[mailhist-discuss] Beginning to record the timeline: a very rough draft
dcrocker at gmail.com
Fri May 18 11:31:54 PDT 2012
On 5/18/2012 2:26 PM, Suzanne Johnson wrote:
> In the article Dave Crocker wrote for the Washington Post, the
> collaborative nature of email development was emphasized. While I would
> usually prefer brevity for an exercise like a timeline, I believe that
> may leave out the richness of the collaboration that led to the
> development and evolution of what we (mostly) take for granted today.
> The types of dates cited by John Vittal tend to demonstrate the cross
> organizational efforts that gave rise to rapid development and
> dissemination of the capability.
> I feel the more complete we can make this collection of information,
> even if all can't be shown on a timeline, the easier it will be for
> folks in the future to understand the collaboratively complex evolution
> of email.
Brevity: I suggest we treat the current round as "include anything
credible" in order to make sure we don't miss anything, and then we can
prune based on group assessment of "importance" or the like.
Group effort: Good point. Craig's citation of the
seamless-addressing/routing effort is an example. RFC733 (and IMO RFC
822 and SMTP) were also examples.
1. Which others aren't already cited?
2. What, if any, notational changes would help to discern the group
efforts on the timeline?
More information about the mailhist-discuss