It goes without saying that this kind of a discussion\debate\etc. can easily turn into something wholly not intended…therefore, all I will offer is this…
Someone said earlier that they refuse to use select words because "words matter"…I would agree. That said… I respectfully submit that context matters far far more and ignoring that in a quest to find a solution to a widespread social ill and\or soothe a shared trauma is a very treacherous path. Even the most serious and extreme social ills do not demand nor justify any and all measures and my hope is that any deliberative and collective body consider only those measures which have a bonafide goal of resolving whatever issue is at play. > On Jun 6, 2020, at 10:46 AM, Wietse Venema <wie...@porcupine.org> wrote: > > Wietse Venema: >> Ian Evans: >>> 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? >> >> Easily, if they can be acessed via DNSBL/DNSWL qeueries. Any 'new' >> lookup mechanism will have to be added through a postscreen policy >> plugin, and that involves new Postfix code. >> >> For context: Postscreen decides if a remote SMTP client is allowed >> to talk to a Postfix SMTP service. The decision is made on (protocol) >> behavior and reputation, plus a static allow/deny list that is >> typically populated with information from major provider SPF records. > > I did not realize this was a suggestion to re-word Postfix documentation > (and presumably, the corresponding program and parameter names). > > Changing 'blacklist' into 'blocklist' or 'blackhole' into 'sinkhole' > seems doable. There is no 'slave' in documentation, program names > or parameter names. Internal identifiers and comments can be udpated > with no visible consequence. Other changes would be difficult. > > Wietse
