Theo Van Dinter wrote: > Bob Proulx wrote: > > Uhem, I *know* you know better and just fat-fingered this one. What > > you describe is not "confirmed opt-in". You just described the > > "Opt-In" of the first one again. There is no confirmation step in > > See, you missed the point of my post completely which is: technical people > and marketing people have different terminology.
Yes, I missed your point.
> The "confirmed" part is that they send you a mail confirming they've
> added you to their list. The first one ("opt-in"), is when they add
> you to the list without sending you a mail telling you they've done
> so.
Argh! There truly is no hope for the planet.
"Double" is clearly wrong. If "confirmed" is also taken to such
alternate and incorrect meanings then how should it be described
unambiguously?
> > your description. If I were subscribed that way I would have to
> > opt-out to get off of the list?
>
> Yes. Marketing people got request for address to be added, they add it,
> send address a note saying they've been added (again, they call this
> "confirmed opt-in", as they confirm the opt-in took place.) To get off
> the list, you'd have to go opt-out, even if you didn't send the request
> in the first place. The "confirmation" doesn't mean they've proved that
> the owner of the address wants to be opted in -- it just means that they
> confirm adding the address to their list.
At which time I file a complaint, not an opt-out request, but a
"complaint" with their ISP, spamcop, spamhaus, etc. I want that
spammer shutdown.
Ignorance of E-mail and Internet commerce by marketing and merchants
was believable some years ago. But at this date can a marketing
person really claim ignorance of it? Would you hire such a person for
your business? Lacking a basic understanding of the media is only
leading to further abuse of it.
Bob
pgpiIMnBbwz5t.pgp
Description: PGP signature
