> Without confirmed opt-in, you're at the mercy of what random junk people happen to stick in there True, but then the real problem is that the opt-in is invalid. As an ESP you should evaluate these lists beforehand *and* monitor for signs of a lack of opt-in (e.g. high complaint rates by FBL or unsubscribes). Having these typo's are often good indicators for me to start looking further beforehand. E.g. a...@hotmail.com is the perfect example of people not wanting to provide their real email address.
A double-optin only confirms there was a relationship with some sender at some point in time. It avoids typo's. However, it does not state with who the opt-in was, when it was provided, for what content, for what frequency, under what circumstances and for how long that is valid. It is not watertight at all. Yours, David On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 at 00:24, Brandon Long <bl...@google.com> wrote: > I would also point out that seeing differences between mailbox providers > in this instance is not really a surprise. It may have more to do with > which random address people use in these situations. They may be choosing > Gmail more than Yahoo for whatever reason, or the address they're choosing > at Gmail may exist and be used, and hence getting spam markings. > > Without confirmed opt-in, you're at the mercy of what random junk people > happen to stick in there, and there's no guarantee that that junk is > equally distributed. > > And as Laura points out, it also depends on what they are getting from the > form. Some forms may get low to zero junk, others are probably mostly > untrusted. > > Brandon > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 2:28 PM Laura Atkins <la...@wordtothewise.com> > wrote: > >> The difference here is that people may want the quote but not want the >> associated email that comes from the company. So they will fill in a “fake” >> email address, and one that happens to deliver to some random person. >> >> Not all subscription forms are alike, and not all subscription forms have >> the same risk of wrong addresses. For companies that have a high risk of >> folks giving a fake address, like quote sites or download sites or even >> whitepaper sites, the site owners need to take steps to protect themselves. >> >> laura >> >> >> On Aug 28, 2018, at 6:27 AM, David Hofstee <opentext.dhofs...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Otto, >> >> It is not my experience that many people will fill in other people's >> email address. I've seen 100's of millions of subscribers. Most did not >> have double opt-in. It mostly went very well. There are cases of form-spam >> (see e.g. Spamhaus a few years ago) and double opt-in prevents typo's. But >> there are other methods to deal with abuse (in all of its appearances). >> >> So I'm not sure that your opinion towards double opt-in (where customers >> not using it should be seen as spamming) is in line with the numbers I saw. >> I understand the push from the anti-spam community (who have issues in >> discriminating criminals and commercial senders having equally bad/good >> data quality). But this technical solution is, imho, the wrong tool for >> that. As Microsoft, Yahoo and Google have found out, feedback from users >> via alternate systems is much better. But that is not yet integrated into >> RFCs for the rest of us to use. >> >> I'll leave the "confirmed opt-in" vs "double opt-in" discussion as it is. >> >> Yours, >> >> >> David >> >> >> On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 09:02, Otto J. Makela <o...@iki.fi> wrote: >> >>> On 2018-08-23 22:10, Jan Schapmans wrote: >>> >>> > * customer doesn’t want to do double optin, we are pushing to only >>> implement >>> > it for gmail & googlemail addresses. >>> >>> This should definitely raise red flags at your end: customer doesn't >>> care about how good the "leads" are, as long as there are many. >>> This is "Millions CD" level thinking. >>> >>> BTW, a much better term is "confirmed opt-in", because that's what it is. >>> Most companies that want to contact you by email can get it right (send >>> single >>> email with confirmation link as part of registration etc.), why should >>> your >>> customer get a special pass not to do it? >>> >>> -- >>> /* * * Otto J. Makela <o...@iki.fi> * * * * * * * * * */ >>> /* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */ >>> /* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27, FI-00100 Helsinki */ >>> /* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * */ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mailop mailing list >>> mailop@mailop.org >>> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop >>> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> My opinion is mine. >> _______________________________________________ >> mailop mailing list >> mailop@mailop.org >> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop >> >> >> -- >> Having an Email Crisis? We can help! 800 823-9674 >> >> Laura Atkins >> Word to the Wise >> la...@wordtothewise.com >> (650) 437-0741 >> >> Email Delivery Blog: https://wordtothewise.com/blog >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mailop mailing list >> mailop@mailop.org >> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop >> > -- -- My opinion is mine.
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
