Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
Mihai, I find your name quite offensive. Can you please change it in future mailings to this list. Perhaps Mihai Humpingforjesus ? That would make me feel much better. Maybe I can do that, but doing so many things will have to change then. For example, open from OpenBSD is quite offensive and is from adult content category. The same thing is with 64-bit wide OpenBSD port. Overflow is quite tricky, too. Master and slave are troublesome. Data wipe from disks, especially from a hard one or USB sticks is awkward. And the list can continue. As for the original poster, the author tried to find out a repulsive address since this is about spamd( i. e. spammers are using get quick attention email addresses. People find sex and religion very annoying on internet, hence the author made out a mix of the two. Big deal.
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
On 24.11.2013, at 15:40, Mihai Popescu mih...@gmail.com wrote: ... As for the original poster, the author tried to find out a repulsive ... We all got it and there's is no need to continue with this annoying thread. OK? Thanks. Reyk
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
On 23/11/13 04:20, Jason Barbier wrote: On 11/22/2013 10:50 AM, Rick Pettit wrote: Lewis, If censorship is your thing, why don’t you start by censoring yourself. What you are asking for here is offensive. -Rick +1 +1 On Nov 22, 2013, at 12:26 PM, Paolo Aglialoro paol...@gmail.com wrote: Il 22/nov/2013 19:07 J. Lewis Muir jlm...@imca-cat.org ha scritto: On 11/22/13 11:17 AM, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote: If it's offensive for you, compile your own spamd man page with the diff you so happily provided, and live the rest of your life happy. Remember to always take this pill again on 1st of May, and 1st of November, every year. Hi, Giancarlo. Well, no one wants to maintain a patch forever. I'd maintain it for a while if there was a good chance it would get accepted at some point, but if there's no chance, then I wouldn't bother. I'm a little puzzled over the whole resistance to the patch. If I wrote a man page for some software I wrote, and if an example in it was considered off-color by someone, and that someone submitted a patch to me to change it slightly to no longer be off-color to them, and they asked in a kind way, and the patch didn't hurt the clarity of the man page in any way, I would likely accept the patch. How am I hurt by it? I may not agree with the person, but why would I insist on keeping an example that seems off-color to them? If it's somehow offensive to them and can be changed in a small way not to be, then I would accept the patch to change it. Everybody wins--no big deal. Lewis +1
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
Is it over? So soon?
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
Mihai Popescu [mih...@gmail.com] wrote: Is it over? So soon? Mihai, I find your name quite offensive. Can you please change it in future mailings to this list. Perhaps Mihai Humpingforjesus ? That would make me feel much better.
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
Em 21-11-2013 18:44, J. Lewis Muir escreveu: Hi, Shawn. I understand that, and I'm not trying to tell people how they should talk on a mailing list. But to me documentation for a project like OpenBSD is different. It's not individual people talking however they like to talk. It's well-written text intended for users to read to understand some part of the OpenBSD operating system. I don't know of other OpenBSD user-facing documentation (i.e. website, man pages, etc.) that has off-color (at least to me) content. Thanks, Lewis If it's offensive for you, compile your own spamd man page with the diff you so happily provided, and live the rest of your life happy. Remember to always take this pill again on 1st of May, and 1st of November, every year. This thread at least put some laughs on some people's faces. -- Giancarlo Razzolini GPG: 4096R/77B981BC
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
On 11/22/13 11:17 AM, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote: If it's offensive for you, compile your own spamd man page with the diff you so happily provided, and live the rest of your life happy. Remember to always take this pill again on 1st of May, and 1st of November, every year. Hi, Giancarlo. Well, no one wants to maintain a patch forever. I'd maintain it for a while if there was a good chance it would get accepted at some point, but if there's no chance, then I wouldn't bother. I'm a little puzzled over the whole resistance to the patch. If I wrote a man page for some software I wrote, and if an example in it was considered off-color by someone, and that someone submitted a patch to me to change it slightly to no longer be off-color to them, and they asked in a kind way, and the patch didn't hurt the clarity of the man page in any way, I would likely accept the patch. How am I hurt by it? I may not agree with the person, but why would I insist on keeping an example that seems off-color to them? If it's somehow offensive to them and can be changed in a small way not to be, then I would accept the patch to change it. Everybody wins--no big deal. Lewis
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
Il 22/nov/2013 19:07 J. Lewis Muir jlm...@imca-cat.org ha scritto: On 11/22/13 11:17 AM, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote: If it's offensive for you, compile your own spamd man page with the diff you so happily provided, and live the rest of your life happy. Remember to always take this pill again on 1st of May, and 1st of November, every year. Hi, Giancarlo. Well, no one wants to maintain a patch forever. I'd maintain it for a while if there was a good chance it would get accepted at some point, but if there's no chance, then I wouldn't bother. I'm a little puzzled over the whole resistance to the patch. If I wrote a man page for some software I wrote, and if an example in it was considered off-color by someone, and that someone submitted a patch to me to change it slightly to no longer be off-color to them, and they asked in a kind way, and the patch didn't hurt the clarity of the man page in any way, I would likely accept the patch. How am I hurt by it? I may not agree with the person, but why would I insist on keeping an example that seems off-color to them? If it's somehow offensive to them and can be changed in a small way not to be, then I would accept the patch to change it. Everybody wins--no big deal. Lewis +1
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:06 AM, J. Lewis Muir jlm...@imca-cat.org wrote: Well, no one wants to maintain a patch forever. You lead a charmed life, my friend. Be well.
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
Lewis, If censorship is your thing, why don’t you start by censoring yourself. What you are asking for here is offensive. -Rick On Nov 22, 2013, at 12:26 PM, Paolo Aglialoro paol...@gmail.com wrote: Il 22/nov/2013 19:07 J. Lewis Muir jlm...@imca-cat.org ha scritto: On 11/22/13 11:17 AM, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote: If it's offensive for you, compile your own spamd man page with the diff you so happily provided, and live the rest of your life happy. Remember to always take this pill again on 1st of May, and 1st of November, every year. Hi, Giancarlo. Well, no one wants to maintain a patch forever. I'd maintain it for a while if there was a good chance it would get accepted at some point, but if there's no chance, then I wouldn't bother. I'm a little puzzled over the whole resistance to the patch. If I wrote a man page for some software I wrote, and if an example in it was considered off-color by someone, and that someone submitted a patch to me to change it slightly to no longer be off-color to them, and they asked in a kind way, and the patch didn't hurt the clarity of the man page in any way, I would likely accept the patch. How am I hurt by it? I may not agree with the person, but why would I insist on keeping an example that seems off-color to them? If it's somehow offensive to them and can be changed in a small way not to be, then I would accept the patch to change it. Everybody wins--no big deal. Lewis +1
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 1:06 PM, J. Lewis Muir jlm...@imca-cat.org wrote: On 11/22/13 11:17 AM, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote: If it's offensive for you, compile your own spamd man page with the diff you so happily provided, and live the rest of your life happy. Remember to always take this pill again on 1st of May, and 1st of November, every year. Hi, Giancarlo. Well, no one wants to maintain a patch forever. I'd maintain it for a while if there was a good chance it would get accepted at some point, but if there's no chance, then I wouldn't bother. I'm a little puzzled over the whole resistance to the patch. If I wrote a man page for some software I wrote, and if an example in it was considered off-color by someone, and that someone submitted a patch to me to change it slightly to no longer be off-color to them, and they asked in a kind way, and the patch didn't hurt the clarity of the man page in any way, I would likely accept the patch. How am I hurt by it? I may not agree with the person, but why would I insist on keeping an example that seems off-color to them? If it's somehow offensive to them and can be changed in a small way not to be, then I would accept the patch to change it. Everybody wins--no big deal. What you don't seem to understand is that the developers of OpenBSD, most importantly the project leader, don't see it your way, and it's THEIR project. You don't do the work, they do. They give it to us as a gift. Theo made this point earlier, but unfortunately it seems to need reiterating. This issue is subjective, a matter of taste, and they get to make the decisions on such matters. In my opinion, this discussion has gone way past the point of diminishing returns (I think it started there). You've been told we're going to do it my way, because I'm the mommy, which most people would respond to by ceasing and desisting.
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
On 11/22/13 12:34 PM, System Administrator wrote: Hi J. Lewis, I am not a developer, but I've been lurking on this list for a very long time and on that basis can tell you that you've committed two cardinal sins as far as this mailing list is concerned: 1) you failed to do your homework -- had you done some research, in particular about the OpenBSD development philosophy, you would know that Hi, Jacob. It's unclear to me exactly what homework you think I failed to do. I am aware of and like lots of things that the OpenBSD project strives for. 2) OpenBSD is the ultimate volunteer effort -- the developers do it in their free time FOR PERSONAL FUN. Many of them have made it very clear that they would cease development if it stops being fun. Your original message (title and intro) goes to the heart of this issue. Its tone and attitude is no different than the efforts in the Bible Belt to ban Mark Twain's Huckleberry Fin from public libraries, i.e. since somebody finds some content to be offensive lets get rid of it irrespective of the overall true value or consideration for the fact that the author has used the offensive language ON PURPOSE. I don't see it that way. Huckleberry Finn is a book, and I don't need to read it unless I want to. The spamd(8) man page is a man page I need to read in order to understand how to use spamd. And if the author of the spamd(8) man page did use the offensive language on purpose and thinks it's important to keep it that way, I would accept that. I'd disagree, but I'd accept that. But it seems the author doesn't think it's so important either way. So, I don't get the strong resistance. Thanks, Lewis
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
Hi J. Lewis, I am not a developer, but I've been lurking on this list for a very long time and on that basis can tell you that you've committed two cardinal sins as far as this mailing list is concerned: 1) you failed to do your homework -- had you done some research, in particular about the OpenBSD development philosophy, you would know that 2) OpenBSD is the ultimate volunteer effort -- the developers do it in their free time FOR PERSONAL FUN. Many of them have made it very clear that they would cease development if it stops being fun. Your original message (title and intro) goes to the heart of this issue. Its tone and attitude is no different than the efforts in the Bible Belt to ban Mark Twain's Huckleberry Fin from public libraries, i.e. since somebody finds some content to be offensive lets get rid of it irrespective of the overall true value or consideration for the fact that the author has used the offensive language ON PURPOSE. -Jacob. On 22 Nov 2013 at 12:06, J. Lewis Muir wrote: ... I'm a little puzzled over the whole resistance to the patch. If I wrote a man page for some software I wrote, and if an example in it was considered off-color by someone, and that someone submitted a patch to me to change it slightly to no longer be off-color to them, and they asked in a kind way, and the patch didn't hurt the clarity of the man page in any way, I would likely accept the patch. How am I hurt by it? I may not agree with the person, but why would I insist on keeping an example that seems off-color to them? If it's somehow offensive to them and can be changed in a small way not to be, then I would accept the patch to change it. Everybody wins--no big deal. Lewis
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 01:09:36PM -0600, J. Lewis Muir wrote: I don't see it that way. Huckleberry Finn is a book, and I don't need to read it unless I want to. The spamd(8) man page is a man page I need to read in order to understand how to use spamd. Let me fix that for you: The spamd(8) man page is a man page I don't need to read it unless I want to use spamd, a choice I am making of my own free will, and if I don't like it, I guess I could just go use some other software that doesn't get my panties in a bunch. Maybe you could try spam assassin instead? Unless, of course, you find the metaphor of killing spam offensive...
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
2) OpenBSD is the ultimate volunteer effort -- the developers do it in
their free time FOR PERSONAL FUN. Many of them have made it very
clear that they would cease development if it stops being fun. Your
original message (title and intro) goes to the heart of this issue. Its
tone and attitude is no different than the efforts in the Bible Belt to
ban Mark Twain's Huckleberry Fin from public libraries, i.e. since
somebody finds some content to be offensive lets get rid of it
irrespective of the overall true value or consideration for the fact
that the author has used the offensive language ON PURPOSE.
Personally, I find the ls command offensive. It could show files with
nasty words in them. This is about more than my adult view; I know
there are children forced by their parents to use OpenBSD, like little
Tom who lives a block over.
One option is to add a content filter directly inside the ls
command, so that it will simply skip those files. Another variation
would be to add the support to the kernel itself, this would also help
other adirectory traversal code. It might face significant kernel
growth. Of course we would have to find a way to manage the nasty
word dictionary, and not expose it in the source tree in an open
fashion. Blob, anyone?
If we make this change in the kernel, we also need to be sensitive
to the way that the NFS kernel code traverses directories.
For now, I have chosen a simpler solution. (If this actually gets
commited, we could call it the final solution).
ok?
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/bin/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -p -u -r1.10 Makefile
--- Makefile18 May 2007 16:08:12 - 1.10
+++ Makefile22 Nov 2013 19:24:12 -
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
# $OpenBSD: Makefile,v 1.10 2007/05/18 16:08:12 deraadt Exp $
SUBDIR=cat chio chmod cp csh date dd df domainname echo \
- ed expr hostname kill ksh ln ls md5 mkdir mt \
+ ed expr hostname kill ksh ln md5 mkdir mt \
mv pax ps pwd rcp rm rmail rmdir sleep stty \
sync systrace test
Index: ls/Makefile
===
RCS file: ls/Makefile
diff -N ls/Makefile
--- ls/Makefile 6 Aug 2003 19:09:09 - 1.7
+++ /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -
@@ -1,8 +0,0 @@
-# $OpenBSD: Makefile,v 1.7 2003/08/06 19:09:09 tedu Exp $
-
-PROG= ls
-SRCS= cmp.c ls.c main.c print.c util.c
-DPADD= ${LIBUTIL}
-LDADD= -lutil
-
-.include bsd.prog.mk
Index: ls/cmp.c
===
RCS file: ls/cmp.c
diff -N ls/cmp.c
--- ls/cmp.c27 Oct 2009 23:59:21 - 1.6
+++ /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -
@@ -1,167 +0,0 @@
-/* $OpenBSD: cmp.c,v 1.6 2009/10/27 23:59:21 deraadt Exp $ */
-/* $NetBSD: cmp.c,v 1.10 1996/07/08 10:32:01 mycroft Exp $ */
-
-/*
- * Copyright (c) 1989, 1993
- * The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
- *
- * This code is derived from software contributed to Berkeley by
- * Michael Fischbein.
- *
- * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
- * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
- * are met:
- * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
- *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
- * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
- *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
- *documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
- * 3. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors
- *may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
- *without specific prior written permission.
- *
- * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND
- * ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
- * IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
- * ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE
- * FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
- * DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS
- * OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
- * HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
- * LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY
- * OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
- * SUCH DAMAGE.
- */
-
-#include sys/types.h
-#include sys/stat.h
-
-#include fts.h
-#include string.h
-
-#include ls.h
-#include extern.h
-
-int
-namecmp(const FTSENT *a, const FTSENT *b)
-{
- return (strcmp(a-fts_name, b-fts_name));
-}
-
-int
-revnamecmp(const FTSENT *a, const FTSENT *b)
-{
- return (strcmp(b-fts_name, a-fts_name));
-}
-
-int
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
I don't see it that way. Huckleberry Finn is a book, and I don't need to read it unless I want to. The spamd(8) man page is a man page I need to read in order to understand how to use spamd. Let me fix that for you: The spamd(8) man page is a man page I don't need to read it unless I want to use spamd, a choice I am making of my own free will, and if I don't like it, I guess I could just go use some other software that doesn't get my panties in a bunch. Maybe you could try spam assassin instead? Unless, of course, you find the metaphor of killing spam offensive... http://spamassassin.apache.org/tests_3_0_x.html He might be out of luck. There might not be software to do this, without being offended. In which case it probably falls back to the manual method...
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
On Nov 21 20:04:32, gil...@poolp.org wrote: On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 08:02:06PM +0100, za...@gmx.com wrote: Different people have different concepts of morality. I believe it would be better to remove anything that is controversial, for whatever reason You emails are controversial, apparently. Remove them, just to be on the safe side.
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
J. Lewis Muir wrote: If it's somehow offensive to them and can be changed in a small way not to be, then I would accept the patch to change it. Everybody wins--no big deal. If everybody adapts what they say, to what they think others want to hear, then we no longer have freedom of speach. Everybody looses. But then I live in a country that, unlike the USA, actually has freedom of speach... Best regards, Mikkel C. Simonsen
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
On 11/22/13 20:09, J. Lewis Muir wrote: On 11/22/13 12:34 PM, System Administrator wrote: Hi J. Lewis, I am not a developer, but I've been lurking on this list for a very long time and on that basis can tell you that you've committed two cardinal sins as far as this mailing list is concerned: 1) you failed to do your homework -- had you done some research, in particular about the OpenBSD development philosophy, you would know that Hi, Jacob. It's unclear to me exactly what homework you think I failed to do. I am aware of and like lots of things that the OpenBSD project strives for. 2) OpenBSD is the ultimate volunteer effort -- the developers do it in their free time FOR PERSONAL FUN. Many of them have made it very clear that they would cease development if it stops being fun. Your original message (title and intro) goes to the heart of this issue. Its tone and attitude is no different than the efforts in the Bible Belt to ban Mark Twain's Huckleberry Fin from public libraries, i.e. since somebody finds some content to be offensive lets get rid of it irrespective of the overall true value or consideration for the fact that the author has used the offensive language ON PURPOSE. I don't see it that way. Huckleberry Finn is a book, and I don't need to read it unless I want to. The spamd(8) man page is a man page I need to read in order to understand how to use spamd. And if the author of the spamd(8) man page did use the offensive language on purpose and thinks it's important to keep it that way, I would accept that. I'd disagree, but I'd accept that. But it seems the author doesn't think it's so important either way. So, I don't get the strong resistance. I'm pretty sure Bob has noticed (and likely quite some time ago ignored) this conversation. You made your point and argumented for it. It does not apply here though, so stop. Now. Please. /Alexander
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 09:48:02PM +0100, Alexander Hall wrote: I'm pretty sure Bob has noticed (and likely quite some time ago ignored) this conversation. You made your point and argumented for it. It does not apply here though, so stop. Now. Please. Actually, the longer it runs, the bigger my shitlist to test some filters grows :-P -- Gilles Chehade https://www.poolp.org @poolpOrg
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
On 22 November 2013 10:06, J. Lewis Muir jlm...@imca-cat.org wrote: On 11/22/13 11:17 AM, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote: If it's offensive for you, compile your own spamd man page with the diff you so happily provided, and live the rest of your life happy. Remember to always take this pill again on 1st of May, and 1st of November, every year. Hi, Giancarlo. Well, no one wants to maintain a patch forever. I'd maintain it for a while if there was a good chance it would get accepted at some point, but if there's no chance, then I wouldn't bother. I'm a little puzzled over the whole resistance to the patch. If I wrote a man page for some software I wrote, and if an example in it was considered off-color by someone, and that someone submitted a patch to me to change it slightly to no longer be off-color to them, and they asked in a kind way, and the patch didn't hurt the clarity of the man page in any way, I would likely accept the patch. How am I hurt by it? I may not agree with the person, but why would I insist on keeping an example that seems off-color to them? If it's somehow offensive to them and can be changed in a small way not to be, then I would accept the patch to change it. Everybody wins--no big deal. Lewis Yet, (0), you're not the one who wrote this software, or, in fact, any other *BSD software that I could find, so I'm not sure you're empirically qualified to make the claim about authorship that you're now making, and, (1), what makes you think that your patch doesn't hurt the clarity of the man-page in any way? C.
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
On Fri, 22 Nov 2013, J. Lewis Muir wrote: On 11/22/13 11:17 AM, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote: If it's offensive for you, compile your own spamd man page with the diff you so happily provided, and live the rest of your life happy. Remember to always take this pill again on 1st of May, and 1st of November, every year. Hi, Giancarlo. Well, no one wants to maintain a patch forever. I'd maintain it for a while if there was a good chance it would get accepted at some point, but if there's no chance, then I wouldn't bother. I'm a little puzzled over the whole resistance to the patch. If I wrote a man page for some software I wrote, and if an example in it was considered off-color by someone, and that someone submitted a patch to me to change it slightly to no longer be off-color to them, and they asked in a kind way, and the patch didn't hurt the clarity of the man page in any way, I would likely accept the patch. How am I hurt by it? I may not agree with the person, but why would I insist on keeping an example that seems off-color to them? If it's somehow offensive to them and can be changed in a small way not to be, then I would accept the patch to change it. Everybody wins--no big deal. I don't know about others, but I tend to say something that offends others far more often than others saying something that offends me. It's not that I intend to offend people -- in many cases I have no idea why they were offended. For the most part, I've given up worrying about it. Eric
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
On Nov 22, 2013, at 10:06 AM, J. Lewis Muir jlm...@imca-cat.org wrote: On 11/22/13 11:17 AM, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote: If it's offensive for you, compile your own spamd man page with the diff you so happily provided, and live the rest of your life happy. Remember to always take this pill again on 1st of May, and 1st of November, every year. Hi, Giancarlo. Well, no one wants to maintain a patch forever. I'd maintain it for a while if there was a good chance it would get accepted at some point, but if there's no chance, then I wouldn't bother. I'm a little puzzled over the whole resistance to the patch. If I wrote a man page for some software I wrote, and if an example in it was considered off-color by someone, and that someone submitted a patch to me to change it slightly to no longer be off-color to them, and they asked in a kind way, and the patch didn't hurt the clarity of the man page in any way, I would likely accept the patch. How am I hurt by it? I may not agree with the person, but why would I insist on keeping an example that seems off-color to them? If it's somehow offensive to them and can be changed in a small way not to be, then I would accept the patch to change it. Everybody wins--no big deal. Lewis It looks like a pretty one-sided deal you're proposing: passive-aggressive moves to control the speech of those who have respected your freedom to express your opinion and be heard. Pretty damned selfish behavior on your part as far as I can tell. If I had the skill, time and energy to generate a patch it would be for something that's actually broken and in need of fixing. M
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
It looks like a pretty one-sided deal you're proposing: passive-aggressive moves to control the speech of those who have respected your freedom to express your opinion and be heard. Pretty damned selfish behavior on your part as far as I can tell. Michael -- well said.
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
On 11/22/2013 10:50 AM, Rick Pettit wrote: Lewis, If censorship is your thing, why don’t you start by censoring yourself. What you are asking for here is offensive. -Rick +1 On Nov 22, 2013, at 12:26 PM, Paolo Aglialoro paol...@gmail.com wrote: Il 22/nov/2013 19:07 J. Lewis Muir jlm...@imca-cat.org ha scritto: On 11/22/13 11:17 AM, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote: If it's offensive for you, compile your own spamd man page with the diff you so happily provided, and live the rest of your life happy. Remember to always take this pill again on 1st of May, and 1st of November, every year. Hi, Giancarlo. Well, no one wants to maintain a patch forever. I'd maintain it for a while if there was a good chance it would get accepted at some point, but if there's no chance, then I wouldn't bother. I'm a little puzzled over the whole resistance to the patch. If I wrote a man page for some software I wrote, and if an example in it was considered off-color by someone, and that someone submitted a patch to me to change it slightly to no longer be off-color to them, and they asked in a kind way, and the patch didn't hurt the clarity of the man page in any way, I would likely accept the patch. How am I hurt by it? I may not agree with the person, but why would I insist on keeping an example that seems off-color to them? If it's somehow offensive to them and can be changed in a small way not to be, then I would accept the patch to change it. Everybody wins--no big deal. Lewis +1
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
On 11/21/2013 12:33 PM, J. Lewis Muir wrote: I found some of the example email addresses and domains in the spamd(8) man page to be somewhat adult in nature. If given the choice, I'd choose to read the man page without the adult content. Here's a patch against -current that replaces the adult examples with cleaner alternatives. Would a developer be willing to accept this patch? you want really dirty smut? We got LAWYERS e-mail addresses in the man pages. Talk about something to keep the kids away from... I don't think that's gonna fly. Those particular ones almost qualify as a signature -- anyone who's worked with the project for a while will look at those and say, Oh, I know who wrote this! Stuff like this is part of the fun for people developing OpenBSD (and hopefully, fun for some of the users). Please understand that we don't want anyone to take away our fun. As someone who works in a professional environment, where results don't matter as long as the word Enterprise grade is attached to the product, and security is important, as long as it doesn't get in the way of ANYTHING else, and failure is fine, as long as there's an outside company you can blame it on, a little unprofessionalism is a relief. Nick.
[fwd jlm...@imca-cat.org: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page]
- Forwarded message from J. Lewis Muir jlm...@imca-cat.org - Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:33:41 -0600 From: J. Lewis Muir jlm...@imca-cat.org To: misc@openbsd.org Subject: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page I found some of the example email addresses and domains in the spamd(8) man page to be somewhat adult in nature. If given the choice, I'd choose to read the man page without the adult content. Here's a patch against -current that replaces the adult examples with cleaner alternatives. Would a developer be willing to accept this patch? Thanks, Lewis Index: libexec/spamd/spamd.8 === RCS file: /cvs/src/libexec/spamd/spamd.8,v retrieving revision 1.119 diff -u -p -r1.119 spamd.8 --- libexec/spamd/spamd.8 27 Sep 2012 20:12:32 - 1.119 +++ libexec/spamd/spamd.8 21 Nov 2013 16:50:06 - @@ -415,7 +415,7 @@ For example, if .Pa spamd.alloweddomains contains: .Bd -literal -offset indent -@humpingforjesus.com +@top1marketing.com obtuse.com .Ed .Pp @@ -423,7 +423,7 @@ The following destination addresses .Em would not cause the sending host to be trapped: .Bd -literal -offset indent -beardedcl...@humpingforjesus.com +f...@top1marketing.com b...@obtuse.com b...@snouts.obtuse.com .Ed @@ -432,8 +432,8 @@ However the following addresses .Em would cause the sending host to be trapped: .Bd -literal -offset indent -pe...@apostles.humpingforjesus.com -bigbu...@bofh.ucs.ualberta.ca +cu...@stooges.top1marketing.com +win...@bofh.ucs.ualberta.ca .Ed .Pp A low priority MX IP address may be specified with the - End forwarded message - -- It was the Nicolatians who first coined the separation between lay and clergy.
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
On 2013-11-21 20:04, Gilles Chehade wrote: On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 08:02:06PM +0100, za...@gmx.com wrote: Different people have different concepts of morality. I believe it would be better to remove anything that is controversial, for whatever reason -- even if in *my* concept of morality there was nothing wrong with it. I feel offended by those who feel offended about some man page. Maybe we should remove them as they are causing controversy ? A reasonable person is the one who takes into consideration others, among other things. Yes, you can take that defying attitude, but it does not seem very constructive in the context of a community, such as the OpenBSD community, where people are trying to achieve something useful. Bickering about silly things is not constructive at all. The best guideline with regard to similar matters is that of AVOIDING bike shedding issues.
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
Different people have different concepts of morality. I believe it would be better to remove anything that is controversial, for whatever reason -- even if in *my* concept of morality there was nothing wrong with it. The people who write code get to decide how they document it. If someone doesn't like it, don't have to use it. They can walk away. But above all, the principle is simple. If such persons use the software, they are BEYOND CRITICISM. Even the manual pages have a disclaimer that makes this clear: .\ THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR .\ IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES .\ OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. .\ IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, .\ INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT .\ NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, .\ DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY .\ THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT .\ (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF .\ THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. Don't like it? Then walk away. To take this back to the original complaint, being critical of Bob's Charity at writing the software and documentation is UN-CHRISTIAN. Or is it? Is this some fake morality where your sensibilities override the original charity? The complaint is deeply offensive to any sense of right and wrong, in effectively every culture.
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013, at 11:33 AM, J. Lewis Muir wrote: I found some of the example email addresses and domains in the spamd(8) man page to be somewhat adult in nature. If given the choice, I'd choose to read the man page without the adult content. Here's a patch against -current that replaces the adult examples with cleaner alternatives. Would a developer be willing to accept this patch? The OpenBSD man pages are not a Disney movie. For that matter, neither is most of the rest of the world, or the Internet. If you deal at all with spam on the Internet, you will see far, far worse than that. Actually, even if you somehow manage to not get a single piece of spam, you'll see far worse things from time to time on this mailing list right here. I like bigbu...@bofh.ucs.ualberta.ca and I cannot lie. -- Shawn K. Quinn skqu...@rushpost.com
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
On 11/21/13 21:44, J. Lewis Muir wrote: On 11/21/13 2:12 PM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: On Thu, Nov 21, 2013, at 11:33 AM, J. Lewis Muir wrote: I found some of the example email addresses and domains in the spamd(8) man page to be somewhat adult in nature. If given the choice, I'd choose to read the man page without the adult content. Here's a patch against -current that replaces the adult examples with cleaner alternatives. Would a developer be willing to accept this patch? The OpenBSD man pages are not a Disney movie. For that matter, neither is most of the rest of the world, or the Internet. If you deal at all with spam on the Internet, you will see far, far worse than that. Actually, even if you somehow manage to not get a single piece of spam, you'll see far worse things from time to time on this mailing list right here. Hi, Shawn. I understand that, and I'm not trying to tell people how they should talk on a mailing list. But to me documentation for a project like OpenBSD is different. It's not individual people talking however they like to talk. It's well-written text intended for users to read to understand some part of the OpenBSD operating system. I don't know of other OpenBSD user-facing documentation (i.e. website, man pages, etc.) that has off-color (at least to me) content. I'm vegan, but I can cope with this: $ zgrep -rw deadbeef /usr/share/man/ /usr/share/man/man1/perlembed.1:\deadbeef /usr/share/man/man1/perlfaq5.1:\# Pity the poor deadbeef. /usr/share/man/man5/bgpd.conf.5:tcp md5sig key deadbeef /Alexander
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
On 11/21/13 2:12 PM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: On Thu, Nov 21, 2013, at 11:33 AM, J. Lewis Muir wrote: I found some of the example email addresses and domains in the spamd(8) man page to be somewhat adult in nature. If given the choice, I'd choose to read the man page without the adult content. Here's a patch against -current that replaces the adult examples with cleaner alternatives. Would a developer be willing to accept this patch? The OpenBSD man pages are not a Disney movie. For that matter, neither is most of the rest of the world, or the Internet. If you deal at all with spam on the Internet, you will see far, far worse than that. Actually, even if you somehow manage to not get a single piece of spam, you'll see far worse things from time to time on this mailing list right here. Hi, Shawn. I understand that, and I'm not trying to tell people how they should talk on a mailing list. But to me documentation for a project like OpenBSD is different. It's not individual people talking however they like to talk. It's well-written text intended for users to read to understand some part of the OpenBSD operating system. I don't know of other OpenBSD user-facing documentation (i.e. website, man pages, etc.) that has off-color (at least to me) content. Thanks, Lewis
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013, at 01:51 PM, J. Lewis Muir wrote: I was just wishing I didn't have to read a few examples that to me were off-color. Honestly, those examples are no worse than 'Gnomovision' (which makes passes at compilers). You haven't begun to see off-color until you've seen some of the spam out there. To me it was requesting a small improvement to the documentation, for which I did the work and submitted a patch. I was hoping it wouldn't really matter much to anyone, and then I wouldn't be bothered by the examples anymore. It's good you submitted a patch. But apparently it does matter a whole lot to some people, and honestly, to me it's the principle of the thing more than anything else. You really want to see off-color? Run these two commands. Prepare to faint. $ find /usr/src -type f | xargs grep -w fuck $ find /usr/src -type f | xargs grep -w shit -- Shawn K. Quinn skqu...@rushpost.com
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
On 11/21/13 20:51, J. Lewis Muir wrote: I do like the software; that's why I was reading about it. And I like the documentation too; I think it's very good. I was not intending to be critical of the documentation; rather, I was just wishing I didn't have to read a few examples that to me were off-color. To me it was requesting a small improvement to the documentation, for which I did the work and submitted a patch. I was hoping it wouldn't really matter much to anyone, and then I wouldn't be bothered by the examples anymore. Hi J, You expressed your feelings. I don't agree, but that's fine. You submitted a diff. That's good. Talk is cheap, etc. However, as you noticed, it just won't happen. Case closed. /Alexander
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
2013/11/21 J. Lewis Muir jlm...@imca-cat.org On 11/21/13 12:23 PM, Nick Holland wrote: Stuff like this is part of the fun for people developing OpenBSD (and hopefully, fun for some of the users). Please understand that we don't want anyone to take away our fun. Hi, Nick. I understand the concept of fun within a project, and I'm all for that; I'm not trying to take away fun. However, I find this particular fun to be vulgar and would rather not read it in documentation if possible. If you work with mail servers and try to stop spam and _that_ offends you, you will be in for a treat. That is _peanuts_ compared to the content of the spam you are supposed to filter out. -- May the most significant bit of your life be positive.
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
On 21/11/13 2:15 PM, za...@gmx.com wrote: On 2013-11-21 20:04, Gilles Chehade wrote: On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 08:02:06PM +0100, za...@gmx.com wrote: Different people have different concepts of morality. I believe it would be better to remove anything that is controversial, for whatever reason -- even if in *my* concept of morality there was nothing wrong with it. I feel offended by those who feel offended about some man page. Maybe we should remove them as they are causing controversy ? A reasonable person is the one who takes into consideration others, among other things. Yes, you can take that defying attitude, but it does not seem very constructive in the context of a community, such as the OpenBSD community, where people are trying to achieve something useful. Bickering about silly things is not constructive at all. The best guideline with regard to similar matters is that of AVOIDING bike shedding issues. This is a useless discussion about silly things and is not constructive at all. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
Shawn K. Quinn [skqu...@rushpost.com] wrote: $ find /usr/src -type f | xargs grep -w fuck $ find /usr/src -type f | xargs grep -w shit find -type f ? How about just grep -r ?
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:33 AM, J. Lewis Muir jlm...@imca-cat.org wrote: I found some of the example email addresses and domains in the spamd(8) man page to be somewhat adult in nature. If given the choice, I'd choose to read the man page without the adult content. Here's a patch against -current that replaces the adult examples with cleaner alternatives. Would a developer be willing to accept this patch? Thanks, Lewis Index: libexec/spamd/spamd.8 === RCS file: /cvs/src/libexec/spamd/spamd.8,v retrieving revision 1.119 diff -u -p -r1.119 spamd.8 --- libexec/spamd/spamd.8 27 Sep 2012 20:12:32 - 1.119 +++ libexec/spamd/spamd.8 21 Nov 2013 16:50:06 - @@ -415,7 +415,7 @@ For example, if .Pa spamd.alloweddomains contains: .Bd -literal -offset indent -@humpingforjesus.com +@top1marketing.com I'd prefer to read the man page without encountering references to top1marketing. Widely-appreciated humor is a difficult thing to construct; however, referencing the Stooges is a good start.
Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
I found some of the example email addresses and domains in the spamd(8) man page to be somewhat adult in nature. If given the choice, I'd choose to read the man page without the adult content. Here's a patch against -current that replaces the adult examples with cleaner alternatives. Would a developer be willing to accept this patch? Thanks, Lewis Index: libexec/spamd/spamd.8 === RCS file: /cvs/src/libexec/spamd/spamd.8,v retrieving revision 1.119 diff -u -p -r1.119 spamd.8 --- libexec/spamd/spamd.8 27 Sep 2012 20:12:32 - 1.119 +++ libexec/spamd/spamd.8 21 Nov 2013 16:50:06 - @@ -415,7 +415,7 @@ For example, if .Pa spamd.alloweddomains contains: .Bd -literal -offset indent -@humpingforjesus.com +@top1marketing.com obtuse.com .Ed .Pp @@ -423,7 +423,7 @@ The following destination addresses .Em would not cause the sending host to be trapped: .Bd -literal -offset indent -beardedcl...@humpingforjesus.com +f...@top1marketing.com b...@obtuse.com b...@snouts.obtuse.com .Ed @@ -432,8 +432,8 @@ However the following addresses .Em would cause the sending host to be trapped: .Bd -literal -offset indent -pe...@apostles.humpingforjesus.com -bigbu...@bofh.ucs.ualberta.ca +cu...@stooges.top1marketing.com +win...@bofh.ucs.ualberta.ca .Ed .Pp A low priority MX IP address may be specified with the
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
On 21 Nov 2013, at 21:04, Gilles Chehade gil...@poolp.org wrote: On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 08:02:06PM +0100, za...@gmx.com wrote: Different people have different concepts of morality. I believe it would be better to remove anything that is controversial, for whatever reason -- even if in *my* concept of morality there was nothing wrong with it. I feel offended by those who feel offended about some man page. Maybe we should remove them as they are causing controversy ? Amen! [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
On 11/21/13 12:23 PM, Nick Holland wrote: Stuff like this is part of the fun for people developing OpenBSD (and hopefully, fun for some of the users). Please understand that we don't want anyone to take away our fun. Hi, Nick. I understand the concept of fun within a project, and I'm all for that; I'm not trying to take away fun. However, I find this particular fun to be vulgar and would rather not read it in documentation if possible. Too bad. You can use other software. I decided to make a guess as to the region you are from. I guessed right. That kind of attitude is largely extinct, and remains in only a few backwards regions of the planet. Your request is ridiculous. I'm going to go out on a limb and point these pages out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemont,_Illinois http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prude We'll probably get a complaint from Saudia Arabia next about a time related man page...
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
Different people have different concepts of morality. I believe it would be better to remove anything that is controversial, for whatever reason -- even if in *my* concept of morality there was nothing wrong with it.
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
On 11/21/13 12:23 PM, Nick Holland wrote: Stuff like this is part of the fun for people developing OpenBSD (and hopefully, fun for some of the users). Please understand that we don't want anyone to take away our fun. Hi, Nick. I understand the concept of fun within a project, and I'm all for that; I'm not trying to take away fun. However, I find this particular fun to be vulgar and would rather not read it in documentation if possible. Thanks, Lewis
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
A reasonable person is the one who takes into consideration others, among other things. Yes, take into consider others, LIKE THE AUTHOR. Who, if you'll notice the copyright notice, is the premier other to be taken into consideration. I see gmx.com and yet you seem to know little of the moral rights of the author? The community standards don't include burning books, which is what removing those comments from his manual page would be equivelant to. Yes, you can take that defying attitude, but it does not seem very constructive in the context of a community, such as the OpenBSD community, where people are trying to achieve something useful. The only person who did something useful, is the author of the software. He wrote it. Everyone else is just a freeloader -- including me, when I use this software. By using his software, I am not achieving anything useful in a community form. I'm just a user. So you are you. Unless I have an improvement to the software written up, I am just a user. Your context of the community sentence equates developers and users in a way similar to calling a tourist walking a sidewalk in a different country as trying to achieve something useful. Oh boy, such massive added value... There is a user community, and a development community. You forget your place -- especially when you reply to gilles, who has written the other major mail-delivery related piece of software in the tree. Bickering about silly things is not constructive at all. The best guideline with regard to similar matters is that of AVOIDING bike shedding issues. Listen to yourself, proud of the complex words you found in a dictionary. context of the community. What a load of uptight bull. You, sir, forgot your place, and should walk away.
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
On 11/21/13 1:11 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote: Different people have different concepts of morality. I believe it would be better to remove anything that is controversial, for whatever reason -- even if in *my* concept of morality there was nothing wrong with it. The people who write code get to decide how they document it. If someone doesn't like it, don't have to use it. They can walk away. But above all, the principle is simple. If such persons use the software, they are BEYOND CRITICISM. Even the manual pages have a disclaimer that makes this clear: .\ THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS .\ OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED .\ WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR .\ PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE .\ FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR .\ CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT .\ OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; .\ OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY .\ OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT .\ (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE .\ USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH .\ DAMAGE. Don't like it? Then walk away. To take this back to the original complaint, being critical of Bob's Charity at writing the software and documentation is UN-CHRISTIAN. Or is it? Is this some fake morality where your sensibilities override the original charity? Hi, Theo. I do like the software; that's why I was reading about it. And I like the documentation too; I think it's very good. I was not intending to be critical of the documentation; rather, I was just wishing I didn't have to read a few examples that to me were off-color. To me it was requesting a small improvement to the documentation, for which I did the work and submitted a patch. I was hoping it wouldn't really matter much to anyone, and then I wouldn't be bothered by the examples anymore. Thanks, Lewis
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 08:02:06PM +0100, za...@gmx.com wrote: Different people have different concepts of morality. I believe it would be better to remove anything that is controversial, for whatever reason -- even if in *my* concept of morality there was nothing wrong with it. I feel offended by those who feel offended about some man page. Maybe we should remove them as they are causing controversy ? -- Gilles Chehade https://www.poolp.org @poolpOrg
Re: Patch to remove adult content from spamd(8) man page
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 21:47, Alexander Hall wrote: I'm vegan, but I can cope with this: $ zgrep -rw deadbeef /usr/share/man/ /usr/share/man/man1/perlembed.1:\deadbeef /usr/share/man/man1/perlfaq5.1:\# Pity the poor deadbeef. /usr/share/man/man5/bgpd.conf.5:tcp md5sig key deadbeef Don't forget /usr/share/games/fortune/recipes! (Which I notice can also be blamed on Bob. Sensing a pattern here...)
