[Asrg] "ham" is ridiculous -was- Re: False Positive

[Jim Youll <jim@media.mit.edu>]

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@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg