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