[mailhist-discuss] Beginning to record the timeline: a very rough draft

Dave Crocker 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?


  Dave Crocker

More information about the mailhist-discuss mailing list