<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><small>Yes, they were more than a
little concerned. But it was all under control....<br>
<br>
That 1980 workshop I cited also contains a paper by the
President of the National Association of Letter Carriers, which
notes:<br>
<br>
"eventually, however, the Postal Service too recognized that it
could not afford to ignore the revolution in electronic
technology, and in September, 1978, it submitted its E-COM
proposal to the Postal Rate Commission. ... ...we took the
position that if the Postal Service were excluded from the field
of electronic mail, the Service's demise was inevitable".<br>
<br>
Another paper, by the Senior Assistant Postmaster General,
notes:<br>
<br>
"Over ten years ago, the Postal Service saw the rapidly
increasing technological innovations in electronic
communications as an evolutionary change that could be adapted
... transporting the mail electronically..." and "E-COM will be
our initial domestic service using common carriers" and "we have
accepted the President's Directive of July 19, 1979 to establish
a separate and clearly identifiable electronic mail entity"<br>
<br>
Note that last quote was from 1980, so "over ten years ago"
would have been before the ARPANET even existed. So, the
"official" direction for electronic mail was established. It
would be provided by the Postal Service in an evolutionary
way. The ARPANET "network mail" was an interesting experiment
-- not to be confused with the implementation of "electronic
mail" which was already being handled through proper channels.
Or so it seemed.<br>
<br>
I suspect there's some fascinating history of electronic mail
involving that E-COM proposal and why it never happened. Sounds
like another case where the experimental system trounced the
official one......later repeated by TCP, etc., etc.<br>
<br>
But I can't find anywhere either where they call it email. But
I agree with Noel -- I think the term "email" came from outside
our community. I vaguely recall first seeing it in something
like a trade magazine or newspaper article.<br>
<br>
/Jack<br>
</small><br>
On 06/05/2013 03:09 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:20130605220929.7E20318C09B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> > From: Larry Sheldon <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:LarrySheldon@cox.net"><LarrySheldon@cox.net></a>
> (y'all frightened the post office? that's funny.)
Why? It was not without reason; check out the stats on first-class mail
volume - it's estimated that it's taken a _huge_ hit from email.
On the subject of the term 'email' - I have this vague memory that it came
from outside 'our' community, which would explain why it doesn't appear in
archives. I think we just called it 'mail' or 'network mail'.
I have some very old business cards from MIT/etc which give my email address,
and one labels it 'ARPANet Address', another just 'Net'.
Noel
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>