On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:43 PM Al Iverson via mailop <mailop@mailop.org>
wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:18 PM Jay Hennigan via mailop
> <mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 8/22/19 13:35, Michael Rathbun via mailop wrote:
> >
> > > In '1984' there's Newspeak.  Since 1995, there's been Spamspeak.
> Clarity in
> > > discussion is to be avoided at any (reasonable) cost.
> >
> > Spamspeak is alive and well on this very list. Witness the ongoing
> > appearance of the spammer term "double opt-in" in recent posts instead
> > of "confirmed opt-in".
>
> It strikes me as shitty that when faced with the knowledge that
> somebody has implemented confirmed opt-in, you choose to attack them
> for calling it double opt-in, instead of being pleased that they've
> implemented the practice.
>

 +1 it's the practice that's important not the name you give it.

Many marketing people use these two terms interchangeably, I'm probably
guilty of it myself over the last 20 years. They are even listed as the
same thing in the Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opt-in_email#Confirmed_opt-in_(COI)/Double_opt-in_(DOI)
where
people will find it when searching "What is confirmed opt-in"

Many also see the term confirmed as "I sent you a note confirming that you
are now subscribed" so it's an equally bad term to hold someone too.

Pick your battles, the difference between using COI/DOI when the net result
is the one you want is not worth fighting over.

~ Matt Vernhout
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Reply via email to