At 04:06 PM 4/3/2003 +0100, you wrote:
"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 :-)
The presenters at MIT aren't a full sample (by a long way) of the anti-spam
community. There is more to stopping spam than using filters. (I'm also
disinclined to watch the entire session just to check the assertion that
"almost every single presenter" used the term but I doubt it. If many
presenters used it my suspicion is that they're all from the same small group.)
Youll is right. Adding that word ("ham") to the vocabulary creates one
more thing to explain where the explanation does nothing to increase useful
awareness - it only describes what a small band desires. There's a task
here - why complicate that by adding useless vocabulary changes? It's made
worse by the fact that the vocabulary change reduces the information
content of statements made using that vocabulary. "spam" and "not-spam"
can be seen to be completely disjoint categories defined on a single
criterion. "Spam" and "ham" carry no such clarity. Yes, if you pound over
and over on saying "ham" means "not spam" then the content is the
same. That requires pounding over and over on a definition. Who has the time?
It's not a good enough usage to be worth the trouble.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg