| Comment Number: | OL-103025 |
| Received: | 4/14/2004 3:41:33 PM |
| Organization: | Word Dynamics (NSW) P/L |
| Commenter: | Marg McAlister |
| State: | Not in the US |
| Agency: | Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: | CAN-SPAM ANPR |
| Docket ID: | [3084-AA96] |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, We all are keen to deal with the problem of unsolicited bulk email. However, I am concerned about the proposed requirement for merchants to maintain suppression lists. I've worked just as hard on my internet business as I would have on any 'physical' business, and spent a lot of money. I don't EVER 'spam' clients; I'm extremely careful to make sure that any email I send is requested and desired; I use a reputable company to send my mail and always provide clear opt-out instructions. I feel that I'm being put at a huge disadvantage with the proposed solution of using a general suppression list. There are so many problems and costs associated with this idea, and so much damage done to consumers and businesses alike, that I feel I must urge you to consider this matter most carefully. Requirement of the use of suppression lists will seriously damage many of the legitimate publications available on the net. My specific concern, as you might have already reaslised, is for harm to publishers who require permission from the consumer prior to adding them to any list. They're not who CAN-SPAM was designed to put out of business, but this requirement will very likely have that effect. It's mostly the spammers who get email lists illegally who make my life a misery, constantly sending unwanted email about viagra, porno sites, mortgages etc - but they seem to be the ones who are hard 'find', so legitimate email businesses are being put at risk instead. 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. On top of that, isn't it possible that these suppression lists could easily fall into the hands of spammers, leading to more spam instead of less? I was dismayed 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, Marg McAlister NSW, Australia