You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Richard Troy <rt...@ScienceTools.com> on 2020/07/21 04:42:35 UTC
Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Hi Folks,
I post infrequently - and intend to keep it that way - and want to ensure
my posts have actual value to the community.
First, I'm NOT a member of the dev@spamassassin.apache.org email list and
I surely hope someone who is will kindly forward this email to that list.
List member Oliver Nicole rightly makes the following observations - here
excerpted - about the apparently not just proposed but apparently certain
to happen changes to this project which will negatively impact a great
many people, with a few in-line comments for context before my conclusion.
To wit:
> From: Olivier <Ol...@cs.ait.ac.th>
> To: Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org>
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org, dev@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: More Responses about Various Questions revolving around
> WelcomeLIst/BlockList changes
[ ... lots deleted, this is just an excerpt ... ]
> The issue seems to be that you do not understand how real world is
> working. You assume a closed and controled system, which is far from the
> truth.
>
> Every user can build their own rules, they can have scripts that
> generate rules for them, things they put up years ago and they
> completely forget about because it is working fine.
Yes, the above is clearly true. Few of us leave sufficient bread-crumbs to
find our way back to understanding why we did what we did, etc.
> Most likely they will not see the message about the obsolescence, and
> one day, when compatibilty is over, their stuff will stop working and
> there will be no way to solve that ecvept to painfully go back to an
> older version of SA or manually go through all the problems of all the
> angry users.
As a system administrator for some 37 years, and as someone who has acted
in a support or consulting capacity to others in such role(s) for well
over 30 years, I can tell you this observation is quite correct. In fact,
this is the dominant circumstance, by far.
VERY importantly, nobody wants to be stuck on old versions, as Oliver
proposes will happen (and he's right about that), and so this puts system
administrators in a VERY difficult position - a position I'd venture the
proponents don't really understand. The choice is one painful one versus
another painful one. Only someone who's actually been there really gets
it.
> If you offer compatibility with only a warning message, most people will
> ignore (or simply not see) that message and do nothing. And when the
> compatibility is over, they will be facing a wall, just the same as if
> there were no compatibility period. You are just pushing the mayhem back
> by one year.
I'd argue that most won't see it coming at all, though there is, of
course, no way to prove that. But it's simple human nature; when we are
overloaded, as nearly 100% of us perpetually are, we ignore a LOT of
warnings we should have, with our better selves, seen coming, from our
health issues like cancer to our children's issues to computer log files,
it's just what happens; we're simply so busy in our daily lives just
trying to get by that we miss signs we could have seen. The VAST majority
of us are in economic instability, especially with the effects of this
Covid-19 pandemic; to expect us to be paying close attention to warnings
in logs is objectively silly. (Perhaps the proponents of this change are
simply too comfortable in their economics and too isolated from actual
users to see these truths.)
...I believe the above makes the case for why backwards-compatibility
needs to be maintained into perpetuity, but Oliver actually suggests a
neat way to solve this AND the political problem that openly saying that
would create. He writes:
> In fact, I would even suggest that SA 4.0 come with the compatibility
> turned off, so the users are forced to notice the change, with a kind
> and visible message explaining how they can turn the compatibility on
> and that they should upgrade.
Yes, this is, in fact, a BRILLIANT idea because the concept of a
"backwards compatibility" flag in the configuration gives established
users the ability to continue forward without undue pain while at the same
time permitting the linguistically ignorant social justice warriors a
clean victory. "YES, we have vanquished the evil, hurtful words blacklist
and whitelist!" AND, "thank the universe the system still works!" Both
sides can have their way!
AND, of course, the blind-to-what-we-don't-have-to-see populace, such as
the potentially offended by Whitelist and Blacklist, won't see this,
either. So, what they don't know about backwards compatibility will be
completely invisible to them - and even if they see it, they'll think, "OH
GOOD, they got rid of that offensive mess!"
Of course, if there are things that the development team doesn't want to
perpetually support backwards compatibility for, that can easily be worked
out, too, such as resolving those first, and also maybe giving a special
flag for this such as, perhaps, "BackwardsNamingCompatibility" so it
doesn't apply to everything. ... If you WANT to solve this problem, there
is surely a way.
A person dedicated to the engineering change WITHOUT this option is a
person adopting the serious potential end of this project outright, AND
illustrates they really don't give a damn about the project's serving
people. The "one year" plan basically gives a one year lifetime to the
rest of this project, and after that, who knows? Importantly, if they do
this change WITHOUT the backwards compatibility, who knows what OTHER
changes they'll just toss at users without concern for how they adapt?
That is a question I ask as I evaluate which systems to use - as all
others who are wise should also be doing.
To be VERY clear, I AM VERY CIRCUMSPECT ABOUT PROJECTS that do this kind
of thing and generally avoid them. This is a big change. This isn't
something to be taken lightly for the impact on the user community as the
proponents believe it is. And that is the biggest issue here - they
apparently believe this is a no-big-deal you'll-adapt issue, without any
appreciation of the issues. ... How about the proponents give THEIR
backgrounds and state how many years THEY HAVE administering systems and
supporting users, as I and several others here have? As for me, you can
easily use my email address and find out a LOT about me and confirm the
veracity of my remarks. (And, someone else has chimed in with a similar
view as I have with maybe 20 years more experience than I have, I think -
and I hope she contacts me, actually.) ... Honestly, I haven't done the
same with the proponent here of this change, mostly because his lack of
appreciation of the difficulty of this and man-hours spent by the
community clearly illustrates his lack of experience but also because I
really have other things to do and don't really want to be writing to this
list. ... This might be my last post here, IDK - it's certainly been
painful of the time I have available.
IF this project goes forward without said perpetual backwards
compatibility option, I will dump this project ASAP. And now, not later.
Regards,
Richard
--
Chief Scientist somewhere or other you can easily discover.
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net>.
RESENT - list didnt obviously like my original so here is a slightly
more sanatised version
On 22/07/2020 12:48, Charles Sprickman wrote:
> Oh my god, you snowflakes, please just get over yourselves.
>
> You are a loud, pedantic, solipsistic minority that is just unwilling to either a) accept this change and move on b) switch to software that doesn't upend your tiny little worldview c) fork it and take this discussion to your fork's technical list.
>
> Please, there must be somewhere else you can discuss this issue. There's only like 4 of you, you can do this with a cc: list.
The only snowflakes around here are Kevin and his couple of merry
doogooders, if you dont like democracy at work (ppl having their say) ,
then thats your problem
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Eric Broch <eb...@whitehorsetc.com>.
It's only the closed minded that limit language.
On 7/21/2020 9:29 PM, Charles Sprickman wrote:
>
>> On Jul 21, 2020, at 11:14 PM, Eric Broch <eb...@whitehorsetc.com> wrote:
>>
>> We're not the ones melting because someone said, "blacklist," its people like you.
>>
>>
>> On 7/21/2020 8:48 PM, Charles Sprickman wrote:
>>>> On Jul 21, 2020, at 9:25 PM, Loren Wilton <lw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For better or worse, we are at an inflection point in society where society as a whole is deliberating the meaning and / or use of the terms "white" and "black".
>>>> I do strongly wonder whether this is "society" or only "people in the USA". It should be noted that historically bkacks were enslaved just as little or much as any other race in other countries, and I don't see those contries bending over to appease blacks because the Romans and Greeks would enslave them (as well as anyone else).
>>>>
>>>> You note that "gay" has a different meaning today. As far as I know, the words "black" and "white" were not systematically used to refer to skin colors before about 1963, when a movement was set afoot in the USA to replace "negro" with "black" and "caucasian" with "white".
>>>>
>>>> Yes, reference was made to skin colors before, and the English "negro" is obviously the same word as the Spanish "negro", but in that case, it is merely the name of a color. So the USA in the 1960s made the decision to take a word from a non-Latin root and apply that color as a substitute for a Latin word that denoted a race.
>>>>
>>>> It therefore bothers me somewhat that we are now using this post-1963 renaming to condem terms like "blacklist" and "blackball" that have existed for over 2000 years, and "black sheep", which has doubtless existed in Egyptian for another 6000 years before that, as being racist and somehow denegrating African Americans specifically.
>>> Oh my god, you snowflakes, please just get over yourselves.
>>>
>>> You are a loud, pedantic, solipsistic minority that is just unwilling to either a) accept this change and move on b) switch to software that doesn’t upend your tiny little worldview c) fork it and take this discussion to your fork’s technical list.
>>>
>>> Please, there must be somewhere else you can discuss this issue. There’s only like 4 of you, you can do this with a cc: list.
> And top-posting too - solipsists can’t help it.
>
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Charles Sprickman <sp...@bway.net>.
> On Jul 21, 2020, at 11:14 PM, Eric Broch <eb...@whitehorsetc.com> wrote:
>
> We're not the ones melting because someone said, "blacklist," its people like you.
>
>
> On 7/21/2020 8:48 PM, Charles Sprickman wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 21, 2020, at 9:25 PM, Loren Wilton <lw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For better or worse, we are at an inflection point in society where society as a whole is deliberating the meaning and / or use of the terms "white" and "black".
>>> I do strongly wonder whether this is "society" or only "people in the USA". It should be noted that historically bkacks were enslaved just as little or much as any other race in other countries, and I don't see those contries bending over to appease blacks because the Romans and Greeks would enslave them (as well as anyone else).
>>>
>>> You note that "gay" has a different meaning today. As far as I know, the words "black" and "white" were not systematically used to refer to skin colors before about 1963, when a movement was set afoot in the USA to replace "negro" with "black" and "caucasian" with "white".
>>>
>>> Yes, reference was made to skin colors before, and the English "negro" is obviously the same word as the Spanish "negro", but in that case, it is merely the name of a color. So the USA in the 1960s made the decision to take a word from a non-Latin root and apply that color as a substitute for a Latin word that denoted a race.
>>>
>>> It therefore bothers me somewhat that we are now using this post-1963 renaming to condem terms like "blacklist" and "blackball" that have existed for over 2000 years, and "black sheep", which has doubtless existed in Egyptian for another 6000 years before that, as being racist and somehow denegrating African Americans specifically.
>> Oh my god, you snowflakes, please just get over yourselves.
>>
>> You are a loud, pedantic, solipsistic minority that is just unwilling to either a) accept this change and move on b) switch to software that doesn’t upend your tiny little worldview c) fork it and take this discussion to your fork’s technical list.
>>
>> Please, there must be somewhere else you can discuss this issue. There’s only like 4 of you, you can do this with a cc: list.
And top-posting too - solipsists can’t help it.
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Eric Broch <eb...@whitehorsetc.com>.
We're not the ones melting because someone said, "blacklist," its people
like you.
On 7/21/2020 8:48 PM, Charles Sprickman wrote:
>
>> On Jul 21, 2020, at 9:25 PM, Loren Wilton <lw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> For better or worse, we are at an inflection point in society where society as a whole is deliberating the meaning and / or use of the terms "white" and "black".
>> I do strongly wonder whether this is "society" or only "people in the USA". It should be noted that historically bkacks were enslaved just as little or much as any other race in other countries, and I don't see those contries bending over to appease blacks because the Romans and Greeks would enslave them (as well as anyone else).
>>
>> You note that "gay" has a different meaning today. As far as I know, the words "black" and "white" were not systematically used to refer to skin colors before about 1963, when a movement was set afoot in the USA to replace "negro" with "black" and "caucasian" with "white".
>>
>> Yes, reference was made to skin colors before, and the English "negro" is obviously the same word as the Spanish "negro", but in that case, it is merely the name of a color. So the USA in the 1960s made the decision to take a word from a non-Latin root and apply that color as a substitute for a Latin word that denoted a race.
>>
>> It therefore bothers me somewhat that we are now using this post-1963 renaming to condem terms like "blacklist" and "blackball" that have existed for over 2000 years, and "black sheep", which has doubtless existed in Egyptian for another 6000 years before that, as being racist and somehow denegrating African Americans specifically.
> Oh my god, you snowflakes, please just get over yourselves.
>
> You are a loud, pedantic, solipsistic minority that is just unwilling to either a) accept this change and move on b) switch to software that doesn’t upend your tiny little worldview c) fork it and take this discussion to your fork’s technical list.
>
> Please, there must be somewhere else you can discuss this issue. There’s only like 4 of you, you can do this with a cc: list.
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net>.
On 22/07/2020 12:48, Charles Sprickman wrote:
> Oh my god, you snowflakes, please just get over yourselves.
>
> You are a loud, pedantic, solipsistic minority that is just unwilling to either a) accept this change and move on b) switch to software that doesn't upend your tiny little worldview c) fork it and take this discussion to your fork's technical list.
>
> Please, there must be somewhere else you can discuss this issue. There's only like 4 of you, you can do this with a cc: list.
The only snowflakes around here are Kevin and his couple of merry
doogooders, if you dont like democracy at work (ppl having their say) ,
then you fuck off
RE: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Marc Roos <M....@f1-outsourcing.eu>.
> There’s only like 4 of you, you can do this with a cc: list.
4? If you don't get your facts straight, there is little to no value to
other things you write.
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Mauricio Tavares <ra...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 4:25 AM jdow <jd...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> On 20200722 00:28:22, Marc Roos wrote:
> >
> >>> Oh my god, you snowflakes, please just get over yourselves.
> >
> > The term "snowflake generation" was one of Collins English Dictionary's
> > 2016 words of the year. Collins defines the term as "the young adults of
> > the 2010s, viewed as being less resilient and more prone to taking
> > offence than previous generations".
> >
> > Do you get that it is the other way around? You are using this term
> > incorrectly?
> >
> Seems to me the snowflakes took offense to an imaginary manufactured "problem".
Actually their outrage is a classic example of First World
Problem. How dare people from other parts of the world worry about
genocide, civil war, famine, slavery, and terrorism instead of being
car-burning outraged about the use of the word "blacklist"?
> The rest of us are taking offense at the snowflakes being so fragile and
> demanding. And do remember to discard any devices that might have an RMA color
> coded part inside.
>
> {^_^}
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.
On 20200722 00:28:22, Marc Roos wrote:
>
>>> Oh my god, you snowflakes, please just get over yourselves.
>
> The term "snowflake generation" was one of Collins English Dictionary's
> 2016 words of the year. Collins defines the term as "the young adults of
> the 2010s, viewed as being less resilient and more prone to taking
> offence than previous generations".
>
> Do you get that it is the other way around? You are using this term
> incorrectly?
>
Seems to me the snowflakes took offense to an imaginary manufactured "problem".
The rest of us are taking offense at the snowflakes being so fragile and
demanding. And do remember to discard any devices that might have an RMA color
coded part inside.
{^_^}
RE: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Marc Roos <M....@f1-outsourcing.eu>.
> This is not a tiny change. I had hoped it would be, which is why I
supported it
> in the initial PMC vote, but it's becoming clear to me I was overly
optimistic.
Wait until you have to vote on the use of the word welcomelist.
Preferring English to other languages could be seen as discriminative.
If one should replace words, than at least use Esperanto ones. ;)
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org>.
On Wed, 22 Jul 2020, Charles Sprickman wrote:
>
> Rather than tolerate the tiniest of changes you throw a tantrum.
This is not a tiny change. I had hoped it would be, which is why I
supported it in the initial PMC vote, but it's becoming clear to me I was
overly optimistic.
--
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no better measure of the unthinking contempt of the
environmentalist movement for civilization than their call to
turn off the lights and sit in the dark. -- Sultan Knish
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
104 days until the Presidential Election
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Miles Fidelman <mf...@meetinghouse.net>.
On 7/26/20 6:06 PM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
>> On 7/24/20 7:41 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
>>
>>> On 24/07/2020 23:26, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>>>
> Noel Butler skrev den 2020-07-24 14:57:
>>>>> because it shits trolls like you off
>>>>
>> https://imgur.com/pHlUeZY?fbclid=IwAR2l8HBDnXST5-adnmyIbBAsq16sZeGNhfqHwBNM8I
>> kQZsir2aUw-H919hk
>>>
>>> dunno what you referenced benny I only click on links that are from
>>> friends/family/trusted sources - which you are none of
>>>
>>> but your so stupid you forget most people on this list are seasoned
>>> network/system admins and take the same approach.
>>>
>> What.. you can't look at a photo on the net, and protect yourself in the
>> process? Some of us really ARE seasoned network/system admins - who
>> know how to follow links without getting hacked.
>>
>> Jeez... talk about trolls.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
>>
> Yes, well . . .
>
> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/practice-and-theory/
>
> https://checkyourfact.com/2019/08/28/yogi-berra-theory-difference-practice/
And that's relevant, how? Heck, EVERYONE knows that Yogi Berra didn't
say half the things attributed to him.
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Joe Acquisto-j4 <jo...@j4computers.com>.
>>>
> On 7/24/20 7:41 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
>
>> On 24/07/2020 23:26, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>>
Noel Butler skrev den 2020-07-24 14:57:
>>>
>>>> because it shits trolls like you off
>>>
>>>
> https://imgur.com/pHlUeZY?fbclid=IwAR2l8HBDnXST5-adnmyIbBAsq16sZeGNhfqHwBNM8I
> kQZsir2aUw-H919hk
>>
>>
>> dunno what you referenced benny I only click on links that are from
>> friends/family/trusted sources - which you are none of
>>
>> but your so stupid you forget most people on this list are seasoned
>> network/system admins and take the same approach.
>>
> What.. you can't look at a photo on the net, and protect yourself in the
> process? Some of us really ARE seasoned network/system admins - who
> know how to follow links without getting hacked.
>
> Jeez... talk about trolls.
>
>
>
> --
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
>
Yes, well . . .
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/practice-and-theory/
https://checkyourfact.com/2019/08/28/yogi-berra-theory-difference-practice/
---------------------------------
j4computers, llc
Stone Ridge, NY 12484
845-687-3734
www.j4computers.com
---------------------------------
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Miles Fidelman <mf...@meetinghouse.net>.
On 7/24/20 7:41 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
> On 24/07/2020 23:26, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>
>> Noel Butler skrev den 2020-07-24 14:57:
>>
>>> because it shits trolls like you off
>>
>> https://imgur.com/pHlUeZY?fbclid=IwAR2l8HBDnXST5-adnmyIbBAsq16sZeGNhfqHwBNM8IkQZsir2aUw-H919hk
>
>
> dunno what you referenced benny I only click on links that are from
> friends/family/trusted sources - which you are none of
>
> but your so stupid you forget most people on this list are seasoned
> network/system admins and take the same approach.
>
What.. you can't look at a photo on the net, and protect yourself in the
process? Some of us really ARE seasoned network/system admins - who
know how to follow links without getting hacked.
Jeez... talk about trolls.
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
Theory is when you know everything but nothing works.
Practice is when everything works but no one knows why.
In our lab, theory and practice are combined:
nothing works and no one knows why. ... unknown
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net>.
On 24/07/2020 23:26, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Noel Butler skrev den 2020-07-24 14:57:
>
>> because it shits trolls like you off
>
> https://imgur.com/pHlUeZY?fbclid=IwAR2l8HBDnXST5-adnmyIbBAsq16sZeGNhfqHwBNM8IkQZsir2aUw-H919hk
dunno what you referenced benny I only click on links that are from
friends/family/trusted sources - which you are none of
but your so stupid you forget most people on this list are seasoned
network/system admins and take the same approach.
--
Regards,
Noel Butler
This Email, including attachments, may contain legally privileged
information, therefore at all times remains confidential and subject to
copyright protected under international law. You may not disseminate
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.
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.eu>.
Noel Butler skrev den 2020-07-24 14:57:
> because it shits trolls like you off
https://imgur.com/pHlUeZY?fbclid=IwAR2l8HBDnXST5-adnmyIbBAsq16sZeGNhfqHwBNM8IkQZsir2aUw-H919hk
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net>.
On 24/07/2020 22:01, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Noel Butler skrev den 2020-07-24 03:24:
>
>> The fact the OP never included you means they knew you were being
>> sarcastic, kevin cant see that because he is in total defensive mode,
>> he thought people would suck up his dictatorship and roll over and
>> move on, but he was so so so wrong.
>
> is PMC members ROFL right now ? :=)
ask him, thats if he can hear you over those dark voices telling him to
be a dictator
> why big SIGNATURES on publib maillist ?
because it shits trolls like you off
--
Regards,
Noel Butler
This Email, including attachments, may contain legally privileged
information, therefore at all times remains confidential and subject to
copyright protected under international law. You may not disseminate
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.
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.eu>.
Noel Butler skrev den 2020-07-24 03:24:
> The fact the OP never included you means they knew you were being
> sarcastic, kevin cant see that because he is in total defensive mode,
> he thought people would suck up his dictatorship and roll over and
> move on, but he was so so so wrong.
is PMC members ROFL right now ? :=)
>
> --
why big SIGNATURES on publib maillist ?
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net>.
On 24/07/2020 04:29, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Was it really that unclear that I was speaking tongue-in-cheek?
>
> Man o Man I missed my calling in life. I should have gone into scamming
> people if I was able to get you guys to think that load of BS about
> forking was serious!!!!
>
> Ted
>
> On 7/23/2020 7:06 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>
>> Note: If you fork a project, you cannot use the name, just the code.
there is currently a large CC discussion at present with about 18 odd
people from this list (no I didnt start it, but was in CC list) who have
been discussing forking, your post might have been sarcasm, but it
actually reflects reality.
The fact the OP never included you means they knew you were being
sarcastic, kevin cant see that because he is in total defensive mode, he
thought people would suck up his dictatorship and roll over and move on,
but he was so so so wrong.
--
Regards,
Noel Butler
This Email, including attachments, may contain legally privileged
information, therefore at all times remains confidential and subject to
copyright protected under international law. You may not disseminate
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.
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Ted Mittelstaedt <te...@ipinc.net>.
Arrg do we have to invoke the "Toilet Rule"* ?
Would everyone calm down if Kevin would promise to never make another
change to bow to the gods of Political Correctness? Kevin, would you
be humble enough to make this promise and admit you stepped in a
pile of caw-caw?
I'm sure the real spammers are just scratching their heads over this
one. For years they have tried attacking SA through all manner of
technical games when all along all they had to do to divide and conquer
is get us to start fighting over colors!!!!
Ted
*Toilet Rule - any online discussion that has reached the point where
someone makes a reference to a toilet needs to be flushed... ;-)
On 7/24/2020 3:00 AM, Jeroen de Neef wrote:
> I think that one of the reasons why more and more people dogpile on
> the conversation is because a lot of people have already dogpiled on
> it.
> I've been in this mailing list since 2015 and this has been the
> loudest thread I've noticed since then.
>
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 9:49 AM Marc Roos<M....@f1-outsourcing.eu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> I do wish that the handful of loud, non-contributors who have so
>> >> much to say about someone else’s project would shut up and fork it,
>> TBH.
>>
>> Is that not a lot like, this is my toilet it is only for white people,
>> please
>> build your own somewhere else, you are free to do so?
>>
>>
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Jeroen de Neef <je...@gmail.com>.
I think that one of the reasons why more and more people dogpile on
the conversation is because a lot of people have already dogpiled on
it.
I've been in this mailing list since 2015 and this has been the
loudest thread I've noticed since then.
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 9:49 AM Marc Roos <M....@f1-outsourcing.eu> wrote:
>
>
> >> I do wish that the handful of loud, non-contributors who have so
> >> much to say about someone else’s project would shut up and fork it,
> TBH.
>
> Is that not a lot like, this is my toilet it is only for white people,
> please
> build your own somewhere else, you are free to do so?
>
>
RE: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Marc Roos <M....@f1-outsourcing.eu>.
>> I do wish that the handful of loud, non-contributors who have so
>> much to say about someone else’s project would shut up and fork it,
TBH.
Is that not a lot like, this is my toilet it is only for white people,
please
build your own somewhere else, you are free to do so?
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Charles Sprickman <sp...@bway.net>.
> On Jul 23, 2020, at 2:29 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt <te...@ipinc.net> wrote:
>
>
> Was it really that unclear that I was speaking tongue-in-cheek?
>
> Man o Man I missed my calling in life. I should have gone into scamming
> people if I was able to get you guys to think that load of BS about
> forking was serious!!!!
>
> Ted
>
> On 7/23/2020 7:06 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>> Note: If you fork a project, you cannot use the name, just the code.
I do wish that the handful of loud, non-contributors who have so much to say about someone else’s project would shut up and fork it, TBH.
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Ted Mittelstaedt <te...@ipinc.net>.
Was it really that unclear that I was speaking tongue-in-cheek?
Man o Man I missed my calling in life. I should have gone into scamming
people if I was able to get you guys to think that load of BS about
forking was serious!!!!
Ted
On 7/23/2020 7:06 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> Note: If you fork a project, you cannot use the name, just the code.
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.eu>.
Riccardo Alfieri skrev den 2020-07-23 17:01:
> On 23/07/20 16:53, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>> so rspamd cant make support to spamassassin rules without permission
>> to change rules names ?, but thay
>> did, wonderfull world of help each other
> I think that rspamd's approach is correct.
i am not a jura student :=)
> Rspamd just takes SA rules
> and use them.
yes its read native sa rules, and hope it can on read transfer it to a
rspamd view in ucl
> It doesn't provide the rules, meaning that you most
> likely need to have an installation of at least sa-update on the same
> machine that runs rspamd to keep rules updated.
if the need is to have its updated yes, but sa can have static rules for
ever :=)
> SA rules are also distributed under Apache 2.0 license and I guess
> that license permits reuse of existing code in other projects, but
> IANAL :)
yes i think if mimedefang was so good it would have being more
dokumented, as i see it to much was done in mimedefang and not
implemented in spamassassin, so all was needed to have a non working
problems with mimedefang, thats imho why its dead beaf now ?
basicly i am just happy that fuglu exists now
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Martin Gregorie <ma...@gregorie.org>.
On Thu, 2020-07-23 at 15:01 +0000, Riccardo Alfieri wrote:
> I think that rspamd's approach is correct. Rspamd just takes SA rules
> and use them. It doesn't provide the rules, meaning that you most
> likely
> need to have an installation of at least sa-update on the same
> machine
> that runs rspamd to keep rules updated.
> SA rules are also distributed under Apache 2.0 license and I guess
> that
> license permits reuse of existing code in other projects, but IANAL :)
>
I had a look at the Rspamd docs and thought about it bit.
Yes, they can run your private rules and, probably, some of the base
rules, but that's about it:
- They don't seem to have a way to let SA rules find out anything about
which UBLs have fired or to include that info in an SA rule.
- Similarly, because its a C program, there's no simple way to execute
an SA plugin without running it as an external Perl process. To do
that you'd also need to provide some way of passing input data to it
and of receiving the reply.
They also say that running a heap of regexes in Rspamd will slow it down
noticeably.
Martin
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Riccardo Alfieri <ri...@spamteq.com>.
On 23/07/20 16:53, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>
> so rspamd cant make support to spamassassin rules without permission
> to change rules names ?, but thay did, wonderfull world of help each
> other
I think that rspamd's approach is correct. Rspamd just takes SA rules
and use them. It doesn't provide the rules, meaning that you most likely
need to have an installation of at least sa-update on the same machine
that runs rspamd to keep rules updated.
SA rules are also distributed under Apache 2.0 license and I guess that
license permits reuse of existing code in other projects, but IANAL :)
--
Best regards,
Riccardo Alfieri
Spamhaus Technology
https://www.spamhaustech.com/
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.eu>.
Kevin A. McGrail skrev den 2020-07-23 16:06:
> Note: If you fork a project, you cannot use the name, just the code.
so rspamd cant make support to spamassassin rules without permission to
change rules names ?, but thay did, wonderfull world of help each other
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
Note: If you fork a project, you cannot use the name, just the code. For
SA, You would need your own update system. Rules are also open source so
you can use them but would have to rename many especially those with
initials. And remove / gain permission for thhe rules that are 3rd party
used with permission.
Rules that work for 3.3.x to 3.4.x have been published and maintain
backwards compatibility with scoring, local meta rules and any template
processing.
With 4.0 you will have a one byte change if you want to use the old rules.
Regards, KAM
>
>
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Martin Gregorie <ma...@gregorie.org>.
On Wed, 2020-07-22 at 21:53 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> You could even fork the SpamAssassin code if you like, you know. In
> fact, let's do that. We will make a new fork and call it the
> "SpamAssasin-N-W" short for SpamAssassin Non Wussy, put it up on
> Sorceforge for download, and just mirror the regular SpamAssassin
> distribution when new releases come out with the exception of this
> change.
>
That would be fine for the Perl source code, but in case you didn't
notice, the terms-we-must-not-use ALSO appear in visible text, i.e.
names of base rules, which can't be hidden from SA users. Changing them
WILL break some private rules written by SA users who don't subscribe to
this mailing list and so will not be expecting any such change.
AFAICT this side effect was not considered by the SA maintainers until
the name of one base rule was changed a week or so back and some list
members' rules were broken by it. I'm not blaming the maintainers
because something like that is very easy to miss: its a fair bet that
base rule names no not appear anywhere in SA source code.
OK, Post SA 4.0 it appears that there's a plot to maintain both old and
new-style rule names for a while, but I predict that there will be much
wailing and gnashing of teeth from those who are not on this list when
either some name change is missed or further down the line the old names
vanish and all those who never update software get caught out.
Martin,
who is a retired professional developer and has seen this sort of thing
before.
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Ted Mittelstaedt <te...@ipinc.net>.
Has it occurred to ANYONE arguing over this that the source code of
SpamAssassin is Open Source so if you do not like the politically
correct change that was made to appease the Snowflakes, that it is
not that difficult to write a patch that will switch the distribution
back to the old wording?
You could even fork the SpamAssassin code if you like, you know. In
fact, let's do that. We will make a new fork and call it the
"SpamAssasin-N-W" short for SpamAssassin Non Wussy, put it up on
Sorceforge for download, and just mirror the regular SpamAssassin
distribution when new releases come out with the exception of this
change.
Jdow do you volunteer to manage the Non-Wussy version of SpamAssassin?
Ted
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.
On 20200722 15:17:03, Ralph Seichter wrote:
> * Charles Sprickman:
>
>> Rather than tolerate the tiniest of changes you throw a tantrum.
>
> "Tiny changes", as in small stones getting kicked down a slope, causing
> an avalanche. Attempts to restrict vocabulary should be a very familiar
> and worrying concept to anyone who read Orwell. Speaking out against
> this is very necessary. Silently tolerating stupid changes stems from
> either weakness, lack of understanding or disinterest.
>
> -Ralph
It is a technique that predated Orwell's story and even predated my birth. At
the very least the Germans tried to frame their arguments by restricting
vocabulary. Stalin certainly did. Mao certainly did.
I am glad somebody else feels this is as important an issue as I do.
{^_^}
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Ralph Seichter <ra...@ml.seichter.de>.
* Charles Sprickman:
> Rather than tolerate the tiniest of changes you throw a tantrum.
"Tiny changes", as in small stones getting kicked down a slope, causing
an avalanche. Attempts to restrict vocabulary should be a very familiar
and worrying concept to anyone who read Orwell. Speaking out against
this is very necessary. Silently tolerating stupid changes stems from
either weakness, lack of understanding or disinterest.
-Ralph
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by "M. Omer GOLGELI" <om...@chronos.com.tr>.
July 22, 2020 11:46 AM, "M. Omer GOLGELI" <om...@chronos.com.tr> wrote:
> Like Laura questioned,
Oops!
/Laura/Loren/ my bad...
--
M. Omer GOLGELI
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by "M. Omer GOLGELI" <om...@chronos.com.tr>.
July 22, 2020 11:16 AM, "Charles Sprickman" <sp...@bway.net> wrote:
>
> you’d like the
> whole world to adjust to your narrow views (which all center around your experiences of the world,
> which of course are the only valid ones, right?). So yes, you’re a bunch of snowflakes.
>
This is a perfect explanation for this whole thing. People of US, with their extremely racists backgrounds, thinking it's racist or not while being limited to their experiences of the world...
Like Laura questioned, nobody in non-english speaking countries care about that as much as you guys since when most look at the word Black, all they see is the color Black...
July 22, 2020 11:16 AM, "Charles Sprickman" <sp...@bway.net> wrote:
> You could have just packed up and left, used other software that didn’t offend your gentle
> sensitivities, forked SA, or (IMO, the best option) just shut the f*ck up,
July 22, 2020 10:39 AM, "Noel Butler" <no...@ausics.net> wrote:
> if you dont like democracy at work (ppl having their say) , then you fuck off
Both of you are acting like children. Well done.
Nice language BTW.
--
M. Omer GOLGELI
RE: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Marc Roos <M....@f1-outsourcing.eu>.
> I’m going to follow that other dude’s lead and start donating to
> Portland bail funds in your names each time you post. :)
Do know that is identity theft and a crime. Please post proof of your
action on this list.
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Charles Sprickman <sp...@bway.net>.
> On Jul 22, 2020, at 3:28 AM, Marc Roos <M....@f1-outsourcing.eu> wrote:
>
>
>>> Oh my god, you snowflakes, please just get over yourselves.
>
> The term "snowflake generation" was one of Collins English Dictionary's
> 2016 words of the year. Collins defines the term as "the young adults of
> the 2010s, viewed as being less resilient and more prone to taking
> offence than previous generations".
>
> Do you get that it is the other way around? You are using this term
> incorrectly?
No, I think it describes you lot perfectly.
Rather than tolerate the tiniest of changes you throw a tantrum.
You could have just packed up and left, used other software that didn’t offend your gentle sensitivities, forked SA, or (IMO, the best option) just shut the f*ck up, but… no, you’d like the whole world to adjust to your narrow views (which all center around your experiences of the world, which of course are the only valid ones, right?). So yes, you’re a bunch of snowflakes.
I’m going to follow that other dude’s lead and start donating to Portland bail funds in your names each time you post. :)
RE: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Marc Roos <M....@f1-outsourcing.eu>.
>> Oh my god, you snowflakes, please just get over yourselves.
The term "snowflake generation" was one of Collins English Dictionary's
2016 words of the year. Collins defines the term as "the young adults of
the 2010s, viewed as being less resilient and more prone to taking
offence than previous generations".
Do you get that it is the other way around? You are using this term
incorrectly?
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Charles Sprickman <sp...@bway.net>.
> On Jul 21, 2020, at 9:25 PM, Loren Wilton <lw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> For better or worse, we are at an inflection point in society where society as a whole is deliberating the meaning and / or use of the terms "white" and "black".
>
> I do strongly wonder whether this is "society" or only "people in the USA". It should be noted that historically bkacks were enslaved just as little or much as any other race in other countries, and I don't see those contries bending over to appease blacks because the Romans and Greeks would enslave them (as well as anyone else).
>
> You note that "gay" has a different meaning today. As far as I know, the words "black" and "white" were not systematically used to refer to skin colors before about 1963, when a movement was set afoot in the USA to replace "negro" with "black" and "caucasian" with "white".
>
> Yes, reference was made to skin colors before, and the English "negro" is obviously the same word as the Spanish "negro", but in that case, it is merely the name of a color. So the USA in the 1960s made the decision to take a word from a non-Latin root and apply that color as a substitute for a Latin word that denoted a race.
>
> It therefore bothers me somewhat that we are now using this post-1963 renaming to condem terms like "blacklist" and "blackball" that have existed for over 2000 years, and "black sheep", which has doubtless existed in Egyptian for another 6000 years before that, as being racist and somehow denegrating African Americans specifically.
Oh my god, you snowflakes, please just get over yourselves.
You are a loud, pedantic, solipsistic minority that is just unwilling to either a) accept this change and move on b) switch to software that doesn’t upend your tiny little worldview c) fork it and take this discussion to your fork’s technical list.
Please, there must be somewhere else you can discuss this issue. There’s only like 4 of you, you can do this with a cc: list.
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Martin Gregorie <ma...@gregorie.org>.
On Tue, 2020-07-21 at 18:25 -0700, Loren Wilton wrote:
> I do strongly wonder whether this is "society" or only "people in the
> USA". It should be noted that historically bkacks were enslaved just
> as little or much as any other race in other countries, and I don't
> see those contries bending over to appease blacks because the Romans
> and Greeks would enslave them (as well as anyone else).
>
From my POV (I'm from NZ, resident in the UK) I think the racial use of
'black' in everyday speech is pretty much limited to the USA and South
Africa.
When I was resident in NZ we always referred to the major resident
groups as pakeha (the Maori word for white-skins), Maori (or possibly a
person's tribe if you know it and are on a marae) and everybody else by
ancestral nationality: e.g. there is a fair size Chinese population
dating largely from the Gold Rush.
Britain is much the same as NZ apart from distinguishing between
English, Northern Irish, Scots and Welsh and using the generic
'Caribbean' rather than the specific - Jamaican, Barbadian, etc. which
is to opposite to people from Africa: calling anybody an 'African' is
rare: specific nationalities are almost invariably used just as they are
for the rest of the world. The main generic term yo hear for non-
europeans is 'people of colour', which still seems rather long and
stilted to me.
'Russian', Soviet' or (not so much) 'Communist' used to be generics for
residents of the USSR, but now those terms have vanished and been
replaced by the use of specific nationalities. I don't think there are
more than a handful of genuine communists left anywhere in what used to
be the Soviet Union.
In general the so-called hard right here would appear to align more with
the Democrats in the USA, so to me a recent comment describing Obama as
a hard-left radical seems ridiculous: he's no more a leftie than former
UK Prime Ministers Tony Blair (Labour), David Cameron (Conservative) or
Jacinda Ardern (NZ Prime Minister) are.
Martin
RE: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Rick Cooper <rc...@dwford.com>.
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 7/21/2020 9:25 PM, Loren Wilton wrote:
>> I do strongly wonder whether this is "society" or only "people in the
>> USA".
> One data point disproves that. The SA project made the choice months
> ago inspired by a decision in the United Kingdom:
>
https://www.zdnet.com/article/uk-ncsc-to-stop-using-whitelist-and-blacklist-
due-to-racial-stereotyping/
I've stayed out of this until now because I understand what you are trying
to do, but this was not an issue of race until those who (just like the
article) made it so.
I am a white male aged 62 who grew up in the 60's and 70's in a very
racially integrated area of a very poor part of a decent sized Midwest
united states city in Indiana. I went through the forced integration bussing
in a junior high school that mainly consisted of poor "white trash" lower
income white families. There really wasn't much tension in the school system
until poor lower income black students were forced to be bussed in along
with wealthy upper class white students from other schools. The black
students raised holy hell (riots and all) because they were forced out of
their schools and the well to do white students were nearly as bad for
exactly the same reason and we (the original group of lower class whites
students) were pissed because we had to deal with pissed off kids from both
spectrums. This was not a problem until people forced a non issue into a
boiling point issue. Being one of the poorest "white trash" families in the
school in the first place and having been raised to see race as a non issue
I had friends in all three of the spheres and most of them just wanted
things stop and didn't understand what the fuss was all about, they were
fine with things as they had been. You know where none of this EVER crept
in? Athletics... All those involved in athletics just wanted winning teams
and didn't give a rats ass about what color the guy was playing next to them
only that they performed. The problem wasn't integration of kids it was
making sure each school had access to the same resources, that neighborhoods
were naturally integrated and no barrier existed to the flow of people based
on color, race or religion. Forcing those kids out of their neighborhood
school did nothing positive because they still went home at the end of the
day (and took longer to get there) and their position in life remained the
same (other than seeing all the nice things the wealthy kids had I guess).
They were still poor and black, I was still poor and white and the tension
and resulting violence just took a chunk of our childhood to a place it
didn't need to go.
Now, white and black lists were not a racially charged item until someone,
likely white guy but I don't know, made it so. I have asked my colleagues of
all races what they think about this and linux's new issues with the terms
black and white list and, especially the black persons find it somewhat
insulting.
Black and white have been the representation of pure good and evil since man
kind found a way out of the dark. Dark was bad, you were more likely to be
hunted in the dark, light was good as you were far safer hence black magic
bad white magic good and most cultures who believe in the two are of dark
skin. Certainly the black west African practitioners of voodoo (common term
for several related religions) knew they were of black skin when they
assigned black magic to magic used for harmful purpose while white magic was
used for good and healing... It was just light and dark and that is what the
terms white and black are used for.
How about blackballing? Remember McCarthy blackballing people in the 50's...
Had nothing to do with color then or now. Why is the Sabbath preceding Tisha
BAv referred to as Black Sabbath? Nothing to do with skin color.
I won't speak of this again but this entire overreaction to race issues
literally feeds the flame every bit as much as black rappers using the
*nword* as their own continues to feed the use of the word. I had hoped
during my life time that word would be gone but it's clear from this
discussion that people cannot just simply decide not to engage in racist
behavior and stop emphasizing trouble where an issue doesn't exist until you
make it an issue. I do not believe a single person of color on this list
ever once looked at the terms white and black list and saw a race issue and
if they did, this will not solve their actual personal problems.
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Grant Taylor <gt...@tnetconsulting.net>.
On 7/21/20 7:52 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> One data point disproves that. The SA project made the choice
> months ago inspired by a decision in the United Kingdom:
> https://www.zdnet.com/article/uk-ncsc-to-stop-using-whitelist-and-blacklist-due-to-racial-stereotyping/
I'm okay if a group of people forms a consensus and collectively decides
to make a change. I think there are merits to how the change is made.
It doesn't matter what my personal opinion is of the change. If that's
what the community wants to do, then that's what's going to eventually
happen.
Many smokers in my home town didn't like the smoking ban. But it was
decided by a town vote and it became obvious that the majority of the
people wanted the smoking ban.
I'm okay and won't object as long as people are truthful in why they are
doing something.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
On 7/21/2020 9:25 PM, Loren Wilton wrote:
> I do strongly wonder whether this is "society" or only "people in the
> USA".
One data point disproves that. The SA project made the choice months
ago inspired by a decision in the United Kingdom:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/uk-ncsc-to-stop-using-whitelist-and-blacklist-due-to-racial-stereotyping/
--
Kevin A. McGrail
KMcGrail@Apache.org
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by sh...@shanew.net.
On Tue, 21 Jul 2020, Loren Wilton wrote:
> You note that "gay" has a different meaning today. As far as I know, the
> words "black" and "white" were not systematically used to refer to skin
> colors before about 1963, when a movement was set afoot in the USA to replace
> "negro" with "black" and "caucasian" with "white".
As I mentioned in a post on July 14, black and white to refer to races
and skin color (and also red and yellow) gained traction at least as
far back as the European Enlightenment, when it was all the rage to
classify things, and most Enlightenment writers are explicitly racist
in their descriptions and classification. But these terms are used
going back thousands of years as well. My post from the 14th includes
several links you might find informative.
--
Public key #7BBC68D9 at | Shane Williams
http://pgp.mit.edu/ | System Admin - UT CompSci
=----------------------------------+-------------------------------
All syllogisms contain three lines | shanew@shanew.net
Therefore this is not a syllogism | www.ischool.utexas.edu/~shanew
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Loren Wilton <lw...@earthlink.net>.
> For better or worse, we are at an inflection point in society where
> society as a whole is deliberating the meaning and / or use of the terms
> "white" and "black".
I do strongly wonder whether this is "society" or only "people in the USA".
It should be noted that historically bkacks were enslaved just as little or
much as any other race in other countries, and I don't see those contries
bending over to appease blacks because the Romans and Greeks would enslave
them (as well as anyone else).
You note that "gay" has a different meaning today. As far as I know, the
words "black" and "white" were not systematically used to refer to skin
colors before about 1963, when a movement was set afoot in the USA to
replace "negro" with "black" and "caucasian" with "white".
Yes, reference was made to skin colors before, and the English "negro" is
obviously the same word as the Spanish "negro", but in that case, it is
merely the name of a color. So the USA in the 1960s made the decision to
take a word from a non-Latin root and apply that color as a substitute for a
Latin word that denoted a race.
It therefore bothers me somewhat that we are now using this post-1963
renaming to condem terms like "blacklist" and "blackball" that have existed
for over 2000 years, and "black sheep", which has doubtless existed in
Egyptian for another 6000 years before that, as being racist and somehow
denegrating African Americans specifically.
RE: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Marc Roos <M....@f1-outsourcing.eu>.
> I hear that the old RMA resistor color code is under attack as it is
exceptionally discriminatory.
> As you may or may not know black is the lowest value 0, brown is only
1, Red is 2. This
:D
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.
On 20200721 10:34:13, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 7/21/20 9:09 AM, Peter L. Berghold wrote:
>> This is the first time this long time lurker has posted here and I'm probably
>> going to offend a lot of people by what I have to say.
>
> I don't think your post is offensive. It is said as a statement of facts and
> does not seem to contain any malicious intent. Sometimes facts hurt. Sometimes
> they don't.
>
>> I really don't get why anyone would be offended by blacklistd and whitelist
>> given neither have any sort of connection to race or skin color.
>
> I think that many people are ~> some of society is hypersensitive to the two
> five letter strings "white" and "black". Some people are so hypersensitive that
> they can't see the forest (meaning of the words containing said five letter
> strings) for the trees (said five letter strings).
>
>> It is absurd in my opinion that there is a population going about that is
>> offended by seemingly everything and sees racism where none exists.
>
> I agree and share your opinion that it is absurd where people are ascribing
> racism where none has historically exists.
>
> Will we be asked to rename "blacktop", which is a specific subset of asphalt?
> Or what about renaming the SR-71 Blackbird? Or will White Castle need to
> rename, when the name was originally meant to reference clean and safe to eat
> at? Or dare I say it, what about renaming the U.S.A.'s White House?
>
> *NONE* of these three examples were named with any racism in them. They were
> named based on the color of their appearance.
>
> Sure, the White House may be associated with specific individuals, many of whom
> happened to be white, which have done some questionable things. But the occupant
> of the building has nothing to do with the building's naming.
>
>> What offends me more is the notion we have to wreak havoc in order to
>> accommodate these thin skinned social warriors.
>
> I am willing to consider new accepted norms for things going forward. (See
> below.) I think that retroactively changing things because of a sub-string
> collision is fraught with errors.
>
>> Looking at a dictionary blog: https://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/blacklist
>>
>> there is no indication the term was racial at all. A list of "objectionable
>> or suspicious people" is not necessarily with regard to race.
>
> I completely agree.
>
>> I wonder when these folks are going to want black and white as colors stricken
>> from the English language?
>
> IMHO completely removing the words is a very bad idea. Lest we forget where we
> have been in the past, thus dooming us to repeat it in the future.
>
> For better or worse, we are at an inflection point in society where society as a
> whole is deliberating the meaning and / or use of the terms "white" and "black".
>
> "gay" had a significantly different meaning 100 years ago than it does today.
> Language, much like society grows, changes, and evolves.
>
> I think that it is generally a good thing to use the current accepted words when
> creating new things. But creating new is decidedly different than retroactively
> changing things that exist today. That being said, I think that the majority of
> people would agree that we have not yet crossed the tipping point for "white"
> and "black".
>
> Even if the meaning changed overnight — something that I think is unlikely to
> happen — there will be years of cohabitation of the old meaning and the new
> meaning of the words.
I hear that the old RMA resistor color code is under attack as it is
exceptionally discriminatory. As you may or may not know black is the lowest
value 0, brown is only 1, Red is 2. This must insult the blacks as being the
lowest of the low. Mexicans must be screaming about being below American
Indians. And even the Asians at 4 have a cause to claim discrimination because
white is all the way up past twice the Asian value at (GASP) 9. The lordly
whites obviously designed the RMA color code, published as EIA RS-279, to put
all the other races down. So it MUST be abolished. Scrap all your color coded
resistors. They are racist reminders of oppression!
{O.O}
Re: OT: "...value judgement"
Posted by Charles Sprickman <sp...@bway.net>.
> On Jul 21, 2020, at 3:16 PM, Robert Schetterer <rs...@sys4.de> wrote:
>
> Am 21.07.20 um 21:07 schrieb Bill Cole:
>> On 21 Jul 2020, at 14:06, Grant Taylor wrote:
>>> On 7/21/20 11:56 AM, Bill Cole wrote:
>>>> All answers: "NO!" In those cases, "black" and "white" all reference actual colors of physical things, not a metaphorical value judgment.
>>>
>>> Hum. Your "value judgement" statement is interesting.
>>>
>>> The original meaning of blacklist that I found seems to be exactly that, a value judgement on if it was okay / safe to do business with people / businesses or not. Specifically if someone (independent of race) was unsafe to do business with, they were added to the blacklist.
>> Precisely.
>> That usage is problematic because in many (most? all?) Anglophone societies, "Black" is an ethno-racial label. In some cases (UK, US, probably more) it is accepted and internalized as an identity by those thus labeled. This creates a naming collision with the usage of "black" and "white" as metaphorical labels for value judgments.
>> The degree of annoyance caused by that collision of connotations varies widely.
>
> Hi @ll, can we focus on tec problems again ?
The thread is marked “OT” unlike the outbursts from the crew of warriors against “cultural marxism” that are crapping on every thread…
>
>
>
> --
> [*] sys4 AG
>
> http://sys4.de, +49 (89) 30 90 46 64
> Schleißheimer Straße 26/MG, 80333 München
>
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: München, Amtsgericht München: HRB 199263
> Vorstand: Patrick Ben Koetter, Marc Schiffbauer
> Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Florian Kirstein
Re: OT: "...value judgement"
Posted by Robert Schetterer <rs...@sys4.de>.
Am 21.07.20 um 21:07 schrieb Bill Cole:
> On 21 Jul 2020, at 14:06, Grant Taylor wrote:
>
>> On 7/21/20 11:56 AM, Bill Cole wrote:
>>> All answers: "NO!" In those cases, "black" and "white" all reference
>>> actual colors of physical things, not a metaphorical value judgment.
>>
>> Hum. Your "value judgement" statement is interesting.
>>
>> The original meaning of blacklist that I found seems to be exactly
>> that, a value judgement on if it was okay / safe to do business with
>> people / businesses or not. Specifically if someone (independent of
>> race) was unsafe to do business with, they were added to the blacklist.
>
> Precisely.
>
> That usage is problematic because in many (most? all?) Anglophone
> societies, "Black" is an ethno-racial label. In some cases (UK, US,
> probably more) it is accepted and internalized as an identity by those
> thus labeled. This creates a naming collision with the usage of "black"
> and "white" as metaphorical labels for value judgments.
>
> The degree of annoyance caused by that collision of connotations varies
> widely.
>
Hi @ll, can we focus on tec problems again ?
--
[*] sys4 AG
http://sys4.de, +49 (89) 30 90 46 64
Schleißheimer Straße 26/MG, 80333 München
Sitz der Gesellschaft: München, Amtsgericht München: HRB 199263
Vorstand: Patrick Ben Koetter, Marc Schiffbauer
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Florian Kirstein
Re: OT: "...value judgement"
Posted by Bill Cole <sa...@billmail.scconsult.com>.
On 21 Jul 2020, at 14:06, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 7/21/20 11:56 AM, Bill Cole wrote:
>> All answers: "NO!" In those cases, "black" and "white" all reference
>> actual colors of physical things, not a metaphorical value judgment.
>
> Hum. Your "value judgement" statement is interesting.
>
> The original meaning of blacklist that I found seems to be exactly
> that, a value judgement on if it was okay / safe to do business with
> people / businesses or not. Specifically if someone (independent of
> race) was unsafe to do business with, they were added to the
> blacklist.
Precisely.
That usage is problematic because in many (most? all?) Anglophone
societies, "Black" is an ethno-racial label. In some cases (UK, US,
probably more) it is accepted and internalized as an identity by those
thus labeled. This creates a naming collision with the usage of "black"
and "white" as metaphorical labels for value judgments.
The degree of annoyance caused by that collision of connotations varies
widely.
--
Bill Cole
bill@scconsult.com or billcole@apache.org
(AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses)
Not For Hire (currently)
OT: "...value judgement"
Posted by Grant Taylor <gt...@tnetconsulting.net>.
On 7/21/20 11:56 AM, Bill Cole wrote:
> All answers: "NO!" In those cases, "black" and "white" all reference
> actual colors of physical things, not a metaphorical value judgment.
Hum. Your "value judgement" statement is interesting.
The original meaning of blacklist that I found seems to be exactly that,
a value judgement on if it was okay / safe to do business with people /
businesses or not. Specifically if someone (independent of race) was
unsafe to do business with, they were added to the blacklist.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Bill Cole <sa...@billmail.scconsult.com>.
On 21 Jul 2020, at 13:34, Grant Taylor wrote:
> Will we be asked to rename "blacktop", which is a specific subset of
> asphalt? Or what about renaming the SR-71 Blackbird? Or will White
> Castle need to rename, when the name was originally meant to reference
> clean and safe to eat at? Or dare I say it, what about renaming the
> U.S.A.'s White House?
All answers: "NO!" In those cases, "black" and "white" all reference
actual colors of physical things, not a metaphorical value judgment.
It's a very non-slippery non-slope.
--
Bill Cole
bill@scconsult.com or billcole@apache.org
(AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses)
Not For Hire (currently)
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Grant Taylor <gt...@tnetconsulting.net>.
On 7/21/20 9:09 AM, Peter L. Berghold wrote:
> This is the first time this long time lurker has posted here and I'm
> probably going to offend a lot of people by what I have to say.
I don't think your post is offensive. It is said as a statement of
facts and does not seem to contain any malicious intent. Sometimes
facts hurt. Sometimes they don't.
> I really don't get why anyone would be offended by blacklistd and
> whitelist given neither have any sort of connection to race or skin
> color.
I think that many people are ~> some of society is hypersensitive to the
two five letter strings "white" and "black". Some people are so
hypersensitive that they can't see the forest (meaning of the words
containing said five letter strings) for the trees (said five letter
strings).
> It is absurd in my opinion that there is a population going about that
> is offended by seemingly everything and sees racism where none exists.
I agree and share your opinion that it is absurd where people are
ascribing racism where none has historically exists.
Will we be asked to rename "blacktop", which is a specific subset of
asphalt? Or what about renaming the SR-71 Blackbird? Or will White
Castle need to rename, when the name was originally meant to reference
clean and safe to eat at? Or dare I say it, what about renaming the
U.S.A.'s White House?
*NONE* of these three examples were named with any racism in them. They
were named based on the color of their appearance.
Sure, the White House may be associated with specific individuals, many
of whom happened to be white, which have done some questionable things.
But the occupant of the building has nothing to do with the building's
naming.
> What offends me more is the notion we have to wreak havoc in order
> to accommodate these thin skinned social warriors.
I am willing to consider new accepted norms for things going forward.
(See below.) I think that retroactively changing things because of a
sub-string collision is fraught with errors.
> Looking at a dictionary blog:
> https://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/blacklist
>
> there is no indication the term was racial at all. A list of
> "objectionable or suspicious people" is not necessarily with regard
> to race.
I completely agree.
> I wonder when these folks are going to want black and white as colors
> stricken from the English language?
IMHO completely removing the words is a very bad idea. Lest we forget
where we have been in the past, thus dooming us to repeat it in the future.
For better or worse, we are at an inflection point in society where
society as a whole is deliberating the meaning and / or use of the terms
"white" and "black".
"gay" had a significantly different meaning 100 years ago than it does
today. Language, much like society grows, changes, and evolves.
I think that it is generally a good thing to use the current accepted
words when creating new things. But creating new is decidedly different
than retroactively changing things that exist today. That being said, I
think that the majority of people would agree that we have not yet
crossed the tipping point for "white" and "black".
Even if the meaning changed overnight — something that I think is
unlikely to happen — there will be years of cohabitation of the old
meaning and the new meaning of the words.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
RE: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Marc Roos <M....@f1-outsourcing.eu>.
> I really don't get why anyone would be offended by blacklistd and
whitelist
> given neither have any sort of connection to race or skin color.
That is because you have a proper logically functioning brain. Which
makes you
even part of a minority group. Hence you can look forward to people
looking
after you that are the likes of 'are offended by blacklist'
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by "Peter L. Berghold" <pe...@berghold.net>.
On Mon, 2020-07-20 at 21:42 -0700, Richard Troy wrote:
>
> clean victory. "YES, we have vanquished the evil, hurtful words
> blacklist
> and whitelist!" AND, "thank the universe the system still works!"
> Both
> sides can have their way!
>
> AND, of course, the blind-to-what-we-don't-have-to-see populace, such
> as
> the potentially offended by Whitelist and Blacklist, won't see this,
> either. So, what they don't know about backwards compatibility will
> be
> completely invisible to them - and even if they see it, they'll
> think, "OH
> GOOD, they got rid of that offensive mess!"
>
>
This is the first time this long time lurker has posted here and I'm
probably going to offend a lot of people by what I have to say.
I really don't get why anyone would be offended by blacklistd and
whitelist given neither have any sort of connection to race or skin
color. It is absurd in my opinion that there is a population going
about that is offended by seemingly everything and sees racism where
none exists. What offends me more is the notion we have to wreak havoc
in order to accommodate these thin skinned social warriors.
Looking at a dictionary blog:
https://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/blacklist
there is no indication the term was racial at all. A list of
"objectionable or suspicious people" is not necessarily with regard to
race.
I wonder when these folks are going to want black and white as colors
stricken from the English language?
--
Peter L. Berghold <pe...@berghold.net>
Blog: http://cowdawgkitchens.com
Passions include: Dogs, Beer, Beer Making, Food and Cooking
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Henrik K <he...@hege.li>.
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 09:50:22PM -0400, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>
> B) Because the changes rely on masscheck/ruleqa which runs only on
> trunk. There are only a few of the developers on the project familiar
> with masscheck/ruleqa at this point. There is no need to insinuate
> otherwise and others can see you are well aware of this issue from the
> ticket YOU opened: https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7837
Branches are standard way of developing, especially with as extensive
changes as now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branching_(version_control)
NOTHING about the proposed changes require testing masscheck/ruleqa
immediately, live and constantly with one by one commits. Masscheck is
pretty much just that, a masscheck script - if one can run it locally
successfully, then it most likely will run successfully in ruleqa. Score
generation isn't much extra over that, even that could be tested locally.
Pretty much everything can be tested locally.
Lacking developers is all more the reason to do extensive local developing
and testing. There is absolutely no reason to rush things for these kinds
of non-technical (political) changes. Using users as guinea pigs for
testing is just sad.
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
On 7/21/2020 9:13 PM, Loren Wilton wrote:
> It seems obvious that there is a good reason that Kevin refuses to
> commit changes to a branch,
I'm not "refusing" to commit to a branch. Facts:
A) The PMC voted to use trunk, not a branch in February for 4.0. I have
asked for a 4.0 branch and the vote from February to be reconsidered.
B) Because the changes rely on masscheck/ruleqa which runs only on
trunk. There are only a few of the developers on the project familiar
with masscheck/ruleqa at this point. There is no need to insinuate
otherwise and others can see you are well aware of this issue from the
ticket YOU opened: https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7837
> By implementing the changes directly, and piecemeal, in trunk, the
> obvious hope is that ....
Don't invent nonsense for the motives behind the code change. The hope
is by committing the changes needed for whitelist_to, we can establish
the roadmap for all the other options, what effect it has on
masscheck/ruleqa, how it will work in a system where we publish one
ruleset but try and support versions > 10 years old.
Right now, I'm waiting for the next ruleset to be published so we can
make sure it does what we want for 3.3.x to 3.4.x as well as 4.0.0.
Regards,
KAM
--
Kevin A. McGrail
KMcGrail@Apache.org
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by Loren Wilton <lw...@earthlink.net>.
I find it interesting that Kevin was repeated asked, requested, and demanded by various PMC members to do his changes in a branch, where they would not impact users and other developers. He refused, stating that "his staff" had too much work already invested in changes to trunk, and moving to a branch would void all this work.
On PMC member request for who "his staff" was/were, he refused to answer. It is pretty obvious from the way he is committing changes that there is no "staff", and this is being used as an excuse to force the changes piecemeal into trunk directly, where they will hopefully be hard to back out.
I have never worked on a project where I had patches to trunk on my machine and where I could not split a branch, and then directly apply ALL of the existing patches to that branch, usually with a single command to re-link my local trees to the branch rather than trunk. I can't imagine how, having patches that work against the current SA trunk, someone could not split a branch today, and the patches would not work against that branch. After all, the branch would be identical to trunk, so if the patches applied to trunk, they would apply to the branch.
I am not privy to the PMC voting, other than Kevin's public statement that the vote to make this change "passed by +1". I do not know how many PMC members there are, and I do not know if that information is publicly available. I doubt that voting roles are publicly available. But I do wonder how many of the total PMC members voted on this change. And I wonder how many of the total PMC members would vote in favor of this change if given a second chance to vote at this point in time. Several people have publicly admitted to being PMC members, and also publicly expressed their dismay at how this change is being implemented.
It seems obvious that there is a good reason that Kevin refuses to commit changes to a branch, and to develop the full change before submitting it for merging into trunk. It is very easy to review changes in a branch and determine if they are worthwhile by the time they are fully implemented. After all, that is the point of a branch: to give a place that changes can be developed, and then a reasonable project-group-level decision be made on when, how, and if, to include all or part of the branch changes in trunk. This means it is easy to decide that a change, no matter how much work it was to develop, is really not appropriate in its current form, and it remains still-born in the branch forever. Because there is a single gate where the patch can be committed to trunk or rejected.
By implementing the changes directly, and piecemeal, in trunk, the obvious hope is that they will become interspersed with unrelated changes (as is happening), and, at the completion of an unspecified period for the "complete" implementation, it will be too hard to back out the changes from trunk, no matter how much the desire may be to do so.
I do not know how PMC voting works. I do not know if there is any structural capability for the PMC members to review previous votes and decisions. It may be that there is not, and a vote once made, no matter how disastrous the consequences, cannot be reviewed, amended, or outright disavowed by a new vote. However, hoping that the PMC is some form of governance committee, and consists of more than Kevin, I would hope that there is some chance of reviewing the previous vote.
I would also hope that they have some control over how changes are committed to the SA trunk, and could not request, but direct, that the current changes be moved to a branch, and all further development of these changes be made in that branch. Only when the branch was specified by its authors as complete should a decision, in the form of a vote, be made on when and how to merge the branch into trunk.
Such a vote should be made by the full PMC, and not by a quorum of one member. I think we know how the vote would go if only a single member can carry a vote in a meeting he convenes for the purpose just by himself.
Respectfully,
Loren Wilton
----- Original Message -----
From: Luis E. Muñoz
To: SpamAssassin Developers list
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
On 21 Jul 2020, at 12:38, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
I am opposed to the use of racially charged language in the software and
would therefore be opposed to permanent backwards compatibility.
I believe this is a perfectly fine personal stance for you to have—and which does not have to be shared by others to be valid. FWIW I applaud your position and your will to act consistently with what you think is the right thing to do, even if we disagree on what that is. I also think the course of a project like this should not be set by a single individual.
It has been made obviously clear that your views on what constitutes "racially charged" language are not universally shared, without venturing into "what to do about it" territory. In addition, yesterday, you also included this fragment in a FAQ of sorts you circulated:
What about rules like URIBL_BLACK?
That is a 3rd party rule. We will discuss with the URIBL team about their plans [⋯]
Based on context, I think it's more than fair to conclude that you consider even obviously innocent uses of the word "black" as "racially charged". Will "latin" as in "Latin-1" come next? What about other colors such as "brown", "red" and "yellow"?
Recognizing that language is a living thing, will devs embark in a crusade every time a new term becomes "racially charged", devoting hours to removing them from the codebase? (Yes, I understand that for most, this is merely a volunteer role but the question is still relevant because it is guaranteed to impact speed of improvement and quality for the project.) Will users continue to be forced to play along?
I believe the PMC should review this situation and take appropriate action. It seems to me at least, that the assertions sustaining the decision to drop the terms that you consider "racially charged", are not holding. I am also afraid of the impact this will have in the support and adoption of SA.
Best regards
-lem
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by "Luis E. Muñoz" <sa...@lem.click>.
On 21 Jul 2020, at 18:38, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 7/21/2020 8:14 PM, Luis E. Muñoz wrote:
>>
>> Based on context, I think it's more than fair to conclude that you
>> consider even obviously innocent uses of the word "black" as
>> "racially
>> charged".
>>
> No, that's simplistic and no one on this project is simple. We'll
> handle issues on a case-by-case basis.
This is at least, troublesome and underscores one of my fears – that
this will repeat over and over as new terms are found to be "racially
charged" by some group.
> I hope that with
> whitelist/blacklist & master/slave, we have identified the racially
> charged language in our project. If you know of any others, please
> speak up as it will help the process to be smoother.
The words you have listed are arbitrary – in the sense that were
selected by a specific, "case by case" if you will, criteria. In the
questions from my message that you elided, there were a few examples
– various colors and "latin". Those examples are apropos to your
comment on URIBL_BLACK.
There was also mention to the terms "Apache" and "Assassin" in the
earlier threads – if anything, to me the word Assassin is more
concerning than the term blacklist – yet you won't hear me forcing
others to rename their software.
>> will devs embark in a crusade every time a new term becomes "racially
>> charged", devoting hours to removing them from the codebase?
>
> As a foundation that does not pay for code, what a dev devotes their
> time to handling is not something we choose.
Of course, and I acknowledged that rather openly in my response. Part of
the sentiment on the threads about this topic are related with the way
in which the changes are being implemented and the impact to the users.
> Beyond that, those who have earned merit on the project control the
> project. That is the PMC and they have voted on this change.
Sure, I accept that. The point I was trying to make is that you are
forcing a change to happen in a way that impacts users
disproportionally. The refusal to make the changes in a branch, and
then, the failure to acknowledge the need for a long-term "compatibility
mode" are IMO short-sighted. The conflating of your personal beliefs and
project goals also speaks volumes about the lack of accountability and
direction at play here.
> The ASF
> is a meritocracy and those who have no merit do not get a vote. I
> have
> earned merit and have a vote. I have exercised it and the change
> represents a We not an I.
Thank you for the explanation – I already inferred the above from the
threads about this issue in which I've participated, just as I've
inferred that the way in which the change is being implemented is
unlikely to closely match the details under which said vote was cast.
Reminds me of Brexit.
>> I am also afraid of the impact this will have in the support and
>> adoption of SA.
>>
> I'm not afraid of the support or adoption. There are numerous
> products
> and companies in the ecosystem that will be supporting the change and
> they represent a statistically substantial portion of the users.
I commend you in your ability to see into the future. I lack that
ability, but I think I have a more pragmatic position.
For many users, installing SpamAssassin is simply running a command on
their systems, that they perhaps have written down in a cheat sheet. If
they install and the software fails, I suspect that some of them will
simply uninstall and try the next option. That results in one less user.
For entities or organizations that have invested time and resources
learning the software, this might not be a deal breaker – depending
on the amount of breakage that the implementation of changes will bring.
At some point, they will get tired of addressing these issues and will
either fork or abandon.
None of these scenarios lead to more users. In the absolute best case,
you will have the same user base, all things being equal. And in all
cases, the users will have to change something that has been working
like it is for years and was not broken to begin with.
> Don't let a vocal minority drive change. To paraphrase Henry Ford,
> if you
> asked people what they want in a car, they'd have said a faster horse.
You choice of source for that quote strikes me as ironic for this
discussion :-)
I do not know where are you getting your data to claim which side of the
argument – and there are more than two – is bigger. But this is
beside the point because evidently this is not a democratic decision,
but a meritocratic one.
Your vote – the vote of the PMC – outweighs that of the users, and
that is clear. I suspect the PMC is forgetting the importance of its
user base, but that is a discussion for another forum. I suppose the PMC
reads this and in choosing to remain anonymous / silent on this matter,
is allowing every participant to form their own opinion on their
motivations.
I guess we'll see what happens.
Best regards
-lem
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
On 7/22/2020 1:45 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2020, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>
>> Don't let a vocal minority drive change.
>
> Your saying this is painfully ironic to me, because for many of us a
> vocal minority *is* what is driving this change.
Actually, no, the original vote was unanimous with +1's but I'm happy to
discuss. Please continue the discussion on the thread about the
backwards compatibility phasing.
--
Kevin A. McGrail
KMcGrail@Apache.org
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org>.
On Tue, 21 Jul 2020, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> Don't let a vocal minority drive change.
Your saying this is painfully ironic to me, because for many of us a vocal
minority *is* what is driving 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no better measure of the unthinking contempt of the
environmentalist movement for civilization than their call to
turn off the lights and sit in the dark. -- Sultan Knish
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
104 days until the Presidential Election
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
On 7/21/2020 8:14 PM, Luis E. Muñoz wrote:
>
> Based on context, I think it's more than fair to conclude that you
> consider even obviously innocent uses of the word "black" as "racially
> charged".
>
No, that's simplistic and no one on this project is simple. We'll
handle issues on a case-by-case basis. I hope that with
whitelist/blacklist & master/slave, we have identified the racially
charged language in our project. If you know of any others, please
speak up as it will help the process to be smoother.
> will devs embark in a crusade every time a new term becomes "racially
> charged", devoting hours to removing them from the codebase?
As a foundation that does not pay for code, what a dev devotes their
time to handling is not something we choose.
Beyond that, those who have earned merit on the project control the
project. That is the PMC and they have voted on this change. The ASF
is a meritocracy and those who have no merit do not get a vote. I have
earned merit and have a vote. I have exercised it and the change
represents a We not an I.
> I believe the PMC should review this situation and take appropriate
> action. It seems to me at least, that the assertions sustaining the
> decision to drop the terms that you consider "racially charged", are
> not holding.
>
You might be misunderstanding this thread. We are specifically
discussing a change to extend the period of time where backwards
compatibility is supported. Right now, that is no less than 1 year and
not until a version change like 4.1 is released.
> I am also afraid of the impact this will have in the support and
> adoption of SA.
>
I'm not afraid of the support or adoption. There are numerous products
and companies in the ecosystem that will be supporting the change and
they represent a statistically substantial portion of the users. Don't
let a vocal minority drive change. To paraphrase Henry Ford, if you
asked people what they want in a car, they'd have said a faster horse.
Regards,
KAM
--
Kevin A. McGrail
KMcGrail@Apache.org
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by "Luis E. Muñoz" <sa...@lem.click>.
On 21 Jul 2020, at 12:38, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> I am opposed to the use of racially charged language in the software
> and
> would therefore be opposed to permanent backwards compatibility.
I believe this is a perfectly fine _personal_ stance for you to
have—and which does not have to be shared by others to be valid. FWIW
I applaud your position and your will to act consistently with what you
think is the right thing to do, even if we disagree on what that is. I
also think the course of a project like this should not be set by a
single individual.
It has been made obviously clear that your views on what constitutes
"racially charged" language are not universally shared, without
venturing into "what to do about it" territory. In addition, yesterday,
you also included this fragment in a FAQ of sorts you circulated:
>> What about rules like URIBL_BLACK?
>
> That is a 3rd party rule. We will discuss with the URIBL team about
> their plans [⋯]
Based on context, I think it's more than fair to conclude that you
consider even obviously innocent uses of the word "black" as "racially
charged". Will "latin" as in "Latin-1" come next? What about other
colors such as "brown", "red" and "yellow"?
Recognizing that language is a living thing, will devs embark in a
crusade every time a new term becomes "racially charged", devoting hours
to removing them from the codebase? (Yes, I understand that for most,
this is merely a volunteer role but the question is still relevant
because it is guaranteed to impact speed of improvement and quality for
the project.) Will users continue to be forced to play along?
I believe the PMC should review this situation and take appropriate
action. It seems to me at least, that the assertions sustaining the
decision to drop the terms that you consider "racially charged", are not
holding. I am also afraid of the impact this will have in the support
and adoption of SA.
Best regards
-lem
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
> **THIS** is why I called a vote for publicly committing to permanent
> backwards compatibility and why I am so painfully dismayed that Kevin
> seems to be so set against it.
>
> Kevin, will you *please* reconsider your position, in the interests of the
> *USERS*?
>
> Would offering backwards compatibility behind a config option (as Oliver
> suggests), and which is never removed absent a compelling technical
> reason, be a reasonable compromise?
>
I am opposed to the use of racially charged language in the software and
would therefore be opposed to permanent backwards compatibility. I am
however supportive of a period of transition and I am working hard trying
to find a good middle ground technically so admins have a straightforward
path for the installation of SpamAssassin 4.0. I am open to discussions
on how to make that happen and have mentioned that on the thread with the
PMC.
Regard,
KAM
Re: Why the new changes need to be "depricated" forever
Posted by John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org>.
On Mon, 20 Jul 2020, Richard Troy wrote:
> List member Oliver Nicole rightly makes the following observations - here
> excerpted - about the apparently not just proposed but apparently certain to
> happen changes to this project which will negatively impact a great many
> people, with a few in-line comments for context before my conclusion. To wit:
>
>> From: Olivier <Ol...@cs.ait.ac.th>
>
> [ ... lots deleted, this is just an excerpt ... ]
>
>> Most likely they will not see the message about the obsolescence, and
>> one day, when compatibilty is over, their stuff will stop working and
>> there will be no way to solve that ecvept to painfully go back to an
>> older version of SA or manually go through all the problems of all the
>> angry users.
>
> As a system administrator for some 37 years, and as someone who has acted in
> a support or consulting capacity to others in such role(s) for well over 30
> years, I can tell you this observation is quite correct. In fact, this is the
> dominant circumstance, by far.
>
> VERY importantly, nobody wants to be stuck on old versions, as Oliver
> proposes will happen (and he's right about that), and so this puts system
> administrators in a VERY difficult position - a position I'd venture the
> proponents don't really understand. The choice is one painful one versus
> another painful one. Only someone who's actually been there really gets it.
>
>> If you offer compatibility with only a warning message, most people will
>> ignore (or simply not see) that message and do nothing. And when the
>> compatibility is over, they will be facing a wall, just the same as if
>> there were no compatibility period. You are just pushing the mayhem back
>> by one year.
>
> I'd argue that most won't see it coming at all, though there is, of course,
> no way to prove that. But it's simple human nature; when we are overloaded,
> as nearly 100% of us perpetually are, we ignore a LOT of warnings we should
> have, with our better selves, seen coming, from our health issues like cancer
> to our children's issues to computer log files, it's just what happens; we're
> simply so busy in our daily lives just trying to get by that we miss signs we
> could have seen. The VAST majority of us are in economic instability,
> especially with the effects of this Covid-19 pandemic; to expect us to be
> paying close attention to warnings in logs is objectively silly. (Perhaps the
> proponents of this change are simply too comfortable in their economics and
> too isolated from actual users to see these truths.)
>
> ...I believe the above makes the case for why backwards-compatibility needs
> to be maintained into perpetuity, but Oliver actually suggests a neat way to
> solve this AND the political problem that openly saying that would create. He
> writes:
**THIS** is why I called a vote for publicly committing to permanent
backwards compatibility and why I am so painfully dismayed that Kevin
seems to be so set against it.
Kevin, will you *please* reconsider your position, in the interests of the
*USERS*?
Would offering backwards compatibility behind a config option (as Oliver
suggests), and which is never removed absent a compelling technical
reason, be a reasonable compromise?
--
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Today: the 51st anniversary of Man's first steps on the Moon