At 16:06 +0100 4/3/03, Matt Sergeant wrote:
On Thursday, Apr 3, 2003, at 15:41 Europe/London, Jim Youll wrote:
At 14:46 +0100 4/3/03, Matt Sergeant wrote:
On Wednesday, Apr 2, 2003, at 21:56 Europe/London, Jim Youll wrote:
I love statistics, but is it possible that not-spam could be
possibly called "not spam" rather than "ham" in the
research-and-report context? The word "spam" creates enough
difficulty on its own without adding another "zany techie word."
"Ham" is in very common use now in the anti-spam community. I
don't see any valid reason to stop using it.
It's a cute, meaningless, trite word.
And "spam" is named after a monty python sketch.
"Ham" was used by almost every single presenter at the MIT
conference. It's a recent term, but it's very much in use. Language
changes, welcome to the world :-)
Rrrright.
Fine.
Go for it.
I have to remind people like you, from time to time, that books like
_Neuromancer_ are works of fiction. If you want to fit into the real
world (which was 99.99999% not at the MIT conference) try to
communicate like regular people do.
This thread should be ended now. Do whatever you want, but the
"cause" still sounds like a plaything when it gets into the business
of making of cute words that carry no inherent meaning (don't forget
the endless, years-long debate about "what is spam" that could easily
be ended if people would just qualify what the hell they are talking
about rather than trying to tack a name to it)
Even if the word is "okay" to use, it's too broad, isn't it. There
are myriad little problems, not one big problem. I'm properly
suspicious of any "research" who presents a metric claiming to
measure either "spam" or "ham" rather than clearly stating what
criteria were used to classify the results.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg