Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, I beleive your efforts to curb the problem of unsolicited bulk email is a great idea. However, I am concerned about the proposed requirement for merchants to maintain suppression lists. 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. I beleive that one must think about what our economy is like right now and just what it would do to those businesses that have begun because of the lack of jobs. I beleive that it could quite possibly turn a bad deal into a horrible distructive deal for the person looking to find a means of feeding themselves and their families. Requirement of the use of suppression lists will seriously damage many of the legitimate publications available on the net. My specific concern 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. 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, these suppression lists could easily fall into the hands of spammers, leading to more spam instead of less. Spammers of the likes of "grow your organ" and so on, which is the worst. That and the ones who are offering an URL to a site for "sweet young girls"--that sort of thing. People who are looking for a way to feed their families in the ecconomic climate of today shouldn't have to pay for the others. I was quite surprised at the potential problems this ruling could involve, and urge you for the sake of the honest businesses and the consumers who rely on them to reconsider its implementation in light of these problems. Respectfully, Maria Maulorico Maryland, USA