At 10:43 AM 2002-06-29 -0700, J C Lawrence wrote: >On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 13:38:54 -0400 >Charlie Summers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > At 1:21 PM -0400 6/29/02, Beartooth is rumored to have typed: > >> Single-opt-in?? > > > Non-comfirmed. > >True, I've seen both terms used.
Single opt-in is usually used by spammers to describe their opt in lists, where you are opted in because they want to send the mail in to you. This is as contrasted to double-opt-in, which is a term for a list where they actually confirm that you want to be on the list by verifying your intent. I did a search for the term, double opt in, in the Google Usenet archives a few weeks ago, and the earliest use I could find of the term in relationship to e-mail was a spammer trying to make verification of addresses seem terminally difficult. But there are people who feel fairly strong about this whole mess --- that terminology has to be clear or that one has lost the education battle. If you are a spammer, you should call them "single opt-in" or "double opt-in". If you are not, call them what they are - unverified or verified e-mail addresses. Don't add any extra credibility to the "type any address into a web form" sort of sign in, and don't make verification seem like an unnecessary step. -- War is an ugly thing, but it is not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made so by the exertions of better men than himself. -- John Stuart Mill Nick Simicich - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
