Thread: Fwd: Postgres forums ... take 2

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:08, Elliot Chance <elliotchance@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15/11/2010, at 8:37 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
>> I know this is a sensitive issue with some people, i've made sure no
>> information is posted thats not already currently being indexed by google.
>>
>> The only maintenance I can see is that all new topics are pushed into the
>> General > Other category as the script can't differentiate what category it
>> should in fact belong to, once the topic is moved it will stay there. This
>> shouldn't be a real problem as theres not many new topics being created on
>> any given day.
>
> Elliot,
>
> That's actually some good work you've done there!  I didn't know phpBB
> supported bidirectional mailing list support.
>
> It doesn't. I have a subscription address that is piped into a PHP script
> that uses the phpBB3 APIs to do all you see.

That sounds scary :-) Particularly given attachments and such. but if
it works....


> A few points though.  I think we'd need to disable smileys, bbcode, any form
> of rich text formatting, flash or embedded images.  In short, plain text
> only, which is the policy on the mailing list.  I think it would be more
> useful if each forum directly corresponded to a mailing list too.  What I
> mean is that if there was a forum on the site which didn't match to a
> mailing list, only forum users could use it.
>
> If someone were to send a reply on the forum all the bbcode would be
> stripped before emailing it to the mailing list to keep the mailing list
> "pure." Is that what you mean?

Personally, my thoughts are that if we want lists mirrored to a forum,
they should look the same in both cases. Which means they should be
stripped in the forums *as well*. but since I wouldn't be using the
forums, my view should perhaps not be paid attention to around that.
But there should *definitely* not be any bbcode going to the
mailinglists.


> Also, if someone registers on the forum, do they get a major domo
> registration email?  And if so, would this be set to receive no emails upon
> registration?  I'm not clear as to how this step would work because, at the
> moment, mailing list subscribers have to subscribe on a list-by-list basis.
> So registration to the forum site wouldn't necessarily mean they'd want to
> join any particular mailing list.  Similarly, could they unregister easily?
> And anyone who attempts to post to a mailing list they aren't subscribed to
> requires moderation, so we don't wish to exacerbate this.
>
> No they are not registered on the mailing list, but they actually don't need
> to be, let me explain:
> 1. John Smith has a postgres related question and finds the forums, he signs
> up and posts his question.
> 2. His post is then emailed to the mailing list under a generic registered
> address like "mailinglist@postgresql.com.au"

This part I really don't like. It should at least be posted with some
kind of uniquely identifiable pass-through address, if not the users
own address (make that an option?). Like
magnus-hagander-net@forums.whatever


> 3. Bob House reads Johns question on the mailing list and simply sends an
> email reply.
> 4. The email reply is piped into the forum and matches the topic based on
> the email subject (thats how it currently does it.)

You really should be matching on the response headers rather than
subject... Or at least both.



--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

I have made some major changes "beta2"

1. For now the forums have been set to read only, this is to prevent anyone posting a response (as it doesn't send
emailsback to the mailing list yet.) 

2. Added a bunch of new forums to match the mailing lists, also have subscribed to all main mailing list with the
followingmap: 

pgsql-admin => General > Server Administration & Maintenance
pgsql-advocacy => News > Advocacy & Media
pgsql-announce => News > News & Announcements
pgsql-bugs => Development > Bugs & Testing
pgsql-docs => Development > Documentation
pgsql-general => General > Other
pgsql-jdbc => Languages > Java
pgsql-jobs => Other > Commercial & Jobs
pgsql-novice => General > Newbie Section
pgsql-odbc => Languages > ODBC / Other
pgsql-performance => General > Performance & Benchmarking
pgsql-php => Languages > PHP
pgsql-sql => Languages > SQL
pgsql-students => Other > Education & Certification

This is visa-vers so forum topics posted on Languages > SQL will be posted to pgsql-sql, etc.

3. A rewrite of the mail to forums script so that it uses a MIME parser which handles messy emails, quotations and
multipartemails as it should now. 

4. The mail parser uses the correct "in-reply-to" to match up discussion threads rather than simply stripping the email
subject.

Extra thoughts;

It would not be practical for the forums to create a dummy mailing list email address per person or forum, however
theresneeds to be a robust way to make sure the topics/threads and posts match up with the threads and emails in the
mailinglist. The problem I see is that replies to the forum are not technically replies via email and so they will not
carrythe unique "in-reply-to" identifier. I believe this can be fixed by spoofing the in-reply-to from the forum, so
thateach forum reply will drop in the in-reply-to manually. I will do some testing on my own address before any
messagesare sent to the real mailing lists of course. 

Stripping bbcode, smilies, HTML or whatever is very simple, nothing to worry about there.

Since the php piping script had so many changes, I wiped the contents of the forum to run it all again. So any URLs you
hadthat point to specific thread IDs probably wont work any more, but as you can see the forums seems to be doing what
itshould: 
http://forums.postgresql.com.au

There needs to be more forum mapping from specific forums to mailing lists, for example "Languages > Perl" to the
closestmailing list which might be pgsql-general. However once the topic is created in a forum all the responses will
stayin that forum, so even though people reply on the pgsql-general mailing list the replies appear under Languages >
Perl.

The infrastructure exists to create as many forum mappings as needed, and I could add post processing. So for example
anemail to pgsql-general with the title "perl won't connect" will recognise "perl" and move it to the Languages > Perl. 


On 15/11/2010, at 9:42 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:08, Elliot Chance <elliotchance@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 15/11/2010, at 8:37 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
>>> I know this is a sensitive issue with some people, i've made sure no
>>> information is posted thats not already currently being indexed by google.
>>>
>>> The only maintenance I can see is that all new topics are pushed into the
>>> General > Other category as the script can't differentiate what category it
>>> should in fact belong to, once the topic is moved it will stay there. This
>>> shouldn't be a real problem as theres not many new topics being created on
>>> any given day.
>>
>> Elliot,
>>
>> That's actually some good work you've done there!  I didn't know phpBB
>> supported bidirectional mailing list support.
>>
>> It doesn't. I have a subscription address that is piped into a PHP script
>> that uses the phpBB3 APIs to do all you see.
>
> That sounds scary :-) Particularly given attachments and such. but if
> it works....
>
>
>> A few points though.  I think we'd need to disable smileys, bbcode, any form
>> of rich text formatting, flash or embedded images.  In short, plain text
>> only, which is the policy on the mailing list.  I think it would be more
>> useful if each forum directly corresponded to a mailing list too.  What I
>> mean is that if there was a forum on the site which didn't match to a
>> mailing list, only forum users could use it.
>>
>> If someone were to send a reply on the forum all the bbcode would be
>> stripped before emailing it to the mailing list to keep the mailing list
>> "pure." Is that what you mean?
>
> Personally, my thoughts are that if we want lists mirrored to a forum,
> they should look the same in both cases. Which means they should be
> stripped in the forums *as well*. but since I wouldn't be using the
> forums, my view should perhaps not be paid attention to around that.
> But there should *definitely* not be any bbcode going to the
> mailinglists.
>
>
>> Also, if someone registers on the forum, do they get a major domo
>> registration email?  And if so, would this be set to receive no emails upon
>> registration?  I'm not clear as to how this step would work because, at the
>> moment, mailing list subscribers have to subscribe on a list-by-list basis.
>> So registration to the forum site wouldn't necessarily mean they'd want to
>> join any particular mailing list.  Similarly, could they unregister easily?
>> And anyone who attempts to post to a mailing list they aren't subscribed to
>> requires moderation, so we don't wish to exacerbate this.
>>
>> No they are not registered on the mailing list, but they actually don't need
>> to be, let me explain:
>> 1. John Smith has a postgres related question and finds the forums, he signs
>> up and posts his question.
>> 2. His post is then emailed to the mailing list under a generic registered
>> address like "mailinglist@postgresql.com.au"
>
> This part I really don't like. It should at least be posted with some
> kind of uniquely identifiable pass-through address, if not the users
> own address (make that an option?). Like
> magnus-hagander-net@forums.whatever
>
>
>> 3. Bob House reads Johns question on the mailing list and simply sends an
>> email reply.
>> 4. The email reply is piped into the forum and matches the topic based on
>> the email subject (thats how it currently does it.)
>
> You really should be matching on the response headers rather than
> subject... Or at least both.
>
>
>
> --
>  Magnus Hagander
>  Me: http://www.hagander.net/
>  Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 03:45, Elliot Chance <elliotchance@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have made some major changes "beta2"
<snip>

> Extra thoughts;
>
> It would not be practical for the forums to create a dummy mailing list email address per person or forum,

Why? It doesn't have to be actual mailboxes, but it needs to be a
deliverable email address.

The other option is, of course, to send the email using the email
address the forum user uses to register with the forum. That might
cause issues with some antispam solutions, but as long as it's done
right, I think that would work.

Personally, I find the lack of this a show-stopper issue. We do *not*
want what's basically going to be anonymous posts on the lists.


> however theres needs to be a robust way to make sure the topics/threads and posts match up with the threads and
emailsin the mailing list. The problem I see is that replies to the forum are not technically replies via email and so
theywill not carry the unique "in-reply-to" identifier. 

The email generated is a reply via email, and carries a message id. It
should be perfectly possible to chain those together using
in-reply-to, as long as all posts are mirrored between the two media.


> There needs to be more forum mapping from specific forums to mailing lists, for example "Languages > Perl" to the
closestmailing list which might be pgsql-general. However once the topic is created in a forum all the responses will
stayin that forum, so even though people reply on the pgsql-general mailing list the replies appear under Languages >
Perl.

IMHO, there needs to be a one-to-one mapping, and nothing else.


> The infrastructure exists to create as many forum mappings as needed, and I could add post processing. So for example
anemail to pgsql-general with the title "perl won't connect" will recognise "perl" and move it to the Languages > Perl. 

That sounds like a really bad idea - it's going to cause nothing but confusion.


I'm not a big user of web forums (I use them when I have to, but it's
certainly not a medium I consider efficient so I don't choose it), so
here's a question that may be obvious, but still required: quoting.
Can the forum software be set up to always quote responses properly?
And somehow discourage top-posting in said responses? We absolutely do
*not* want a forum to start feeding non-quoted responses back to the
mailinglists, and non-quoted responses is unfortunately pretty common
on most forums where I usually end up - but again, that is hopefully
just a setting :-)


--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

On 16 November 2010 09:30, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 03:45, Elliot Chance <elliotchance@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have made some major changes "beta2"
> <snip>
>
> > Extra thoughts;
> >
> > It would not be practical for the forums to create a dummy mailing list email address per person or forum,
>
> Why? It doesn't have to be actual mailboxes, but it needs to be a
> deliverable email address.
>
> The other option is, of course, to send the email using the email
> address the forum user uses to register with the forum. That might
> cause issues with some antispam solutions, but as long as it's done
> right, I think that would work.

Won't the vast majority of those require moderation if users aren't
signed up to a mailing list?  I mean we could have the "reply-to"
header value contain the forum's email address, but the "from" address
would be rejected by the list surely?  If that could somehow be made
to work, that would be ideal though.

> Personally, I find the lack of this a show-stopper issue. We do *not*
> want what's basically going to be anonymous posts on the lists.

Definitely.

> IMHO, there needs to be a one-to-one mapping, and nothing else.

Agreed.  The justification for a forum, from my perspective, is
another method of interacting with the mailing list to open it up to a
wider audience.  I don't like the idea of additional forums which
don't match a mailing list as it would not only create community
fragmentation, but most of the people with the answers won't be
reading the forums.

> > The infrastructure exists to create as many forum mappings as needed, and I could add post processing. So for
examplean email to pgsql-general with the title "perl won't connect" will recognise "perl" and move it to the Languages
>Perl. 
>
> That sounds like a really bad idea - it's going to cause nothing but confusion.

Yes, we wouldn't want any clever logic to automagically file the posts
into certain categories.  We don't have that on the mailing lists, so
the forum also shouldn't have it.

> I'm not a big user of web forums (I use them when I have to, but it's
> certainly not a medium I consider efficient so I don't choose it), so
> here's a question that may be obvious, but still required: quoting.
> Can the forum software be set up to always quote responses properly?
> And somehow discourage top-posting in said responses? We absolutely do
> *not* want a forum to start feeding non-quoted responses back to the
> mailinglists, and non-quoted responses is unfortunately pretty common
> on most forums where I usually end up - but again, that is hopefully
> just a setting :-)

Have you seen Elliot's prototype?  From what I've seen, quoting comes
through fine.  It would just have to work correctly the other way, in
that it sends plain text emails with correct levels of chevrons.

A test mailing list will no doubt need to be set up for testing such
functionality.  But before too much work commences on this, will this
have the backing of the team?  I personally think, even though I don't
want a forum myself, others will, and it would reduce barriers to the
community.  Obviously it will need to work seamlessly too, so that it
doesn't cause any issues on the mailing lists themselves.

--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935

On Tuesday 16 November 2010 10:30:05 Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 03:45, Elliot Chance <elliotchance@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have made some major changes "beta2"
>
> <snip>
>
> > Extra thoughts;
> >
> > It would not be practical for the forums to create a dummy mailing list
> > email address per person or forum,
>
> Why? It doesn't have to be actual mailboxes, but it needs to be a
> deliverable email address.
>
> The other option is, of course, to send the email using the email
> address the forum user uses to register with the forum. That might
> cause issues with some antispam solutions, but as long as it's done
> right, I think that would work.

If this is done in cooperation with the list admins, they could whitelist the
forum-server for this?

> Personally, I find the lack of this a show-stopper issue. We do *not*
> want what's basically going to be anonymous posts on the lists.

I agree, as it's an easy way for spammers to start spamming the whole list.
Has anyone thought about what would happen if someone does an unsubscribe for
the forum email? :)

> > however theres needs to be a robust way to make sure the topics/threads
> > and posts match up with the threads and emails in the mailing list. The
> > problem I see is that replies to the forum are not technically replies
> > via email and so they will not carry the unique "in-reply-to"
> > identifier.
>
> The email generated is a reply via email, and carries a message id. It
> should be perfectly possible to chain those together using
> in-reply-to, as long as all posts are mirrored between the two media.

I think the only way to correctly mirror these 2 is to use one as the master
and have the other populated by the master.
As the mailing list already exists and is used a lot already, I would think
the following would work:
- user posts on forum, email is generated. When email comes from list, it is
entered into the forum

I believe this is how gmane works.

> > There needs to be more forum mapping from specific forums to mailing
> > lists, for example "Languages > Perl" to the closest mailing list which
> > might be pgsql-general. However once the topic is created in a forum all
> > the responses will stay in that forum, so even though people reply on
> > the pgsql-general mailing list the replies appear under Languages >
> > Perl.
>
> IMHO, there needs to be a one-to-one mapping, and nothing else.

Agreed

> > The infrastructure exists to create as many forum mappings as needed, and
> > I could add post processing. So for example an email to pgsql-general
> > with the title "perl won't connect" will recognise "perl" and move it to
> > the Languages > Perl.
>
> That sounds like a really bad idea - it's going to cause nothing but
> confusion.

How will it be done if a subject contains more then one "keywords"?
Eg. "Porting C-code to Perl causes performance issue"
I see "C", "Perl" and "Performance"
Where will it then be moved to?

> I'm not a big user of web forums (I use them when I have to, but it's
> certainly not a medium I consider efficient so I don't choose it), so
> here's a question that may be obvious, but still required: quoting.
> Can the forum software be set up to always quote responses properly?
> And somehow discourage top-posting in said responses? We absolutely do
> *not* want a forum to start feeding non-quoted responses back to the
> mailinglists, and non-quoted responses is unfortunately pretty common
> on most forums where I usually end up - but again, that is hopefully
> just a setting :-)

I doubt that, I am also on a mailing list where a similar link is already set
up.
I occasionally get emails there without quotes. It's ok if the thread isn't
too old. But if someone replies to a thread that's more then a year old, it
doesn't get linked up. (I move older posts into subfolders to keep my mail
client responsive)

If I feel like it, I can then click on the link to the forum to read the
actual thread. At least that way it is possible to make sense of it.

--
Joost

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:11, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
> On 16 November 2010 09:30, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 03:45, Elliot Chance <elliotchance@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I have made some major changes "beta2"
>> <snip>
>>
>> > Extra thoughts;
>> >
>> > It would not be practical for the forums to create a dummy mailing list email address per person or forum,
>>
>> Why? It doesn't have to be actual mailboxes, but it needs to be a
>> deliverable email address.
>>
>> The other option is, of course, to send the email using the email
>> address the forum user uses to register with the forum. That might
>> cause issues with some antispam solutions, but as long as it's done
>> right, I think that would work.
>
> Won't the vast majority of those require moderation if users aren't
> signed up to a mailing list?  I mean we could have the "reply-to"

It would. The best way around that would be to auto-subscribe them and
set them to NOMAIL, as has been previously suggested.


>> Personally, I find the lack of this a show-stopper issue. We do *not*
>> want what's basically going to be anonymous posts on the lists.
>
> Definitely.
>
>> IMHO, there needs to be a one-to-one mapping, and nothing else.
>
> Agreed.  The justification for a forum, from my perspective, is
> another method of interacting with the mailing list to open it up to a
> wider audience.  I don't like the idea of additional forums which
> don't match a mailing list as it would not only create community
> fragmentation, but most of the people with the answers won't be
> reading the forums.

Exactly my point.


>> I'm not a big user of web forums (I use them when I have to, but it's
>> certainly not a medium I consider efficient so I don't choose it), so
>> here's a question that may be obvious, but still required: quoting.
>> Can the forum software be set up to always quote responses properly?
>> And somehow discourage top-posting in said responses? We absolutely do
>> *not* want a forum to start feeding non-quoted responses back to the
>> mailinglists, and non-quoted responses is unfortunately pretty common
>> on most forums where I usually end up - but again, that is hopefully
>> just a setting :-)
>
> Have you seen Elliot's prototype?  From what I've seen, quoting comes
> through fine.  It would just have to work correctly the other way, in
> that it sends plain text emails with correct levels of chevrons.

Yes, I'm only talking about the forum->mail direction here.


> A test mailing list will no doubt need to be set up for testing such
> functionality.  But before too much work commences on this, will this
> have the backing of the team?  I personally think, even though I don't
> want a forum myself, others will, and it would reduce barriers to the
> community.  Obviously it will need to work seamlessly too, so that it
> doesn't cause any issues on the mailing lists themselves.

Personally, I would Ok with doing this, *IF* all the issues raised are
dealt with. Particularly the posting side *must* be fixed. Without
that, it definitely won't have the backing of the
sysadmin/infrastructure team. With it, probably, but I can't speak for
others than myself.


--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:59, J. Roeleveld <joost@antarean.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 November 2010 10:30:05 Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 03:45, Elliot Chance <elliotchance@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I have made some major changes "beta2"
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > Extra thoughts;
>> >
>> > It would not be practical for the forums to create a dummy mailing list
>> > email address per person or forum,
>>
>> Why? It doesn't have to be actual mailboxes, but it needs to be a
>> deliverable email address.
>>
>> The other option is, of course, to send the email using the email
>> address the forum user uses to register with the forum. That might
>> cause issues with some antispam solutions, but as long as it's done
>> right, I think that would work.
>
> If this is done in cooperation with the list admins, they could whitelist the
> forum-server for this?

There's actually no way to whitelist a server in mj2. We've tried this
for other things, and it just doesn't work.


>> > however theres needs to be a robust way to make sure the topics/threads
>> > and posts match up with the threads and emails in the mailing list. The
>> > problem I see is that replies to the forum are not technically replies
>> > via email and so they will not carry the unique "in-reply-to"
>> > identifier.
>>
>> The email generated is a reply via email, and carries a message id. It
>> should be perfectly possible to chain those together using
>> in-reply-to, as long as all posts are mirrored between the two media.
>
> I think the only way to correctly mirror these 2 is to use one as the master
> and have the other populated by the master.
> As the mailing list already exists and is used a lot already, I would think
> the following would work:
> - user posts on forum, email is generated. When email comes from list, it is
> entered into the forum

Yes, that's pretty much how it would have to work.


--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

Alrighty, here are the revised plans for beta3:

--- Changes / Fixes

* Without a doubt everyone one wants the forums to match the mailing lists. I personally think that this defeats the
wholepurpose of a forum, but i'm here to do what the community thinks is best. The extra forums that are not connected
witha mailing list will be removed. And some of the forums renamed - i'll leave that part up to you to decide amongst
yourselves.

* Obviously the above point means no filing script is needed. But for JRoeleveld; I had already through about that - I
wasthinking of a point keyword system. A title that has 3 words that belong to 3 different forums goes nowhere because
asingle forum location is no stronger than the rest but at best it's machine guesswork and we all know how different
theoreticalplans can be from practicality. 

* The second largest issue is that of the email address to assign to emails created by forum posts. I don't know the
internalsof how the mailing list software works, but some thoughts; 
 - Does the mailing allow a range of email addresses? For example using the persons clean username like:
"forums-chancey@postgresql.com.au"or "forums-bobsmith@postgresql.com.au" hence we allow the
"forums-*@postgresql.com.au"range? This way I can use a catch all address and filter. 
 - If theres an API to the mailing list that lets me register the persons real email address without then having to get
separatecopies in their inbox and also does not require a URL to be clicked to enable that email? 

* Quotation. Emails have a higher depth of quotation - it is not uncommon for a single email to contain levels for the
past4 emails and this works well in emails but not in a forum, this makes posts much longer then they need to be in
mostcases and bloats the search with loads of repeated information. 
For example phpBB3 by default limits the max quote level to 3 to stop extraneous information. I'm still thinking of a
solutionfor this. 

* Quotation ownership. You will notice that emails take the form something like:
Bob Smith <bob@smith.com> wrote:
> 1 + 1 = 2?
Yes.

The above gets translated only so that the ">" gets converted into the [quote] tags for the forums display. But quoting
inforums adds the ownership into the quote block, so the above would look like (forums do this automatically when you
quotesomeone): 
| Quote by [Bob Smith]:
| 1 + 1 = 2?
Yes.

Where [Bob Smith] is a link to the forum user. I originally wrote this into beta1 but saw there was no consistency and
emailscame in with "wrote:" "writes:" or something that just didn't make sense at all so I disabled the code until I
wasready to work on it properly. I will institute it again - wish me luck... 

--- Testing

* Don't be alarmed if your some posts don't show up. The parser script is not on a cron for now and I may be deleting
orplaying with posts while I tweak it, the idea is that things will get messy while its being tested and then wipe the
forumscompletely and use the mbox importer which I wrote a few hours ago to add the real posts. 

* I added user back dating in beta2. This means that if a mbox from 2 years ago is imported (hypothetically) the user
isautomatically back dated to the earliest post so it will show then as signed up 2 years ago with X posts per day
sincethen. Anyone want to guess who's had the most posts overall? 

--- Other notes

I didn't quote all the appropriate people above to keep the plan for beta3 clean. beta3 is when concept turns into a
clear(er)plan. Lets get all this worked before I start coding. 

Nobody has made much comment on the permission of containing the mailing list information and member email addresses in
anothercontainer like a forum. I understand that I can broadcast this information on other mailing lists (www was
mentioned)but if theres no absolute authority figure would it make any serious difference from what we're already
doing?

Cheers,
Elliot

On 11/16/2010 08:43 PM, Elliot Chance wrote:
> Alrighty, here are the revised plans for beta3:
>
> --- Changes / Fixes
>
> * Without a doubt everyone one wants the forums to match the mailing lists. I personally think that this defeats the
wholepurpose of a forum, but i'm here to do what the community thinks is best. The extra forums that are not connected
witha mailing list will be removed. And some of the forums renamed - i'll leave that part up to you to decide amongst
yourselves.

On a bit of a side-note, I'm increasingly wishing Stack Overflow had a
mail interface. I take Greg's point that it's an increasingly key place
for people (especially people not otherwise engaged in the community) to
seek information and help. It's a pity that there doesn't seem to be a
good way to connect the StackOverflow postgresql discussion in some way
that makes it more visible on the main community resources.

I think Greg may have a point when questioning whether adding a forum
interface is overly useful, given that Stack Overflow already exists and
doesn't see all that much attention. OTOH, maybe forums will draw people
who otherwise ask on S.O. to the community, providing a bit of a bridge.
It's worth a try.

--
Craig Ringer

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 13:43, Elliot Chance <elliotchance@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alrighty, here are the revised plans for beta3:
>
> * The second largest issue is that of the email address to assign to emails created by forum posts. I don't know the
internalsof how the mailing list software works, but some thoughts; 
>  - Does the mailing allow a range of email addresses? For example using the persons clean username like:
"forums-chancey@postgresql.com.au"or "forums-bobsmith@postgresql.com.au" hence we allow the
"forums-*@postgresql.com.au"range? This way I can use a catch all address and filter. 

It does allow regular expressions in some ways, but I'm not sure it
does it in this case - nor that it's the best idea.

>  - If theres an API to the mailing list that lets me register the persons real email address without then having to
getseparate copies in their inbox and also does not require a URL to be clicked to enable that email? 

There's no actual API, but it can be done - and has been done before -
by screen-scraping the CGI interface. See for example
https://github.com/mhagander/hamn/blob/master/listsync.py


> * Quotation. Emails have a higher depth of quotation - it is not uncommon for a single email to contain levels for
thepast 4 emails and this works well in emails but not in a forum, this makes posts much longer then they need to be in
mostcases and bloats the search with loads of repeated information. 
> For example phpBB3 by default limits the max quote level to 3 to stop extraneous information. I'm still thinking of a
solutionfor this. 

If you can find a way to represent it "the email way" in email and
"the forum way" in the forums, that's obviously the best...


> * Quotation ownership. You will notice that emails take the form something like:
> Bob Smith <bob@smith.com> wrote:
>> 1 + 1 = 2?
> Yes.
>
> The above gets translated only so that the ">" gets converted into the [quote] tags for the forums display. But
quotingin forums adds the ownership into the quote block, so the above would look like (forums do this automatically
whenyou quote someone): 
> | Quote by [Bob Smith]:
> | 1 + 1 = 2?
> Yes.
>
> Where [Bob Smith] is a link to the forum user. I originally wrote this into beta1 but saw there was no consistency
andemails came in with "wrote:" "writes:" or something that just didn't make sense at all so I disabled the code until
Iwas ready to work on it properly. I will institute it again - wish me luck... 

You can't safely rely on that format of the quoting header. "Proper"
quoting will always have > (top-posting often doesn't, but if we can't
parse that into proper quotes, I don't think it's a problem), but you
can't rely on the format of the row(s) before it.

OTOH, if it gets wrong here and there it's not a big problem. it just
mustn't get wrong too often :)

> Nobody has made much comment on the permission of containing the mailing list information and member email addresses
inanother container like a forum. I understand that I can broadcast this information on other mailing lists (www was
mentioned)but if theres no absolute authority figure would it make any serious difference from what we're already
doing?

We don't deal in authority figures, we deal in authority teams :-)
Just like with the source to the database.

There are some people who read -www that don't read -general. That are
fairly critical. So I suggest moving the thread over there.

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 16:40, Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au> wrote:
> On 11/16/2010 08:43 PM, Elliot Chance wrote:
>>
>> Alrighty, here are the revised plans for beta3:
>>
>> --- Changes / Fixes
>>
>> * Without a doubt everyone one wants the forums to match the mailing
>> lists. I personally think that this defeats the whole purpose of a forum,
>> but i'm here to do what the community thinks is best. The extra forums that
>> are not connected with a mailing list will be removed. And some of the
>> forums renamed - i'll leave that part up to you to decide amongst
>> yourselves.
>
> On a bit of a side-note, I'm increasingly wishing Stack Overflow had a mail
> interface. I take Greg's point that it's an increasingly key place for
> people (especially people not otherwise engaged in the community) to seek
> information and help. It's a pity that there doesn't seem to be a good way
> to connect the StackOverflow postgresql discussion in some way that makes it
> more visible on the main community resources.
>
> I think Greg may have a point when questioning whether adding a forum
> interface is overly useful, given that Stack Overflow already exists and
> doesn't see all that much attention. OTOH, maybe forums will draw people who
> otherwise ask on S.O. to the community, providing a bit of a bridge. It's
> worth a try.

I think stack overflow is something different, though, with it's
rating systems and such.

What I'm more interested in is still a word from the people who would
actually *use* a forum on how this would be better than sites like
Nabble and Gmane.

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

Personally I don't care what kind of "forum" interface is used.  I just
don't like the email because while I like to follow the forum, I spend a lot
of time out of the office and I don't like to have to download all of that
mail just to keep up.  I'd much rather use something that I can access from
my phone browser.  I do this even with my other company email because I
don't want to use up the space on my phone.

Best Regards
Michael Gould



> What I'm more interested in is still a word from the people who would
> actually *use* a forum on how this would be better than sites like
> Nabble and Gmane.
>
> --
>  Magnus Hagander
>  Me: http://www.hagander.net/
>  Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>

On 17/11/2010 12:01 AM, Michael Gould wrote:
> Personally I don't care what kind of "forum" interface is used.  I just
> don't like the email because while I like to follow the forum, I spend a lot
> of time out of the office and I don't like to have to download all of that
> mail just to keep up.  I'd much rather use something that I can access from
> my phone browser.  I do this even with my other company email because I
> don't want to use up the space on my phone.

Which phone, out of interest? And which server backend?

Even my ancient Nokia E71 (a Symbian Series 60 phone) is capable of
downloading only the most recent "n" messages from a mailbox. Unless
you're stuck with some incredibly brain-dead phone and/or IMAP server
setup, I find it hard to imagine this being a problem.

I'm also unsure how this issue is better addressed by a dedicated forum
than by gmane/nabble/etc.

I now find myself wondering if the existing mail/web gateways like
nabble or gmane offer "skinned" versions under an org's own domain.
That'd be an awfully nice option - have a "forum.postgresql.org" that's
really just gmane/nabble/etc under the hood.

--
Craig Ringer

On 11/16/2010 10:51 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> What I'm more interested in is still a word from the people who would
> actually *use* a forum on how this would be better than sites like
> Nabble and Gmane.

I'm one of those. I'm subscribed to these mailing lists simply because
it is the only way I know of to get the messages in a timely fashion,
but I would greatly prefer a forum-style interface.

I had never heard of Nabble or Gmane until now, but I just checked them
out and from my quick look it *looks* like a web interface for people
who prefer mailing lists.

I like having a category breakdown (at the moment I have my email client
splitting the various lists into folders), and I like having little
icons telling me which ones I already read and which are new (my email
client has that also of course).

So basically, the email lists are usable, but if this forum works out
I'll dump my email subscription in a second and use that. I don't think
either is inherently better than the other, it's just personal preference.

On 17/11/2010, at 6:22 AM, Stephen Cook wrote:

> On 11/16/2010 10:51 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> What I'm more interested in is still a word from the people who would
>> actually *use* a forum on how this would be better than sites like
>> Nabble and Gmane.
>
> I'm one of those. I'm subscribed to these mailing lists simply because it is the only way I know of to get the
messagesin a timely fashion, but I would greatly prefer a forum-style interface. 
>
> I had never heard of Nabble or Gmane until now, but I just checked them out and from my quick look it *looks* like a
webinterface for people who prefer mailing lists. 
>
> I like having a category breakdown (at the moment I have my email client splitting the various lists into folders),
andI like having little icons telling me which ones I already read and which are new (my email client has that also of
course).
>
> So basically, the email lists are usable, but if this forum works out I'll dump my email subscription in a second and
usethat. I don't think either is inherently better than the other, it's just personal preference. 

I'm not sure if anyone is noticing, or just doesn't want to but all that's becoming of the forum is a viewer for the
mailinglist with the ability to reply. There are already enough forum sites where they shove anything related to
postgresinto a single generic forum - I see no reason in recreating that. 

It's a difficult balancing act to leverage the mailing list community but also use all the features that have made
forumsoftware popular in the first place. There will be people who will continue to use mailing list no matter how the
forumis presented or functions simply because that's their preferred method, and some people who are used to the
differentmethods of a forum. Everyones input is important, but for the former who are never going to use the forum
anywayshould have little influence on how it works as forum software. 

OK, so solutions? Here in Sydney it's a bit after 9am so I've had time to sleep on it and heres what I'm thinking;
- Tagging system. A thread created "Performance of C vs Perl" could be tagged (by a registered user or automated
system)as [Performance] [C] [Perl] this would have no impact on the mailing list but make forum viewing and searching
morereliable, so a search might be like: 
Search: "benchmark"
Tags: [Perl] [PHP]
For someone looking to find a higher performance solution or comparison between Perl and PHP. I'd rather not do this
thoughbecause it will require me to change a lot of code in the phpBB3 codebase and still doesn't use a forum in the
wayits supposed to be used. 

The way I see it theres no reason why the forums can't be split the way they are now. It makes no difference to the
peoplewho will continue to use the mailing list but makes all the difference to forum users who are choosing this forum
overothers because it has all the backing of the masters on the mailing list in a much better layout of forums than any
othersite offers. 

There is no perfect solution here, you can't please all the masses all the time. But I do believe there is a workable
solutionsomewhere in the middle. 

>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 00:00, Elliot Chance <elliotchance@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 17/11/2010, at 6:22 AM, Stephen Cook wrote:
>
>> On 11/16/2010 10:51 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> What I'm more interested in is still a word from the people who would
>>> actually *use* a forum on how this would be better than sites like
>>> Nabble and Gmane.
>>
>> I'm one of those. I'm subscribed to these mailing lists simply because it is the only way I know of to get the
messagesin a timely fashion, but I would greatly prefer a forum-style interface. 
>>
>> I had never heard of Nabble or Gmane until now, but I just checked them out and from my quick look it *looks* like a
webinterface for people who prefer mailing lists. 
>>
>> I like having a category breakdown (at the moment I have my email client splitting the various lists into folders),
andI like having little icons telling me which ones I already read and which are new (my email client has that also of
course).
>>
>> So basically, the email lists are usable, but if this forum works out I'll dump my email subscription in a second
anduse that. I don't think either is inherently better than the other, it's just personal preference. 
>
> I'm not sure if anyone is noticing, or just doesn't want to but all that's becoming of the forum is a viewer for the
mailinglist with the ability to reply. There are already enough forum sites where they shove anything related to
postgresinto a single generic forum - I see no reason in recreating that. 

I think there's a general preference of not fragmenting the discussion
forums, whether they're in mailinglist of web forum format.

It should certainly not be a single forum for everything. But there
should be consistent splits.


> It's a difficult balancing act to leverage the mailing list community but also use all the features that have made
forumsoftware popular in the first place. There will be people who will continue to use mailing list no matter how the
forumis presented or functions simply because that's their preferred method, and some people who are used to the
differentmethods of a forum. Everyones input is important, but for the former who are never going to use the forum
anywayshould have little influence on how it works as forum software. 

They should have a *lot* of influence on how the communication between
the web forum and the mailinglists work. They shouldn't have any
influence on how the actual forum software works.

But I think you're missing one of the main points - the forums will
have a significantly reduced value if they don't get responses from
the people who are currently on the mailinglists. We've had
disconnected forums before, and they've all died because people have
posted questions there, and never gotten answers. The part that "the
mailinglist people" here consider is that this is *worse* for our
"reputation" than not having the forums at all - having forums that
don't get responses.

> OK, so solutions? Here in Sydney it's a bit after 9am so I've had time to sleep on it and heres what I'm thinking;
> - Tagging system. A thread created "Performance of C vs Perl" could be tagged (by a registered user or automated
system)as [Performance] [C] [Perl] this would have no impact on the mailing list but make forum viewing and searching
morereliable, so a search might be like: 
> Search: "benchmark"
> Tags: [Perl] [PHP]

A search system can certainly work that way. As long as there's a
deterministic way of figuring out which mailinglist replies to back
into, and which threads replies-to-those-replies go.

> For someone looking to find a higher performance solution or comparison between Perl and PHP. I'd rather not do this
thoughbecause it will require me to change a lot of code in the phpBB3 codebase and still doesn't use a forum in the
wayits supposed to be used. 
>
> The way I see it theres no reason why the forums can't be split the way they are now. It makes no difference to the
peoplewho will continue to use the mailing list but makes all the difference to forum users who are choosing this forum
overothers because it has all the backing of the masters on the mailing list in a much better layout of forums than any
othersite offers. 

It may be confusing to the end user, but I'm willing to accept that
web forum users are used to that :-) As long as there *is* a mapping,
and that it's consistent, of course.

> There is no perfect solution here, you can't please all the masses all the time. But I do believe there is a workable
solutionsomewhere in the middle. 

That is a very good point :-)

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

Some more changes:

* Added a profile field so you can enter your real name. Your real name is public but optional. If your real name is
presentthen emails sent to the mailing list will use that instead of your forum name. 

* Mail parsing script will automatically pick up your real name. This means that posts from the forum are totally
transparentwith the mailing list. 

* Written the script to take a forum post or reply and send it back to the mailing list (using a dummy address for
now.)It will change quotation format, remove bbcode, spoof the message-id and in-reply-to fields and look exactly like
it'scome from an email sender rather than the forum. True interoperability. 

* SMTP for outgoing mail is now setup. This should stop any messages from the forums going into your spam box.

* This is the current live mapping of forums <=> mailing lists;
http://postgresql.com.au/ml/info.php
Someone please check these.

* Rewrote the static forum mappers to now use the more robust database mappings which can be updated safely and easily.

* Pending mail tables now use compression (MySQL doesn't support compression so had to implement it myself.)

---

Testers:
Clearly I'm not going to point it to the real mailing list until a bunch of people have checked it and we're all
satisfiedit's doing exactly as it should. If you want to be a tester these are the steps. 
1. Tell me the address you'd like to receive test emails to.
2. Either wait for a topic to be posted or post one yourself (this will then send all the testers an email looking like
it'scome from a mailing list.) 
3. Add some text with the email reply, when your reply is processes it will appear on the forum. [1] Make sure your
responsematched the post on the forum. 
4. Do the reverse, reply on the forums and make sure your emails are formatted correctly. [2]

The real mailing list addresses are not anywhere near these emails so there is no risk sending anything to the real
mailinglist until I tell it to do so. 
Expect some formatting bugs, that's what I want to get sorted out.

[1] I still have the mail parser on manual so if your posts haven't shown up it's not because it's broken, i'm probably
asleep.
[2] Forums will probably get moved around, reposted, or deleted. This is just me trying different ways to break it
(findbugs.) But I will only mess with threads I've created unless otherwise announcing it. 

---

As for the archives...
- There is just under 1.5gb of uncompressed mailing list archives (thats all the pgsql-* mailing lists.)
- Full text indexing doubles that + 1.5gb (quick guess.)
- The compression pending table will probably run around 1gb or less.

Thats a total of about 4gb. Not that I'm saying I would but in case anyone was wondering. I would at least like to load
inJan 2010 onwards as this is still very useful and relevant information to load the search engine with. 

---

I think some people misunderstood how the split forums work. All forums are still 100% plugged into the mailing lists,
it'smore just a categorising thing on the forum software, it makes no difference to the mailing list people as long as
themappings are correct in: http://postgresql.com.au/ml/info.php 
This will make more sense if your able to help test.

On 17/11/2010, at 8:15 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 00:00, Elliot Chance <elliotchance@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 17/11/2010, at 6:22 AM, Stephen Cook wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/16/2010 10:51 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>>> What I'm more interested in is still a word from the people who would
>>>> actually *use* a forum on how this would be better than sites like
>>>> Nabble and Gmane.
>>>
>>> I'm one of those. I'm subscribed to these mailing lists simply because it is the only way I know of to get the
messagesin a timely fashion, but I would greatly prefer a forum-style interface. 
>>>
>>> I had never heard of Nabble or Gmane until now, but I just checked them out and from my quick look it *looks* like
aweb interface for people who prefer mailing lists. 
>>>
>>> I like having a category breakdown (at the moment I have my email client splitting the various lists into folders),
andI like having little icons telling me which ones I already read and which are new (my email client has that also of
course).
>>>
>>> So basically, the email lists are usable, but if this forum works out I'll dump my email subscription in a second
anduse that. I don't think either is inherently better than the other, it's just personal preference. 
>>
>> I'm not sure if anyone is noticing, or just doesn't want to but all that's becoming of the forum is a viewer for the
mailinglist with the ability to reply. There are already enough forum sites where they shove anything related to
postgresinto a single generic forum - I see no reason in recreating that. 
>
> I think there's a general preference of not fragmenting the discussion
> forums, whether they're in mailinglist of web forum format.
>
> It should certainly not be a single forum for everything. But there
> should be consistent splits.
>
>
>> It's a difficult balancing act to leverage the mailing list community but also use all the features that have made
forumsoftware popular in the first place. There will be people who will continue to use mailing list no matter how the
forumis presented or functions simply because that's their preferred method, and some people who are used to the
differentmethods of a forum. Everyones input is important, but for the former who are never going to use the forum
anywayshould have little influence on how it works as forum software. 
>
> They should have a *lot* of influence on how the communication between
> the web forum and the mailinglists work. They shouldn't have any
> influence on how the actual forum software works.
>
> But I think you're missing one of the main points - the forums will
> have a significantly reduced value if they don't get responses from
> the people who are currently on the mailinglists. We've had
> disconnected forums before, and they've all died because people have
> posted questions there, and never gotten answers. The part that "the
> mailinglist people" here consider is that this is *worse* for our
> "reputation" than not having the forums at all - having forums that
> don't get responses.
>
>> OK, so solutions? Here in Sydney it's a bit after 9am so I've had time to sleep on it and heres what I'm thinking;
>> - Tagging system. A thread created "Performance of C vs Perl" could be tagged (by a registered user or automated
system)as [Performance] [C] [Perl] this would have no impact on the mailing list but make forum viewing and searching
morereliable, so a search might be like: 
>> Search: "benchmark"
>> Tags: [Perl] [PHP]
>
> A search system can certainly work that way. As long as there's a
> deterministic way of figuring out which mailinglist replies to back
> into, and which threads replies-to-those-replies go.
>
>> For someone looking to find a higher performance solution or comparison between Perl and PHP. I'd rather not do this
thoughbecause it will require me to change a lot of code in the phpBB3 codebase and still doesn't use a forum in the
wayits supposed to be used. 
>>
>> The way I see it theres no reason why the forums can't be split the way they are now. It makes no difference to the
peoplewho will continue to use the mailing list but makes all the difference to forum users who are choosing this forum
overothers because it has all the backing of the masters on the mailing list in a much better layout of forums than any
othersite offers. 
>
> It may be confusing to the end user, but I'm willing to accept that
> web forum users are used to that :-) As long as there *is* a mapping,
> and that it's consistent, of course.
>
>> There is no perfect solution here, you can't please all the masses all the time. But I do believe there is a
workablesolution somewhere in the middle. 
>
> That is a very good point :-)
>
> --
>  Magnus Hagander
>  Me: http://www.hagander.net/
>  Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

Stephen Cook wrote:
> On 11/16/2010 10:51 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > What I'm more interested in is still a word from the people who would
> > actually *use* a forum on how this would be better than sites like
> > Nabble and Gmane.
>
> I'm one of those. I'm subscribed to these mailing lists simply because
> it is the only way I know of to get the messages in a timely fashion,
> but I would greatly prefer a forum-style interface.
>
> I had never heard of Nabble or Gmane until now, but I just checked them
> out and from my quick look it *looks* like a web interface for people
> who prefer mailing lists.
>
> I like having a category breakdown (at the moment I have my email client
> splitting the various lists into folders), and I like having little
> icons telling me which ones I already read and which are new (my email
> client has that also of course).

OK, here is why our Nabble/Gmane web sites are inferior to forums for
some people ---- Nabble/Gmane have no per-user state indicating what has
been read, what threads you are interested in getting email
notification about, etc.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

Elliot Chance wrote:
> > Also, if someone registers on the forum, do they get a major domo registration email?  And if so, would this be set
toreceive no emails upon registration?  I'm not clear as to how this step would work because, at the moment, mailing
listsubscribers have to subscribe on a list-by-list basis.  So registration to the forum site wouldn't necessarily mean
they'dwant to join any particular mailing list.  Similarly, could they unregister easily?  And anyone who attempts to
postto a mailing list they aren't subscribed to requires moderation, so we don't wish to exacerbate this. 
>
> No they are not registered on the mailing list, but they actually don't need to be, let me explain:
> 1. John Smith has a postgres related question and finds the forums, he signs up and posts his question.
> 2. His post is then emailed to the mailing list under a generic registered address like
"mailinglist@postgresql.com.au"
> 3. Bob House reads Johns question on the mailing list and simply sends an email reply.
> 4. The email reply is piped into the forum and matches the topic based on the email subject (thats how it currently
doesit.) 
> 5. John gets an email from phpBB along the lines of "Bob House has replied to your post, click here" (all forums do
this)he reads the response and is happy. 
>
> This is the best balance of no-fuss and expert response, keeping in mind that:
> * John can still sign up to the mailing list like anyone else if he wants to.
> * All of John's forums communications are in the postgres mailing list archive now.

Yes, I think this is fine.  We would need to be more careful that a
non-group _reply_ would now be going to a public place.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 16:54, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> Elliot Chance wrote:
>> > Also, if someone registers on the forum, do they get a major domo registration email?  And if so, would this be
setto receive no emails upon registration?  I'm not clear as to how this step would work because, at the moment,
mailinglist subscribers have to subscribe on a list-by-list basis.  So registration to the forum site wouldn't
necessarilymean they'd want to join any particular mailing list.  Similarly, could they unregister easily?  And anyone
whoattempts to post to a mailing list they aren't subscribed to requires moderation, so we don't wish to exacerbate
this.
>>
>> No they are not registered on the mailing list, but they actually don't need to be, let me explain:
>> 1. John Smith has a postgres related question and finds the forums, he signs up and posts his question.
>> 2. His post is then emailed to the mailing list under a generic registered address like
"mailinglist@postgresql.com.au"
>> 3. Bob House reads Johns question on the mailing list and simply sends an email reply.
>> 4. The email reply is piped into the forum and matches the topic based on the email subject (thats how it currently
doesit.) 
>> 5. John gets an email from phpBB along the lines of "Bob House has replied to your post, click here" (all forums do
this)he reads the response and is happy. 
>>
>> This is the best balance of no-fuss and expert response, keeping in mind that:
>> * John can still sign up to the mailing list like anyone else if he wants to.
>> * All of John's forums communications are in the postgres mailing list archive now.
>
> Yes, I think this is fine.  We would need to be more careful that a
> non-group _reply_ would now be going to a public place.

I doubt people will really remember that. However, the forums could be
given a big disclaimer on posts saying that private replies may show
up public, or it could even add it to the footer of the message (sure,
nobody reads that, but at least we tried..)


--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 16:54, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > Elliot Chance wrote:
> >> > Also, if someone registers on the forum, do they get a major domo registration email? ?And if so, would this be
setto receive no emails upon registration? ?I'm not clear as to how this step would work because, at the moment,
mailinglist subscribers have to subscribe on a list-by-list basis. ?So registration to the forum site wouldn't
necessarilymean they'd want to join any particular mailing list. ?Similarly, could they unregister easily? ?And anyone
whoattempts to post to a mailing list they aren't subscribed to requires moderation, so we don't wish to exacerbate
this.
> >>
> >> No they are not registered on the mailing list, but they actually don't need to be, let me explain:
> >> 1. John Smith has a postgres related question and finds the forums, he signs up and posts his question.
> >> 2. His post is then emailed to the mailing list under a generic registered address like
"mailinglist@postgresql.com.au"
> >> 3. Bob House reads Johns question on the mailing list and simply sends an email reply.
> >> 4. The email reply is piped into the forum and matches the topic based on the email subject (thats how it
currentlydoes it.) 
> >> 5. John gets an email from phpBB along the lines of "Bob House has replied to your post, click here" (all forums
dothis) he reads the response and is happy. 
> >>
> >> This is the best balance of no-fuss and expert response, keeping in mind that:
> >> * John can still sign up to the mailing list like anyone else if he wants to.
> >> * All of John's forums communications are in the postgres mailing list archive now.
> >
> > Yes, I think this is fine. ?We would need to be more careful that a
> > non-group _reply_ would now be going to a public place.
>
> I doubt people will really remember that. However, the forums could be
> given a big disclaimer on posts saying that private replies may show
> up public, or it could even add it to the footer of the message (sure,
> nobody reads that, but at least we tried..)

Yes, that seems logical.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

On 22 November 2010 14:05, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 16:54, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>> > Elliot Chance wrote:
>> >> > Also, if someone registers on the forum, do they get a major domo registration email? ?And if so, would this be
setto receive no emails upon registration? ?I'm not clear as to how this step would work because, at the moment,
mailinglist subscribers have to subscribe on a list-by-list basis. ?So registration to the forum site wouldn't
necessarilymean they'd want to join any particular mailing list. ?Similarly, could they unregister easily? ?And anyone
whoattempts to post to a mailing list they aren't subscribed to requires moderation, so we don't wish to exacerbate
this.
>> >>
>> >> No they are not registered on the mailing list, but they actually don't need to be, let me explain:
>> >> 1. John Smith has a postgres related question and finds the forums, he signs up and posts his question.
>> >> 2. His post is then emailed to the mailing list under a generic registered address like
"mailinglist@postgresql.com.au"
>> >> 3. Bob House reads Johns question on the mailing list and simply sends an email reply.
>> >> 4. The email reply is piped into the forum and matches the topic based on the email subject (thats how it
currentlydoes it.) 
>> >> 5. John gets an email from phpBB along the lines of "Bob House has replied to your post, click here" (all forums
dothis) he reads the response and is happy. 
>> >>
>> >> This is the best balance of no-fuss and expert response, keeping in mind that:
>> >> * John can still sign up to the mailing list like anyone else if he wants to.
>> >> * All of John's forums communications are in the postgres mailing list archive now.
>> >
>> > Yes, I think this is fine. ?We would need to be more careful that a
>> > non-group _reply_ would now be going to a public place.
>>
>> I doubt people will really remember that. However, the forums could be
>> given a big disclaimer on posts saying that private replies may show
>> up public, or it could even add it to the footer of the message (sure,
>> nobody reads that, but at least we tried..)
>
> Yes, that seems logical.

Elliot, it appears that there's been considerable input from various
parties regarding the forums (bikeshedding in action), but it spans 3
mailing list conversations.  You may wish to set up a wiki page to
collate what has been discussed, proposed and agreed so far.  If you
haven't used the wiki before, you will need to set up a community
account if you don't already have one, which you can do so at
http://www.postgresql.org/community/signup and then log in to the wiki
located at http://wiki.postgresql.org/ .

This way, everyone can see the progress that's been made as it can be
difficult to follow what has already been discussed.  Also, people can
review what you believe has been decided to see if it sounds sane
enough to actually follow.  Just a suggestion :)

And thanks for the effort you have already put into this.  I
personally support such a development.

--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935

Discussion will continue on the wiki page:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Forums_at_postgresql.com.au

Even though the discussion has moved I still intent to keep pushing the issues to a resolution. The wiki is not
shelvingthe idea for another time. 

On 23/11/2010, at 8:42 PM, Thom Brown wrote:

> On 22 November 2010 14:05, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 16:54, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>>>> Elliot Chance wrote:
>>>>>> Also, if someone registers on the forum, do they get a major domo registration email? ?And if so, would this be
setto receive no emails upon registration? ?I'm not clear as to how this step would work because, at the moment,
mailinglist subscribers have to subscribe on a list-by-list basis. ?So registration to the forum site wouldn't
necessarilymean they'd want to join any particular mailing list. ?Similarly, could they unregister easily? ?And anyone
whoattempts to post to a mailing list they aren't subscribed to requires moderation, so we don't wish to exacerbate
this.
>>>>>
>>>>> No they are not registered on the mailing list, but they actually don't need to be, let me explain:
>>>>> 1. John Smith has a postgres related question and finds the forums, he signs up and posts his question.
>>>>> 2. His post is then emailed to the mailing list under a generic registered address like
"mailinglist@postgresql.com.au"
>>>>> 3. Bob House reads Johns question on the mailing list and simply sends an email reply.
>>>>> 4. The email reply is piped into the forum and matches the topic based on the email subject (thats how it
currentlydoes it.) 
>>>>> 5. John gets an email from phpBB along the lines of "Bob House has replied to your post, click here" (all forums
dothis) he reads the response and is happy. 
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the best balance of no-fuss and expert response, keeping in mind that:
>>>>> * John can still sign up to the mailing list like anyone else if he wants to.
>>>>> * All of John's forums communications are in the postgres mailing list archive now.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I think this is fine. ?We would need to be more careful that a
>>>> non-group _reply_ would now be going to a public place.
>>>
>>> I doubt people will really remember that. However, the forums could be
>>> given a big disclaimer on posts saying that private replies may show
>>> up public, or it could even add it to the footer of the message (sure,
>>> nobody reads that, but at least we tried..)
>>
>> Yes, that seems logical.
>
> Elliot, it appears that there's been considerable input from various
> parties regarding the forums (bikeshedding in action), but it spans 3
> mailing list conversations.  You may wish to set up a wiki page to
> collate what has been discussed, proposed and agreed so far.  If you
> haven't used the wiki before, you will need to set up a community
> account if you don't already have one, which you can do so at
> http://www.postgresql.org/community/signup and then log in to the wiki
> located at http://wiki.postgresql.org/ .
>
> This way, everyone can see the progress that's been made as it can be
> difficult to follow what has already been discussed.  Also, people can
> review what you believe has been decided to see if it sounds sane
> enough to actually follow.  Just a suggestion :)
>
> And thanks for the effort you have already put into this.  I
> personally support such a development.
>
> --
> Thom Brown
> Twitter: @darkixion
> IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
> Registered Linux user: #516935

On 29 November 2010 04:31, Elliot Chance <elliotchance@gmail.com> wrote:
> Discussion will continue on the wiki page:
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Forums_at_postgresql.com.au
>
> Even though the discussion has moved I still intent to keep pushing the issues to a resolution. The wiki is not
shelvingthe idea for another time. 

I know this topic has gone quiet, I still think it's worth investing
time and resources in.  I don't expect any progress to be made until
the new year now, but I hope we can continue this after the Christmas
period is over.

And nice work collating the discussions so far onto the wiki.  That
should make it easier for everyone to keep up with developments :)

--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
> I know this topic has gone quiet, I still think it's worth investing
> time and resources in.  I don't expect any progress to be made until
> the new year now, but I hope we can continue this after the Christmas
> period is over.
>
> And nice work collating the discussions so far onto the wiki.  That
> should make it easier for everyone to keep up with developments :)

I would like to be more involved in this! I've got lots of time to
devote and available resources so let me know what is needed. I would
like to see this grow into a full dedicated "official" web forums.

-Carlos Mennens

On 31/12/2010, at 12:43 AM, Carlos Mennens wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
>> I know this topic has gone quiet, I still think it's worth investing
>> time and resources in.  I don't expect any progress to be made until
>> the new year now, but I hope we can continue this after the Christmas
>> period is over.
>>
>> And nice work collating the discussions so far onto the wiki.  That
>> should make it easier for everyone to keep up with developments :)
>
> I would like to be more involved in this! I've got lots of time to
> devote and available resources so let me know what is needed. I would
> like to see this grow into a full dedicated "official" web forums.
>
> -Carlos Mennens

I just forwarded an old message, you should see it on the mailing list. I don't think many people are interested in
doingwork right around the christmas period, so I wanted to give some time to let all that pass. 

The more help the better! At the moment the major priority is discussing the issues here:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Forums_at_postgresql.com.au

>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general