On Sat, May 01, 2004 at 04:07:45PM -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote: > On Sat, May 01, 2004 at 01:31:37PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: > > "Double" is clearly wrong. If "confirmed" is also taken to such > > alternate and incorrect meanings then how should it be described > > unambiguously? > > I usually use "Verified Opt-In". It avoids using terminology that > either "side" already uses, and generally gets the point across that > the opt-in request has had some work done to "verify" the opt-in request > was authentic.
If "verified opt-in" gains currency, there's nothing to prevent spammers from abusing it. There's no magic amulet, and certainly no simple phrase, that'll let you tell a spammer from a hammer (hehe). The term "verified" itself gives me the creeps, perhaps from having looked at too many spams using the term, spelled I'll grant in all-caps, with respect to the wares contained on advertised CDs. As others have pointed out, "Double opt-in" has an honorable lineage as applied to a process involving two opt-in steps, one an initial opt-in via web or email, the second, a reply to a confirming email sent to the address which allegedly attempted to sign up for a mailing list, according to the first opt-in. I'm unaware of any other use of the phrase. Perhaps Bob or somebody else could help me there ... are there spammers or anybody else claiming some other definition seriously at variance with its accustomed usage? -- Dan Wilder
