Mailing List Archive

Um, you are a little information deprived. There are several videos out there of
BLM organizers stating how proud they are of being well trained Marxist
agitators. Ditto for Antifa and similar organizations. Wake up and smell the
manure lest you find yourself swimming in it.

And if you REALLY want a hair raising read dig around for a copy of William
Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." Then tell me there is no
resemblance at all between that and current events.

This is an attempt to control how you think by erasing useful and accurate
vocabulary. (It also ignores the detail that the "Owner/Slave" relationship
between human beings exists today and is fully legal in some countries
(Mauritania) and illegal but not prosecuted in others (Saudi Arabia and others).
BLM is closer to Black Lives Mangled as I see it.)

{^_^}

On 20200710 10:11:41, Axb wrote:
> Not sure if this is sarcasm or not... but just in case:
> Whoever may be the Marxist/Socialists, the're definitely not in the US...
> Assuming you never lived under such a government you're just talking thru your hat.
>
> and now lets put this offtopic blah to rest.
>
>
>
> On 7/10/20 7:07 PM, Eric Broch wrote:
>> Amen!
>>
>> This is not about racism this is about a Marxist (Socialist) takeover. They
>> don't care if you use the terms whitelist or blacklist, this is a revolution.
>>
>> Soon, it will be as in Dr. Zhivago. You'll come home being dispossessed of
>> your house and belongings under the supervision of the state, already going on
>> as BLM freely loots and pillages.
>>
>> The "Useful Idiots" (not trying to be offensive, Kevin, but get a grip) don't
>> know that after the reorganization is done, their heads will be on the
>> chopping block as well...all planned in advance.
>>
>> These are sad days, woe is me if I don't speak out.
>>
>>
>> On 7/10/2020 8:14 AM, Ralph Seichter wrote:
>>> ..., but "Newspeak" is not the solution.

On 20200710 11:31:57, Bill Cole wrote:
> On 10 Jul 2020, at 3:06, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
>
>> Whatever you do under the hood, make sure it does not affect external behaviour.
>>
>> On your motivation, bear in mind that *lists here contain computer addresses,
>> not people,
>
> Which is an argument FOR changing our terminology.
>
>> so the reference you are trying to fix is mistaken, and changes will be
>> painstaking for no reason at all.
>
> That misses the actual rationale for the change.
>
> There's a semantic collision in English where "Black" and "White" are used both
> to classify people and to denote moral and/or desirability dichotomies. That
> semantic collision can be removed from our code, while improving the clarity of
> our naming.
>
> The SpamAssassin Project has a particular self-interest in attracting
> contributors from a diversity of cultures, because we are always at risk of
> mislabelling a pattern of letters or words as 'spammy' when in fact it is
> entirely normal in a cultural context other than those of the existing
> contributors to the project. Continuing to use 'black' and 'white' as indicators
> of value in code and configuration directives leaves in place a minor nuisance
> for some potential contributors and users who are understandably tired of being
> on the bad side of this semantic collision, where the most common word for their
> ethnic identity is constantly being used as a label for things which are bad,
> undesirable, malfeasant, etc. The naming collision is a problem and because the
> inanimate entities for which we use black and white do not in fact have any
> color we can both eliminate the collision AND improve the quality of the names
> we use.
>
>
>> And the terms master and slave have nothing to do with white and black, and
>> again they refer to machine processes, not people.
>
> This is actually almost irrelevant for SA. The main use of the master/slave
> metaphor is in the automation backend for rule QA (e.g. build/jenkins/run_build)
> where it merits changing simply because it is no longer consistent with the
> terminology used by Jenkins. In spamd, parent/child is already the terminology
> and fits the actual code better.

I am still trying to figure out the rationale for forcing everybody out there
with established lists of "whitelist_from_rcvd" and "blacklist_from_rcvd" to go
out there and edit EVERYBODY's user_prefs or explain to users they must do this
themselves. *I* can do this easily enough and call them foolist_from_rcvd and
barlist_from_rcvd if needed. I am thinking if people with setups in small
business offices that have to invade privacy or explain how so that user_prefs
can be changed. And how about all the ancillary scripts that train spam that
also have to be changed?

This is something that is not broken, currently works, that some dolt is trying
to fix. It's better you call that person a dolt than try to change the world and
break everything. Making this change is dumb. It is counter-productive. It is
even destructive. Just Say No.

{^_^}

On 20200710 11:52:11, Ralph Seichter wrote:
> * Eric Broch:
>
>> As stated earlier by another very aware poster, this is nothing less
>> than, "Newspeak."
>
> That was actually me, in message <87lfjr78zu.fsf@wedjat.horus-it.com>.
> However, you did not quote the first part of the sentence, which I
> consider just as important:
>
>>> Racists are assholes, but "Newspeak" is not the solution.
>
> Looking at the content of your website, I don't want to be associated
> with your world views in general. We just seem to share a dislike for
> Newspeak.
>
> -Ralph

Ralph, you are free to avoid Eric. You are NOT free to try to force your world
view on the world. And that is exactly what these mental, ethical, and moral
failures are trying to do.

{^_^}

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020, shanew@shanew.net wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Jul 2020, Axb wrote:
>
>> On 7/10/20 8:31 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
>>> The SpamAssassin Project has a particular self-interest in attracting
>>> contributors from a diversity of cultures, because we are always at risk
>>> of mislabelling a pattern of letters or words as 'spammy' when in fact it
>>> is entirely normal in a cultural context other than those of the existing
>>> contributors to the project. C
>>
>> From what I see, until now, only two ppl of the SpamAssasin project have
>> supported this motion and intend to impose this quatsch to the rest of the
>> world.
>> Voices against these changes have been politely ignored.
>
> The danger of judging the world only by what is within your sight is
> that your field of vision is limited, and there are any number of
> explanations for why what you see is not representative of the whole.
>
> Maybe those who agree feel no need to comment.

> Maybe a lot of people
> on either side of the issue want to avoid adding more noise to a list
> that's about SpamAssassin.

For me, this. But I do now feel I should contribute my 5¢ to the noise.

As a PMC member I did vote on the proposal when it came up a week or so
back. I voted +1 with the strong condition that it include full backwards
compatibility for a long time (ideally permanently), but that vote was
reluctant.

I share the opinion that such terminology changes are "political
correctness through newspeak" because the current terms are widely-known
terms having a long standing without racist denotations or even
connotations, and that those who are offended by them on that basis are
the type of people who look for excuses to be offended. But my thought was
if we can avoid that nonsense *without* greatly disturbing the project, we
should probably do it.

But there is no technical reason whatsoever to make this change, and there
are good technical reasons not to. I agree with Joanna 100%:

> Political correctness has no place in engineering. Clarity of
> communications is a basis of the craft. When you disrupt it
> things break.

and

> Fixing what works is as fine a way to introduce new faults in
> the code as I can think of.

I am rethinking my +1 vote for this change.


--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhardin@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhardin@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the rock of doom requires a gentle nudge away from Gaia to
prevent a very bad day for Earthlings, NASA won’t be riding to the
rescue. These days, NASA does dodgy weather research and outreach
programs, not stuff in actual space with rockets piloted by
flinty-eyed men called Buzz. -- Daily Bayonet
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 days until the 51st anniversary of Apollo 11 landing on the Moon

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020, jdow wrote:

> And if you REALLY want a hair raising read dig around for a copy of William
> Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." Then tell me there is no
> resemblance at all between that and current events.

I *so* do not want to read that book again...


--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhardin@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhardin@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the rock of doom requires a gentle nudge away from Gaia to
prevent a very bad day for Earthlings, NASA won’t be riding to the
rescue. These days, NASA does dodgy weather research and outreach
programs, not stuff in actual space with rockets piloted by
flinty-eyed men called Buzz. -- Daily Bayonet
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 days until the 51st anniversary of Apollo 11 landing on the Moon

What I am seeing here, if I choose to think on their terms, is a small
collection of males asserting dominance by lifting their legs and demanding we
accept their peeing on a working product. If It Is Not Broke Don't Fix It. This
is the experience of a 76 year life span giving you advice. I've seen managers
pee on projects this way and destroy companies. I hated it then. I hate it now.
And you are triggering me horridly.

{+,+} I stick my tongue out in your general direction.

On 20200710 12:29:42, @lbutlr wrote:
> On 10 Jul 2020, at 01:38, Olivier <Olivier.Nicole@cs.ait.ac.th> wrote:
>> Axb <axb.lists@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> the US problems won't be fixed with renaming B&W lists.
>>> Seriously.. you have more important issues...
>>
>> While thet change in names will not fix any societal issue, for a
>> product like SpamAssassin that relies heavily on plugins (including some
>> plugins that may have been developped locally, long time ago, by someone
>> who is not working there anymore) and that is
>> also embeded (like in amavis) these sort of changes may break a lot of
>> implementations, to the point that people will be reluctant to upgrade.
>
> If people are so fragile that they have to hold on to terms that are extremely offensive to some of their peers, they will get more spam. Oh noes.
>
>> And if SA is not upgraded, the user base will shrink and it may lead to
>> the death of SA.
>
> If it cannot function without being offensive to many people, then so be it.
>
> Allow/deny I think are better than welcome/block, but I don't care.
>
> Allow/block might be better too.
>
>
>

No one has answered my question. What about the the word "Apache"?  Are
their 'redlist[s]' out there who'll be offended by this name?

For all the talk about giving SA more appropriate and descriptive names
the motivation for changing them (whitelist, blacklist) was ultimately
to be politically correct. Am I wrong?

Admit it, the SA community was never racist to begin with. It was some
white guys trying to improve life for everyone. That's noble and
commendable. This has been my goal in IT as well. Now is not the time to
grovel to whiners, it's time to man up and continue to improve your product.

I'd like to see SA have as good a probability filter as DSPAM but with
the ability to whitelist, which DSPAM does not have.


On 7/10/2020 3:25 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2020, shanew@shanew.net wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 10 Jul 2020, Axb wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/10/20 8:31 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
>>>>  The SpamAssassin Project has a particular self-interest in attracting
>>>>  contributors from a diversity of cultures, because we are always
>>>> at risk
>>>>  of mislabelling a pattern of letters or words as 'spammy' when in
>>>> fact it
>>>>  is entirely normal in a cultural context other than those of the
>>>> existing
>>>>  contributors to the project. C
>>>
>>> From what I see, until now, only two ppl of the SpamAssasin project
>>> have supported this motion and intend to impose this quatsch to the
>>> rest of the world.
>>> Voices against these changes have been politely ignored.
>>
>> The danger of judging the world only by what is within your sight is
>> that your field of vision is limited, and there are any number of
>> explanations for why what you see is not representative of the whole.
>>
>> Maybe those who agree feel no need to comment.
>
>> Maybe a lot of people
>> on either side of the issue want to avoid adding more noise to a list
>> that's about SpamAssassin.
>
> For me, this. But I do now feel I should contribute my 5¢ to the noise.
>
> As a PMC member I did vote on the proposal when it came up a week or
> so back. I voted +1 with the strong condition that it include full
> backwards compatibility for a long time (ideally permanently), but
> that vote was reluctant.
>
> I share the opinion that such terminology changes are "political
> correctness through newspeak" because the current terms are
> widely-known terms having a long standing without racist denotations
> or even connotations, and that those who are offended by them on that
> basis are the type of people who look for excuses to be offended. But
> my thought was if we can avoid that nonsense *without* greatly
> disturbing the project, we should probably do it.
>
> But there is no technical reason whatsoever to make this change, and
> there are good technical reasons not to. I agree with Joanna 100%:
>
>> Political correctness has no place in engineering. Clarity of
>> communications is a basis of the craft. When you disrupt it
>> things break.
>
> and
>
>> Fixing what works is as fine a way to introduce new faults in
>> the code as I can think of.
>
> I am rethinking my +1 vote for this change.
>
>

On 20200710 12:34:03, @lbutlr wrote:
> On 10 Jul 2020, at 02:06, Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uhlar@fantomas.sk> wrote:
>> thought guys can also mean women, at least I've seen it being used that
>> way…
>
> Yes, guy/s is gender neutral, but many women do not agree.

Far more use it themselves. You males have lost control of the term to generic
usage. Sorry. If that triggers you so be it.

{^_-}

On 20200710 12:34:03, @lbutlr wrote:
> On 10 Jul 2020, at 02:06, Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uhlar@fantomas.sk> wrote:
>> thought guys can also mean women, at least I've seen it being used that
>> way…
>
> Yes, guy/s is gender neutral, but many women do not agree.

Far more use it themselves. You males have lost control of the term to generic
usage. Sorry. If that triggers you so be it.

{^_-}

In other words "I am going to pee on the product and if you don't like it go
pound sand."

Well, I am pounding sand in your general direction, loudly.

{^_^}

On 20200710 13:21:41, Bill Cole wrote:
> On 10 Jul 2020, at 5:12, hospice admin wrote:
>
>> $0.02 from a woman of colour ...
>>
>> I personally find stuff like this just a little bit patronising ... more of a
>> matter of kicking the real problem into the weeds than actually doing anything
>> practical to 'fix' it.
>
> Well, in the context of the Apache SpamAssassin Project, "The Real Problem" that
> we have any capacity to work on is the low diversity of our developer community.
> Eliminating terminology that may be off-putting for even a minority of a
> minority of possible contributors is worthwhile, particularly when the
> block/welcome terminology we are replacing black/white with is explicitly
> descriptive rather than metaphorical and connotative.
>
> We have no way of knowing how many people have thought less of SA because of
> terminology or whether any of those people might have otherwise become involved
> enough in the project to be contributors. If changing the terminology makes the
> Project look less like a bunch of white guys trying to make rules for the
> world's email, that's a positive step.
>
>> Right up there with Mercedes decision to paint their $100 Million F1 cars black.
>
> This is a bit less symbolic. We're actually making the terminology better.
>
>> I'm sure the intent was positive though ...
>
> The intent is to do what we can to make involvement in the SpamAssassin
> community less hostile to newcomers, even if elements of hostility that we can
> address are not universally recognized as such. We cannot do much for the bigger
> Real Problems that intersect with ours tangentially, because unlike
> Daimler-Benz, we don't have $100 Million or even $1 to spend. None of us has the
> time and skills to make a focused recruiting effort to get a more diverse set of
> contributors or even just more contributors. Changing a few labels in the code
> is something we CAN do.
>

And every ancillary script sysadmins have written has to be rewritten. Every
user_prefs has to be rewritten. You are forcing a boatload of hurt on innocent
people. This is purely lifting a leg and peeing on something to mark it as
YOURS. Isn't that rather selfish?
{^_^}

On 20200710 13:27:45, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> A common question we are receiving is what about using this terminology
> instead, for example allow/deny.
>
> The use of welcomelist and blocklist has evolved from discussions since
> April and work done creating patches.  We found that using these names
> of welcomelist and blocklist are non offensive, reasonably descriptive
> and since they still start with W and B, we avoid renaming things like
> RBLs, WLBL, DNSBL, etc. This should help minimize the disruption when
> 4.0 is released with the new configuration options.
>
> Regards,
>
> KAM
>

On 20200710 13:43:21, Bill Cole wrote:
> On 10 Jul 2020, at 8:37, Mauricio Tavares wrote:
>
>>       I do agree that accept works better than welcome here.
>
> There's a practical issue in that: we have the WLBLEval plugin that has cemented
> the initial.
>
> FWIW, the use of "blocklist" in spamfighting goes back to the '90s, when the
> primary resistance to "blacklist" was by people who were uncomfortable with its
> McCarthyist connotation.

Well, Bill, it was stupid then. What makes it not stupid today? The exact same
logic applies, doesn't it?

{^_^}

On 20200710 13:58:32, Bill Cole wrote:
> On 10 Jul 2020, at 3:38, Olivier wrote:
>
>> Axb <axb.lists@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> the US problems won't be fixed with renaming B&W lists.
>>> Seriously.. you have more important issues...
>>
>> While thet change in names will not fix any societal issue,
>
> No one has suggested that it will or can.
>
>> for a
>> product like SpamAssassin that relies heavily on plugins (including some
>> plugins that may have been developped locally, long time ago, by someone
>> who is not working there anymore) and that is
>> also embeded (like in amavis) these sort of changes may break a lot of
>> implementations, to the point that people will be reluctant to upgrade.
>
> As Kevin has explained here and as is explained in the ticket he referenced,
> compatibility with existing terminology will be retained through the 4.0.x
> release versions.

And that added complexity is just more places for it to break. Very very ancient
wisdom runs, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." That includes fixing things for
a faulty definition of "broke".

{^_^}

I can just see the vocabulary Nazis forcing the world to change out red lights
and yellow lights for more inoffensively named colors as they go out and rip
down these statues to hierarchical control systems. These word Nazis CANNOT be
appeased with simple changes in terminology. Their goal is to simply see the
world burn so they can step in and take control. They are so ignorant of history
they do not realize they are among the first for the gulags and firing squads
they believe they will be running.

{+_+}

On 20200710 14:57:33, Eric Broch wrote:
> No one has answered my question. What about the the word "Apache"?  Are their
> 'redlist[s]' out there who'll be offended by this name?
>
> For all the talk about giving SA more appropriate and descriptive names the
> motivation for changing them (whitelist, blacklist) was ultimately to be
> politically correct. Am I wrong?
>
> Admit it, the SA community was never racist to begin with. It was some white
> guys trying to improve life for everyone. That's noble and commendable. This has
> been my goal in IT as well. Now is not the time to grovel to whiners, it's time
> to man up and continue to improve your product.
>
> I'd like to see SA have as good a probability filter as DSPAM but with the
> ability to whitelist, which DSPAM does not have.
>
>
> On 7/10/2020 3:25 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jul 2020, shanew@shanew.net wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 10 Jul 2020, Axb wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/10/20 8:31 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
>>>>>  The SpamAssassin Project has a particular self-interest in attracting
>>>>>  contributors from a diversity of cultures, because we are always at risk
>>>>>  of mislabelling a pattern of letters or words as 'spammy' when in fact it
>>>>>  is entirely normal in a cultural context other than those of the existing
>>>>>  contributors to the project. C
>>>>
>>>> From what I see, until now, only two ppl of the SpamAssasin project have
>>>> supported this motion and intend to impose this quatsch to the rest of the
>>>> world.
>>>> Voices against these changes have been politely ignored.
>>>
>>> The danger of judging the world only by what is within your sight is
>>> that your field of vision is limited, and there are any number of
>>> explanations for why what you see is not representative of the whole.
>>>
>>> Maybe those who agree feel no need to comment.
>>
>>> Maybe a lot of people
>>> on either side of the issue want to avoid adding more noise to a list
>>> that's about SpamAssassin.
>>
>> For me, this. But I do now feel I should contribute my 5¢ to the noise.
>>
>> As a PMC member I did vote on the proposal when it came up a week or so back.
>> I voted +1 with the strong condition that it include full backwards
>> compatibility for a long time (ideally permanently), but that vote was reluctant.
>>
>> I share the opinion that such terminology changes are "political correctness
>> through newspeak" because the current terms are widely-known terms having a
>> long standing without racist denotations or even connotations, and that those
>> who are offended by them on that basis are the type of people who look for
>> excuses to be offended. But my thought was if we can avoid that nonsense
>> *without* greatly disturbing the project, we should probably do it.
>>
>> But there is no technical reason whatsoever to make this change, and there are
>> good technical reasons not to. I agree with Joanna 100%:
>>
>>> Political correctness has no place in engineering. Clarity of communications
>>> is a basis of the craft. When you disrupt it
>>> things break.
>>
>> and
>>
>>> Fixing what works is as fine a way to introduce new faults in
>>> the code as I can think of.
>>
>> I am rethinking my +1 vote for this change.
>>
>>

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020, jdow wrote:

> And every ancillary script sysadmins have written has to be rewritten. Every
> user_prefs has to be rewritten. You are forcing a boatload of hurt on
> innocent people. This is purely lifting a leg and peeing on something to mark
> it as YOURS. Isn't that rather selfish?
> {^_^}

The intent is to be fully backwards-compatible, so it's (hopefully) *not*
going to be that bad.


>
> On 20200710 13:27:45, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> A common question we are receiving is what about using this terminology
>> instead, for example allow/deny.
>>
>> The use of welcomelist and blocklist has evolved from discussions since
>> April and work done creating patches.  We found that using these names
>> of welcomelist and blocklist are non offensive, reasonably descriptive
>> and since they still start with W and B, we avoid renaming things like
>> RBLs, WLBL, DNSBL, etc. This should help minimize the disruption when
>> 4.0 is released with the new configuration options.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> KAM
>>
>

--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhardin@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhardin@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back in 1969 the technology to fake a Moon landing didn't exist,
but the technology to actually land there did.
Today, it is the opposite. -- unknown
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 days until the 51st anniversary of Apollo 11 landing on the Moon

What makes you think anyone on the list wants to hear your complaints and your snide crypto-fascism?

Take it private or open an issue in the bug tracker.

> On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:01 PM, jdow <jdow@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> And every ancillary script sysadmins have written has to be rewritten. Every user_prefs has to be rewritten. You are forcing a boatload of hurt on innocent people. This is purely lifting a leg and peeing on something to mark it as YOURS. Isn't that rather selfish?
> {^_^}
>
> On 20200710 13:27:45, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>> Hello all,
>> A common question we are receiving is what about using this terminology
>> instead, for example allow/deny.
>> The use of welcomelist and blocklist has evolved from discussions since
>> April and work done creating patches. We found that using these names
>> of welcomelist and blocklist are non offensive, reasonably descriptive
>> and since they still start with W and B, we avoid renaming things like
>> RBLs, WLBL, DNSBL, etc. This should help minimize the disruption when
>> 4.0 is released with the new configuration options.
>> Regards,
>> KAM

On Fri, 2020-07-10 at 15:01 -0700, jdow wrote:
> On 20200710 13:43:21, Bill Cole wrote:
> > On 10 Jul 2020, at 8:37, Mauricio Tavares wrote:
> >
> > > I do agree that accept works better than welcome here.
> >
> > There's a practical issue in that: we have the WLBLEval plugin that
> > has cemented
> > the initial.
> >
> > FWIW, the use of "blocklist" in spamfighting goes back to the '90s,
> > when the
> > primary resistance to "blacklist" was by people who were
> > uncomfortable with its
> > McCarthyist connotation.
>
> Well, Bill, it was stupid then. What makes it not stupid today? The
> exact same
> logic applies, doesn't it?
>
And the term 'blacklist' goes back a long way: first documented use was
in 1639. Next l=use seems to have been Charles II of England, in 1660,
when he constructed a 'black list' of people he intended to punish for
killing his father, Charles I so any connection with skin colour seems
to be entirely irrelevant since in that era it would be referring to the
black souls of the regicides.

Martin

1) You would not know fascism if it jumped up and bit your nose off.
2) You try to force your nonsense on me and I'll force my nonsense on you. Square?

{^_^}

On 20200710 15:26:49, Charles Sprickman wrote:
> What makes you think anyone on the list wants to hear your complaints and your snide crypto-fascism?
>
> Take it private or open an issue in the bug tracker.
>
>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:01 PM, jdow <jdow@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> And every ancillary script sysadmins have written has to be rewritten. Every user_prefs has to be rewritten. You are forcing a boatload of hurt on innocent people. This is purely lifting a leg and peeing on something to mark it as YOURS. Isn't that rather selfish?
>> {^_^}
>>
>> On 20200710 13:27:45, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>> A common question we are receiving is what about using this terminology
>>> instead, for example allow/deny.
>>> The use of welcomelist and blocklist has evolved from discussions since
>>> April and work done creating patches. We found that using these names
>>> of welcomelist and blocklist are non offensive, reasonably descriptive
>>> and since they still start with W and B, we avoid renaming things like
>>> RBLs, WLBL, DNSBL, etc. This should help minimize the disruption when
>>> 4.0 is released with the new configuration options.
>>> Regards,
>>> KAM

Stop biting my nose.

I’m not forcing anything, I just suggested you take your nonsense off-list somewhere.

> On Jul 10, 2020, at 7:47 PM, jdow <jdow@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> 1) You would not know fascism if it jumped up and bit your nose off.
> 2) You try to force your nonsense on me and I'll force my nonsense on you. Square?
>
> {^_^}
>
> On 20200710 15:26:49, Charles Sprickman wrote:
>> What makes you think anyone on the list wants to hear your complaints and your snide crypto-fascism?
>> Take it private or open an issue in the bug tracker.
>>> On Jul 10, 2020, at 6:01 PM, jdow <jdow@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> And every ancillary script sysadmins have written has to be rewritten. Every user_prefs has to be rewritten. You are forcing a boatload of hurt on innocent people. This is purely lifting a leg and peeing on something to mark it as YOURS. Isn't that rather selfish?
>>> {^_^}
>>>
>>> On 20200710 13:27:45, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>>>> Hello all,
>>>> A common question we are receiving is what about using this terminology
>>>> instead, for example allow/deny.
>>>> The use of welcomelist and blocklist has evolved from discussions since
>>>> April and work done creating patches. We found that using these names
>>>> of welcomelist and blocklist are non offensive, reasonably descriptive
>>>> and since they still start with W and B, we avoid renaming things like
>>>> RBLs, WLBL, DNSBL, etc. This should help minimize the disruption when
>>>> 4.0 is released with the new configuration options.
>>>> Regards,
>>>> KAM

I am having a hard time reconciling the statements below.

On 10 Jul 2020, at 13:21, Bill Cole wrote:
> We have no way of knowing how many people have thought less of SA
> because of terminology or whether any of those people might have
> otherwise become involved enough in the project to be contributors.
> [?]

> [?] We cannot do much for the bigger Real Problems that intersect
> with ours tangentially, [?] Changing a few labels in the code is
> something we CAN do.

If ASF or the SA Project does not know "how many people have thought
less of SA" – and I venture to say, doesn't know if _any_ people has
– then deciding to engage in an activity that by your own admission
does nothing for the "real problems" just because you can, makes little
sense.

This effort is simply wasting resources – and judging from recent
events, breaking code – to gain what? To claim that ASF or the SA
Project are somewhat sensitive because they changed a term that has been
in use for 20+ years, but still has no non-whites or women or whatever
the demographic de jure is in the board?

I lived in a country where we allowed politics to interfere with
technology. Things did not end well for either.

Best regards

-lem

On 10 Jul 2020, at 12:29, @lbutlr wrote:

> If people are so fragile that they have to hold on to terms that are
> extremely offensive to some of their peers, they will get more spam.
> Oh noes.

I keep hearing about this mythical people that get terribly offended by
the use of these words. I've been working in IT since the 90s, and I've
never actually seen one in real life. Do they really exist?

-lem

On 2020-07-10 20:02, Luis E. Muñoz wrote:
>
> I keep hearing about this mythical people that get terribly offended by
> the use of these words. I've been working in IT since the 90s, and I've
> never actually seen one in real life. Do they really exist?
>

What black people are asking for is to not be murdered. The idea to
change the word "blacklist" to "blocklist" instead as a consolation
prize comes solely from rich white folks, and is itself condescending
and offensive.

As with "all lives matter," it's possible to have the best of intentions
yet still come across as a patronizing douchebag.

Who is "we"

Name the people who decided this pathetic communist dictatorship change
and who want to enforce this upon members of 160 odd other countries
just because theirs is fucked up?

I want names

I want to see the voting, come on lets be transparent, who are they, and
who are hte ones who declared this an absolute joke voted against it.

I want to see the names of the people who dont care what their users and
contributors to the project think

I await your silence

On 11/07/2020 06:27, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> A common question we are receiving is what about using this terminology
> instead, for example allow/deny.
>
> The use of welcomelist and blocklist has evolved from discussions since
> April and work done creating patches. We found that using these names
> of welcomelist and blocklist are non offensive, reasonably descriptive
> and since they still start with W and B, we avoid renaming things like
> RBLs, WLBL, DNSBL, etc. This should help minimize the disruption when
> 4.0 is released with the new configuration options.
>
> Regards,
>
> KAM

--
Kind Regards,

Noel Butler

This Email, including attachments, may contain legally privileged
information, therefore remains confidential and subject to copyright
protected under international law. You may not disseminate any part of
this message without the authors express written authority to do so. If
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender then delete
all copies of this message including attachments immediately.
Confidentiality, copyright, and legal privilege are not waived or lost
by reason of the mistaken delivery of this message.

Read Red Scare hours on the timeline tonight...

> On Jul 10, 2020, at 10:35 PM, Noel Butler <noel.butler@ausics.net> wrote:
>
> Who is "we"
>
> Name the people who decided this pathetic communist dictatorship change and who want to enforce this upon members of 160 odd other countries just because theirs is fucked up?
>
> I want names
>
> I want to see the voting, come on lets be transparent, who are they, and who are hte ones who declared this an absolute joke voted against it.
>
> I want to see the names of the people who dont care what their users and contributors to the project think
>
>
>
> I await your silence
>
>
>
> On 11/07/2020 06:27, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> A common question we are receiving is what about using this terminology
>> instead, for example allow/deny.
>>
>> The use of welcomelist and blocklist has evolved from discussions since
>> April and work done creating patches. We found that using these names
>> of welcomelist and blocklist are non offensive, reasonably descriptive
>> and since they still start with W and B, we avoid renaming things like
>> RBLs, WLBL, DNSBL, etc. This should help minimize the disruption when
>> 4.0 is released with the new configuration options.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> KAM
>>
>
> --
> Kind Regards,
>
> Noel Butler
>
> This Email, including attachments, may contain legally privileged information, therefore remains confidential and subject to copyright protected under international law. You may not disseminate any part of this message without the authors express written authority to do so. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender then delete all copies of this message including attachments immediately. Confidentiality, copyright, and legal privilege are not waived or lost by reason of the mistaken delivery of this message.

huh? I dont see that subject in the thread, I guess thats what you mean,
I dunno, you're not talking to an american

On 11/07/2020 12:38, Charles Sprickman wrote:

> Read Red Scare hours on the timeline tonight...
>
> On Jul 10, 2020, at 10:35 PM, Noel Butler <noel.butler@ausics.net> wrote:
>
> Who is "we"
>
> Name the people who decided this pathetic communist dictatorship change and who want to enforce this upon members of 160 odd other countries just because theirs is fucked up?
>
> I want names
>
> I want to see the voting, come on lets be transparent, who are they, and who are hte ones who declared this an absolute joke voted against it.
>
> I want to see the names of the people who dont care what their users and contributors to the project think
>
> I await your silence
>
> On 11/07/2020 06:27, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> A common question we are receiving is what about using this terminology
> instead, for example allow/deny.
>
> The use of welcomelist and blocklist has evolved from discussions since
> April and work done creating patches. We found that using these names
> of welcomelist and blocklist are non offensive, reasonably descriptive
> and since they still start with W and B, we avoid renaming things like
> RBLs, WLBL, DNSBL, etc. This should help minimize the disruption when
> 4.0 is released with the new configuration options.
>
> Regards,
>
> KAM
>
> --
> Kind Regards,
>
> Noel Butler
>
> This Email, including attachments, may contain legally privileged information, therefore remains confidential and subject to copyright protected under international law. You may not disseminate any part of this message without the authors express written authority to do so. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender then delete all copies of this message including attachments immediately. Confidentiality, copyright, and legal privilege are not waived or lost by reason of the mistaken delivery of this message.

--
Kind Regards,

Noel Butler

This Email, including attachments, may contain legally privileged
information, therefore remains confidential and subject to copyright
protected under international law. You may not disseminate any part of
this message without the authors express written authority to do so. If
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender then delete
all copies of this message including attachments immediately.
Confidentiality, copyright, and legal privilege are not waived or lost
by reason of the mistaken delivery of this message.