claco Posted August 3, 2006 Author Share Posted August 3, 2006 It's no windfall, but it's a start: Connected to mail.summitracing.com. Escape character is '^]'. 220 summitracing.com (IMail 8.15 192568-1) NT-ESMTP Server X1 HELO mail2.summitracing.com 250 hello summitracing.com MAIL FROM: <claco[at]chrislaco.com> 250 ok RCPT TO: <foobarbaz[at]summitracing.com> 550 unknown user <foobarbaz[at]summitracing.com> QUIT 221 Goodbye Connection closed by foreign host. Baby steps. One battle at a time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
w0rmy Posted August 13, 2006 Share Posted August 13, 2006 Also, I "assume" by double opt-in you mean confirmed opt-in (if you don't know the difference then look it up. Double opt-in is what the spammers call it. You might want to change your terminology :-) But all the links I have found on this site, suggest they are identical and that both are good practise. eg: http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/406.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted August 14, 2006 Share Posted August 14, 2006 But all the links I have found on this site, suggest they are identical and that both are good practise. As I said before, both terms are 'defined' such that no one can use the excuse "I couldn't find the data" .... no where does it say "good practice" ... once again, it's the spammers that placed the 'bad'' wrappings on the "Double Opt-IN" phrase ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
w0rmy Posted August 14, 2006 Share Posted August 14, 2006 As I said before, both terms are 'defined' such that no one can use the excuse "I couldn't find the data" .... no where does it say "good practice" ... once again, it's the spammers that placed the 'bad'' wrappings on the "Double Opt-IN" phrase ....... Dont get me wrong, I am not trying to argue the point, Just form a little clarity for myself. The link I mention does infact say its a good practise "explaining the how's and why's double/confirmed opt-in is a good practice to follow in managing your mailing lists." In New Zealand here, currently the Government is making additional ammendments to the crimes act. It is going to become mandatory for all lists to be 'Double opt-in'. As this is a requirement being put in place via our government, hearing it is infact a spammer term was kind of confusing to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted August 14, 2006 Share Posted August 14, 2006 'Confirmed subscription' is probably the most precise term. Though 'Double Opt-in' does describe what happens. I think you are the second person to use 'double opt-in' without knowing that, at one time, that's what spammers called it. I forget why it became a 'spammer' phrase - probably because they twisted it to mean something that really wasn't 'confirmed subscription' - a confirmation email that doesn't contain any advertising is sent to the email address used in the subscription ; if the email is returned, it is kept on file to show that this person did subscribe. If the confirmation email is not returned, the email address is not added to the mailing list, but deleted. Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
w0rmy Posted August 14, 2006 Share Posted August 14, 2006 I am just amagining the potential for problems when this becomes law in New Zealand! Hopefully better wording will be in the final bill, otherwise every New Zealand provider is going to sound like a spammer for following the law over here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted August 14, 2006 Share Posted August 14, 2006 ... I forget why it became a 'spammer' phrase - probably because they twisted it to mean something that really wasn't 'confirmed subscription' ... Right on, Miss Betsy - John M's explanation is included in This post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted August 14, 2006 Share Posted August 14, 2006 I am just amagining the potential for problems when this becomes law in New Zealand! Hopefully better wording will be in the final bill, otherwise every New Zealand provider is going to sound like a spammer for following the law over here! You shouldn't worry IMO - the legislation will certainly define what is meant by the term and anyone seeking to apply a different meaning in the NZ jurisdiction will be guilty of an actual offence by definition. I'm not sure if it might be a great deterrent to new but imperfectly informed potential foreign subscribers to NZ e-publications; is there such a great growth prospect to be so affected anyway? How many would know or care about the different terms anyway? It might marginally help those inclined to be law-abiding if the NZ legislators used a less contentious term but, who knows? any confusion might lure various of the myrmidons of spamdom into error. Not that NZ is a notable hotbed of the breed but some ISPs in other countries make it a breach of their AUP/TOS provisions to break the anti-spamming laws in other parts of the world (I've noticed an example or two the UK - the sender is expected to know the "rules" of the place to which he is sending). Doesn't surprise me that the country that lead the world in women's suffrage might just be in front of the pack when it comes to putting some teeth into anti-spamming provisions. Only pity is it can achieve so very little in isolation. [sp] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted August 14, 2006 Share Posted August 14, 2006 I am just amagining the potential for problems when this becomes law in New Zealand! Hopefully better wording will be in the final bill, otherwise every New Zealand provider is going to sound like a spammer for following the law over here! Perhaps it would be worth a letter to a legislator? Laws should be precise. It is the confirmation email that is returned that makes the difference. Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.