Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(November 2002)

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: Purging schedules
From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" <rogerk @ queernet . org>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 17:50:38 -0800
To: "David W. Tamkin" <dattier @ panix . com>
Cc: List Managers <List-Managers @ greatcircle . com>
In-reply-to: <>
References: <> <Pine.OSX.4.49.9999.0211211554000.20846-100000@betty.goldmark.private> <026001c291e3$41985060$21985742@ord351473> <Pine.OSX.4.49.9999.0211212146170.20846-100000@betty.goldmark.private> <00fb01c29257$3104bf80$21985742@ord351473>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.2b) Gecko/20021016

David W. Tamkin wrote:

>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.
There's no such thing as "double opt-in."

A request from some unknown location comes to you.  That's not an 
"opting in" because it is unverified that that is actually the target 
person opting.

You send out a request that the person whose address was the target 
confirm the request.

Their reply to that is the *only* "opting in."  Anything before that is 
a random piece of data submission.

Calling it "double opt-in" accepts the spammer thesis that any address 
they capture by any mechanism is an initial "opting in."

Indexed By Date Previous: Re: Purging schedules
From: Beartooth <>
Next: Re: Purging schedules
From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" <>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: Purging schedules
From: Charlie Summers <>
Next: Re: Purging schedules
From: "David W. Tamkin" <>

Search Internet Search