Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, While I firmly agree that a situation exists with unsoliciated bulk email, I do not believe that the institution of a suppression list is the solution. In my view, such a measure would be commensurate to "throwing the baby out with the bath water." And, in many respects, I would venture to guess that CAN-SPAM was not intended to clean house at the expense of legitimate business operations. With the advent of this great information age of the Internet there are legitimate companies that require the use of email to help stay in business. It is, in many respects, their livelihood and it should not simply be swept away because of the unscrupulous business owners. Surely in every industry, there are those who take advantage of people and situations, yet we cannot and do not impose regulations that would inhibit the operations of those who chose to abide by reasonable regulations to do exist. I urge you to consider this matter most carefully with respect to CAN-SPAM. Requirement of the use of suppression lists is considered to be an extreme measure and will, without a doubt, add to any associated costs of doing business no the Internet or make doing business cost prohibitive, especially for those business who have the permission to add a prospective customer to a mailing list. They're not who CAN-SPAM was designed to put out of business, but this requirement will very likely have that effect. Surely, there is a far greater problem with receiving credit card offers by mail from literally hundreds of banking institutions. Yet no efforts are being made to curtail this type or any other type of regular "junk mail" through the USPS. It's widely known that for every action, there is a reaction. The fact is, there's also the potential for significant harm to consumers, because of the problem of properly knowing their intent when they unsubscribe from a list. Did they really understand what they were doing or the ramifications of their actions? Additionally, these suppression lists could easily fall into the hands of spammers, leading to more spam instead of less. I was quite surprised at the potential problems this ruling could involve, and urge you in the strongest possible terms to reconsider its implementation in light of these problems, Respectfully, Donald Berthiaume Nashua, New Hampshire, USA