Patch to remove "adult" content from spamd(8) man page

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
46 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Patch to remove "adult" content from spamd(8) man page

J. Lewis Muir
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 -0000 1.119
+++ libexec/spamd/spamd.8 21 Nov 2013 16:50:06 -0000
@@ -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
-[hidden email]
+[hidden email]
 [hidden email]
 [hidden email]
 .Ed
@@ -432,8 +432,8 @@ However the following addresses
 .Em would
 cause the sending host to be trapped:
 .Bd -literal -offset indent
-[hidden email]
-[hidden email]
+[hidden email]
+[hidden email]
 .Ed
 .Pp
 A low priority MX IP address may be specified with the

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch to remove "adult" content from spamd(8) man page

Todd Alan Smith-3
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:33 AM, J. Lewis Muir <[hidden email]> 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 -0000      1.119
> +++ libexec/spamd/spamd.8       21 Nov 2013 16:50:06 -0000
> @@ -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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch to remove "adult" content from spamd(8) man page

Nick Holland
In reply to this post by J. Lewis Muir
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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch to remove "adult" content from spamd(8) man page

J. Lewis Muir
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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch to remove "adult" content from spamd(8) man page

Janne Johansson-3
2013/11/21 J. Lewis Muir <[hidden email]>

> 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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch to remove "adult" content from spamd(8) man page

zalit
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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch to remove "adult" content from spamd(8) man page

Gilles Chehade-7
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 08:02:06PM +0100, [hidden email] 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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch to remove "adult" content from spamd(8) man page

Theo de Raadt
In reply to this post by J. Lewis Muir
> 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...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch to remove "adult" content from spamd(8) man page

Theo de Raadt
In reply to this post by J. Lewis Muir
> 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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch to remove "adult" content from spamd(8) man page

zalit
In reply to this post by Gilles Chehade-7
On 2013-11-21 20:04, Gilles Chehade wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 08:02:06PM +0100, [hidden email] 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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch to remove "adult" content from spamd(8) man page

Brad Smith-14
On 21/11/13 2:15 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> On 2013-11-21 20:04, Gilles Chehade wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 08:02:06PM +0100, [hidden email] 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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch to remove "adult" content from spamd(8) man page

Theo de Raadt
In reply to this post by J. Lewis Muir
> 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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch to remove "adult" content from spamd(8) man page

J. Lewis Muir
In reply to this post by Theo de Raadt
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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch to remove "adult" content from spamd(8) man page

Shawn K. Quinn-2
In reply to this post by J. Lewis Muir
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 [hidden email] and I cannot lie.

--
  Shawn K. Quinn
  [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch to remove "adult" content from spamd(8) man page

Shawn K. Quinn-2
In reply to this post by J. Lewis Muir
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
  [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch to remove "adult" content from spamd(8) man page

Chris Cappuccio
Shawn K. Quinn [[hidden email]] 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 ?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch to remove "adult" content from spamd(8) man page

Alexander Hall
In reply to this post by J. Lewis Muir
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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch to remove "adult" content from spamd(8) man page

J. Lewis Muir
In reply to this post by Shawn K. Quinn-2
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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch to remove "adult" content from spamd(8) man page

Alexander Hall
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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch to remove "adult" content from spamd(8) man page

Wayne Oliver
In reply to this post by Gilles Chehade-7
On 21 Nov 2013, at 21:04, Gilles Chehade <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 08:02:06PM +0100, [hidden email] 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]

123