Re: Why does gdb implement 'next' command with a series of "vCont;s"?

Re: Why does gdb implement 'next' command with a series of "vCont;s"?

[congli]

There is an error in my example. When I issue a 'next' command at
line 6, the step_range_end should be the first instruction of line 7,
0x8048372, not 804836f.

 >  I have a simple test program (x86 platform), debug it from
 >  a remote machine. First, let the program stop at line 6,
 >  then issue a 'next' command. I have set the 'debug remote'
 >  option, and the command line output is:
 >
 >  6           j = i + 1;
 >  (gdb) n
 >  Sending packet: $m45e2ca,1#8e...Ack
 >  Packet received: 55
 >  Sending packet: $M45e2ca,1:cc#6e...Ack
 >  Packet received: OK
 >  Sending packet: $m8048364,1#3b...Ack
 >  Packet received: c7
 >  Sending packet: $M8048364,1:cc#1b...Ack
 >  Packet received: OK
 >  Sending packet: $m464005,1#fd...Ack
 >  Packet received: 55
 >  Sending packet: $M464005,1:cc#dd...Ack
 >  Packet received: OK
 >  Sending packet: $m496014,1#02...Ack
 >  Packet received: 55
 >  Sending packet: $M496014,1:cc#e2...Ack
 >  Packet received: OK
 >  Sending packet: $vCont;s#b8...Ack
 >  Packet received: T0505:887a80bf;04:607a80bf;08:6e830408;
 >  Sending packet: $vCont;s#b8...Ack
 >  Packet received: T0505:887a80bf;04:607a80bf;08:6f830408;
 >  Sending packet: $vCont;s#b8...Ack
 >  Packet received: T0505:887a80bf;04:607a80bf;08:72830408;
 >  ...
 >
 >  this is the objdump of line 6 and line 7 of my program:
 >
 >     j = i + 1;
 >   804836b:	8b 45 f4             	mov    0xfffffff4(%ebp),%eax
 >   804836e:	40                   	inc    %eax
 >   804836f:	89 45 f8             	mov    %eax,0xfffffff8(%ebp)
 >      k = j + 1;
 >   8048372:	8b 45 f8             	mov    0xfffffff8(%ebp),%eax
 >   8048375:	40                   	inc    %eax
 >   8048376:	89 45 fc             	mov    %eax,0xfffffffc(%ebp)
 >
 >   As you can see, line 6 of my program consists of three assembly
 >   instructions. gdb implements the 'next' command by three "vCont;s",
 >   and stop at the first instruction of line 7, which address is
 >   0x8048372.
 >
 >   My question is, when I issue the 'next' command, gdb already
 >   know the 'step_range_end' is 0x804836f, why not implement the
 >   'next' command by set a breakpoint at 0x804836f and then issue
 >   "vCont;c"? When the program meet the breakpoint at 0x804836f,
 >   we can do a single "vCont;s" to the first instruction of
 >   line 7, 0x8048372.
 >
 >   This implementation of 'next' command will decrease network
 >   traffic and make the command more efficient, especially when
 >   there is a lot of assembly instructions within one C souce line.
 >   But why does gdb take the "vCont;s" method?
 >
 >   Thanks.
 >

Posting from work/university addresses

[Jim Blandy]

I've noticed a number of posters to the GDB lists recently who I'd
guess were professionals working on real-world stuff, but coming from
gmail/yahoo/hotmail accounts instead of work or university addresses.
From various other cues I'd guess they were from countries with
growing technology industries, like China, India, or Russia.

I'm curious --- is there some reason people avoid posting to the GDB
mailing lists from their work/uni addresses?

I certainly hope that people feel comfortable posting to the GDB
lists, and expect their posts to get the same attention anyone else's
would, regardless of where they live or who they work for.  One of the
things I've always enjoyed about working on Free software is the way
competent people appear from all over to work on a project that is
worthwhile to them.  And open source has historically been a place
where people can count on being judged by their ability, and not where
they live.  If that's not true, we're in trouble.

My company specifically encourages its employees to post under their
work addresses, as a way to raise the company's profile and to show
off its participation in the public projects.

As I say, I'm only asking this out of curiousity.  I'm happy to see
people contributing to GDB in whatever way they like best.

Re: Posting from work/university addresses

[Anmol P. Paralkar]

Hello Jim,

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Jim Blandy wrote:

>
> I've noticed a number of posters to the GDB lists recently who I'd
> guess were professionals working on real-world stuff, but coming from
> gmail/yahoo/hotmail accounts instead of work or university addresses.
> From various other cues I'd guess they were from countries with
> growing technology industries, like China, India, or Russia.
>
> I'm curious --- is there some reason people avoid posting to the GDB
> mailing lists from their work/uni addresses?

  In the case of work address: Some companies require inclusion of/automatically include
  a disclaimer notice at the end of the message and sometimes it's against list policy
  to post messages with such disclaimers in them. So e.g. in the gcc list, such posters
  are kindly advised to use a free account like in:

  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-07/msg00732.html

  (Not that the advice is always heeded).

  Sometimes employers do not permit using "official" work addresses for a variety of
  (typically: narrow-minded) reasons - and that can happen independent of locale
  - it's more employer (policy) specific.

> I certainly hope that people feel comfortable posting to the GDB
> lists, and expect their posts to get the same attention anyone else's
> would, regardless of where they live or who they work for.  One of the
> things I've always enjoyed about working on Free software is the way
> competent people appear from all over to work on a project that is
> worthwhile to them.  And open source has historically been a place
> where people can count on being judged by their ability, and not where
> they live.  If that's not true, we're in trouble.

  The responses on the GDB list are always encouraging and as a GDB newbie
  I have always found the responses educating and reassuring.

>
> My company specifically encourages its employees to post under their
> work addresses, as a way to raise the company's profile and to show
> off its participation in the public projects.
>
> As I say, I'm only asking this out of curiousity.  I'm happy to see
> people contributing to GDB in whatever way they like best.
>

  True, it does feel great to work for an employer who supports Free Software and
  encourages development and community participation as a first-class activity! :)

Thanks & Regards,
Anmol.






>

Re: Posting from work/university addresses

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 06:07:43PM -0500, Anmol P. Paralkar wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Jim Blandy wrote:
>>I've noticed a number of posters to the GDB lists recently who I'd
>>guess were professionals working on real-world stuff, but coming from
>>gmail/yahoo/hotmail accounts instead of work or university addresses.
>>From various other cues I'd guess they were from countries with growing
>>technology industries, like China, India, or Russia.
>>
>>I'm curious --- is there some reason people avoid posting to the GDB
>>mailing lists from their work/uni addresses?
>
>In the case of work address: Some companies require inclusion
>of/automatically include a disclaimer notice at the end of the message
>and sometimes it's against list policy to post messages with such
>disclaimers in them.  So e.g.  in the gcc list, such posters are kindly
>advised to use a free account like in:
>
>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-07/msg00732.html
>
>(Not that the advice is always heeded).

This will soon no longer be optional as I've been asked to start bouncing
messages which contain disclaimers.  I'm testing the code to do this now.

cgf

Re: Posting from work/university addresses

[Wenbo Yang]

Jim Blandy wrote:
> I've noticed a number of posters to the GDB lists recently who I'd
> guess were professionals working on real-world stuff, but coming from
> gmail/yahoo/hotmail accounts instead of work or university addresses.

>>From various other cues I'd guess they were from countries with
> growing technology industries, like China, India, or Russia.

> I'm curious --- is there some reason people avoid posting to the GDB
> mailing lists from their work/uni addresses?

That partly because most universities in China do not provide their students
free school email service. Teachers is OK, but students must pay for their
school email account. That is also why Chinese students applying for abroad
Universities always leave gmail/hotmail as their contact email.

> I certainly hope that people feel comfortable posting to the GDB
> lists, and expect their posts to get the same attention anyone else's
> would, regardless of where they live or who they work for.  One of the
> things I've always enjoyed about working on Free software is the way
> competent people appear from all over to work on a project that is
> worthwhile to them.  And open source has historically been a place
> where people can count on being judged by their ability, and not where
> they live.  If that's not true, we're in trouble.

I agree with that.

> My company specifically encourages its employees to post under their
> work addresses, as a way to raise the company's profile and to show
> off its participation in the public projects.
> 
> As I say, I'm only asking this out of curiousity.  I'm happy to see
> people contributing to GDB in whatever way they like best.
:-)

Regards,
Wenbo
-- 
Wenbo Yang

The State Key Lab. of Information Security
Graduate School of CAS, 19A Yuquan Road, Beijing, China
Homepage: http://solrex.cn

SimpLight Nanoelectronics Ltd. 6 Zhichun Road, 10th Floor, Beijing, China
Phone: +86-10-5126-6989   ---  Email: wenbo.yang@simplnano.com

Re: Posting from work/university addresses

[Robin Getz]

On Mon 30 Jul 2007 20:08, Christopher Faylor pondered:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 06:07:43PM -0500, Anmol P. Paralkar wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Jim Blandy wrote:
> >>I'm curious --- is there some reason people avoid posting to the GDB
> >>mailing lists from their work/uni addresses?
> >
> >In the case of work address: Some companies require inclusion
> >of/automatically include a disclaimer notice at the end of the message
> >and sometimes it's against list policy to post messages with such
> >disclaimers in them.  So e.g.  in the gcc list, such posters are kindly
> >advised to use a free account like in:
> >
> >http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-07/msg00732.html
> >
> >(Not that the advice is always heeded).
> 
> This will soon no longer be optional as I've been asked to start
> bouncing messages which contain disclaimers.  I'm testing the code
> to do this now.

Please make sure that this doesn't filter the requirements currently in place 
by EU based folks - who are now required by law to post all kinds of stuff 
(business address, company directors, etc) in their emails...

Thanks
-Robin

Re: Posting from work/university addresses

[Robert Dewar]

Robin Getz wrote:

> Please make sure that this doesn't filter the requirements currently in place 
> by EU based folks - who are now required by law to post all kinds of stuff 
> (business address, company directors, etc) in their emails...

Let's make sure that we really know the rules before we follow them!
Almost no one from the EU posts this stuff, and I have never heard
of such a requirement in connection with our paris based company.

Re: Posting from work/university addresses

[Robin Getz]

On Thu 2 Aug 2007 13:10, Robert Dewar pondered:
> Robin Getz wrote:
> 
> > Please make sure that this doesn't filter the requirements currently in place 
> > by EU based folks - who are now required by law to post all kinds of stuff 
> > (business address, company directors, etc) in their emails...
> 
> Let's make sure that we really know the rules before we follow them!
> Almost no one from the EU posts this stuff, and I have never heard
> of such a requirement in connection with our paris based company.

There are some people following them now - due to company policy - RedHat in Cambridge
and Analog Devices in Munich - I know for sure...

I see lots of messages on lkml with 

(Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, AmberleyPlace, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, UnitedKingdom.Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903Directors: Michael Cunningham (USA), Charlie Peters (USA) andDavid Owens (Ireland))


and even on the gcc list, I see in the footers:

--
 This footer brought to you by insane German lawmakers.
 Analog Devices GmbH      Wilhelm-Wagenfeld-Str. 6      80807 Muenchen
 Sitz der Gesellschaft Muenchen, Registergericht Muenchen HRB 40368
 Geschaeftsfuehrer Thomas Wessel, William A. Martin, Margaret Seif


Just because not many people are following the rules, doesn't mean we should 
punish the ones who are (no matter how ridiculous the law seems to be).

-Robin

Re: Posting from work/university addresses

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Robin Getz <rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org> writes:

> On Thu 2 Aug 2007 13:10, Robert Dewar pondered:
> > Robin Getz wrote:
> > 
> > > Please make sure that this doesn't filter the requirements currently in place 
> > > by EU based folks - who are now required by law to post all kinds of stuff 
> > > (business address, company directors, etc) in their emails...
> > 
> > Let's make sure that we really know the rules before we follow them!
> > Almost no one from the EU posts this stuff, and I have never heard
> > of such a requirement in connection with our paris based company.
> 
> There are some people following them now - due to company policy - RedHat in Cambridge
> and Analog Devices in Munich - I know for sure...

The goal is not to eliminate random stuff from footers.  Lots of
people include company affiliation in their e-mail message.  The goal
is specifically to eliminate the disclaimers which say things like
"this message must not be distributed to unauthorized viewers."

Ian

Re: Posting from work/university addresses

[Jim Blandy]

Robert Dewar <dewar@adacore.com> writes:
>> Please make sure that this doesn't filter the requirements currently
>> in place by EU based folks - who are now required by law to post all
>> kinds of stuff (business address, company directors, etc) in their
>> emails...
>
> Let's make sure that we really know the rules before we follow them!
> Almost no one from the EU posts this stuff, and I have never heard
> of such a requirement in connection with our paris based company.

I appreciated the heads-up from Chris, but let's please not discuss
GCC mailing list plans on the gdb list.

Re: Posting from work/university addresses

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 11:23:47AM -0700, Jim Blandy wrote:
>Robert Dewar <dewar@adacore.com> writes:
>>> Please make sure that this doesn't filter the requirements currently
>>> in place by EU based folks - who are now required by law to post all
>>> kinds of stuff (business address, company directors, etc) in their
>>> emails...
>>
>> Let's make sure that we really know the rules before we follow them!
>> Almost no one from the EU posts this stuff, and I have never heard
>> of such a requirement in connection with our paris based company.
>
>I appreciated the heads-up from Chris, but let's please not discuss
>GCC mailing list plans on the gdb list.

gcc.gnu.org == sourceware.org

This is a long-standing site policy for all lists on sourceware.org not
just for gcc.gnu.org.  When it happens, it will happen for every mailing
list on this site.

cgf

Re: Posting from work/university addresses

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 14:34:31 -0400
> From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@sourceware.org>
> 
> This is a long-standing site policy for all lists on sourceware.org not
> just for gcc.gnu.org.  When it happens, it will happen for every mailing
> list on this site.

Where can one see what exactly is about to be banned, and how?  Is
this policy and its practical implications announced and explained in
detail somewhere?

Re: Posting from work/university addresses

[Christopher Faylor]

On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 03:03:55PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 14:34:31 -0400
>> From: Christopher Faylor
>> 
>> This is a long-standing site policy for all lists on sourceware.org not
>> just for gcc.gnu.org.  When it happens, it will happen for every mailing
>> list on this site.
>
>Where can one see what exactly is about to be banned, and how?  Is
>this policy and its practical implications announced and explained in
>detail somewhere?

It will be blocked using the same spam software that I wrote for
sourceware years ago.  That software can bounce email based on arbitrary
regexes found in the body of a message.  However, the bounce will not
identify the message as spam and will have a clear message indicating
why the message was refused.

When this is about to go live there will be more details.  Please don't
make me regret mentioning this by demanding more details now.

cgf

Re: Posting from work/university addresses

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> > Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 14:34:31 -0400
> > From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@sourceware.org>
> > 
> > This is a long-standing site policy for all lists on sourceware.org not
> > just for gcc.gnu.org.  When it happens, it will happen for every mailing
> > list on this site.
> 
> Where can one see what exactly is about to be banned, and how?  Is
> this policy and its practical implications announced and explained in
> detail somewhere?

The policy has been announced for a very long time, on
http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html and http://sourceware.org/lists.html.

The implications are that the policy will be enforced in software,
rather than by mailing list convention.

Ian

Re: Posting from work/university addresses

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Cc: dewar@adacore.com, b07584@freescale.com, rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org,
>         gdb@sourceware.org, jimb@codesourcery.com
> From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>
> Date: 03 Aug 2007 07:37:22 -0700
> 
> The policy has been announced for a very long time, on
> http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html and http://sourceware.org/lists.html.

Thanks for the pointer, Ian.

I hope the only messages to be censored will be only those that
mention confidentiality issues.

Re: Posting from work/university addresses

[Christopher Faylor]

On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 08:09:40PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>I hope the only messages to be censored will be only those that mention
>confidentiality issues.

What exactly are you implying here?  What other kinds of messages would
you expect would be "censored"?

cgf

Re: Posting from work/university addresses

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 19:12:05 -0400
> From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@sourceware.org>
> 
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 08:09:40PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >I hope the only messages to be censored will be only those that mention
> >confidentiality issues.
> 
> What exactly are you implying here?  What other kinds of messages would
> you expect would be "censored"?

I don't expect any censorship at all.

I was referring to this part of this thread:

> Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 10:27:31 -0400
> From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@sourceware.org>
> 
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 03:03:55PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >Where can one see what exactly is about to be banned, and how?  Is
> >this policy and its practical implications announced and explained in
> >detail somewhere?
> 
> It will be blocked using the same spam software that I wrote for
> sourceware years ago.  That software can bounce email based on arbitrary
> regexes found in the body of a message.  However, the bounce will not
> identify the message as spam and will have a clear message indicating
> why the message was refused.

Since the regexps mentioned above were not disclosed, and the URL Ian
mentioned doesn't say anything about rejecting messages, and doesn't
define precisely which kinds of text will be a reason for rejection, I
can only hope that the filters will reject only messages that could
present legal problems for sourceware, not, for example, the kind of
text mentioned here:

> From: Robin Getz <rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org>
> Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 13:02:37 -0400
> Cc: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@sourceware.org>,         iant@google.com, "Anmol P. Paralkar" <b07584@freescale.com>,         "Jim Blandy" <jimb@codesourcery.com>
> 
> Please make sure that this doesn't filter the requirements currently in place 
> by EU based folks - who are now required by law to post all kinds of stuff 
> (business address, company directors, etc) in their emails...

RE: Posting from work/university addresses

[Eric Weddington]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Getz [mailto:rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org]
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 11:46 AM
> To: Robert Dewar
> Cc: gdb@sourceware.org; iant@google.com; Anmol P. Paralkar; Jim Blandy
> Subject: Re: Posting from work/university addresses
>
> On Thu 2 Aug 2007 13:10, Robert Dewar pondered:
> >
> > Let's make sure that we really know the rules before we follow them!
> > Almost no one from the EU posts this stuff, and I have never heard
> > of such a requirement in connection with our paris based company.
>
> There are some people following them now - due to company
> policy - RedHat in Cambridge
> and Analog Devices in Munich - I know for sure...

Also Atmel in Germany is definitely following this policy.

Eric Weddington

Re: Posting from work/university addresses

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> Since the regexps mentioned above were not disclosed, and the URL Ian
> mentioned doesn't say anything about rejecting messages, and doesn't
> define precisely which kinds of text will be a reason for rejection, I
> can only hope that the filters will reject only messages that could
> present legal problems for sourceware, not, for example, the kind of
> text mentioned here:

As far as I can tell, you are requesting that we not do anything dumb,
such as, for example, blocking messages which are not spam and which
do not violate the documented mailing list guidelines.  That is a
reasonable request.  I promise we won't do anything dumb.

I know you are just trying to be really precise about what is
happening, but, honestly, don't worry: we're free software volunteers
just like you.  We're on your side.  We won't do anything dumb.

Ian

Re: Posting from work/university addresses

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, dewar@adacore.com, b07584@freescale.com,         rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org, jimb@codesourcery.com
> From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>
> Date: 04 Aug 2007 11:32:44 -0700
> 
> As far as I can tell, you are requesting that we not do anything dumb,

No, that's not it.  My problem is that I don't see the motivation for
rejecting such messages spelled out anywhere.  The URL you mentioned
_advises_ to do something, but, AFAIU, there's some policy issues
involved here, which are not explained anywhere.

> we're free software volunteers just like you.  We're on your side.
> We won't do anything dumb.

Isn't this a matter of policy of Red Hat (or some other organization)?
I do trust you, but I don't know about organizations.

Re: Posting from work/university addresses

[Bob Rossi]

On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 11:32:44AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I know you are just trying to be really precise about what is
> happening, but, honestly, don't worry: we're free software volunteers
> just like you.  We're on your side.  We won't do anything dumb.

Hi Ian,

I think Eli has a very good point in this matter. It is very easy for a
group of talented people to say "trust us, we are doing the correct
thing". However, over time, the people change, and other motivating 
factors can creep in. I agree its best to keep all policy about this 
matter open. If everyone is doing the right thing, then there is
absolutely nothing to hide, right? or perhaps you are afraid that if 
the spammers know what you are blocking, then they will get good at
spamming...

Anyways, keep doing the right thing!

Bob Rossi

Re: Posting from work/university addresses

[Christopher Faylor]

On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 09:50:48PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>From: Ian Lance Taylor
>>Date: 04 Aug 2007 11:32:44 -0700
>> 
>>As far as I can tell, you are requesting that we not do anything dumb,
>
>No, that's not it.  My problem is that I don't see the motivation for
>rejecting such messages spelled out anywhere.  The URL you mentioned
>_advises_ to do something, but, AFAIU, there's some policy issues
>involved here, which are not explained anywhere.

Actually, the words politely requires that confidentiality notices not
be included.  Since that was the best we could do until recently we
relied, unsuccessfully, on people to do the right thing.  I've been
promising people for years that I'd modify the spam software enforce the
policy and a recent discussion on the gcc channel prodded me into taking
action.

>>we're free software volunteers just like you.  We're on your side.  We
>>won't do anything dumb.
>
>Isn't this a matter of policy of Red Hat (or some other organization)?
>I do trust you, but I don't know about organizations.

AFAIK, this has nothing to do with Red Hat.

cgf

Re: Posting from work/university addresses

[Christopher Faylor]

On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 04:04:23PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
>On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 11:32:44AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>I know you are just trying to be really precise about what is
>>happening, but, honestly, don't worry: we're free software volunteers
>>just like you.  We're on your side.  We won't do anything dumb.
>
>I think Eli has a very good point in this matter.  It is very easy for
>a group of talented people to say "trust us, we are doing the correct
>thing".  However, over time, the people change, and other motivating
>factors can creep in.  I agree its best to keep all policy about this
>matter open.  If everyone is doing the right thing, then there is
>absolutely nothing to hide, right?  or perhaps you are afraid that if
>the spammers know what you are blocking, then they will get good at
>spamming...

I believe that Ian pointed you to web pages which talk about the spam
blocking.  Here's one in particular:

http://sourceware.org/lists.html#spam

The vast majority of email received at sourceware.org is spam.  We have
obviously been blocking it for quite some time.  We also have blocked
certain individuals who have abused the privilege of sending email to
the mailing lists.

Remember that you know that the disclaimer block is happening because I
mentioned it.  Suggesting that there may be other motivations for the
action, that we may be too stupid to do the right thing, that we may
become untrustworthy over time, or chiding us to be open really seems
like a pointless exercise to me.

cgf

Re: Posting from work/university addresses

[Bob Rossi]

On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 08:06:58PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 04:04:23PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
> >On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 11:32:44AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> >>I know you are just trying to be really precise about what is
> >>happening, but, honestly, don't worry: we're free software volunteers
> >>just like you.  We're on your side.  We won't do anything dumb.
> >
> >I think Eli has a very good point in this matter.  It is very easy for
> >a group of talented people to say "trust us, we are doing the correct
> >thing".  However, over time, the people change, and other motivating
> >factors can creep in.  I agree its best to keep all policy about this
> >matter open.  If everyone is doing the right thing, then there is
> >absolutely nothing to hide, right?  or perhaps you are afraid that if
> >the spammers know what you are blocking, then they will get good at
> >spamming...
> 
> I believe that Ian pointed you to web pages which talk about the spam
> blocking.  Here's one in particular:
> 
> http://sourceware.org/lists.html#spam
> 
> The vast majority of email received at sourceware.org is spam.  We have
> obviously been blocking it for quite some time.  We also have blocked
> certain individuals who have abused the privilege of sending email to
> the mailing lists.
> 
> Remember that you know that the disclaimer block is happening because I
> mentioned it.  Suggesting that there may be other motivations for the
> action, that we may be too stupid to do the right thing, that we may
> become untrustworthy over time, or chiding us to be open really seems
> like a pointless exercise to me.

Sure, whatever you say.

Re: Posting from work/university addresses

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 20:06:58 -0400
> From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@sourceware.org>
> 
> Suggesting that there may be other motivations for the
> action, that we may be too stupid to do the right thing, that we may
> become untrustworthy over time, or chiding us to be open really seems
> like a pointless exercise to me.

No one was suggesting any of these.  It's natural that, upon hearing
about some rules which will result in rejecting messages, someone
would like to know the details about those rules.

Re: Posting from work/university addresses

[Robin Getz]

On Sat 4 Aug 2007 20:03, Christopher Faylor pondered:
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 09:50:48PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >>From: Ian Lance Taylor
> >>Date: 04 Aug 2007 11:32:44 -0700
> >> 
> >>As far as I can tell, you are requesting that we not do anything dumb,
> >
> >No, that's not it.  My problem is that I don't see the motivation for
> >rejecting such messages spelled out anywhere.  The URL you mentioned
> >_advises_ to do something, but, AFAIU, there's some policy issues
> >involved here, which are not explained anywhere.
> 
> Actually, the words politely requires that confidentiality notices not
> be included.  Since that was the best we could do until recently we
> relied, unsuccessfully, on people to do the right thing.  I've been
> promising people for years that I'd modify the spam software enforce the
> policy and a recent discussion on the gcc channel prodded me into taking
> action.

Is the concern of publishing the regex that people would modify things to get 
around it? Or why not just publish it somewhere?

-Robin

Re: Posting from work/university addresses

[Christopher Faylor]

On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 06:13:26AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 20:06:58 -0400
>>From: Christopher Faylor
>> 
>>Suggesting that there may be other motivations for the
>>action, that we may be too stupid to do the right thing, that we may
>>become untrustworthy over time, or chiding us to be open really seems
>>like a pointless exercise to me.
>
>No one was suggesting any of these.  It's natural that, upon hearing
>about some rules which will result in rejecting messages, someone
>would like to know the details about those rules.

http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2007-08/msg00025.html

Re: Posting from work/university addresses

[Christopher Faylor]

On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 11:55:23PM -0400, Robin Getz wrote:
>On Sat 4 Aug 2007 20:03, Christopher Faylor pondered:
>>On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 09:50:48PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>>>From: Ian Lance Taylor
>>>>Date: 04 Aug 2007 11:32:44 -0700
>>>> 
>>>>As far as I can tell, you are requesting that we not do anything dumb,
>>>
>>>No, that's not it.  My problem is that I don't see the motivation for
>>>rejecting such messages spelled out anywhere.  The URL you mentioned
>>>_advises_ to do something, but, AFAIU, there's some policy issues
>>>involved here, which are not explained anywhere.
>>
>>Actually, the words politely requires that confidentiality notices not
>>be included.  Since that was the best we could do until recently we
>>relied, unsuccessfully, on people to do the right thing.  I've been
>>promising people for years that I'd modify the spam software enforce the
>>policy and a recent discussion on the gcc channel prodded me into taking
>>action.
>
>Is the concern of publishing the regex that people would modify things to get 
>around it? Or why not just publish it somewhere?

No one ever said that there was a concern about publishing a regex.
That is an ongoing fiction developing in this thread.  The system isn't
operational now.  I said I'd send out more details when it was about to
go live.  I'm obviously not going to send a stream of consciousness here
as I tweak things.

If you want to look at the current spam-blocking regexes they are here:
http://cygwin.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/infra/ml-data/?cvsroot=sourceware

The 'bad_*' are the regexes which are the final defense triggered when
spamassassin, qpsmtpd, and clamav have let spam/viruses through.

The disclaimer regexes will eventually go in the "bad_keywords" file.

Finally, if you want to find out about rationales for policy decisions
then please use the overseers mailing list.

cgf

Re: Posting from work/university addresses

[Robert Dewar]

Christopher Faylor wrote:

> No one ever said that there was a concern about publishing a regex.
> That is an ongoing fiction developing in this thread.  The system isn't
> operational now.  I said I'd send out more details when it was about to
> go live.

It's not unheard of to publish specs before proceeding ahead with
implementation and deployment :-)

Re: Posting from work/university addresses

[Christopher Faylor]

On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 08:03:37AM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>No one ever said that there was a concern about publishing a regex.
>>That is an ongoing fiction developing in this thread.  The system isn't
>>operational now.  I said I'd send out more details when it was about to
>>go live.
>
>It's not unheard of to publish specs before proceeding ahead with
>implementation and deployment :-)

Ok.  That's it for me.  No more messages on the subject until I actually
have something to report, i.e., when this is *about to* go live.

Re: Posting from work/university addresses

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 01:07:48 -0400
> From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@sourceware.org>
> 
> If you want to look at the current spam-blocking regexes they are here:
> http://cygwin.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/infra/ml-data/?cvsroot=sourceware
> 
> The 'bad_*' are the regexes which are the final defense triggered when
> spamassassin, qpsmtpd, and clamav have let spam/viruses through.
> 
> The disclaimer regexes will eventually go in the "bad_keywords" file.
> 
> Finally, if you want to find out about rationales for policy decisions
> then please use the overseers mailing list.

Thanks for clearing this up.

Re: Posting from work/university addresses

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> > Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, dewar@adacore.com, b07584@freescale.com,         rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org, jimb@codesourcery.com
> > From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>
> > Date: 04 Aug 2007 11:32:44 -0700
> > 
> > As far as I can tell, you are requesting that we not do anything dumb,
> 
> No, that's not it.  My problem is that I don't see the motivation for
> rejecting such messages spelled out anywhere.  The URL you mentioned
> _advises_ to do something, but, AFAIU, there's some policy issues
> involved here, which are not explained anywhere.

The reason we would like to block the disclaimers is that they impose
a legal liability on us.  The problematic disclaimers are the ones
which say something along the lines of "If you are not the intended
recipient you must not disseminate, copy ....  We request that you
notify COMPANYNAME immediately."  The problem is that we can not obey
those instructions, as we automatically archive the e-mail message and
make it available for anybody in the world to see.  Since we are
violating the terms of the disclaimer, the sender has reasonable
grounds to sue us.  It is likely that the suit would not prevail in
the end, as my understanding is that the disclaimers are unenforceable
under U.S. law, but that does not matter since we are a volunteer
organization with no means to defend ourselves.  I think it is very
unwise to leave ourselves open to this sort of legal liability.  This
is of course a personal issue for me since as one of the
administrators of gcc.gnu.org/sourceware.org, and the owner of the
domain name sourceware.org, I would be personally named in the
lawsuit.

This may seem rather farfetched to you, but just in this year I have
received two threatening legal letters concerning sourceware.org on
other issues.  I was able to defuse both issues (one concerning
defamatory spam e-mail we had archived, one concerning the use of
software downloaded from sourceware.org in a contract dispute), but I
have a strong personal interest in defusing these issues before they
arise.

If there were a reason to accept those e-mail messages, then I would
have a different opinion on the matter.  But I see no reason that we
should accept them.  They are infrequent and relatively easy to avoid.
I know of only one case of a person who was required to use those
disclaimers and was prohibited from using web-based e-mail accounts at
work.  I am willing to sacrifice one potential contributor for this
issue.

Note that EU law does not require anything along the lines of "If you
are not the intended recipient....".  We have no problem with adding
company identification information to e-mail messages.  Many people do
this even within the U.S.

> > we're free software volunteers just like you.  We're on your side.
> > We won't do anything dumb.
> 
> Isn't this a matter of policy of Red Hat (or some other organization)?
> I do trust you, but I don't know about organizations.

No, this has nothing to do with Red Hat or any other organization.
Neither Chris nor I work for Red Hat.

Ian

Re: Posting from work/university addresses

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Bob Rossi <bob_rossi@cox.net> writes:

> I think Eli has a very good point in this matter. It is very easy for a
> group of talented people to say "trust us, we are doing the correct
> thing". However, over time, the people change, and other motivating 
> factors can creep in. I agree its best to keep all policy about this 
> matter open. If everyone is doing the right thing, then there is
> absolutely nothing to hide, right? or perhaps you are afraid that if 
> the spammers know what you are blocking, then they will get good at
> spamming...

Chris already said that he would post details at a later date, when
the implementation had been tested.

Ian

Re: Posting from work/university addresses

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, dewar@adacore.com, b07584@freescale.com,
>         rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org, jimb@codesourcery.com
> From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>
> Date: 06 Aug 2007 07:02:01 -0700
> 
> The reason we would like to block the disclaimers is that they impose
> a legal liability on us.  The problematic disclaimers are the ones
> which say something along the lines of "If you are not the intended
> recipient you must not disseminate, copy ....  We request that you
> notify COMPANYNAME immediately."  The problem is that we can not obey
> those instructions, as we automatically archive the e-mail message and
> make it available for anybody in the world to see.  Since we are
> violating the terms of the disclaimer, the sender has reasonable
> grounds to sue us.  It is likely that the suit would not prevail in
> the end, as my understanding is that the disclaimers are unenforceable
> under U.S. law, but that does not matter since we are a volunteer
> organization with no means to defend ourselves.  I think it is very
> unwise to leave ourselves open to this sort of legal liability.  This
> is of course a personal issue for me since as one of the
> administrators of gcc.gnu.org/sourceware.org, and the owner of the
> domain name sourceware.org, I would be personally named in the
> lawsuit.

Thanks for the clarifications.  Avoiding legal suits is a perfectly
valid reason, as far as I'm concerned.