Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
Hi Wietse, Therefore I am looking into replacing 'black' in negative context and maybe replacing 'white' as well. As Noel Jones noted, using black/white for access control may be confusing for non-English readers. What about redlist (stop) and greenlist (go)? Traffic lights are pretty international. Groetjes Claus -- Claus R. Wickinghoff, Dipl.-Ing. using Linux since 1994 and still happy... :-)
Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
On 6/6/20 10:54 PM, @lbutlr wrote: > Yes. This. Though I do think that having a casual and constant reinforcement > that black == bad helps people justify their racist beliefs. No it doesn't and black doesn't equal bad, although dark does... and for good reason, because darkness hides things and conceals things and has a lot of bad things happen in the dark. So reprogramming reality is, IMO, stupid. Actually, not just in my opinion. It is stupid. We shall now rip the plague of darkness not ripped out of the bible, and blackhole will not be not black, although they ARE black, but lets call them green. And the blackness of the night will now be prohibited prose, and the dark side of the moon will not be called the colorless side of the moon... etc etc etc etc. It is BS. and after listening to and being subjected to months of poltical BS from our supposed leaders, my fill for newspeak has reached its limit. Soon we will not be allowed to have white hat hackers. It was always interesting and purposeful that George Lucus made storm troopers white. I you forget that Black is often identified with being cool, and sleek, and steely, and sexy. -- So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998 http://www.mrbrklyn.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002 http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www.brooklyn-living.com Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and extermination camps, but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013
Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
"That is 100% correct technological description" In Object Oriented Programming nomenclature, Blacklist and Master/Slave are both "cohesive"! On 6/7/20 7:27 PM, Ruben Safir wrote: That is 100% correct technological description
Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
"It is a small group of international fanatics" Somebody's tuned-in. ;) John On 6/7/20 7:29 PM, Ruben Safir wrote: It is a small group of international fanatics
Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
On Sun, Jun 07, 2020 at 09:50:27PM +0200, Fulvio Scapin wrote: > Hello. > > With a prospective of non-native English speaker, I believe that, > political correctness aside, a name which does not involve a cultural > reference for the related function to be understood is a welcome > change since If you give this even a moments thought you realize that what you request is IMPOSSIBLE and not desirable. All words serve culture and have no other context and the deeper there cultural context the more powerful and clear they are as words. Words without cultural context are meaningless... as if we don't have enough of that already. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc0ZHsoHAlE
Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 02:06:14AM +0200, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote: > Ralph and Nicolas - I fully agree with you both. > > While I can somehow understand American fixations on political correctness, It is not American. It is a small group of international fanatics... in general. > I find it highly inappropriate when Americans want to impose their own > fixations on the whole world. > > An assumption that everybody has to view the political/social issues exactly > like Americans (only some group of Americans, in fact), and find the same > things important that are important to Americans (again, only some > Americans) is just offending to non-Americans. > > Some Americans may be hyper-sensitive to the word "black", but rest of the > world generally has absolutely no issues with that word. > > Do you realize this? > -- > Regards, >Jaroslaw Rafa >r...@rafa.eu.org > -- > "In a million years, when kids go to school, they're gonna know: once there > was a Hushpuppy, and she lived with her daddy in the Bathtub." -- So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998 http://www.mrbrklyn.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002 http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive http://www.coinhangout.com - coins! http://www.brooklyn-living.com Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and extermination camps, but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013
Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
On Sun, Jun 07, 2020 at 08:43:08PM -0400, Phil Stracchino wrote: > On 2020-06-07 14:46, Laura Smith wrote: > >> The point here is > >> that maybe this is just a small, insignificant, easy change that could > >> be done that might make black folks feel less excluded and more > >> interested in participating. > > > > > > Give me a break. > > > > Master/Slave, Blacklist/Whitelist in computing making black folks feel > > excluded ? > > > > For heavens sake ! Talk about clutching at straws in your argument. > > I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I consider the terms > whitelist and blacklist (and blackhole) to be entirely neutral. > > On the other, it is difficult to argue that the terms master/slave are > *not* problematic. I'm quite certain they were not *chosen* with any > malicious intent. Nevertheless... > They ARE Masters and Slaves.. and it not in any way shape or form problematic. One is the MASTER, and the others are the SLAVES...that do whatever the Master says. That is 100% correct technological description > > > -- > Phil Stracchino > Babylon Communications > ph...@caerllewys.net > p...@co.ordinate.org > Landline: +1.603.293.8485 > Mobile: +1.603.998.6958 -- So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998 http://www.mrbrklyn.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002 http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive http://www.coinhangout.com - coins! http://www.brooklyn-living.com Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and extermination camps, but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013
Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
On 6/6/20 10:54 PM, @lbutlr wrote: > Yes. This. Though I do think that having a casual and constant reinforcement > that black == bad helps people justify their racist beliefs. No it doesn't and black doesn't equal bad, although dark does... and for good reason, because darkness hides things and conceals things and has a lot of bad things happen in the dark. So reprogramming reality is, IMO, stupid. Actually, not just in my opinion. It is stupid. We shall now rip the plague of darkness not ripped out of the bible, and blackhole will not be not black, although they ARE black, but lets call them green. And the blackness of the night will now be prohibited prose, and the dark side of the moon will not be called the colorless side of the moon... etc etc etc etc. It is BS. and after listening to and being subjected to months of poltical BS from our supposed leaders, my fill for newspeak has reached its limit. Soon we will not be allowed to have white hat hackers. It was always interesting and purposeful that George Lucus made storm troopers white. I you forget that Black is often identified with being cool, and sleek, and steely, and sexy. -- So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998 http://www.mrbrklyn.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002 http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www.brooklyn-living.com Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and extermination camps, but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013
Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
On 2020-06-07 15:23, Nicolas Kovacs wrote: > > To my European eyes (living in France, born in Austria, Hungarian family) the > American political correctness movement comes close to what the French call > "la > politesse". > > Some nasty form of passive-aggressive mud-wrestling. I agree. I tend to view political correctness as a form of intellectual bullying while simultaneously pretending to the moral high ground. "I will tell you what things you may talk about, but you are not allowed to tell me what I may talk about, because I am in the right, and you are in the wrong." -- Phil Stracchino Babylon Communications ph...@caerllewys.net p...@co.ordinate.org Landline: +1.603.293.8485 Mobile: +1.603.998.6958
Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
On 2020-06-07 14:46, Laura Smith wrote: >> The point here is >> that maybe this is just a small, insignificant, easy change that could >> be done that might make black folks feel less excluded and more >> interested in participating. > > > Give me a break. > > Master/Slave, Blacklist/Whitelist in computing making black folks feel > excluded ? > > For heavens sake ! Talk about clutching at straws in your argument. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I consider the terms whitelist and blacklist (and blackhole) to be entirely neutral. On the other, it is difficult to argue that the terms master/slave are *not* problematic. I'm quite certain they were not *chosen* with any malicious intent. Nevertheless... -- Phil Stracchino Babylon Communications ph...@caerllewys.net p...@co.ordinate.org Landline: +1.603.293.8485 Mobile: +1.603.998.6958
Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
On 2020-06-07 13:26, Noel Jones wrote:
> With postfix, this is mostly a documentation issue, other than a few
> postscreen parameter names.
>
> I'm not opposed to changing postfix documentation and parameter
> names to refer to {allow,permit} and {deny,reject} using whichever
> verb fits best. This might even make documentation easier to
> understand for non-English speakers.
It's hard to argue against the clarity and neutrality of those terms. I
approve and agree.
--
Phil Stracchino
Babylon Communications
ph...@caerllewys.net
p...@co.ordinate.org
Landline: +1.603.293.8485
Mobile: +1.603.998.6958
Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
May I offer to those who want to continue this off-topic discussion to do it at https://zoom.us/j/99433754361 ? up to 100 participants, no time limits, open for the next few days. It's on my firm. Enjoy. I will be there for the next little while. No reply to the ML, thanks. -- Yuval Levy, JD, MBA, CFA Ontario-licensed lawyer
Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
Ralph and Nicolas - I fully agree with you both. While I can somehow understand American fixations on political correctness, I find it highly inappropriate when Americans want to impose their own fixations on the whole world. An assumption that everybody has to view the political/social issues exactly like Americans (only some group of Americans, in fact), and find the same things important that are important to Americans (again, only some Americans) is just offending to non-Americans. Some Americans may be hyper-sensitive to the word "black", but rest of the world generally has absolutely no issues with that word. Do you realize this? -- Regards, Jaroslaw Rafa r...@rafa.eu.org -- "In a million years, when kids go to school, they're gonna know: once there was a Hushpuppy, and she lived with her daddy in the Bathtub."
Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome Pliny probably had slaves. Ron On 2020-06-07 2:32 p.m., micah anderson wrote: Laura Smith writes: Before jumping on the hobbyhorse of self-righthousness about refusing to use “whitelist”/“blacklist”, perhaps you would do well to spend a few minutes on your favourite search engine researching the entymology of such terms. The origin of blacklist, for example, has nothing to do with the race of human beings... Oxford Dictionary suggested origin: The true peace-maker: laid forth in a sermon before his Majesty at Theobalds written by the Bishop of Norwich, Joseph Hall, in 1624: "Ye secret oppressors,..ye kind drunkards, and who euer come within this blacke list of wickednesse." The fact that the OED (a tome of great while male patriarchal enshrinement) doesn't say that the etymology of "blacklist" comes from a racial prejudiced origin, doesn't mean anything. It simply is quoting the oldest known reference to the word, and applying no broader analysis. Why does this quote use 'blacke list of wickedness'? I think scholarly analysis of much more significant rigor would be necessary to understand if you can truly come to the conclusion that it has "nothing" to do with race of human beings. Did race and racism exist in the middle ages? Racism is not a modern phenomena. In fact you can find racial thinking in medieval art, statues, maps, laws, beliefs, economic practices, war, literature, etc. There are also additional origins originating from the 1500's, with the term "blackball". Whereby a ball of black colour was placed in a container as a means of recording a negative vote. Why is black considered negative in 1500s? Very interesting question, worthy of pursuit, but the mere existence doesn't mean it has nothing to do with race. Does that mean it does? Not necessarily. A similar mechanism was used in gentleman's clubs well into the 20th century, whereby a list of prospective club members was affixed to a wall and negative votes were recorded through small circles drawn in black ink against a person's name. Three black circles and you would not make it in. Presumably said gentleman's club would have been white, and it was just a sheer coincidence that an exclusive, all white club, used black to indicate that you were not allowed in. Never heard that color used for that purpose before... the color black has been always associated with the negative, and weirdly black people have also been purposely portrayed in many places, with negative stereotypes that reinforced white supremacy. What a crazy, multi-epoch coincidence! That is so weird. /s In the end, maybe you are right, maybe blacklist has no etymological racial issue... but that isn't the point here, is it? The point here is that maybe this is just a small, insignificant, easy change that could be done that might make black folks feel less excluded and more interested in participating. Who cares if Pliny the Elder used it once, and he totally didn't mean it in a racist way, he probably had loads of black friends! -- Ron Wheeler Artifact Software 438-345-3369 rwhee...@artifact-software.com
Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
I am not sure how going to Caucasian-listed vs African-American-listed is going to help inclusion in the data processing field. If you or someone you know is "racialialized" and the biggest problem is how IT describes entities, Eliminating the word "Black" is not going to address any of the issues concerning the people who are protesting and the rest of us. Black "folks" feel excluded because white "folk" treat them differently in hiring, promoting and weighing their opinions for no good reason! And yes there was discrimination in 1500 and before that. Black people had been part of civilization from pre-history. Current scientific belief is that all of our ancestors were black. Slavery goes back before recorded history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery To fear and disrespect people who are "not like us" has a long history. Ron On 2020-06-07 2:46 p.m., Laura Smith wrote: The point here is that maybe this is just a small, insignificant, easy change that could be done that might make black folks feel less excluded and more interested in participating. Give me a break. Master/Slave, Blacklist/Whitelist in computing making black folks feel excluded ? For heavens sake ! Talk about clutching at straws in your argument. Seriously where, exactly, is the exclusion in being able to download, install and configure the software ? Ultimately your practical experience using that software as a black person is going to be exactly the same as any other race. The software won't run any differnetly just because you're black. -- Ron Wheeler Artifact Software 438-345-3369 rwhee...@artifact-software.com
Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
On So, Jun 07, 2020 at 14:32:37 -0400, micah anderson wrote: the color black has been always associated with the negative, and As long as the night is dark and black these words are considered negative. A dark room or a black room are always more negative than a light room. Many dangers in thrillers or horror movies happen in darkness and black environments. Daemons and devils are shown in dark colours as well. Stephan -- |If your life was a horse, you'd have to shoot it.|
Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
Hello. With a prospective of non-native English speaker, I believe that, political correctness aside, a name which does not involve a cultural reference for the related function to be understood is a welcome change since it reduces, if marginally, for users the possibility of misunderstanding the proper usage. As for the further implications of the colours black and white, I guess it would be difficult to find a definitive answer as to why any culture might choose to associate them with a positive or negative connotation. Human reactions to light and darkness come to mind as a possibility, but who can tell for sure. I also agree that this kind of debate has little in the way of thresholds for when to begin and when to stop. Software may be written by someone belonging to a specific culture but its users quite often might not be. If a choice of wording in a configuration parameter awakens painful memories or touches upon a taboo subject in a small remote village of 50 people, is that inherently less significant than if it were to impact on hundred thousand or a million people? And what about 1 single person? Do we choose a specific culture or a minimum number of people as a threshold? Does any member of a hypothetical target group share the same view or opinion on the matter? It's a bit too big for my head, but I welcome a more descriptive change in the naming on "technical" (or semantical?) grounds. Cheers, Fulvio Scapin Il giorno sab 6 giu 2020 alle ore 20:27 Phil Stracchino ha scritto: > > On 2020-06-06 13:27, yuv wrote: > > On Sat, 2020-06-06 at 19:12 +0200, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote: > >> Black color is culturally associated with the devil (and also death), > >> and white with an angel (innocence, etc.) > > > > in your culture. have you tried checking other cultures? > > Exactly. In Japanese culture, blue is associated with purity and > innocence, and white with death and funerals, as I recall. > > > >> Let's not get crazy. > > > That is the golden watchword here. The trouble with trying to > politically cleanse language is, where do you stop? > > It is instructive here to consider the case of, for instance, > chairman/chairperson. We were all exhorted to abandon words like > chairman, mailman, on the grounds that they are male-centric and > indicative of the patriarchy. > > Unfortunately, when you study the historical etymology of the words, > that is not the case. Long ago, the language that became English used > to have three words for a person: one meaning an explicitly male > person, one meaning an explicitly female person, and one meaning a > person of unspecified gender. > > "Man", if we're going to talk historical etymology, is the word for *a > person of unspecified gender*. The word for a specifically male person > does not exist in the English language any more. It was lost a thousand > years ago. > > > Sure, yes, let's do our best not to use clearly racially or culturally > divisive or offensive terms. But to abandon perfectly neutral terms > because a discriminatory connotation *can be retconned onto them* is to > throw the baby out with the bathwater. Where does it end? > > > There *is no basic human right not to be offended*. Seriously. There > isn't. And you CANNOT eliminate all usages from speech that might > offend someone, because there are people who appear to evaluate their > self-worth in terms of how many things they are offended by today, and > they are endlessly inventive in confecting offense in language that > developed with no discriminatory intent whatever, because the more > offended they are, *obviously* the better a person they are. And to > make matters worse, some of these people will complain about words whose > meaning they don't understand because it sounds similar to a bad word > and they don't know the difference. Tried using the word 'niggardly' > lately? People hear the word and *just assume that it must be racially > offensive*. > > The rule that you cannot say anything that might possibly offend > someone, somewhere ends only one place: Nobody is allowed to say > anything, because *anything* you say *might* offend *someone*. > > Are we going to tell the Black Watch they need to find a new name? > Devise a new term for the color of paper? Prohibit selling cars painted > the color that is neutral in hue but darker than grey? > > That way lies madness. Sometimes a cigar is just a freakin' cigar. > > > > For the political debate... it's the twitterization of language. White > > is RGB(255,255,255) and Black is RGB(0,0,0). > > > "The twitterization of language." I like that phrase, and am hereby > adopting it. :) > > > -- > Phil Stracchino > Babylon Communications > ph...@caerllewys.net > p...@co.ordinate.org > Landline: +1.603.293.8485 > Mobile: +1.603.998.6958
Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
Laura Smith: > Master/Slave, Blacklist/Whitelist in computing making black folks > feel excluded ? As maintainer of Postfix, I think that words do matter, just like the use of he/she/they matters. Therefore I am looking into replacing 'black' in negative context and maybe replacing 'white' as well. As Noel Jones noted, using black/white for access control may be confusing for non-English readers. And now I hope that we take this off list. Wietse
Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 15:27:21 -0400 "vi...@vheuser.com" wrote: > Enough already. +1 d -- Affectionate tactile stimulation is a primary need, a need which must be satisfied if the infant is to develop as a healthy human being. And what is a healthy human being? One who is able to love, to work, to play, and to think critically and unprejudicially. -- Ashley Montagu – Touching, The human significance of the skin. 2e 1978
Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
On 2020/06/07 14:13 PM, Charles Sprickman wrote: On Jun 7, 2020, at 2:03 PM, vi...@vheuser.com wrote: Why not take it off this list and contact the developers? Users can't make small changes. Enough already. The intersection of “this is meaningless politics, stop being such a carelord” and “shield my eyes from further discussion of this nonsense” is fascinating. Not sure what all that means, but I am sure that my blacks friends are competent to speak for themselves without self-righteous white carelords condescending to save them.
Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
Le 07/06/2020 à 20:25, Ralph Seichter a écrit : > Sources, please. A colleague of Kenyan heritage told me that he is, in his > own words, "sometimes amused but mostly annoyed by the American political > correctness movement". To my European eyes (living in France, born in Austria, Hungarian family) the American political correctness movement comes close to what the French call "la politesse". Some nasty form of passive-aggressive mud-wrestling. Cheers from the sunny South of France, Niki Kovacs -- Microlinux - Solutions informatiques durables 7, place de l'église - 30730 Montpezat Site : https://www.microlinux.fr Mail : i...@microlinux.fr Tél. : 04 66 63 10 32 Mob. : 06 51 80 12 12
Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
The practice of systematic erasure of language regresses to human ideas. Language policing has inertia and a kind of gravity that starts removing tangential-but-uncontroversial ideas as a byproduct; dangerous and anti-human! Appropriate usage of the term "Black" is not racist. Not hiring someone or usurping opportunity because of skin color is racist. Maintaining a lexicon of allowed language based on skin color (only white people can use the term white and so on) is exceptionally racist. Quantify the value of "race sensitive variable definition heuristics" to the functioning of the software, or move-on and fix a real bug or add a needed feature. That is all. On 6/7/20 12:13 PM, Charles Sprickman wrote: On Jun 7, 2020, at 2:03 PM, vi...@vheuser.com wrote: Why not take it off this list and contact the developers? Users can't make small changes. Enough already. The intersection of “this is meaningless politics, stop being such a carelord” and “shield my eyes from further discussion of this nonsense” is fascinating. On 2020/06/07 12:59 PM, Pau Amma wrote: On 2020-06-07 18:44, Norton Allen wrote: [undeserved snippage] Someone has suggested that we make a small change, a change that Black people have said would make them feel better, and all we can do is argue that making that change would be too difficult, unnecessary, ineffective or etymologically inaccurate. Is that how you respond when a neighbor asks a favor? Heck, is that how you respond when faced with a technical challenge? Or do you stop for a minute to think about the problem, how it might be manifested in different situations or for different people, and start to try to figure out what you can do to help? *standing ovation* Thank you for posting this.
Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
> The point here is > that maybe this is just a small, insignificant, easy change that could > be done that might make black folks feel less excluded and more > interested in participating. Give me a break. Master/Slave, Blacklist/Whitelist in computing making black folks feel excluded ? For heavens sake ! Talk about clutching at straws in your argument. Seriously where, exactly, is the exclusion in being able to download, install and configure the software ? Ultimately your practical experience using that software as a black person is going to be exactly the same as any other race. The software won't run any differnetly just because you're black.
Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
Scott Kitterman: > On Sunday, June 7, 2020 2:03:18 PM EDT vi...@vheuser.com wrote: > > Why not take it off this list and contact the developers? > > Users can't make small changes. > > Enough already. > > This list is the appropriate place for users to contact Postfix > developers. You may not have noticed but the creator of Postfix > and it's primary developer has been active in this thread. The request is noted, and work is in progress. Further on-list dicsussion is not needed. Wietse
Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
Laura Smith writes: > Before jumping on the hobbyhorse of self-righthousness about refusing > to use “whitelist”/“blacklist”, perhaps you would do well to spend a > few minutes on your favourite search engine researching the entymology > of such terms. > > The origin of blacklist, for example, has nothing to do with the race > of human beings... > > Oxford Dictionary suggested origin: > The true peace-maker: laid forth in a sermon before his Majesty at Theobalds > written by the Bishop of Norwich, Joseph Hall, in 1624: > "Ye secret oppressors,..ye kind drunkards, and who euer come within this > blacke list of wickednesse." The fact that the OED (a tome of great while male patriarchal enshrinement) doesn't say that the etymology of "blacklist" comes from a racial prejudiced origin, doesn't mean anything. It simply is quoting the oldest known reference to the word, and applying no broader analysis. Why does this quote use 'blacke list of wickedness'? I think scholarly analysis of much more significant rigor would be necessary to understand if you can truly come to the conclusion that it has "nothing" to do with race of human beings. Did race and racism exist in the middle ages? Racism is not a modern phenomena. In fact you can find racial thinking in medieval art, statues, maps, laws, beliefs, economic practices, war, literature, etc. > There are also additional origins originating from the 1500's, with > the term "blackball". Whereby a ball of black colour was placed in a > container as a means of recording a negative vote. Why is black considered negative in 1500s? Very interesting question, worthy of pursuit, but the mere existence doesn't mean it has nothing to do with race. Does that mean it does? Not necessarily. >A similar mechanism was used in gentleman's clubs well into the 20th >century, whereby a list of prospective club members was affixed to a >wall and negative votes were recorded through small circles drawn in >black ink against a person's name. Three black circles and you would >not make it in. Presumably said gentleman's club would have been white, and it was just a sheer coincidence that an exclusive, all white club, used black to indicate that you were not allowed in. Never heard that color used for that purpose before... the color black has been always associated with the negative, and weirdly black people have also been purposely portrayed in many places, with negative stereotypes that reinforced white supremacy. What a crazy, multi-epoch coincidence! That is so weird. /s In the end, maybe you are right, maybe blacklist has no etymological racial issue... but that isn't the point here, is it? The point here is that maybe this is just a small, insignificant, easy change that could be done that might make black folks feel less excluded and more interested in participating. Who cares if Pliny the Elder used it once, and he totally didn't mean it in a racist way, he probably had loads of black friends! -- micah
Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
* Norton Allen: > Someone has suggested that we make a small change I did not see a suggestion, just a question about how easy it would be to make changes. > a change that Black people have said would make them feel better Sources, please. A colleague of Kenyan heritage told me that he is, in his own words, "sometimes amused but mostly annoyed by the American political correctness movement". > and all we can do is argue that making that change would be too > difficult, unnecessary, ineffective or etymologically inaccurate. > Is that how you respond when a neighbor asks a favor? Depends. My new neighbours asked me to cut down a tree because they don't like it. Not because it grows over their fence or something, but as a favour. I told them no. > Perhaps if this change is too much to ask, we should put some effort > into thinking about what we *can* do to make this corner of the world > more welcoming to Blacks. I have to say, I think the message of this > thread so far has been quite the opposite. Then let me make "the message" clear, as far as mine (!) goes: I am not American, and American sensibilites mean very little to me, especially since November 8, 2016. American problems are not mine; my home country has its own share of problems and morons, and I decide how to deal with them. If that offends the reader: tough. I don't give a fart about a subscriber's gender, sexual orientation, creed or race on this here Postfix mailing list. I evaluate only the content of their individual posts. I consciously try to treat people with respect, albeit not always successfully. If you are offended, you can let me know. Maybe I will consider your point, but maybe I won't. In the case of "blacklist" et al, I would not change a word in existing documentation or source code, because I believe it would serve no tangible purpose in fighting racism. My opinion does not matter though, only Wietse's counts. -Ralph
Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
On Sunday, June 7, 2020 2:03:18 PM EDT vi...@vheuser.com wrote: > Why not take it off this list and contact the developers? > Users can't make small changes. > Enough already. This list is the appropriate place for users to contact Postfix developers. You may not have noticed but the creator of Postfix and it's primary developer has been active in this thread. Scott K
Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
> On Jun 7, 2020, at 2:03 PM, vi...@vheuser.com wrote: > > Why not take it off this list and contact the developers? > Users can't make small changes. > Enough already. The intersection of “this is meaningless politics, stop being such a carelord” and “shield my eyes from further discussion of this nonsense” is fascinating. > > > > > On 2020/06/07 12:59 PM, Pau Amma wrote: >> On 2020-06-07 18:44, Norton Allen wrote: >>> >>> [undeserved snippage] >>> >>> Someone has suggested that we make a small change, a change that Black >>> people have said would make them feel better, and all we can do is >>> argue that making that change would be too difficult, unnecessary, >>> ineffective or etymologically inaccurate. Is that how you respond when >>> a neighbor asks a favor? Heck, is that how you respond when faced with >>> a technical challenge? Or do you stop for a minute to think about the >>> problem, how it might be manifested in different situations or for >>> different people, and start to try to figure out what you can do to >>> help? >> >> *standing ovation* Thank you for posting this. >> >
Re: Postfix restrictions
> On Jun 7, 2020, at 8:03 AM, Laura Smith > wrote: > > >> I wonder that two very new documents describe something that has been long >> recommended to avoid: postgrey > > I agree. Greylisting is a primitive, last century "sledgehammer to crack a > nut". > > It has no place in 2020's anti-spam. I’m going to have thoughts on this next week when I trial it. RIght now there is no other option for “pausing” spammers until they show up on my DNSBLs… I tried postscreen with the after-220 checks that implement a very brief “greylist”, but it was largely ineffective. Charles
Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
Noel Jones:
> With postfix, this is mostly a documentation issue, other than a few
> postscreen parameter names.
>
> I'm not opposed to changing postfix documentation and parameter
> names to refer to {allow,permit} and {deny,reject} using whichever
> verb fits best. This might even make documentation easier to
> understand for non-English speakers.
>
> I'm willing to help.
I appreciate the offer. For further work, we can take this offlist.
Wietse
Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
Why not take it off this list and contact the developers? Users can't make small changes. Enough already. On 2020/06/07 12:59 PM, Pau Amma wrote: On 2020-06-07 18:44, Norton Allen wrote: [undeserved snippage] Someone has suggested that we make a small change, a change that Black people have said would make them feel better, and all we can do is argue that making that change would be too difficult, unnecessary, ineffective or etymologically inaccurate. Is that how you respond when a neighbor asks a favor? Heck, is that how you respond when faced with a technical challenge? Or do you stop for a minute to think about the problem, how it might be manifested in different situations or for different people, and start to try to figure out what you can do to help? *standing ovation* Thank you for posting this.
Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
With postfix, this is mostly a documentation issue, other than a few
postscreen parameter names.
I'm not opposed to changing postfix documentation and parameter
names to refer to {allow,permit} and {deny,reject} using whichever
verb fits best. This might even make documentation easier to
understand for non-English speakers.
I'm willing to help.
-- Noel Jones
Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
On 2020-06-07 18:44, Norton Allen wrote: [undeserved snippage] Someone has suggested that we make a small change, a change that Black people have said would make them feel better, and all we can do is argue that making that change would be too difficult, unnecessary, ineffective or etymologically inaccurate. Is that how you respond when a neighbor asks a favor? Heck, is that how you respond when faced with a technical challenge? Or do you stop for a minute to think about the problem, how it might be manifested in different situations or for different people, and start to try to figure out what you can do to help? *standing ovation* Thank you for posting this.
Re: Postfix restrictions
On 6/7/2020 9:01 AM, A. Schulze wrote: Am 07.06.20 um 14:38 schrieb yuv: Is there a valid reason for a sender not to fix something so essential as DNS configuration? no valid reason but reality. There are so many sendings hosts named "foobar.local". Via NAT they are visible with a public IP and a perfect DNS. But this hosts still say "EHLO foobar.local" It's the receivers policy how to handle such connections. reject_unknown_helo_hostname reject them. Andreas It's been my experience that reject_unknown_helo_hostname has more false positives than stopping actual spam, and the few spam that fail it usually fail other tests. Use with caution. Rejecting invalid or non-FQDN helo names is relatively safe. It's also been my experience that reject_unknown_client_hostname has a large number of false positives, while reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname is relatively safe. YMMV -- Noel Jones
Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
Yes, the request is political. Politics is about how we live and work together, how we treat each other. Software, particularly open source software, is not just inanimate objects. It is developed and nurtured within a community of real people who live in our very real society. I am going to make a guess that this list is made up predominantly of older white males, myself included. That guess is based on the historic under representation of women and minorities in tech in general and the type of software we are dealing with. This change would have essentially no effect on us as a group because we have always lived on the favored side of white/black language. We assume the usage is benign because if anything we are flattered by it. Do you have empathy? Can you put yourselves in someone else's shoes to see how this might affect them? Someone has suggested that we make a small change, a change that Black people have said would make them feel better, and all we can do is argue that making that change would be too difficult, unnecessary, ineffective or etymologically inaccurate. Is that how you respond when a neighbor asks a favor? Heck, is that how you respond when faced with a technical challenge? Or do you stop for a minute to think about the problem, how it might be manifested in different situations or for different people, and start to try to figure out what you can do to help? Perhaps if this change is too much to ask, we should put some effort into thinking about what we *can* do to make this corner of the world more welcoming to Blacks. I have to say, I think the message of this thread so far has been quite the opposite.
Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
I do not wish to become involved in this whole debate, in particular as I think it is somewhat idiotic to seek to bring the whole Politically Correct debate to inanimate objects such as computers or software programs. However, I would like to say just one thing. Before jumping on the hobbyhorse of self-righthousness about refusing to use “whitelist”/“blacklist”, perhaps you would do well to spend a few minutes on your favourite search engine researching the entymology of such terms. The origin of blacklist, for example, has nothing to do with the race of human beings... Oxford Dictionary suggested origin: The true peace-maker: laid forth in a sermon before his Majesty at Theobalds written by the Bishop of Norwich, Joseph Hall, in 1624: "Ye secret oppressors,..ye kind drunkards, and who euer come within this blacke list of wickednesse." There are also additional origins originating from the 1500's, with the term "blackball". Whereby a ball of black colour was placed in a container as a means of recording a negative vote. A similar mechanism was used in gentleman's clubs well into the 20th century, whereby a list of prospective club members was affixed to a wall and negative votes were recorded through small circles drawn in black ink against a person's name. Three black circles and you would not make it in. It then only stands to reason that "whitelist" came to being as the obvious antonym to "blacklist". ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, 6 June 2020 13:55, Ian Evans wrote: > Food for thought from the co-author of OAuth and oEmbed. How easy would it be > for Postfix/Postscreen configs/docs to, say, refer to allow/deny lists? > > Leah Culver (@leahculver) tweeted at 11:32 PM on Fri, Jun 05, 2020: > I refuse to use “whitelist”/“blacklist” or “master”/“slave” terminology for > computers. Join me. Words matter. > (https://twitter.com/leahculver/status/1269109776983547904?s=03)
Re: Postfix restrictions
Am 07.06.20 um 14:38 schrieb yuv: > Is there a valid reason for a sender not to fix something so essential > as DNS configuration? no valid reason but reality. There are so many sendings hosts named "foobar.local". Via NAT they are visible with a public IP and a perfect DNS. But this hosts still say "EHLO foobar.local" It's the receivers policy how to handle such connections. reject_unknown_helo_hostname reject them. Andreas
Re: Postfix restrictions
On Sun, 2020-06-07 at 14:22 +0200, A. Schulze wrote: > using "reject_unknown_helo_hostname" may trigger some false > positives. Not every sender have such perfect setups. Is there a valid reason for a sender not to fix something so essential as DNS configuration? -- Yuval Levy, JD, MBA, CFA Ontario-licensed lawyer
Re: Postfix restrictions
Am 07.06.20 um 11:51 schrieb Nicolas Kovacs: using "reject_unknown_helo_hostname" may trigger some false positives. Not every sender have such perfect setups. You may use "warn_if_reject reject_unknown_helo_hostname" for some time and check if loosing such traffic is acceptable for you. Andreas
Re: Postfix restrictions
> I wonder that two very new documents describe something that has been long > recommended to avoid: postgrey I agree. Greylisting is a primitive, last century "sledgehammer to crack a nut". It has no place in 2020's anti-spam.
Re: Postfix restrictions
On 07.06.20 11:51, Nicolas Kovacs wrote: I'm currently fine-tuning my mail server (Postfix and Dovecot on CentOS 7). SPF, DKIM and DMARC work fine, now I'd like to limit the spam tsunami. Besides the official Postfix documentation, I've read a few articles about Postfix spam restrictions, namely these : https://www.linuxbabe.com/mail-server/block-email-spam-postfix https://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/postfix_restrictions I wonder that two very new documents describe something that has been long recommended to avoid: postgrey - watch the thread on https://marc.info/?t=15903688682=1=2 while ignoring one solution that was proposed to replace postgrey and improve blacklisting: postscreen (in fact, first page recommends it for iredmail users) and, of course, neither of those recommend smtp-time spam checking using e.g. amavisd-milter, spamass-milter, where both use spamassassin and are able to reject spam at SMTP level. some of those recommendations are fine, but you get much more by using two above described techniques. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. 42.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Re: Postfix restrictions
> reject_rhsbl_helo dbl.spamhaus.org,
> reject_rhsbl_reverse_client dbl.spamhaus.org,
> reject_rhsbl_sender dbl.spamhaus.org,
> reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org
> --8<
>
Bear in mind that whilst Spamhaus is great, to get the most out of it, you also
need to use Spamassassin alongside any early-filtering you might be doing with
Postfix.
This is especially the case if you are a subscriber and you want to make more
extensive use of their content, as well as new innovations such as the Spamhaus
HBL which is likely not usable from Postfix.
See:
-
https://docs.spamhaustech.com/datasets/docs/source/40-real-world-usage/SpamAssassin/000-intro.html
- https://github.com/spamhaus/spamassassin-dqs
- If you are a subscriber, also look at the manuals in the portal
Regarding your Postfix Spamhaus settings, you might want to add it under
smtpd_client_restrictions and postscreen_dnsbl_sites. For example (N.B. this
is a snippet from one of our sites, its not necessarily a Spamhaus recommended
config, you can look on the subscriber portal for the detail on current
recommended Postfix configs with Spamhaus) :
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
permit_mynetworks,${indexed}custom_reject,reject_unauth_destination,
reject_rhsbl_sender
.dbl.dq.spamhaus.net=127.0.1.[2;4;5;6],
reject_rhsbl_helo
.dbl.dq.spamhaus.net=127.0.1.[2;4;5;6],
reject_rhsbl_reverse_client
.dbl.dq.spamhaus.net=127.0.1.[2;4;5;6],
reject_rhsbl_sender
.zrd.dq.spamhaus.net=127.0.2.[2..24],
reject_rhsbl_helo
.zrd.dq.spamhaus.net=127.0.2.[2..24],
reject_rhsbl_reverse_client
.zrd.dq.spamhaus.net=127.0.2.[2..24],
reject_rbl_client
.zen.dq.spamhaus.net=127.0.0.[2;3;4..7;10;11]
smtpd_client_restrictions = reject_rbl_client .zen.dq.spamhaus.net
postscreen_dnsbl_sites =
.zen.dq.spamhaus.net=127.0.0.[2;3;4..7;10;11]
Re: Postfix restrictions
On 07/06/2020 10:51, Nicolas Kovacs wrote: > Before committing this configuration to my main server, I thought I'd share > this configuration on the list. Maybe the Postfix gurus among you have the odd > comment to make. > > My aim is simply to eliminate as much spam as possible (that is, before adding > SpamAssassin) while keeping false positives to a minimum. > > Any suggestions ? I protect my mailing-list addresses with a pair of close-coupled ACLs; accept the list server, then reject the recipient address (with a polite message to contact me on-list). >From my main.cf:- check_client_access cidr:/etc/postfix/listserver_access.cidr check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/recipient_access It catches quite a lot of junk, though I do lose an occasional off-list remark. However, I can whitelist individual senders elsewhere if I wanted. (Or give them a different address) Allen C
Postfix restrictions
Hi, I'm currently fine-tuning my mail server (Postfix and Dovecot on CentOS 7). SPF, DKIM and DMARC work fine, now I'd like to limit the spam tsunami. Besides the official Postfix documentation, I've read a few articles about Postfix spam restrictions, namely these : https://www.linuxbabe.com/mail-server/block-email-spam-postfix https://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/postfix_restrictions After some experimenting, here's what I currently have on my test server: --8<- /etc/postfix/main.cf - ... smtpd_helo_required = yes smtpd_helo_restrictions = permit_mynetworks, permit_sasl_authenticated, check_helo_access hash:/etc/postfix/helo_access reject_invalid_helo_hostname, reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname, reject_unknown_helo_hostname smtpd_sender_restrictions = permit_mynetworks, permit_sasl_authenticated, check_sender_access hash:/etc/postfix/sender_access, reject_unknown_sender_domain, reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname, reject_unknown_client_hostname smtpd_recipient_restrictions = permit_mynetworks, permit_sasl_authenticated, check_client_access hash:/etc/postfix/rbl_override, reject_rhsbl_helo dbl.spamhaus.org, reject_rhsbl_reverse_client dbl.spamhaus.org, reject_rhsbl_sender dbl.spamhaus.org, reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org --8< Before committing this configuration to my main server, I thought I'd share this configuration on the list. Maybe the Postfix gurus among you have the odd comment to make. My aim is simply to eliminate as much spam as possible (that is, before adding SpamAssassin) while keeping false positives to a minimum. Any suggestions ? Niki Kovacs -- Microlinux - Solutions informatiques durables 7, place de l'église - 30730 Montpezat Site : https://www.microlinux.fr Mail : i...@microlinux.fr Tél. : 04 66 63 10 32 Mob. : 06 51 80 12 12
