Talk:History of email

A start

The intention is to allow this history to be developed here away from the Email article, which properly deals with just the standard Internet email system of today. Please clean this up in the next week, so that we can then trim the content of the "Origin" section in the main article down (probably to a copy of the "intro" from here) and put in a Main template pointing here. Snori (talk) 08:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

History of Email & Ray Tomlinson

There seems to be a disconnect between the main email article, this History of Email article, and the Wikipedia article on Ray Tomlinson; the Tomlinson article cites him as "the inventor of the email," while neither article about email even mentions him.--Snideology (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of email. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160101025735/http://merit.edu/research/nsfnet_article.php to http://merit.edu/research/nsfnet_article.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140330215111/http://www.networkworld.com/archive/1994/94-03-07hot_.html to http://www.networkworld.com/archive/1994/94-03-07hot_.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512165437/http://www.ir.bbn.com/~craig/email.pdf to http://www.ir.bbn.com/~craig/email.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

software "EMAIL"

hi!
in which sense is that software (written in 1982) relevant? was there a broad distribution of the software? -- seth (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

No, there was not. However I've re-instated it now for two reasons:

(a) It's an example of the fact that the concept of email was 'in the air' at the time, and being locally independently developed for local use (probably in many places)

(b) Given the controversy, it's not helpful to expressly exclude it. Note that PROF and ALL-IN-1, while widely used and distributed, also contributed nothing to our current solution

- Snori (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

thanks for your answer.

the problem i see is that the list suggests that the mentioned entries were milestones. (which actually is ok,) but the program EMAIL was no milestone. it was just a software of a self-promoter. some journalists believed him ten years ago, but only temporarily. if that guy would have said that he invented smart phones and some media believed and repeated that for a short period of time, we still would not mention that as a milestone in the article on smart phones.

imho the best solution would be if every list entry get's just a bit more information, why it is listed. if the entry on EMAIL would be explicitly listed as a controversy/semi-fraud/... that would be more helpful to the reader. -- seth (talk) 06:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

As I've noted above, the EMAIL program in 1982 wasn't particularly groundbreaking. However, it was certainly not a "controversy/semi-fraud"; at the time, it was by all accounts a good example of an email system - and written by a clearly very talented youngster. So, there's no reason we should mention the 30-year-later controversy. Of course, all our refs for the existence of the program date from that later time, so we effectively do document the controversy - just not in the body text. This seems appropriate. - Snori (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

an examplary software written by any youngster is not really enough for a software to be mentioned in an encyclopedia. there are probably dozens of such example scripts.

if it would be the first script: ok. but it obviously is not. and it is not even the second or third email program. there is actually nothing special about the script.

the only reason the software could be notable is the later controversy, where the self-promoting developer claimed (and still claims) to be the inventor of e-mail (apart from distributing many many conspiracy theories) and everybody else (including reality) says that this can be easily refuted.

the old article version suggested that EMAIL was something special, but without saying what was special. even the citations say nothing about the technical details. so i rewrote some parts now. either the reason for being listed must be written there or the list entry has to leave. -- seth (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

And nothing on Shiva Ayyadurai...

Wow. —Jerome Potts (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

As above, I've now re-instated this: EMAIL, an application written by Shiva Ayyadurai for the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey

- Snori (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually Ayyadurai and the program EMAIL seem to be irrelevant for the history of e-mail. -- seth (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but then many other systems such as PROFS need not be listed either. —Jerome Potts (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

i agree. PROFS and EMAIL don't seem to be relevant. maybe even HPMAIL could go, but i'm not sure whether the broad distribution could make it relevant. -- seth (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

What is this article about?

I would argue that it's about the history of the concept of email. While the email we use today has a pretty clear linear trail, there were wide variety of other approaches. X400 in particular was, (and probably still is in some sense and some place), the government sanctioned official "email". So, PROFS, ALL-IN-1, even EMAIL, belong here because they are part of this swarm of competing independently developed email systems - even though in many cases they were probably unaware of each other. If you read the entirety of the article I think that is pretty clear. Just because items are done in chronological order does not imply any sort of connection or lineage between them. - Snori (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree this makes sense. Whizz40 (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

the article should be about the concept and about the milestones that finally led to our todays e-mails. a milestone can of course be a dead-end such as video2000 is important for the history of videotapes, despite the technology was discontinued at some point.

the list of host-based mail systems (see both threads above) should contain important email software and not all e-mail software. every single mentioned software should be "special" in some way. otherwise the list is arbitrary and thus useless. PROFS, ALL-IN-1, and even EMAIL might be relevant in the list, but then the reason should be mentioned. otherwise it is of no use for the reader. -- seth (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Other early e-mail providers

Does anybody have dates and citations for

1. AOL
2. GENie
3. Prodigy
4. The Source
5. The Well

I believe that all of these should be listed in the history sections. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 06:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

First by country?

I recently removed a see also section that contained a link to mobimail, the first provider in the Netherlands. While it clearly doesn't belong there, I'm wondering whether ther should be a section or separate article on first e-mail provider by country. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul We do have the section History of email#Notable first uses of email which contains early milestones for the US, UK, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and countries on EUnet. Whizz40 (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

First commercially available email system

Hi @FounderDECMail, do you have a WP:RS for "DEC's ALL-IN-1 DECMail system ... was released in 1982 as the first commercially available email system"? Whizz40 (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I could not find any proof of what I know happened since it was my budget money that directly funded Skip Walter in Central Engineering under Gordon Bell to develop the All-in-One customizable list of application invocations and the robust DECMail product that provided the first purchasable off the shelf electronic mail product. But hey, I'm 83 and won't be around much longer and I don't really give a shit. I just thought I would correct the record, but it really isn't an issue for me. Made a mistake to even bring it up. 2600:8800:5D8B:900:15A8:C809:F1E4:2B88 (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Not at all, your contributions are appreciated to ensure the article is accurate and this Talk page is the right place to discuss how to improve the article. We can take into account your views as an editor and any sources we find. There are some web sources on the article that put the start date for development of DEC's ALL-IN-1 at 1977, rather than 1981 as per your edit. Do you have a view on the 1977 date, e.g. was some development started then but then additional hiring/investment or expanded scope occurred in 1981? With regard to the first purchasable off the shelf electronic mail product, what about CompuServe, IBM PROFS and HPMAIL, were their mail systems available for purchase before DECMail? According to the dates and soruces we have at the moment, they were, hence my reason for querying this. The article content is based on consensus among editors so if we can reach a consensus then we can change the article. In addition, more detailed information could be added on the articles for ALL-IN-1 or Digital Equipment Corporation, for example to say they produced one of the first purchasable off the shelf electronic mail products in the early 1980s. Whizz40 (talk) 05:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Please see edits at [1] and [2]. Whizz40 (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

For context, please read the section History of email#Host-based mail systems, e.g. CompuServe Infoplex service in 1978, IBM PROFS in 1981, and HPMAIL in April 1982, which have citations provided, and further background at ALL-IN-1 and IBM OfficeVision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whizz40 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Correcting the record is valued, but not if the correction is based solely on the word of an anonymous editor. The project requires something in writing. You might not "give a shit" as an editor, but you certainly should as a reader. Barte (talk) 05:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Evidence that foo happened at bar is not evidence that foo was first. How is All-in-One earlier than, e.g., ATS, CompuServe? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The key to my comment is purchasable. There was a rich history of electronic messaging prior to DECMail. The messaging features varied.

All-in-One was Digital Equipment Corporation’s market entry product for the relatively new Office Automation Market. The market itself was driven early on by the introduction of a downsized computer from the mini-computer, called a desk top computer, later a Personal Computer (PC). At the time of DEC’s introduction the only applications available on the desk top computer were word processing and spread sheet. I was asked by the president of DEC, Ken Olson, and my VP Julius Marcus, to leave my job as one of the 26 product line managers to head up the market entry effort. I had built a $166,000,000 business with AT&T who happened to have electronic messaging. As Corporate Program Manager for Office Automation, I knew to get market share we needed something that no one else offered as the word processing and spread sheet applications were well established and IBM and Wang owned the market. There were lots of electronic messaging systems in place but they were private and if you were an unconnected company that wanted to offer your employees electronic messaging there were no products for sale to accomplish that.

Electronic messaging with telephone, in basket, out basket, calendar, memo writing, trash basket and file cabinet were what I decided needed to be the features of the Office Automation product we offered if we wanted to dislodge IBM and Wang.

We had an inhouse email system called DECMail which had some of the desirable (by me) features but the VP of Engineering Gordon Bell refused to allow it to be used as a product because it was not written well and would be a nightmare to support in the field. I identified a demonstration product used as a sales tool written by Skip Walter in the Durham NC DEC office. It had some rudimentary email features and a customizable screen with a selectable list of functions that could activate applications on any computer in the DEC network by simply selecting it from the list and this could be marketed as a feature not available at the time from any computer manufacturer. That is, if you wanted capabilities that had the features of All-in-One you would have to buy 3 computer systems, each with their own dedicated terminals, but with DEC’s All-in-One you only needed one terminal on your desk, instead of 3, and it could be dumb or a desk top (PC) computer.

So, I knew Skip had the vision that I was looking for and provided funding to Gordon Bell to hire him to develop the All-in-One system including the robustly featured DECMail with the features I identified as fitting the concept of office automation. By Skip working for Gordon Bell in central engineering, the All-in-One product and the DECMail product could be sold by all 26 product lines and supported by all Dec field offices. And this was not a straight forward act. Gordon Bell resisted mightily my encroachment on his product development decision making. After all he co-founded the company with Ken and the Sales VP. A loud shouting match between Ken, Gordon, Ken’s brother who headed up word processing took place in my office with me being outside waiting for a decision and when they left the office Ken said get it done. I visited many of the DEC sales offices and found Skip.

Skip, a sales support software specialist, began his demonstration sales tool in 1977. The All-in-One function, a simple customizable list that when you selected one of the choices it launched an application that connected to the preprogrammed location on the Decnet network and launched the application connected to the calling terminal.

The electronic messaging application was a simple messaging function. What I wanted was his All-in-One function plus what I wanted in an email system. By the way, I named the All-in-One function to emphasize the advantage DEC had over IBM and Wang.

We spent millions on the launch. It was broadcast to every sales office in the world. Each sales office had invited their customers to witness the launch. The broadcast took place in New Hampshire in the evening to accommodate the various time zones.

I travelled all over the country and to Australia pitching the products. We had a week long customer sales meeting which I chaired and every customer in the world was invited, many came.

Not long after the launch, DEC decided to re-organize based on a book that presented DEC’s history. The authors convinced Ken that the company could not continue to grow because the way it was organized created too much competition and infighting between the 26 product line managers.

I left the company in 1984 to join a private company that had an application called Voicemail. 2600:8800:5D8B:900:15A8:C809:F1E4:2B88 (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

ATS was free. Its successor, ATMS, was chargeable. That pushes the first purchasable e-mail system to the 1960s. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure if you are asking me for anything else. If so please be more clear. I'm old and easily confused...  :) But I also have lots of time on my hands...  :) 2600:8800:5D8B:900:15A8:C809:F1E4:2B88 (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Read WP:V, at least the first section or two. I think it lays out the criteria clearly, but if you have questions, please ask. If, as you indicated earlier, there are no reliable sources that qualify, then perhaps at least you've learned something about how Wikipedia operates. You might even want to try your hand editing another entry. Barte (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

First in-house email system

Starting a thread to discuss the first use of an in-house email system. Do we have any sources that discuss this? This would be a significant early milestone(s) that would help to understand the evolution of the technology. Whizz40 (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @FounderDECMail, following on from the conversation above, I wondered if DEC was using email in-house before the commercial release of the ALL-IN-1 system? Whizz40 (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The answer is yes.

My resume includes much about DEC.

See User:FounderDECMail.

2600:8800:5D8B:900:15A8:C809:F1E4:2B88 (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Your resume seems impressive. Your intent seems high-minded. Your historical account seems thorough. The problem is that we can't move from that to making a verified claim about the first in-house email system. For that, we need at least one, preferably more, reliable, published, vetted sources that make that claim. WP:V, the discussion on verifiability, spells this out in detail. It's a cornerstone of what makes Wikipedia Wikipedia. Barte (talk)

I see a redlink for User:FounderDECMail. Was it recently deleted for some reason? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Automatic Digital Network (AUTODIN) and Compatible Time-Sharing System (CTSS) are obvious candidates for first in-house system. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

my information was not in regard to the first in-house email system Rather, at the time and no one challenged me, I claimed the first commercially available off the shelf email system that anyone could buy. But I seem to have gotten into a bit of a level of disbelief and so I no longer have any proof, don't know how to contact anyone I knew, most are dead anyways, and it was never dramatically important to me, am dropping it. 2600:8800:5D8B:900:15A8:C809:F1E4:2B88 (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@FounderDECMail Thank you for your contributions. It is a very interesting perspective and helps clarify my understanding of the history of email as an editor on Wikipedia. It has also prompted some improvement to a few articles in line with the sources we have, so your input is much appreciated. It certainty does seem consistent with the historical record that DECMail in All-In-One was one of the first commercially available email systems, and that in-house email was in use at DEC prior to its release. I think that is reflected in the relevant articles. Best regards, Whizz40 (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Whizz40... It was kind of fun to write about things I haven't dealt with in a long time. Just FYI, a perspective...

When I started with computers in 1963, there were only huge computers that generated a lot of heat and so they had large rooms, raised floors to hide wires, heavy air conditioning and lots of people to serve the hardware and the users which weren't allowed to go on the computers we had to give our cards to someone at a half door and they would call us when the run was complete. The only languages I remember were Cobol and Fortran. Then Ken created the mini-computer that you could buy and get direct access to. In my case I had to enter machine language commands via lights on the front of the computer representing powers of 2 with three lights per octal number. Then came the PC and the early operating systems supplanted by Microsoft at first and then Apple who introduced the new user interface(copied from a Xerox application that was not pursued) which Microsoft also copied. Then a Microsoft compatible handheld computer was introduced by National Datacomputer. After that it was telephones which offered handheld software. I understand Dick Tracy type watches are available and chips under the skin complete the evolution in size at least.

Also Ken Thompson who created UNIX and Dennis Ritchie who created the language C which UNIX was written in were both employees of Bell Labs Holmdel NJ and customers of mine as they developed their products. I helped them get AT&T to adopt their products as standard AT&T products (they only ran on DEC PDP-11's in the beginning) and that's how I built the AT&T business.

Have a good life... 2600:8800:5D8B:900:15A8:C809:F1E4:2B88 (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, while most of the computers of that era were the size of a refrigerator or larger, there were much smaller machines, e.g. CDC 160, PB 250. However, I know of not e-mail software in the 1960s that ran on a machine smaller than the 1401, 1440 and 1460. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Scrapbook and the National Physical Laboratory

Not worth a mention? It could send and receive mail between networked machines. It also had hyperlinked information storage. All this in 1971 too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.48.242 (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Not worth a mention? Or perhaps just not known to the authors. As you appear to know something about it, you might consider adding something about it to this page, and perhaps even creating a page for it. A quick Web search found some documents about it that might serve as references. Guy Harris (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Émail

Note "Separate to the development of electronic mail services, the French word émail primarily referred to vitreous enamel or sometimes ceramic glaze. A rare term, it was mainly used by art historians and medievalists.[citation needed]" Email may be said email (without accent) in French and it has nothing to do (primarily or not) with the word émail (enamel). (Not at all rare, by the way.) This note is wrong about French langage and totally irrelevant about email in English. Dominique Meeùs (talk) 08:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

émail also means tincture (heraldry), by the way. —Tamfang (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)