A positive and a negative on that. The additional requirement would be a
pain, but the added security would be welcome.
Kevin Childers
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sheldon Koehler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] anti-virus solution
> I believe the original block against Harris was before they had ANY opt-in
> procedures. Before it got to court, Harris agreed in an out of court
> settlement to use opt-in, but MAPS wanted them to use double opt-in and
they
> disagreed. I think this is why it is going back to court.
>
> Personally, I would be real happy if double opt-in was law...
>
>
> Sheldon
> _____________________________
> Sheldon Koehler, Owner/Partner
> Ten Forward Communications
> http://www.tenforward.com
> _____________________________
> Amateurs built the Ark.
> Professionals built the Titanic.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "NetQuick Email Admin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 7:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] anti-virus solution
>
>
> > The folks at RBL and Harris & Real are in court over this. The RBL
> > folks do not like the opt-in set-up that Harris & Real use. They have a
> > multiple confirmation requirement that is in dispute. Harris & Real
have
> > not had complaints but were placed there due to the volume of Email they
> > send.
> >
> > Kevin Childers
>
>
>
> Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
> to be removed from this list.
>
> An Archive of this list is available at:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
>
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
An Archive of this list is available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
