Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #267682 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ralph Aichinger <ra@h5.or.at> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-02-22 11:40 +0100 |
| Last post | 2024-02-23 20:40 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 78 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Ralph Aichinger <ra@h5.or.at> - 2024-02-22 11:40 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-23 07:10 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-23 10:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-23 11:00 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2024-02-23 11:10 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP tomas@tuxteam.de - 2024-02-23 11:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-23 12:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Alain D D Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk> - 2024-02-23 11:10 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2024-02-23 11:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-23 19:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mike Castle <dalgoda+debian@gmail.com> - 2024-03-14 19:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2024-03-15 01:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Alain D D Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk> - 2024-03-15 09:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mike Castle <dalgoda+debian@gmail.com> - 2024-03-15 17:10 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-03-15 17:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2024-03-15 17:40 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2024-03-15 17:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Will Mengarini <seldon@eskimo.com> - 2024-03-15 19:20 +0100
Please terminate this faecal matter - the whole thread appears to be a troll.....Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Bret Busby <bret@busby.net> - 2024-03-15 20:00 +0100
Re: Please terminate this faecal matter - the whole thread appears to be a troll.....Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-03-15 23:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2024-03-15 21:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Arno Lehmann <al@its-lehmann.de> - 2024-02-23 12:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2024-02-23 13:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-23 13:40 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-24 23:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net> - 2024-02-25 00:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-25 07:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-25 08:40 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-25 12:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-23 15:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2024-02-23 11:10 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Roger Price <roger@rogerprice.org> - 2024-02-23 11:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-23 12:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-23 15:40 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-02-23 17:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2024-02-23 19:10 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Gremlin <scott-andrews@columbus.rr.com> - 2024-02-23 19:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-02-23 21:00 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2024-02-23 20:00 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2024-02-24 12:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP jeremy ardley <jeremy.ardley@gmail.com> - 2024-02-24 12:40 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2024-02-24 14:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2024-02-24 15:10 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Alain D D Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk> - 2024-02-24 18:00 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-24 19:40 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-24 23:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-25 07:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-25 08:40 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP tomas@tuxteam.de - 2024-02-25 10:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Geert Stappers <stappers@stappers.nl> - 2024-02-25 10:40 +0100
Reply to list vs. group reply [was: Inlclusive terminology...] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-25 10:50 +0100
Re: Reply to list vs. group reply [was: Inlclusive terminology...] Geert Stappers <stappers@stappers.nl> - 2024-02-25 13:20 +0100
Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-24 22:40 +0100
Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-02-25 01:50 +0100
Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-25 12:10 +0100
Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) Alain D D Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk> - 2024-02-25 12:30 +0100
Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-25 13:00 +0100
Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2024-02-25 02:00 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2024-03-14 18:00 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-24 21:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2024-02-25 00:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-25 00:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-25 12:40 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Ralph Aichinger <ra@h5.or.at> - 2024-02-23 21:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-23 15:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP fxkl47BF@protonmail.com - 2024-02-23 16:00 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-23 18:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-23 21:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Ralph Aichinger <ra@h5.or.at> - 2024-02-23 21:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-23 22:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-24 03:40 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-24 04:00 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-24 23:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-24 23:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-23 18:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Ralph Aichinger <ra@h5.or.at> - 2024-02-23 21:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2024-02-23 22:40 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-02-23 20:40 +0100
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | jeremy ardley <jeremy.ardley@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-24 12:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <IaYxP-cirx-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267770 |
On 24/2/24 19:25, Emanuel Berg wrote: > But what about the black market? Or does in fact "block > market" work just fine? The term "black market" is from World War II - i.e. 1939-45. It has nothing to do with slaves. It means transactions in the dark, not visible, not official.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-24 14:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP |
| Message-ID | <Ib0zD-cjD6-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267771 |
jeremy ardley wrote: >> But what about the black market? Or does in fact "block >> market" work just fine? > > The term "black market" is from World War II - i.e. 1939-45. > It has nothing to do with slaves. It means transactions in > the dark, not visible, not official. I think the reason is black people shouldn't be associated with everything negative that is black in language. It was a BLM thing, not sure if it matters the etymology of such words. -- underground experts united https://dataswamp.org/~incal
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-24 15:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP |
| Message-ID | <Ib0SZ-cjYO-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267773 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 2024-02-24 at 08:42, Emanuel Berg wrote: > jeremy ardley wrote: > >>> But what about the black market? Or does in fact "block market" >>> work just fine? >> >> The term "black market" is from World War II - i.e. 1939-45. It has >> nothing to do with slaves. It means transactions in the dark, not >> visible, not official. > > I think the reason is black people shouldn't be associated with > everything negative that is black in language. The answer to that would then be to stop making such associations, on the basis that it was a misnomer to label those people as "black" (with whatever pre-existing connotations, negative or otherwise, that may have had) in the first place - not to require that everything negative that has that label be given a different label. That may seem (or even be) unrealistically facile, but that doesn't mean it isn't in some sense the correct resolution. It can hardly be much more unrealistic than getting everyone to change all existing negative-sense usage of "black". > It was a BLM thing, not sure if it matters the etymology of such > words. The etymology certainly *should* matter, insofar as that is the origin of the *meaning* of the word(s). -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alain D D Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-24 18:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Ib3xv-clm9-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267776 |
On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 09:03:45AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > > It was a BLM thing, not sure if it matters the etymology of such > > words. > > The etymology certainly *should* matter, insofar as that is the origin > of the *meaning* of the word(s). +1 However that is not the way that the world works, or prolly more accurately how some people think. They see a word/phrase that they have decided that they "own" or somehow relates to them and so view it entirely from their perspective; they make no attempt to understand how the speaker/writer viewed the word/phrase as they *know* what the only meaning can be - everything else is a wrong interpretation. There is little point in trying to argue against someone who has decided to think this way, arguing will just confirm, to them, that you are racist/xxxist and are against them. I sometimes think that something similar to Postel's Law but applied to human interactions would be useful. However that is wishful thinking https://devopedia.org/postel-s-law -- Alain Williams Linux/GNU Consultant - Mail systems, Web sites, Networking, Programmer, IT Lecturer. +44 (0) 787 668 0256 https://www.phcomp.co.uk/ Parliament Hill Computers. Registration Information: https://www.phcomp.co.uk/Contact.html #include <std_disclaimer.h>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-24 19:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Ib56i-cmn1-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267781 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 04:54:12PM +0000, Alain D D Williams wrote: > On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 09:03:45AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > > > > It was a BLM thing, not sure if it matters the etymology of such > > > words. > > > > The etymology certainly *should* matter, insofar as that is the origin > > of the *meaning* of the word(s). > > +1 > > However that is not the way that the world works, or prolly more accurately how > some people think. They see a word/phrase that they have decided that they > "own" [...] It's not just "they", that's the point. It's us all. > I sometimes think that something similar to Postel's Law but applied to human > interactions would be useful. However that is wishful thinking Actually, Postel's Law is a very appropriate metaphor. It has two sides. My side is here: if I have reasons to suspect something might offend my interlocutor, I'll try to avoid it -- unless there's a stronger reason not to. Cheers -- t
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-24 23:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP |
| Message-ID | <Ib8xb-coK2-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267787 |
On 2/25/24, tomas@tuxteam.de <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 04:54:12PM +0000, Alain D D Williams wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 09:03:45AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote: >> >> > > It was a BLM thing, not sure if it matters the etymology of such >> > > words. >> > >> > The etymology certainly *should* matter, insofar as that is the origin >> > of the *meaning* of the word(s). >> >> +1 >> >> However that is not the way that the world works, or prolly more >> accurately how >> some people think. They see a word/phrase that they have decided that >> they >> "own" [...] > > It's not just "they", that's the point. It's us all. The "problem" is asking the majority (10s of thousands of people) to make efforts to help 1 or 2 heal in their journey's of pain and healing. >> I sometimes think that something similar to Postel's Law but applied to >> human >> interactions would be useful. However that is wishful thinking > > Actually, Postel's Law is a very appropriate metaphor. It has two sides. > My side is here: if I have reasons to suspect something might offend my > interlocutor, I'll try to avoid it -- unless there's a stronger reason > not to. That's considerate human behaviour. Some humans are in so much pain and need so much healing, that their demands for our behaviour and or language change, becomes an oppression against us. SOMEtimes non experts are able to facilitate the healing of those who need healing. Other times, we are presuming expert ability which is very unwise - for example if a particular individual is so damaged and in need of emotional support and healing, that reading a single word or phrase is likely to lead them to suicide, then that person seriously needs professional help and it is very unwise to let them loose in our general community where such words and phrases are readily come across. Children bond with their mothers and fathers in normal wholesome families. Someone who is so damaged that they are seriously triggered by the word bonding, needs professional assistance. The Debian mailing lists are not, at least as far as I understand it, medical (or psychological) institutions, and it is unwise (I would suggest "in the extreme") for us to pretend otherwise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-25 07:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Ibg1H-ctyz-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267792 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 09:14:44AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: [...] > The "problem" is asking the majority (10s of thousands of people) to > make efforts to help 1 or 2 heal in their journey's of pain and > healing. To make sure the "majority" stays majority for all so ever: white, male, Western Europe or US, English speaking? For better or worse (IMO for better!) demography of our geek communities is slowly changing. This brings about some friction. I'm all for facilitating this process: this involves questioning my preconceptions. As a scientist, I'm used to do that, anyway. Cheers -- t
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-25 08:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP |
| Message-ID | <Ibhh7-cucc-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267812 |
On 2/25/24, tomas@tuxteam.de <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 09:14:44AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > > [...] > >> The "problem" is asking the majority (10s of thousands of people) to >> make efforts to help 1 or 2 heal in their journey's of pain and >> healing. > > To make sure the "majority" stays majority for all so ever: white, > male, Western Europe or US, English speaking? Ha! Had to pull the race card now huh? Figured that's where the sjw wokesters would go. When all else fails, cry "racism". > For better or worse (IMO for better!) demography of our geek > communities is slowly changing. This brings about some friction. > I'm all for facilitating this process: this involves questioning > my preconceptions. > > As a scientist, I'm used to do that, anyway. A "scientist" you say. "Oh my, what powerful 'racist' arguments you have there. Oh well, you win then hey?" It's all black and white dichotomies from here. The racist "whites" vs the oppressed "blacks". Such science! Such awesome power!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tomas@tuxteam.de |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-25 10:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <IbiZz-cvfm-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267814 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 06:30:35PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > On 2/25/24, tomas@tuxteam.de <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 09:14:44AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > > > > [...] > > > >> The "problem" is asking the majority (10s of thousands of people) to > >> make efforts to help 1 or 2 heal in their journey's of pain and > >> healing. > > > > To make sure the "majority" stays majority for all so ever: white, > > male, Western Europe or US, English speaking? > > Ha! Had to pull the race card now huh? Figured that's where the sjw > wokesters would go. When all else fails, cry "racism". [...] I think I'm out of it. *Plonk* -- t
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Geert Stappers <stappers@stappers.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-25 10:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Ibj9g-cviv-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267817 |
On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 10:22:09AM +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > [...] > > I think I'm out of it. *Plonk* > -- > t For keeping that promise would it be better to use "Reply-To-List". And in other cases is it also better to use "Reply-To-List". Groeten Geert Stappers P.S. The better e-mail client has 3 reply buttons: - Reply - Reply-To-All - Reply-To-List -- Silence is hard to parse
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-25 10:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Reply to list vs. group reply [was: Inlclusive terminology...] |
| Message-ID | <IbjiV-cvlP-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267818 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 10:35:33AM +0100, Geert Stappers wrote: [Adjusting the topic] > For keeping that promise would it be better to use "Reply-To-List". > > And in other cases is it also better to use "Reply-To-List". I know it is a hot topic here. Preferences vary by the sender, which I can't perfectly know. My e-mail client honours "Mail-Followup-To", which is the sender's way to state "hey, I'd prefer for you to send replies to...", usually to the list address. [...] > P.S. > The better e-mail client has 3 reply buttons: > - Reply > - Reply-To-All > - Reply-To-List Mine has those. It *also* honours "Mail-Followup-To" (and could set it, if I cared the other way around, but my MDA eliminates dupes anyway, so I'm happy both ways). If you care, you might consider setting your "Mail-Followup-To" header? Cheers -- t
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Geert Stappers <stappers@stappers.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-25 13:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Reply to list vs. group reply [was: Inlclusive terminology...] |
| Message-ID | <IblE5-cwRV-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267819 |
Summary: exposing a troll On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 10:48:17AM +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 10:35:33AM +0100, Geert Stappers wrote: > } troll tomas wrote: > } } I think I'm out of it. *Plonk* > [Adjusting the topic] > > > For keeping that promise would it be better to use "Reply-To-List". > > > > And in other cases is it also better to use "Reply-To-List". > > I know it is a hot topic here. Preferences vary by the sender, which > I can't perfectly know. > > My e-mail client honours "Mail-Followup-To", which is the sender's > way to state "hey, I'd prefer for you to send replies to...", > usually to the list address. There is no 'Mail-Followup-To" header in email sent by Zenaan Harkness. There is difference in To headers from troll tomas in reply to Zenaan messages. In https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2024/02/msg01022.html is the To this mailinglist. In https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2024/02/msg01027.html that is the email with "I think I'm out of it" is the To Zenaan and Cc to the mailinglist. I call the 'My e-mail client honours "Mail-Followup-To"' bullshit. Then the promise of "I'm out of it" was broken. Probably due my troll feeding. I should have ignored the passive agressive "To: Zenaan" > [...] > > > P.S. > > The better e-mail client has 3 reply buttons: > > - Reply > > - Reply-To-All > > - Reply-To-List > > Mine has those. https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2024/02/msg01029.html has documented that the troll did choose "Reply-To-All". > It *also* honours "Mail-Followup-To" (and could set it, if I cared > the other way around, but my MDA eliminates dupes anyway, so I'm happy > both ways). > > If you care, you might consider setting your "Mail-Followup-To" header? There is no technical problem, email headers and mail-user-agents wouldn't help to solve it. The challenge is to spend attention to what deserves attention. Troll email doesn't deserve attention. Time will tell if the signal noise ratio improves. > Cheers > -- > t Groeten Geert Stappers Also wrote - https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2024/02/msg01035.html (sad) - https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2024/02/msg00994.html (hope) -- Silence is hard to parse
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-24 22:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) |
| Message-ID | <Ib7Ut-codg-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267781 |
Hi,
On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 04:54:12PM +0000, Alain D D Williams wrote:
> I sometimes think that something similar to Postel's Law but applied to human
> interactions would be useful. However that is wishful thinking
The basic assumption that people mean well is how con artists and
high pressure sales tactics have operated since the dawn of
communication ("Oh, you can't afford the vacuum cleaner? I really
shouldn't, but let me just call my boss because I really want to
help you…").
Although at least with con artists there is the other thing of
"can't con an honest John".
I'm not saying DON'T give people the benefit of the doubt, but just
always be aware that when you do there will be people who take
advantage of that.
Turning back more to protocol design, we have spent decades walking
back Postel's Law as we find more and more ways that being liberal
in what our software accepts is untenable in the face of a hostile
Internet.
Thanks,
Andy
--
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-25 01:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) |
| Message-ID | <IbaSl-cqaY-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267791 |
On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 7:37 PM Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> wrote: > > [...] > Turning back more to protocol design, we have spent decades walking > back Postel's Law as we find more and more ways that being liberal > in what our software accepts is untenable in the face of a hostile > Internet. ++. Postel's Law is a disaster nowadays. It was fine back in the 1980's, but it is dangerous in the toxic environments of today. Here's what we teach our developers: Look for any reason you can to reject the data. If you can't find a reason, then begrudgingly perform the processing or transformation. Jeff
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-25 12:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) |
| Message-ID | <Ibkyl-cwfO-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267807 |
Dnia 2024-02-24, o godz. 19:44:44 Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> napisał(a): > On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 7:37 PM Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> > wrote: > > > > [...] > > Turning back more to protocol design, we have spent decades walking > > back Postel's Law as we find more and more ways that being liberal > > in what our software accepts is untenable in the face of a hostile > > Internet. > > ++. Postel's Law is a disaster nowadays. It was fine back in the > 1980's, but it is dangerous in the toxic environments of today. > Postel's law works on user-interfaced data far better than protocols. > Here's what we teach our developers: Look for any reason you can to > reject the data. If you can't find a reason, then begrudgingly perform > the processing or transformation. On flip-side it's terrible idea to do that on user-entered data. Yes, security wise it's a great idea, but usability-wise it generates annoyances at every step. Like, if say user enters a data (say a token from mail 2FA) with extra spaces, the "accept only the perfectly good data" would prompt to tell them to sod off and try again", instead of just cutting the whitespaces out and checking the token. Similarly if the site requires bank account number most people don't type it, they copy it is not accepting the long string of numbers just because it had some whitespaces added for better presentation just annoys the users. And that pre-processing often (if it is a website) can be done client side so server code can keep its tight and secure processing without compromising. -- Mariusz Gronczewski (XANi) <xani666@gmail.com> GnuPG: 0xEA8ACE64 https://devrandom.eu
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alain D D Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-25 12:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) |
| Message-ID | <IbkRH-cwlS-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267807 |
On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 07:44:44PM -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 7:37 PM Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> wrote: > > > > [...] > > Turning back more to protocol design, we have spent decades walking > > back Postel's Law as we find more and more ways that being liberal > > in what our software accepts is untenable in the face of a hostile > > Internet. > > ++. Postel's Law is a disaster nowadays. It was fine back in the > 1980's, but it is dangerous in the toxic environments of today. > > Here's what we teach our developers: Look for any reason you can to > reject the data. If you can't find a reason, then begrudgingly perform > the processing or transformation. There is a difference between not doing validation (eg a field being numeric) and flexibility (eg a line length being 100 bytes which is more than the specified 80 bytes). This is what Postel is talking about. Otherwise I completely agree: validate, validate, validate - if I accept your bad data then it becomes my problem, if I reject it then you have to fix it. Unfortunately people will complain if you do this "everyone accepts the data", to which I reply "please tell me exactly what it means" - which should shut them up. -- Alain Williams Linux/GNU Consultant - Mail systems, Web sites, Networking, Programmer, IT Lecturer. +44 (0) 787 668 0256 https://www.phcomp.co.uk/ Parliament Hill Computers. Registration Information: https://www.phcomp.co.uk/Contact.html #include <std_disclaimer.h>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-25 13:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) |
| Message-ID | <IblkJ-cwwu-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267822 |
Dnia 2024-02-25, o godz. 11:22:50 Alain D D Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk> napisał(a): > On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 07:44:44PM -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 7:37 PM Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> > > wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > Turning back more to protocol design, we have spent decades > > > walking back Postel's Law as we find more and more ways that > > > being liberal in what our software accepts is untenable in the > > > face of a hostile Internet. > > > > ++. Postel's Law is a disaster nowadays. It was fine back in the > > 1980's, but it is dangerous in the toxic environments of today. > > > > Here's what we teach our developers: Look for any reason you can to > > reject the data. If you can't find a reason, then begrudgingly > > perform the processing or transformation. > > There is a difference between not doing validation (eg a field being > numeric) and flexibility (eg a line length being 100 bytes which is > more than the specified 80 bytes). This is what Postel is talking > about. ...and how you would even handle it ? The DB field is 80 characters, do you want to just truncate it ? Or oversize the DB? what if DB field have that 100 bytes but someone sends 101? If the numeric field can be hex,dec,oct number or a string representing one of those (octal representation in particular is satan that claimed bugs in many projects), together with locale-specific dots dashes and commas separating thousands, that's plenty of code that can go wrong vs "okay this number is in range, job done" Yes of course there is a diffence between validation and flexibility but flexibility of protocol should only extend to backward compability, where it doesn't cost you too much, and not indefinitely. Not to be flexible just so someone can half-ass the implementation and still have it "work" because other servers cover up for the errors with being "flexible". There is a case for leeway in user-facing stuff - nobody wants to hunt for trailing whitespace in their forms just because they dared to copy-paste - but protocols had way too much leeway *because* most implementations ignored the second part, "be conservative in what you do" and frankly sent fucked up stuff that your implementation still needed to work with if it was a common open protocol. e-mail being particular example, oh the hundreds of problems with "our" mail servers that could be summed up by "your implementation pisses on RFC and that's why our mail server doesn't get your mail"... -- Mariusz Gronczewski (XANi) <xani666@gmail.com> GnuPG: 0xEA8ACE64 https://devrandom.eu
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-25 02:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) |
| Message-ID | <Ibb22-cqfL-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267791 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Sat, Feb 24, 2024, 6:37 PM Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 04:54:12PM +0000, Alain D D Williams wrote: > > I sometimes think that something similar to Postel's Law but applied to > human > > interactions would be useful. However that is wishful thinking > > .... > I'm not saying DON'T give people the benefit of the doubt, but just > always be aware that when you do there will be people who take > advantage of that. > > Turning back more to protocol design, we have spent decades walking > back Postel's Law as we find more and more ways that being liberal > in what our software accepts is untenable in the face of a hostile > Internet. > Quoting Paul Vixie 30 years ago at the Usenix technical conference (author of various RFCs: DHCP, NNTP....): "Its important to remember that the internet escaped from the lab long before we could put it into anything like production form. It's equally important that our masters do not learn that". Thanks, > Andy > > -- > https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-03-14 18:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP |
| Message-ID | <IhWAW-gGpO-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267781 |
Alain D D Williams wrote: > However that is not the way that the world works, or prolly > more accurately how some people think. They see > a word/phrase that they have decided that they "own" or > somehow relates to them [...] I am not black so I have no idea how black people consider everything negative in language that is black. If indeed most of them have no strong feelings about it it may be a waste of time trying to change such expressions. If they do care about it one could try to reduce such use from formal and official language, especially when it really hasn't anything to do with the color black - like blacklist into blocklist, and other such examples. Maybe in fantasy novels one would still be allowed to have evil wizards all dressed in black, doing powerful incantations of black magic? -- underground experts united https://dataswamp.org/~incal
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-24 21:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Ib785-cnCt-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267773 |
Dnia 2024-02-24, o godz. 14:42:39 Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> napisał(a): > jeremy ardley wrote: > > >> But what about the black market? Or does in fact "block > >> market" work just fine? > > > > The term "black market" is from World War II - i.e. 1939-45. > > It has nothing to do with slaves. It means transactions in > > the dark, not visible, not official. > > I think the reason is black people shouldn't be associated > with everything negative that is black in language. They are not associated with everything negative. The people that want those changed just assume that people think that. I assure you normal people don't see the word "black" attached to something and automatically think it means something about the people. People wanting to change common unoffensive terms just assume everyone else *must* be racist so they play the pretend game and imagine that if their idealized proxy for minority that they imagined in their heads would get offended that it needs to be changed One of recent (and also not so recent as similar thing was tried few decades before with same character) examples of that was when some activists decided "surely Speedy Gonzales stereotypica presentation of Mexicans is racist, lets remove it". Someone imagined people portrayed might be offended, decided to not ask anyone (or as the single person offended they could find in hundreds) in actual demographics, then remove it. Then the activists patted themselves on the back after doing the good in the world. Then the minority told them to sod off and bring it back because thats the opposite of what they wanted and all they ended up doing is pissing off or wasting time of everyone involved As for that particular phrase I'm guessing black market came from being under cover of darkness, underground or otherwise secluded area, but I'm no etymologist. People just like short descriptive terms and dont care much about source of words. Slave kinda came from that too; in many hardware setups it does actually means "the device's every action is directed by master" and not just "a replica or a secondary node", like for example in SPI or I2C protocol the master is only one putting read/write commands on the bus and slave device just respons to orders. You could maybe replace it with thrall but I'm sure someone would be offended on behalf of someone else by that too somehow... -- Mariusz Gronczewski (XANi) <xani666@gmail.com> GnuPG: 0xEA8ACE64 https://devrandom.eu
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web