User:Mwexler

Home away from home, for the moment.

Consider addng this to discussion for email marketing:

I have to differ. While Spamhaus is an admirable organization, and while they are correct that some spammers use the term double opt-in, it has now become the standard term amongst most all marketers (legit and otherwise): all closed-loop signups are double opt-in. This is because most users assume that they are opting-in when they complete the first step; many surveys reveal that for every average user who appreciates the confirmation step, others either ignore it or find it an impediment. While it is the most secure process to create a proper mailing list, assuming that use of the term makes a speaker a spammer is a logical fallacy. The current definition is completely biased away from common usage. Other marketing terms (e.g., Pop-under) are handled in a more balanced approach reflecting common usage (and common abuses). I would like to edit the "double opt-in" definition to reflect how legitimate opt-in marketers use the term. Otherwise, readers become confused when they see the term used in completely legitimate contexts. And yes, I will keep some of the bias, but will also point out that the double opt-in approach is the current best practice under any name, not just the ones co-opted by the anti-spam groups. There are a few legit emailers out there, and millions of readers who are glad they get their email. (Note that this bias is also reflected in the E-mail_spam entry) (Note 2: I currently work with one of the few legit email marketers, so I do have some bias of my own) --Mwexler 21:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)