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