Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008To the Commissioners,Congratulations on your efforts to ease the problem of all the unsolicited bulk email. I'm worried about one thing --- the proposed requirement for merchants to maintain suppression lists.This could be a real problem for most businesses who rely on email for business promotion and the offering of product information to our customers. The costs alone could put our business in jeopardy. I urge you to please reconsider this matter.We communicate to our customer base via a regular email publication. This is a legitimate publication that has been asked for by our customers. They want it -- and they expect it. The requirement for suppression lists could harm my ability to publish by forcing me to get another permission from my customers before I could add them to any list.I don't think the CAN-SPAM Act was designed to make life more difficult for those of us who are legitimately communicating with our customers via email. However, such a requirement could easily put those of us with smaller businesses -- out of business. And, still not do anything to curb the level of "real" SPAM that is reaching our mailboxes every day.The other thing that frightens me about you proposal is what could happen with these suppression lists. We all know how diabolical the spammers are -- we see their tricks every day in our inboxes. Can you imagine them licking their chops as they work out how to get their hands on these lists?Please, reconsider the implementation of the suppression lists. And, do something to help those of us in legitimate businesses. Giving us a good way to report spammers -- and then to put THEM out of business, would be a good start.Respectfully,Ron RinkMiddlebury, Vermont, USA