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