Yuhas wrote:

>
> Did you miss the "Because this configuration is not secure from "spoofed"
> subscription requests, L-Soft does not recommend that it be used but
> rather that "double opt-in" lists be used instead" part of the story?
>

I am not questioning the quality of the technical recommendation. I am
questioning L-Soft's apparent buy-in to spammer and DMA spin regarding the
meaning of the terms "confirmed opt-in" and "double opt-in".

The configuration "Subscription= Open" is "opt-in with no confirmation". The
configuration "Subscription= Open,Confirm" is "confirmed opt-in". To qualify
as "double opt-in", a list would have to be configured to send two subscription
confirmation requests.

        Whomever: Sign me up.
        LISTSERV: Are you sure?
        Whomever: Yes, I'm sure.
        LISTSERV: Are you really, really sure?

Spammers and spammer shills like the DMA consistently use the term "double
opt-in" to refer to a subscription process which requires explicit confirmation
of the request by the apparent sender of the request. On the other hand, L-Soft
has always had a solid anti-spam reputation. The LISTSERV product includes
features to prevent it from being exploited by spammers, and L-Soft supports
the anti-spam community by hosting the SPAM-L list, so I am amazed and
confounded to find them using the term "confirmed opt-in" for a process which
they themselves know does not include confirmation. I am even more amazed and
confounded to find them lending legitimacy to the use of the term "double
opt-in". I cannot believe that they have swallowed the DMA spin control pill.
Say it ain't so, Joe.

Just in case you're wondering "who is this idiot?" ... I am the primary system
administrator for listserv.nd.edu, #3 on the list of Top 20 Sites by number of
lists, and #10 on the list of Top 20 Sites by number of subscribers.

--
Paul Russell
Senior Systems Administrator
University of Notre Dame