X-RT-Incoming-Encryption: Not encrypted From: "Robert Edmonds" Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:10:55 -0400 Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [149.20.64.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mx.pao1.isc.org", Issuer "COMODO RSA Organization Validation Secure Server CA" (not verified)) by bugs.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BD6DD78AD1 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 01:11:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mycre.ws (mycre.ws [45.33.102.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 523AA3493F0 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 01:10:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by chase.mycre.ws (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2031512C101B; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:10:55 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-To: bind9-confidential@bugs.isc.org From edmonds@debian.org Wed Jul 12 01:11:00 2017 Content-Disposition: inline content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on mx.pao1.isc.org Message-ID: <20170712011055.mzk4vhvawlk4nfgv@mycre.ws> To: bind9-bugs@isc.org Return-Path: Subject: [ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk: Bug#867570: Please relegate "groper" to a historical footnote] Delivered-To: bind9-confidential@bugs.isc.org X-RT-Original-Encoding: ascii X-RT-Interface: Email Content-Length: 1383 Hi, I'm forwarding the following bug from the Debian bug tracker (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=867570). My own suggestion is "domain information gatherer" (https://twitter.com/rsedmonds/status/789997702855684097). ----- Forwarded message from Ian Jackson ----- Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 14:32:16 +0100 From: Ian Jackson To: submit@bugs.debian.org Subject: Bug#867570: Please relegate "groper" to a historical footnote Package: dnsutils Version: 1:9.9.5.dfsg-9+deb8u7 The dig(1) manpage starts: DESCRIPTION dig (domain information groper) is a flexible tool for ... I think this use of `groper' is not very nice. While the verb `grope' can also be used without non-sexual connotations, I don't think that's really true of `groper' - certainly, in this particular case. It would be nicer to say `domain information grabber' or `domain information getter' or something, even if it's ahistorical. The original name could be mentioned in a historical note in the source tree or something. Thanks, Ian. -- Ian Jackson These opinions are my own. If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Robert Edmonds edmonds@debian.org