That may be precisely what email confirmation is meant to ensure, but then you need to tell your respective representatives that you want double opt-in confirmation, because checking a box, then responding to an email is more than basic opt-in.
It's confirmed opt-in. You only opt-in once and then confirm that you did so.
The only reason people use the phrase "double opt-in" is to make it sound like huge amounts of work and as a justification for spamming.
And lest you think this is just me, every advertising company out there will use this definition too.
And most advertising companies will claim that unsolicited e-mail isn't spam, it's a contravention of their rights to stop them sending whatever they like to whoever they like, whether the recipient wants it or not.
I'll repeat: The only reason people use the phrase "double opt-in" is to make it sound like huge amounts of work and as a justification for spamming.
Don't complain about the definition of what you're asking for, ask for the right thing to begin with.
Anyone fighting spam won't ask for "double opt-in" to be required, as it isn't what we (tinw) want. What is needed is confirmed opt-in.
You obviously didn't read it at all. The RBL is supposed to be only for mail, but Above.net likes to use it to block EVERYTHING.
Please check your facts before posting such rubbish.
(a) The RBL isn't "supposed" to be used for anything - each implementor is free to use it in whatever way they wish. As was pointed out by a poster to news.admin.net-abuse.email (note: this is not an invitation for attacks on or deregatory comments regarding nanae) recently, if a sysadmin wished, they could use the RBL to only accept traffic from sites on the list, and blackhole anyone not listed. Why they'd want to is another question, but it's possible.
(b) Notwithstanding (a), what the heck do you think the BGP feed - the *original* implementation of the RBL - is for, other than blocking "EVERYTHING"?
But if you're using the RBL to block ALL traffic from those hosts, then that's your problem, right? That's not what the RBL was designed for.
Actually, it is what the RBL was "designed for". The original list was only available via a BGP feed. The use of the RBL simply to filter mail came much later.
If "www.macromedia.com" made the list, then sysadmins who choose to use the RBL will not accept mail from www.macromedia.com.
But that shouldn't mean that HTTP traffic is shut off.
That depends how the RBL is used at that particular site. If it's used as a mail filter, then you're right. If the BGP feed is being used, however, you're not. Add to that the fact that any sysadmin is perfectly free to use the RBL to block traffic from any port they like (assuming the DNS query version, as used in mail filtering). If they wanted to, they could block all telnet, ftp, news traffic to IPs on the RBL. Most people either use the full BGP feed or simply use the DNS zones to filter mail traffic, but there's no reason why they can't do something in between.
MAPS is a vigilante group. All one has to do is look through their website. They're blocking people for not doing a '3 stage mailing list acceptance protocol'? WTF?
Where do MAPS mention a "3 stage mailing list acceptance protocol"?
If you're talking about verified opt-in, then either you don't understand or you're trying to deliberately mislead.
Any mailing list that doesn't use verified opt-in is open for abuse. It's that simple.
I can understand why they have moved to IP blocking, most email is directly sent to the receiver these days and email routers are not used nearly so much. HOWEVER blocking all connections to an from the site is unacceptable in my book
No-one's "moved to IP blocking". The RBL always has been able to be - and originally was only able to be - used to null-route all traffic from RBLd netblocks.
The use of the list to filter only e-mail traffic was a much later development.
Let me get this straight. You were able to receive email from them, but couldn't get on the website? I thought the point of the RBL was to block spam (which they apparently didn't), not web access(which they did). Looks like they fucked up twofold.
The "point" of the RBL is to maintain a list of netblocks belonging to providers who either spam themselves, or in some way support those who do.
How that list is used, and what traffic is blocked, is entirely at the discretion of the site using the RBL.
Quite aside from anything else, the original version of the RBL was the BGP feed, which is used by routers to block all traffic from RBLd netblocks.
Try checking the facts before accusing people of things.
yeah, and so can just about anything these days. One key omission in the newsletter arena is the fact that The Edgeis entirely san opt-in list.
Having just checked, and managed to sign myself up without/any/ confirmation, it may technically be opt-in, but it breaks the first rule of responsible mailing list management:
"Thou shalt only accept subscriptions via *verified* opt-in"
It is not enough to simply be given the e-mail address, you must in some way/confirm/ that the owner of that e-mail address wishes to subscribe - any method of doing this involves sending a confirmation e-mail to the address. Macromedia/don't/ do so.
IF you ask the company to send you the newsletter it is not SPAM.
And if someone else asks them to send you the newsletter without your consent then it IS SPAM. Since MM don't use verified opt-in, they have no way of confirming consent.
the RBL maintainers are a nasty group, IMO. They presume guilt before innocence.
Not true - they make a decision based on supplied evidence of guilt.
It was probably some idiot who signed up, and forgetting he did, or forgetting how to unsubscribe, reported them as spam. It is also possible s/he took an email adress someone else had previously, and signed up; then going overboard.
It is also possible that someone else signed him up/without his consent/, or that MM acquired the address from somewhere else and send him mail/without his consent/. If either of those happened, it is spam.
These days, screaming SPAM is a knee-jerk reaction
In a majority of cases, it is not and never has been such. There is/no/ justification for spam or e-mail abuse of any other kind.
Slashdot Mirror
The only reason people use the phrase "double opt-in" is to make it sound like huge amounts of work and as a justification for spamming.
And most advertising companies will claim that unsolicited e-mail isn't spam, it's a contravention of their rights to stop them sending whatever they like to whoever they like, whether the recipient wants it or not.I'll repeat: The only reason people use the phrase "double opt-in" is to make it sound like huge amounts of work and as a justification for spamming.
Anyone fighting spam won't ask for "double opt-in" to be required, as it isn't what we (tinw) want. What is needed is confirmed opt-in.(a) The RBL isn't "supposed" to be used for anything - each implementor is free to use it in whatever way they wish. As was pointed out by a poster to news.admin.net-abuse.email (note: this is not an invitation for attacks on or deregatory comments regarding nanae) recently, if a sysadmin wished, they could use the RBL to only accept traffic from sites on the list, and blackhole anyone not listed. Why they'd want to is another question, but it's possible.
(b) Notwithstanding (a), what the heck do you think the BGP feed - the *original* implementation of the RBL - is for, other than blocking "EVERYTHING"?
If you're talking about verified opt-in, then either you don't understand or you're trying to deliberately mislead.
Any mailing list that doesn't use verified opt-in is open for abuse. It's that simple.
The use of the list to filter only e-mail traffic was a much later development.
How that list is used, and what traffic is blocked, is entirely at the discretion of the site using the RBL.
Quite aside from anything else, the original version of the RBL was the BGP feed, which is used by routers to block all traffic from RBLd netblocks.
Try checking the facts before accusing people of things.
"Thou shalt only accept subscriptions via *verified* opt-in"
It is not enough to simply be given the e-mail address, you must in some way