<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div><span>Ray is generally acknowledged to have been the first person to
build/adapt and demonstrate programs to transfer messages from one
computer to another via the ARPAnet, and to use the symbol "@" to denote
the specific computer where the intended recipient had an account. But
the transfer of messages from one computer user to another within a
single computer was many years older, and this was email too, as MAP
correctly pointed out. A recent article in the IEEE Annals of the History of Computing talks about several of the earlier single-computer message systems.<br></span></div><div><br></div> <div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div dir="ltr"> <font face="Arial" size="2"> <hr size="1"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> Vint Cerf <vint@google.com><br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> Alex McKenzie <amckenzie3@yahoo.com> <br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cc:</span></b> Bill Ricker <bill.n1vux@gmail.com>; "internet-history@postel.org" <internet-history@postel.org> <br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Friday, May 11, 2012 6:41 PM<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [ih] MAP & BBN<br> </font> </div> <br>
I thought it was reasonable to assert that Ray Tomlinson invented<br>networked email, Alex - do you see it differently?<br><br>vint<br><br><br><br>On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Alex McKenzie <<a ymailto="mailto:amckenzie3@yahoo.com" href="mailto:amckenzie3@yahoo.com">amckenzie3@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br>> Bill,<br>><br>> I know MAP was perpetually annoyed by BBN and always felt BBN claimed to<br>> have invented everything. I was at BBN the entire time and I always felt<br>> most of Mike's criticism was unjustified. BBN wrote a lot of papers, with<br>> ARPAs strong encouragement, about what we did do, and BBN did a lot. We<br>> didn't write about what others did- that was up to them. So if others<br>> didn't write so much, the written history got kind of BBN-centric.<br>><br>> One notable exception: Ray Tomlinson was credited by a lot of non-BBN<br>> people with "inventing email" and
Mike was justifiably upset every time he<br>> heard that claim. Mike seems to have blamed BBN for making that claim.<br>> However, I think you can look as carefully as you want at BBN publications<br>> and you will not find that claim made by BBN.<br>><br>> Sincerely,<br>> Alex<br>><br>> ________________________________<br>> From: Bill Ricker <<a ymailto="mailto:bill.n1vux@gmail.com" href="mailto:bill.n1vux@gmail.com">bill.n1vux@gmail.com</a>><br>> To: David Elliott Bell <<a ymailto="mailto:bell1945@offthisweek.com" href="mailto:bell1945@offthisweek.com">bell1945@offthisweek.com</a>><br>> Cc: "<a ymailto="mailto:internet-history@postel.org" href="mailto:internet-history@postel.org">internet-history@postel.org</a>" <<a ymailto="mailto:internet-history@postel.org" href="mailto:internet-history@postel.org">internet-history@postel.org</a>><br>> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 10:59 PM<br>> Subject:
Re: [ih] Hesitating to disagree with one of the fathers of the<br>> Internet…..<br>><br>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 5:34 PM, David Elliott Bell<br>> <<a ymailto="mailto:bell1945@offthisweek.com" href="mailto:bell1945@offthisweek.com">bell1945@offthisweek.com</a>> wrote:<br>><br>> the need for layers (3 will do if you know what you're going; if you don't,<br>> 11 won't help you);<br>><br>><br>> Correction, it is canonically '17 won't help you' .<br>> The ironic allusion to the hol(e)y 7 of the Other Reference Model ("ISORM")<br>> makes this MAPhorism much funnier than mere exaggeration.<br>><br>> a world view about which layers and the rigidity required to enforce layers;<br>> proposing alternate protocols for achieving a desired goal; things like that<br>> are part of design-ARPANET.<br>><br>><br>> Mike having come to protocol design and programming via poetry rather
than<br>> prosaic electrical engineering, yes, he viewed layering as the design, as<br>> the essense. The fact that both the IMPs and NCP have been retired but the<br>> network that (D)ARPA wrought lives on as "the Internet", over a hybrid<br>> hodgepodge of physical subnets, militates that his logical view of The Net<br>> has won out over the physical, just as the pragmatic, good-enough ARM has<br>> won out of the overly baroque OSI ISORM .<br>><br>> However ...<br>><br>> The Popular History of the Net has largely been told from the BBN POV. As an<br>> editorial/authorial decision, this is understandably so, much though it may<br>> annoy those who worked on upper layers. Having a for-profit's PR office on<br>> the case doesn't hurt, but that is not solely responsible. It's easier to<br>> follow BBN'S IMP/TIP narrative than a narrative spread over several<br>> campuses and multiple OS's no one
uses anymore, and far easier to explain<br>> challenges of hardware than challenges of software to a general audience. I<br>> have corroboration on that bald assertion -- Tracey Kidder interviewed the<br>> DG 'Eagle' operating system team manager while researching 'Soul of the New<br>> Machine', and couldn't figure out how to explain it, so went back to<br>> focusing on hardware and microcode teams. Networking may be easier to make<br>> metaphor than an OS, but not compared to modems.<br>><br>> [I worked for said DG manager at his next gig, and volunteered with a<br>> 'microkid' a few years later. The microkid taught me to drink cognac at ACM<br>> committee meetings; Mike's whisky lessons cured me of that quickly.]<br>><br>> --<br>> Bill<br>> @n1vux <a ymailto="mailto:bill.n1vux@gmail.com" href="mailto:bill.n1vux@gmail.com">bill.n1vux@gmail.com</a><br>><br>><br><br><br> </div> </div> </div></body></html>