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
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 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
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 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
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
