Re: [EAI] A few editorial nits in RFC-to-be 5983 (draft-ietf-eai-mailinglist)

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Thursday, September 16, 2010 15:56 -0700 Randall Gellens
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>>  => A general remark for the set of RFCs:  is there a
>>  difference of meaning between "mail" and "email"?  I thought
>>  "internationalized email" was the preferred term.
>>  Maybe here, "internationalized messages" would be better?
>>  That very notion of internationalized messages is defined in
>>  Framework.
> 
> There has been a lot of debate over the use of "mail" versus
> "email" in the last couple of years.  Originally, "mail" or
> "message" were used, but now that we have many forms of
> messaging besides email, "message" is not as clear.

As Mike Padlipsky repeatedly points out, originally "netmail"
was used.

> Personally, I think "mail" is good, because it's very clear
> that electronic mail is being discussed.  However, I am also
> fine with "email".

I agree about avoiding "message".  "Internationalized message"
could refer to various IM things, protocol messages at lower
levels of the stack (as an exercise, check out what "ICMP"
(--which is one of our three absolutely core protocols-- stands
for), and so on, none of which are addressed in any way by EAI.

I also think the RFC Editor should establish and enforce a
standard for how "email" is spelled (note that "Authors'
Addresses" sections of RFCs spell it "EMail", which is a
spelling convention I don't believe I've seen _anywhere_ else in
recent years).  

But, for this document, the important thing to do is to get it
out.  Let's save these debates for the standards-track version
that will follow.

best,
   john