Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, I applaud your efforts to curb the problem of unsolicited bulk email. I, personally receive about 400 emails per day. Out of these 400 emails, approximately one-fourth of them I consider ligitimate contacts, the remaining fall under what I consider SPAM. I would like to see included the requirement to include "ADVERT" as the opening content of the subject field for any email that the sender has *not* recived explicit permission to contact the receiver (only opt-in, with confirmation). Just because some one has visited a particular website is NOT sufficient justification for sending commercial 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 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. 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. I am a senior citizen that wants to have the freedom to earn an additional amount of money from the promotion of ebooks, ecourses and software. With all the requirements that you have set forth, my old tired brain probably won't be able to stay on the safe side of the law. I can have opt-in capability and opt-out, but all this other stuff just goes way too far. Can't you come up with something that bans the prono type ads, insurance ads, medication ads, etc. that were not asked for. There just has to be a simplier way than what you are proposing that won't harm the legitimate use of email. With all your suspression lists, black-lists, white-lists, etc., this is really getting rediculous... certainly there must be a way to register compliants and based on the number of compliants issued against a given sender, then go after them...not the small business owner that has a legal right to make contact. And then put the *real* spammer out of business. Respectfully, Glen Mentgen Colorado, USA