New Option - '-u' for update

[Eric Seppanen]

On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 04:48:50PM -0400, Ben Rosengart wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 10:36:39PM +0200, Boris 'pi' Piwinger wrote:
> > Ben Rosengart <br at panix.com> wrote:
> > 
> > >Everyone can tell in an instant what "nonspam" is.  "Ham" is a
> > >bogofilter in-joke.
> > 
> > Hm, the name bogofilter suggests it is nerd-ware.
> 
> I am as nerdy as anyone, but "ham" doesn't mean anything to me.
> 
> > Ham sound
> > reasonable in this context. And of course, if someone wants
> > to use a program it is a good idea to RTFM. >;->
> 
> I have seen this argument used many times to justify counterintuitive
> behavior in software.  I don't buy it.  Even software that's
> painstakingly audited for usability is going to confuse people some
> of the time.  There's no reason to go out of one's way to make
> things worse.
> 
> As a systems administrator, I am often asked for help with unix
> command-line software by various people.  Frequently, I am unfamiliar
> with the software in question.  I am grateful when the program
> contains no in-jokes; when the documentation is in the man page,
> instead of a usage statement or info file or web page; when the
> terms used in the documentation are self-explanatory.
> 
> Certainly, in-jokes and unclear terms can be explained.  Certainly,
> it is easy enough to fire up info (though figuring out its interface
> is another matter).  Certainly, loading a web page is nothing
> difficult.  But these things add up.  Be kind to your users --
> they're installing spam filters because they're tired of jumping
> through hoops just to read their email, so don't give them more
> hoops to jump through.

It's not a joke.  The reasons behind it make perfect sense: it's very 
difficult to talk about the two categories using the word "good" or 
"nonspam".

For instance, it's difficult to find antonyms for "spammy" "spamlike" 
"spammish".  It's also use precise wording because you can't say "this 
message looks like spam, and this other message looks like good" or "this 
message is very spamlike, and this message is very nonspamlike".  What you 
find is you have to use both "good" and "nonspam" interchangeably, and a 
new, precise term, can fix that.

It's an effort to define a new, nonconfusing term.  "ham" is (was) great 
because it's memorable, has an obvious relationship to "spam" and can form 
all the same forms "spam" can: hammy, hamlike, hammish...

But this is exactly the bikeshed conversation I didn't want to get into.  
We should quit changing stuff for "style" reasons.  Even if it's 
sort-of-wrong or wrong-in-some-circumstances, we should leave it alone 
unless it's really-really-wrong-and-causing-real-problems.

For summay digest subscription: bogofilter-digest-subscribe at aotto.com