Talk:Email: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Robert W King
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz
(If the term is other than "electronic mail", "mail" and "messaging" are more common in serious written material)
Line 19: Line 19:
:::Permit me at least to vent: I '''hate''' having '''email''' as the main article title, with '''electronic mail''' as a redirect to it. There is evolution in language, there is Orwellian Newspeak, and there is simple sloppiness by leet d00dz.[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 10:59, 19 July 2008 (CDT)
:::Permit me at least to vent: I '''hate''' having '''email''' as the main article title, with '''electronic mail''' as a redirect to it. There is evolution in language, there is Orwellian Newspeak, and there is simple sloppiness by leet d00dz.[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 10:59, 19 July 2008 (CDT)
::::I don't believe '''email''' is simply sloppyness on the behalf of the l33t h4ck3r5 of the world; are you proposing it to be the other way around?  Surely standard do and must change; after all who on earth refers to it as "electronic mail"?  Even languages that have no phrase, meaning, or literal translation for a "digital message" use some english-derivative of "email" (eee may ul). --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 12:06, 19 July 2008 (CDT)
::::I don't believe '''email''' is simply sloppyness on the behalf of the l33t h4ck3r5 of the world; are you proposing it to be the other way around?  Surely standard do and must change; after all who on earth refers to it as "electronic mail"?  Even languages that have no phrase, meaning, or literal translation for a "digital message" use some english-derivative of "email" (eee may ul). --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 12:06, 19 July 2008 (CDT)
:::::Who refers to electronic mail? Well, certainly in documents that attempt at least as much precision as an general encyclopedia, my colleagues in the [[Internet Engineering Task Force]] (although there are several authors that use it in titles regarding filtering or internationaliztion), operational groups such as NANOG and RIPE, efforts to come up with technical and operational approaches to spam and other abuses, etc. As I think about it, "messaging", or "mail" in preference to email.  There's a current thread on the NANOG mailing list entitled "Re: Looking for Network Solutions mail admin". Looking through a random selection of books nearby, I do find one O'Reilly administration guide that has an "introduction to email" chapter, yet another is titled ''!%@:: A directory of electronic mail and networking". [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 12:20, 19 July 2008 (CDT)

Revision as of 11:20, 19 July 2008

This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition A method of composing, sending, storing, and receiving messages over electronic communication systems. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category Computers [Categories OK]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant American English

e-mail versus email

I've noticed that professionally, e-mail is used in its hyphenated form, whereas email is a casual form. Should we attempt to use the term e-mail uniformly throughout the site, or would this be too difficult/not necessary to indicate the academic level of the site? Thanks. --Dominic DeStefano 12:51, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

It seems to be always 'email' these days. I suggest a move - Ro Thorpe 11:16, 15 December 2007 (CST)
I recommend a redirect. It's the same thing no matter how people reference it. Email/e-mail. In fact, I took the time to read this reference link, which is written by the guy that sent the very first email! Just as wired.com proposed to stop spelling internet with a capital "I", Ray Tomlinson suggests to just stop using the archaic "E-mail" by referencing Donald Knuth's proposal. --Robert W King 11:47, 15 December 2007 (CST)

major edits

Since pulling the source material from Wikipedia, the article has undergone major edits and revisions to both format and structure, so I've removed the "content is from wikipedia" tag.

As this is my first major attempt to modify an article, any advice and suggestions prior to editing by other users is welcome. I've applied a formula that will be uniform throughout articles that feature major revisions by me, explaining first "what it does" in simple terms, then "how it works" for the knowledgeable user, then "when it came about" and other pertinent details for the purpose of academic research. This structure allows for a tiered level of complexity for the reader and I've found it successful, but am open to further suggestions. Thanks! --Dominic DeStefano 12:51, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

Yes, but if it was based on the Wikipedia article, it's still a 'derivative work' in copyright law, and so the Wikipedia tag must remain, for legal reasons. J. Noel Chiappa 17:49, 12 March 2008 (CDT)
This article actually addresses several things: the user interface to email, a bit of the infrastructure, and social behaviors of email. What do you think of having this point to a new article on messaging protocols/infrastructure, which would be non-WP? Indeed, I wonder if the social behaviors should relate to other articles considering phishing and such. Howard C. Berkowitz 12:07, 10 June 2008 (CDT)
I've done some recent work on messaging protocols in general and SMTP specifically, although I wouldn't call myself more than a journeyman with things like procmail. Under SMTP, I have some empty subheads for issues such as interaction with spam, intending that to be a lead-in to technical anti-spamming measures. In like manner, I put a very brief introduction to MIME under SMTP. MIME, strictly speaking, isn't a protocol, but it probably should be in messaging application protocols.
Permit me at least to vent: I hate having email as the main article title, with electronic mail as a redirect to it. There is evolution in language, there is Orwellian Newspeak, and there is simple sloppiness by leet d00dz.Howard C. Berkowitz 10:59, 19 July 2008 (CDT)
I don't believe email is simply sloppyness on the behalf of the l33t h4ck3r5 of the world; are you proposing it to be the other way around? Surely standard do and must change; after all who on earth refers to it as "electronic mail"? Even languages that have no phrase, meaning, or literal translation for a "digital message" use some english-derivative of "email" (eee may ul). --Robert W King 12:06, 19 July 2008 (CDT)
Who refers to electronic mail? Well, certainly in documents that attempt at least as much precision as an general encyclopedia, my colleagues in the Internet Engineering Task Force (although there are several authors that use it in titles regarding filtering or internationaliztion), operational groups such as NANOG and RIPE, efforts to come up with technical and operational approaches to spam and other abuses, etc. As I think about it, "messaging", or "mail" in preference to email. There's a current thread on the NANOG mailing list entitled "Re: Looking for Network Solutions mail admin". Looking through a random selection of books nearby, I do find one O'Reilly administration guide that has an "introduction to email" chapter, yet another is titled !%@:: A directory of electronic mail and networking". Howard C. Berkowitz 12:20, 19 July 2008 (CDT)