Jeffrey Goldberg wrote about my war stories,
| In three of those it was an autoresponder-like thing that incorrectly
| accused of spamming.
Actually, only two of those I listed. But now that I think about it, there
was a third such autoresponder incident. A couple subscribed in digest mode
to print it out for their teenage granddaughter, and after they'd been on
about two years one digest issue suddenly got back a nasty automated
accusation of spamming them that looked for all the world as though it had
been imposed by the grandparents' ISP rather than by the grandparents
themselves. Regardless, the granddaughter never got the list after that and
neither she nor her grandparents ever asked me why the subscription dried up.
| In one of the cases, it appears that an individual actually forget that
| they signed up:
Not forgot but denied. The story I added as a situation where the complainant
was denying having subscribed but was not calling the list spam was of the
same type. Both occurred within two to four days after subscribing; nobody
had forgotten anything. In each case, either the address was shared and one
user had subscribed without the knowledge (or despite the objection) of
another user, or the user simply was lying. My gut feeling was that the
latter applied to both incidents.
Buying her name indeed. I not only made no profit from the list, I took in no
revenue.
| Did you then (or do you now) maintain evidence of her confirmation for
| joining the list?
No, I didn't. One denial occurred in 1995 or 1996 and one in 1997, so
subscription was single opt-in. As to the present, the list's topic became
obsolete in 2000, so it has been closed for more than two years now, but if it
were still in operation, I would use double opt-in and keep the confirmation.
| Is maintaining such evidence a good idea?
I'd say so.
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
