About 8 months ago we contracted with an advocacy delivery organization CTSG that had a package to allow us to deliver low costs faxes, emails, membership management, and other highly desireable features that allowed us to have a greater impact on world events. So the newsletter delivery was transferred to them, and they do not have a double opt-in system.
Although I do agree that double opt-in is better - and we will be discussing this and perhaps having to pay for some custom programming, I don't think that people subscribing other people against their will is a problem for us. The reason I think that is because EFFector is not the kind of thing people would force on other people. It lacks the inflamatory nature that moveon.org or truthout.org has. And - it's a long form with a lot of required fields. The zip code has to actually match the address and it's a lot of trouble as compated to truthout for example.
Additionally out newsletter contains contact information - both phone and email - and we just aren't getting any complaints from people who are being subscribed against their will.
So - the assumption that it is our fault because of our software is just plain wrong. Before such an accusation can be made - Razor should be able to tell me that that is in fact the reason and be able to produce facts that support that. The problem is that they can't - and that is where Razor is vulnerable to abuse.
Bob Apthorpe wrote:
Marc has steadfastly dodged[3] any discussion of running EFFector as a confirmed list, continues to assert that there's something wrong with Razor and that the burden of proof should be on Razor to prove it isn't being used maliciously. I find it irritating, immature, and damaging to EFF's credibility.
------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Razor-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/razor-users
