wouldn't have been nearly as harsh in my reply, probably wouldn't have replied at all, if she hadn't referred to the email coming to her as "terrorism". Now granted English may not be her first language so I'll assume that's a poor translation and she really meant something closer to "harassment". But even so, her position is outstandingly absurd, to accuse people of harassing her for attempting to answer her question. Perhaps someone should speak to her about the advantages of MySQL? -- Scott Ribe scott_ribe@killerbytes.com http://www.killerbytes.com/ (303) 722-0567 voice
Am 2008-11-15 09:53:15, schrieb Scott Marlowe:
> What's mess up is that the solution given the user DOES work. She
> just refuses to try it, because she assumes that the mailing list
> server doesn't see the exact same CC list as her email server. Well,
> it does, and it then drops the message outbound for her so she ONLY
> gets it from the original sender.
You did not understand the problem!!!!!!!!
My Mailbox which I use for my business is bombed by over 50.000 spams
per day and I do already heavy filtering. I have to read my mail while
I am @work which mean, MOBILE using my cellphone connected to my Laptop.
Since I read the List ove another channel AND already filtering my own
threads (and convert it into a form which is much smaller then E-Mails)
to get rid of the rest from the list since I am subscribed to over 120
mailinglists and need less then 3% from it...
So, peoples now sending me PMs does not help, since it DoS my system and
make it harder for me to work since I have to walk through this messages
I do not need because I have it already seen.
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
24V Electronic Engineer
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant
--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
##################### Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #####################
Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886
+49/177/9351947 50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
+33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)
Attachment
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 3:41 AM, Michelle Konzack <linux4michelle@tamay-dogan.net> wrote: > Am 2008-11-15 09:53:15, schrieb Scott Marlowe: >> What's mess up is that the solution given the user DOES work. She >> just refuses to try it, because she assumes that the mailing list >> server doesn't see the exact same CC list as her email server. Well, >> it does, and it then drops the message outbound for her so she ONLY >> gets it from the original sender. > > You did not understand the problem!!!!!!!! > > My Mailbox which I use for my business is bombed by over 50.000 spams > per day and I do already heavy filtering. I have to read my mail while > I am @work which mean, MOBILE using my cellphone connected to my Laptop. These two requirements seem at odds. If you read your email on laptop connected via cell phones then you don't need to be anywhere except somewhere that has cell phone coverage. > Since I read the List ove another channel AND already filtering my own > threads (and convert it into a form which is much smaller then E-Mails) > to get rid of the rest from the list since I am subscribed to over 120 > mailinglists and need less then 3% from it... So, what other method is this? I still don't understand the problem. In your haste to send out an email explaining it to me, you've failed to really explain it. If you send the eliminatecc command to the mailing list server it won't send you an email. Are you saying you read this list some other way than a subscription to the mailing list? Because you said quite clearly in your first message you WERE subscribed to this list. So, are you subscribed through another account? Read through USENET? If you are subscribed via this account, and are getting an email from the user and the list, eliminatecc will work. Otherwise, no. > So, peoples now sending me PMs does not help, since it DoS my system and > make it harder for me to work since I have to walk through this messages > I do not need because I have it already seen. WHERE have you already seen them. I'm still not understanding. If you're gonna subscribe to a list, do so with an email account that can handle being sent emails. One that breaks from the relatively low traffic generated by a conversation on this list can't be even a small percentage of the real spam it must already get.
On Nov 16, 2008, at 2:41 AM, Michelle Konzack wrote: > Am 2008-11-15 09:53:15, schrieb Scott Marlowe: >> What's mess up is that the solution given the user DOES work. She >> just refuses to try it, because she assumes that the mailing list >> server doesn't see the exact same CC list as her email server. Well, >> it does, and it then drops the message outbound for her so she ONLY >> gets it from the original sender. > > You did not understand the problem!!!!!!!! > > > My Mailbox which I use for my business is bombed by over 50.000 > spams > per day and I do already heavy filtering. I have to read my mail > while > I am @work which mean, MOBILE using my cellphone connected to my > Laptop. > > Since I read the List ove another channel AND already filtering my > own > threads (and convert it into a form which is much smaller then E- > Mails) > to get rid of the rest from the list since I am subscribed to over > 120 > mailinglists and need less then 3% from it... > > So, peoples now sending me PMs does not help, since it DoS my system > and > make it harder for me to work since I have to walk through this > messages > I do not need because I have it already seen. Well, go away then. If you are too cheap to receive emails in answer to your questions, stop asking questions. This is not a support channel you should consider using until you learn enough courtesy and basic competence with email to interact in public. Cheers, Steve > > Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening > Michelle Konzack > Systemadministrator > 24V Electronic Engineer > Tamay Dogan Network > Debian GNU/Linux Consultant > > > -- > Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ > ##################### Debian GNU/Linux Consultant > ##################### > Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 > +49/177/9351947 50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi > +33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)
List Ettiquette (perhaps Off Topic by now) was: Re: Database access over the Internet...
From
charlie derr
Date:
Steve Atkins wrote:
>
> On Nov 16, 2008, at 2:41 AM, Michelle Konzack wrote:
>
>> Am 2008-11-15 09:53:15, schrieb Scott Marlowe:
>>> What's mess up is that the solution given the user DOES work. She
>>> just refuses to try it, because she assumes that the mailing list
>>> server doesn't see the exact same CC list as her email server. Well,
>>> it does, and it then drops the message outbound for her so she ONLY
>>> gets it from the original sender.
>>
>> You did not understand the problem!!!!!!!!
>
>>
>>
>> My Mailbox which I use for my business is bombed by over 50.000 spams
>> per day and I do already heavy filtering. I have to read my mail while
>> I am @work which mean, MOBILE using my cellphone connected to my Laptop.
>>
>> Since I read the List ove another channel AND already filtering my own
>> threads (and convert it into a form which is much smaller then E-Mails)
>> to get rid of the rest from the list since I am subscribed to over 120
>> mailinglists and need less then 3% from it...
>>
>> So, peoples now sending me PMs does not help, since it DoS my system and
>> make it harder for me to work since I have to walk through this messages
>> I do not need because I have it already seen.
>
> Well, go away then.
>
> If you are too cheap to receive emails in answer to your questions,
> stop asking questions.
>
> This is not a support channel you should consider using until you
> learn enough courtesy and basic competence with email to interact
> in public.
>
> Cheers,
> Steve
I don't think that what Michelle is asking is unreasonable. While certainly not a universal "standard" a significant
subsetof
mailing lists definitely support the view that personal replies are unneccessary (and many lists forbid/discourage
them).
I also think (based on what I've read from Michelle here and on other lists) that it'd be a drag to lose the
participationof
someone who has often contributed interesting viewpoints/information to technical discussions.
In my view, anything that causes people to check more closely about exactly where a reply is being sent is a good
thing.
be well,
~c
Re: List Ettiquette (perhaps Off Topic by now) was: Re: Database access over the Internet...
From
"Scott Marlowe"
Date:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 6:46 AM, charlie derr <cderr@simons-rock.edu> wrote: > Steve Atkins wrote: >> >> On Nov 16, 2008, at 2:41 AM, Michelle Konzack wrote: >> >>> Am 2008-11-15 09:53:15, schrieb Scott Marlowe: >>>> >>>> What's mess up is that the solution given the user DOES work. She >>>> just refuses to try it, because she assumes that the mailing list >>>> server doesn't see the exact same CC list as her email server. Well, >>>> it does, and it then drops the message outbound for her so she ONLY >>>> gets it from the original sender. >>> >>> You did not understand the problem!!!!!!!! >> >>> >>> >>> My Mailbox which I use for my business is bombed by over 50.000 spams >>> per day and I do already heavy filtering. I have to read my mail while >>> I am @work which mean, MOBILE using my cellphone connected to my Laptop. >>> >>> Since I read the List ove another channel AND already filtering my own >>> threads (and convert it into a form which is much smaller then E-Mails) >>> to get rid of the rest from the list since I am subscribed to over 120 >>> mailinglists and need less then 3% from it... >>> >>> So, peoples now sending me PMs does not help, since it DoS my system and >>> make it harder for me to work since I have to walk through this messages >>> I do not need because I have it already seen. >> >> Well, go away then. >> >> If you are too cheap to receive emails in answer to your questions, >> stop asking questions. >> >> This is not a support channel you should consider using until you >> learn enough courtesy and basic competence with email to interact >> in public. >> >> Cheers, >> Steve > > I don't think that what Michelle is asking is unreasonable. While > certainly not a universal "standard" a significant subset of mailing lists > definitely support the view that personal replies are unneccessary (and many > lists forbid/discourage them). This one does not. On this list, you reply all to list and user. That's how it's setup. And there's a VERY easy to configure option to stop the mailing list server from sending you a cc when someone has replied to both you and the list. I am not hitting reply all then editing the outbound list everytime Michelle gets on the list. Not when she's got a very simple solution she's refused to even try. I've seen no confirmation from her that she's tried the solution and it didn't work. I have been "shouted at" a lot for not understanding and terrorizing her. > I also think (based on what I've read from Michelle here and on other lists) > that it'd be a drag to lose the participation of someone who has often > contributed interesting viewpoints/information to technical discussions. It would. It's also a shame they can't even try the solution provided and then report back whether or not it worked. > In my view, anything that causes people to check more closely about exactly > where a reply is being sent is a good thing. Really? Really? I spend a fair bit of time on these lists helping people out. If I have to examine my reply-tos every time I'm done. I hit reply to all and type. Knowing that my reply goes where it's supposed to. I have better things to do than argue this point over and over, and so do a lot of other very helpful folks on this list. There is an OPTION that fixes the cc problem for people with brain dead email clients that can't eliminate the duplicate for them. It's in the FAQ. I think we've done enough for those people.
Re: List Ettiquette (perhaps Off Topic by now) was: Re: Database access over the Internet...
From
Bruce Momjian
Date:
Scott Marlowe wrote: > > In my view, anything that causes people to check more closely about exactly > > where a reply is being sent is a good thing. > > Really? Really? I spend a fair bit of time on these lists helping > people out. If I have to examine my reply-tos every time I'm done. I > hit reply to all and type. Knowing that my reply goes where it's > supposed to. I have better things to do than argue this point over > and over, and so do a lot of other very helpful folks on this list. > There is an OPTION that fixes the cc problem for people with brain > dead email clients that can't eliminate the duplicate for them. It's > in the FAQ. I think we've done enough for those people. Agreed. Some of us could just add Michelle to our auto-delete mailbox rules and then Michelle would never have to worry about getting email help from us. Michelle is asking to be involved in this community and there are requirements for that involvement. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
> You did not understand the problem!!!!!!!! 1) You did not explain the problem. 2) It's your problem, not ours. Your demand that thousands of other people adapt to your unusual problem is absurdly self-absorbed. Get decent email service, then subscribe from there. (Or go away. Either works for the members of this list, so it's really your choice.) -- Scott Ribe scott_ribe@killerbytes.com http://www.killerbytes.com/ (303) 722-0567 voice
Michelle, I don't think the list is going to change its operations for one disgruntled user. Since you seem unwilling or unable to employ the advice already given, maybe your only acceptable option is to unsubscribe from the list. At least that would eliminate much of the noise that currently is cluttering everyone's inboxes. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michelle Konzack" <linux4michelle@tamay-dogan.net> To: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 4:41 AM Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Database access over the Internet...