When Terminology Attacks

I was reading a mailing list today, as I often do. 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."

That's what actually happened. What could have happened instead is that they could have congratulated him, or at least made mention of how good it was, that he is actually utilizing confirmed opt-in.

Instead, 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.

What's wrong with this picture?

E360 Failure Update

Ed Falk on E360 dropping lawsuits with prejudice (meaning E360 cannot refile).

Mickey points out that E360 reached a settlement agreement with Mark Ferguson but not with the others. I wonder what that means. Is Mark on the hook for something, and perhaps he should have just waited it out? Or does the settlement amount to both sides closing their mouths and getting on with their lives, as is often the case? I guess we won't know until and unless either party decides to clue us in.