Comments:

E1. While the mere inclusion of a party's advertising content on another's unsolicited commercial email should not directly make them a violator of an opt-out request, there needs to be some definition to handle the commercial "piggybacking" of commercial messages on other parties unsolicited email. If for instance Sears pays 1000 spammers from Yugoslavia to include their advertisement in their unsolicited emails, they should be held accountable (nothing against Sears). E2. IF there is any inducement given by the originator of the commercial emailer to the "friend" to forward the email to others, then both parties should be deemed originators. The mere passing on of an email should not make that person an originator under the rule, unless there is some commercial gain to be generated for that person (commissions, etc). E3. Since we live in a small town where the Post Office does not recognise street addresses but only Post Office Boxes, I have to plead that you not make rules making P O Boxes unacceptable mailing addresses. F. The do not spam list differs from the do not call list in significant ways. To make them similar, you would have to have a phone list made up of unlisted private toll free (800#s) numbers. I would be very reluctant to put my email address into such a data base which would verify it to all sorts of commercial users, including those that would sell it to foreign spammers outside of US jurisdiction.