Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, I respect and applaud your efforts to curb the problem of unsolicited bulk email. 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. 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, such as my firm, who require permission from the consumer prior to adding them to any list. We'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. As a small business operator who uses email to communicate with my customers, the implementation of a requirement to use a suppression list will force my company to discontinue the use of email and return to the expensive and wasteful method of postal mail to communicate with our customers. My firm very clearly identifies the purpose of each email in the subject line. We meticulously honor opt-out requests. Our customers have told us they prefer email as the main method of communcation. The spammers and pornographers will not honor the suppression list requirement. It will do nothing to stop the flow of spam, but will cause considerable harm to legitimate small and large businesses. I urge you in the strongest possible terms to reconsider its implementation in light of these problems, Respectfully, Don R. Crawley Seattle, Washington