I apologize if this has already been mentioned, I haven't read the entire thread. But I have to share that Scott Richter was subject to a Daily Show skit about spam, where he referred to himself not as a spammer, but as a "high volume email deployer". the skit is worth trying to find. the skit was called "Email Trouble".
-adam
on 5/3/2004 3:42 PM Bob Apthorpe said the following:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 3 May 2004, Dan Wilder wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> Yup, which is why you always need to spell everything out up front. Blame
> the marketers for twisting the words at every opportunity. But given that
> they're predisposed to doing so, if you want to carry on a meaningful
> dialogue, you need to explicitly define each term at the outset or people
> will walk away from the table with the wrong impressions.
>
> [...]
>
>>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.
>
>
> Otherwise called closed-loop opt-in. The word "double" is irksome because
> it implies that one is superfluously opting in twice. And I keep conjuring
> up images of John Warner as Dean Wormer, putting my address on "Double
> Secret Opt-In"...
>
> Opt-in originally meant that recipient (not the address) had requested
> mail; marketers redefined this to mean that they had an address that was
> opted-in by an unverified someone. Then the mail admins changed the term
> to 'confirmed opt-in' to specifically denote that the *recipient* needed
> to confirm they had opted-in the address. The was redefined by the
> marketers to mean that an unverified someone had opted-in an address and
> that the *sender* sent a confirmation note that they were about to send to
> that address. Now 'double opt-in' is often taken as a synonym for 'opt-in
> with closed-loop confirmation.' I won't be surprised if this gets
> redefined to mean something awful so it's best not to trust any term
> without it being strictly defined at the outset. Not all marketers are
> evil weasels but enough are to not trust any of their terminology, ever.
>
>
>>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?
>
>
> See above. 'Spamming' is what the other guy does... :/
>
> -- Bob
>
-- -adam ----- "laughter is like music"
