Francoise Becker wrote:

> The terms "confirmed opt-in" and "double opt-in" were used at the FTC
> Spam Forum I attended in May, defined using those meanings. Since
> those are the terms that were presented to the FTC and to the US
> lawmakers, those are the terms we used.
>
> It's all semantics. It doesn't matter what anyone calls it. The
> concept that was introduced to our lawmakers in the US as "confirmed
> opt-in" is insufficient, no matter what you call it. The concept that
> was introduced to our lawmakers as "double opt-in" is the way to go.
>
> What does it matter what you call it, as long as you DO the right
> thing?
>
> Francoise
>

I agree that we need to use terminology that everyone understands, and that
"confirmed opt-in", as currently defined, is insufficient. It appears that
I owe the folks at L-Soft an apology. I'm sorry.

--
Paul Russell
Senior Systems Administrator
University of Notre Dame