On Thursday, Apr 3, 2003, at 16:13 Europe/London, Jim Youll wrote:
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.
Let me re-state my position on the use of "ham". It's a cutesy word (in
the same way that spam is). It shouldn't be used in published materials
(in the same way that "spam" shouldn't be). This list is not what I
would consider published materials.
My position is that while the word is ambiguous and trite and cutesy
it's a really huge waste of time and use of this list getting annoyed
at people for using it. There are far more important things to worry
about.
This is my last post about "ham". Mail me privately if you wish to
discuss it.
Matt.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg