> Anyone calling it 'double opt-in' has the whiff of being a spammer even if they aren't one.

Wow, I'm kinda surprised to hear that because I manage several e-mail servers (for thousands of users) and I am about as anti-spam as one can be. I'm certainly way more aggressive in spam filtering than most others I know.

I run my own RBLs (shared across several different systems); I have spamtraps and keep a handful of domains registered solely for that purpose; I do tarpitting; I will blacklist domains and IP addresses -- or ranges of addresses -- at the drop of a hat; and much more.

Until reading this thread today, I have never even heard the term "confirmed opt-in". "Double opt-in" is what I've always heard it referred to as and so that's what I've always called it. As I said, I'm about as opposite of a spammer as one can be.

You should be careful about making such broad generalizations or accusations.

Years ago, email marketing companies schemed to use the phrase 'double opt-in' to make the process seem more onerous ('ugh, double the work is so unnecessary, right?') even though the original term was 'confirmed opt in' or 'verified opt in'. That original terminology was specifically chosen because without it, there's no way to know if the email address typed into that online form was someone legitimately signing up or not. Especially when email bombing was much more popular 15 years ago. Sadly, many folks only know the 'double' term these days. 'Double' is more commonly used today since email marketing firms do most of the talking about it. For instance, "confirmed opt in" has 92k results in Google while "double opt in" has 438k. It's much the same as the way the gambling industry rebranded themselves as the 'gaming' industry. Although in the case of 'double opt in' it's been more successful.