Language

Over on Deliverability.com Krzysztof posts about discussions going on over on the URIBL list about using “confirmed opt-in” to describe a subscription process versus using “double opt-in” to describe the same subscription process. I do not even need to read the list to know what is being said. This is a disagreement that has been going on since the first usage of “double opt-in” over 10 years ago.
To better explain the vitriol, a little history of the two terms might help.
My personal recollection and experience is that the term “confirmed opt-in” was coined by posters in the newsgroup news.admin.net-abuse.email around 1997 or 1998. There was some discussion about marketers / spammers (a lot of the posters did not distinguish between the two) trying to use the term “double opt-in” instead of “confirmed opt-in.” Many posters believed (and many still do) that this was a deliberate attempt by marketers to make the process seem overly burdensome and unworkable.
During the 2003 FTC spam hearings, Rebecca Lieb shared formal definitions for 5 different subscription types including “Confirmed opt-in” and “double opt-in”. These definitions are still up on ClickZ.

Confirmed Opt-In
[…]confirmed opt-in lists confirm, by email, your subscription as soon as your name has been added to the list. They allow you to unsubscribe immediately by replying or clicking on a link within the email. […] Double Opt-In
A double opt-in list means not only must the user take an action to add himself to a list, but he then receives a confirmation of his subscription. He must reply to be added to the list. […]

What we have here are two terms describing the same process and two different processes being described by the same term. Not only that, but the term describing two processes is also one of the terms terms used to describe the single process. I am confused just trying to describe the situation.
Adding drama to the confusion, there are some people who believe very strongly that marketers specifically published different definitions of confirmed opt-in to confuse discussions with anti-spammers. Whether or not this was a deliberate decision by marketers, the reality is that it has set the stage for years and years of confusion, obfuscation and controversy.
This is something I deal with on a regular basis. In order to make things clear with clients, ISPs and blocklists I cannot just use a term and be sure we all agree on what that term means. Instead, I have to define terms at the beginning of the conversation and make sure that everyone involved is using the same terminology.
So what happened on the URIBL list? Al answers that question at SpamResource.

Some random guy, nobody I know, he posted a request for help. He said, more or less: “Hey, blacklist XYZ has listed my double opt-in server. What should I do?”
Approximately 13 seconds after posting, he was verbally attacked in response. He was accused of being a spammer, and ridiculed, for daring to use such a term as “double opt-in.”
[…] a discussion forum made up of supposed thought leaders, people who actively work to stop spam, accused the guy of being a spammer. They didn’t accuse him of being a spammer because he sends spam — but instead, they called him a spammer because he used a term that they do not like.

There are anti-spam groups and people running blocklists who still treat the term “double opt-in” as a sort of reverse-shibboleth. People who use the term double opt-in, are not a member of the anti-spam community, and are unwelcome and shunned. Even those of us who have been around for many, many years are treated as outsiders and spammers if we accidentally use the wrong terminology in front of anti-spammers.
There is no solution I can see. The confusing terminology has been around long enough that there is no way to clarify things. Inventing new terminology is only going to increase confusion. Expecting either marketers or anti-spammers to abandon “their” terminology is patently ridiculous. The best those of us trying to deal with both groups can do is to be bilingual.

Open rate
Conference suggestion

Related Posts

That's spammer speak

I’ve been hearing stories from other deliverability consultants and some ISP reps about what people are telling them. Some of them are jaw dropping examples of senders who are indistinguishable from spammers. Some of them are just examples of sender ignorance.
“We’re blocked at ISP-A, so we’re just going to stop mailing all our recipients at ISP-A.” Pure spammer speak. The speaker sees no value in any individual recipient, so instead of actually figuring out what about their mail is causing problems, they are going to drop 30% of their list. We talk a lot on this blog about relevancy and user experience. If a sender does not care about their email enough to invest a small amount of time into fixing a problem, then why should recipients care about the mail they are sending?
A better solution then just throwing away 30% of a list is to determine the underlying reasons for  delivery issues, and actually make adjustments to  address collection processes and  user experience. Build a sustainable, long term email marketing program that builds a loyal customer base.
“We have a new system to unsubscribe people immediately, but are concerned about implementing it due to database shrink.” First off, the law says that senders must stop mailing people that ask. Secondly, if people do not want email, they are not going to be an overall asset. They are likely to never purchase from the email, and they are very likely to hit the ‘this is spam’ button and lower the overall delivery rate of a list.
Let people unsubscribe. Users who do not want email from a sender are cruft. They lower the ROI for a list, they lower aggregate performance. Senders should not want unwilling or unhappy recipients on their list.
“We found out a lot of our addresses are at non-existent domains, so we want to correct the typos.” “Correcting” email addresses is an exercise in trying to read recipients minds. I seems intuitive that someone who typed yahooooo.com meant yahoo.com, or that hotmial.com meant hotmail.com, but there is no way to know for sure. There is also the possibility that the user is deliberately mistyping addresses to avoid getting mail from the sender. It could be that the user who mistyped their domain also mistyped their username. In any case, “fixing” the domain could result in a sender sending spam.
Data hygiene is critical, and any sender should be monitoring and checking the information input into their subscription forms. There are even services which offer real time monitoring of the data that is being entered into webforms. Once the data is in the database, though, senders should not arbitrarily change it.

Read More

Recent comments

On my followup EEC post Tamara comments

The eec made a really bad and ugly mistake but you can take my word for it that they have learned from it and that it will not happen again. I am not going to blog about this because I really do believe in the value of the EEC and what it brings to the industry. It’s okay to call out a mistake, but do you really need to destroy an organization that is so worthwile?

Read More

CAN SPAM compliance.

Over on the ET blog, Al posted about how CAN SPAM compliance is not sufficient for you to not be spamming.
It’s a bit different perspective, but very complimentary to my post yesterday about what is and is not spam. He and I have both heard from ISP people about how many requests for whitelisting or unblocking are prefaced with, “We comply with CAN SPAM” and how meaningless that statement really is. Al has a longer discussion of why.

Read More