Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008To the Commissioners,I applaud your efforts to curb the problem ofunsolicited bulk email - I get enough of it! However, I am concerned aboutthe proposed requirement for merchants to maintainsuppression lists.There are so many problems and costs associated withthis idea, and so much damage done to consumers andbusinesses alike, that I feel I must urge you toconsider this matter most carefully.Requirement of the use of suppression lists willseriously damage many of the legitimate publicationsavailable on the net. My specific concern is for harm topublishers who require permission from the consumerprior to adding them to any list.They're not who CAN-SPAM was designed to put out ofbusiness, but this requirement will very likely havethat effect.There's also the potential for significant harm toconsumers, because of the problem of properly knowingtheir intent when they unsubscribe from a list. On topof that, these suppression lists could easily fall intothe hands of spammers, leading to more spam instead ofless.I was quite surprised at the potential problems thisruling could involve, and urge you in the strongestpossible terms to reconsider its implementation in lightof these problems,Reputable online merchants operate with an Opt-in list, most often double checked by confirmatory email, and always giving the option to remove oneself from the list. While individual merchants can honour this quite easily, the proposed interpretaion of a supression list means that legitimate affiliation businesses are unable to comply, and thus will be unable to continue.Please consider those on the Internet who operate non-spam respectable businesses.Respectfully,William Brown, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom