i agree. "ham" just sounds stupid. the context is vague, the meaning
is ambiguous. i have nothing against colloquialisms, but seriously...
ham? you've got to be kidding. we should use an acronym instead,
something along the lines of SVN (signal verses noise) or AIM
(acceptable interpersonal mail) etc. im sure someone can come up with
a good one.
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.
Do you want to be taken seriously, or just use the latest overly
clever geek phrase
because you can?
I don't see this sort of behavior in any other serious research
community, and for
that matter other than the April 1 RFCs, IETF work generally has
always been a fairly
sober affair using precise language rather than clever language.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg