[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?

As I recall, one of MAP's favorite uses of netmail was to discuss scotch


On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Bill Ricker <bill.n1vux at gmail.com> wrote:

> Oops, accidentally replied off-list.  But that gives me opportunity to
> expand my remarks ...
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Bill Ricker <bill.n1vux at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Ted Faber <faber at isi.edu> wrote:
>>> This is completely anecdotal, but Mike Padlipsky never used the term
>>> "e-mail" without adding "or netmail as we called it when we were
>>> inventing it."  This was years after the fact, but he definitely
>>> preferred the earlier term.
>> ?Absolutely he did.
>> Thinking back to how i heard tales from MAP, I've inferred 'netmail' was
>> like 'neted' in that it was intended to convey the interoperable
>> multiplatform version of a tool of which you likely already had an
>> idiosyncratic vendor-specific local-only version that guest users from
>> other {institutions|nodes} wouldn't be expected to learn. 'Netmail' would
>> initially have referred both to the protocol and the standard minimalist
>> user client app.   The CLI user clients 'netmail' and 'neted' faded, but
>> RFC-compliant 'netmail' formats and protocols won out.
> ?In fact, the success of 'neted' (RFC 569)  was inspiration for
> 'netmail'-the-client.
>   In RFC 666 (the real one),  "Specification of the Unified User-Level
> Protocol", November 1974?, MAP suggests the beginnings of
> netmail-the-common-client as part of a common user CLI for ARPAnet nodes.
>        https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc666
>   In the rather long discussion of the proposed common 'mail' client,  it
> is always 'mail'. It is not yet named 'netmail' (obviously coined later to
> avoid conflicting with existing local, proprietary 'mail' commands).
> ?
> ?Mike's specific comments on murky history of 'e-mail' ?are preserved as
> "And They Argued All Night..."
> at http://www.multicians.org/allnight.html . (Wherein he suggests SMTP is
> the mail that made it take off so John should get any specific credit for
> getting it right.)
> FYI the OED query ("appeal") was posted in ?October 2012 and discussed on
>> this list in 2013.
>> ?http://public.oed.com/appeals/email/?
> ?(Not criticizing.  It was re-posted it elsewhere as new (including on
> Twitter, i think it was OED official post)? so no surprise it showed up
> here again. Just noting the prior thread's existence if anyone wanted to
> check back.?
> ?
> http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/2013-June/002891.html
> )?
> _______
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20150724/0d750f5c/attachment.html>