{"id":546,"date":"2020-07-21T07:11:40","date_gmt":"2020-07-21T07:11:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scientificspam.net\/?p=546"},"modified":"2020-07-21T07:13:41","modified_gmt":"2020-07-21T07:13:41","slug":"on-inclusion-and-terminology","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scientificspam.net\/?p=546","title":{"rendered":"On inclusion and terminology"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>ScientificSpam DNSBL has always considered itself a <em>blocklist<\/em>.<br \/>\n<!--more--><br \/>\nAs a consequence of Black Lives Matter, the entire email ecosystem is now discussing the terminology used for lists that cause systems to reject or accept email. Specifically, the terms <em>whitelist<\/em> and <em>blacklist<\/em> are to be eschewed in favour of something that speaks to the topic without an attitude, such as <em>allowlist<\/em> and, appropriately enough, <strong><em>blocklist<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p>To this end, we have conducted a review of this site. The word &#8220;blacklist&#8221; appears four times, three of which are in verbatim copies of letters we have received from third parties and one is in a copy of a letter we sent to a spamming entity in December 2014.<\/p>\n<p>We are not into revisionist history or altering the words of those who have written to us. So these four historical occurrences of the word &#8220;blacklist&#8221; should remain, even if it means that we have to explicitly admit to the inconsiderate use of this term in the past.<\/p>\n<p>The word &#8220;whitelist&#8221; appeared once in an article where we recommended that users of our blocklist should consider the possibility of accommodating a specific sender that we had included in its entirety. It has been edited now.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>ScientificSpam DNSBL has always considered itself a blocklist.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[187,53],"class_list":["post-546","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-language","tag-meta"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scientificspam.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/546","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scientificspam.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scientificspam.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scientificspam.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scientificspam.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=546"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.scientificspam.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/546\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":548,"href":"https:\/\/www.scientificspam.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/546\/revisions\/548"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scientificspam.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=546"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scientificspam.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=546"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scientificspam.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=546"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}