Re: [Razor-users] Turning Razor into a scapegoat for irresponsible mailing list management

[Marc P. <ma...@pe...>]

Let me address that point. When I first started we were using an old 
Majordomo system. It had no dead address filtering. The list was about 
30,000 names. As soon as list management came under my control I 
switched to Mailman 2.0.8 and about 11,000 old email addresses to dead 
acounts were automatically removed. Mailman had double opt-in.

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.
>
>  
>