The phrasing for spamfilter (which should be renamed to lukejr-censoring ;) ) implies that enabling it is a good thing. Ahem. bitcoincore_policymsg spamfilter \ "Enhanced spam filter policy is enabled: Notorious spammers will not be assisted by your node. This may impact your ability to use some spammy services (see link for a list)." \ "Enhanced spam filter policy is DISABLED: Your node will not be checking for notorious spammers, and may assist them. Set BITCOIN_POLICY=spamfilter to enable." I suggest rewording it to something more neutral since we're supposed to follow upstream etc.etc.
(In reply to Patrick Lauer from comment #0) > The phrasing for spamfilter (which should be renamed to lukejr-censoring ;) > ) implies that enabling it is a good thing. Ahem. It *is* a good thing (and no more "censoring" than other antispam tools like, eg, SpamAssassin). > bitcoincore_policymsg spamfilter \ > "Enhanced spam filter policy is enabled: Notorious spammers > will not be assisted by your node. This may impact your ability to use some > spammy services (see link for a list)." \ > "Enhanced spam filter policy is DISABLED: Your node will not > be checking for notorious spammers, and may assist them. Set > BITCOIN_POLICY=spamfilter to enable." > > > I suggest rewording it to something more neutral since we're supposed to > follow upstream etc.etc. More neutral how? Can you give an example? The current phrasing is objectively accurate.
> ... since we're supposed to follow upstream etc.etc. Also, can you reference where this policy exists? I do not see it in any Gentoo policy documents, and it seems contrary to the norm for Gentoo's portage tree, which quite often does reasonable patching to improve the end user experience. Unrelated to the description in this bug, it may make sense to reconsider some of the default USE/BITCOIN_POLICY flags if the policy to strive for is "upstream" rather than "best".
I do not want a repeat of bug #524512. cc-ing comrel for an objective opinion.
Here's a suggestion for alternative messages: "Enhanced spam filter is enabled: A blacklist (seen as controversial by upstream) will be used by your node. This may impact your ability to use some services (see link for a list)." "Enhanced spam filter is disabled: Your node will not be checking for notorious spammers, and may assist them."
(In reply to Andreas K. Hüttel from comment #4) > Here's a suggestion for alternative messages: > > "Enhanced spam filter is enabled: A blacklist (seen as controversial by > upstream) will be used by your node. This may impact your ability to use > some services (see link for a list)." > > "Enhanced spam filter is disabled: Your node will not be checking for > notorious spammers, and may assist them." I will change the message to the above. It reads more neutral to me. I also notice the spam filters are on by default. I will turn them off by default.
(In reply to Anthony Basile from comment #5) > (In reply to Andreas K. Hüttel from comment #4) > > Here's a suggestion for alternative messages: > > > > "Enhanced spam filter is enabled: A blacklist (seen as controversial by > > upstream) will be used by your node. This may impact your ability to use > > some services (see link for a list)." > > > > "Enhanced spam filter is disabled: Your node will not be checking for > > notorious spammers, and may assist them." > > I will change the message to the above. It reads more neutral to me. > > I also notice the spam filters are on by default. I will turn them off by > default. 24 Feb 2015; Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> bitcoind-0.10.0.ebuild: Disable censoring by default Actually, already done by Patrick.
(In reply to Andreas K. Hüttel from comment #4) > "Enhanced spam filter is enabled: A blacklist (seen as controversial by > upstream) will be used by your node. This may impact your ability to use > some services (see link for a list)." I changed this slightly. I wrote "controversial by some" rather than upstream. When I spoke with upstream about the filtering issue, they agreed that there was indeed a weakness in bitcoin that allowed this sort of spamming but did not like this approach. The biggest contraversy came from the community of users.
Okay I think we're done here. Reopen if you want to continue the debate.
"spamfilter" is actually NOT a blacklist, and should be enabled by default as it is best for the user.
Perhaps this improves the accuracy a bit: "Enhanced spam filter policy is enabled: Your node will identify notorious spam scripts and avoid assisting them. This may impact your ability to use some spammy services (see link for a list)." "Enhanced spam filter policy is DISABLED: Your node will not check for notorious spam scripts, and may assist them. Set BITCOIN_POLICY=spamfilter to enable." This at least clarifies the nature of blocking spam, and not the spammers themselves (which I suppose the old message may have suggested to some was the case).
