Re: SPAM DB 1.6.0 has been released - now OT if not originally

Ed Avis <ed_at_membled.com> wrote in message news:<l14qt4bec1.fsf_at_budvar.future-i.net>...
> Ed Prochak <ed.prochak_at_magicinterface.com> writes:
>

>
> >And the original posteer was: Analysis&Solutions
> >(info_at_analysisandsolutions.com)
>
> This is a fair point, it does look a bit fishy.

I never even noticed, since so many are fake, I rarely even look.

>
> >>In my case I am glad that we have a separation between .misc and
> >>.marketing, with non-commercial messages going to .misc, so that I
> >>don't have to sift through all the dubious 'material' on .marketing
> >>to find the small number of useful free software announcements. At
> >>least, this is the arrangement that the current charter suggests.
> >
> >But not what the group prefers.
>
> I have to conede this point now that you have joined in - and what the
> group prefers is more important, in the end, than lawyering about the
> charter.

I'm glad you made this point before I did. It is even more fundamental - a group _is_ its posts. Some groups of people even purposefully invade and take over usenet groups! In unmoderated groups arguing about the charter is, as you put it, lawyering, so the charter just becomes a guideline, and is only as useful as people agree for it to be. This is a good thing, as it allows some amount of evolution to take place. If enough takes place, and enough people care, the charter can be changed.

>
> >>- comp.databases.oracle.free-software - announcements and discussion
> >> of free programs related to Oracle, but no spam allowed
> >
> >If you put the new one up for a vote, I'll suport it.
>
> Hmm, I've never done that before, I'll look into it.
>
> >Though honestly I don't think it's needed.
>
> It wouldn't be needed ideally (strictly IMHO) - other newsgroups
> manage fine with occasional announcements of free software releases
> and they form a normal part of the discussion. But that's not the
> case for cdo.misc, sadly...

I'd support it if well-worded, but I don't think there are sufficient votes available at this time. Although there might be over all the cdo groups, it's hard to tell. It was a lot easier to split cdo, because the reason for the split was it was too well used. Nowadays the status quo works fairly well IMO.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
Ayyyy! Urban legends become true! 
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/03/05/spam.charge.ap/index.html