Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, I thank you for 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 more carefully. Businesses are in a deep distress at this time, and to implement further fees and requirements, when the actual porn spammers don't seem to stop, that the legitimate businesses must suffer the fees and consequences 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. Once that person has opt into a specific list or publication, that should suffice. I have yet to subscribe or request any type of porn or ads for a larger penis, yet those continue to fill my email. That is why we have a "delete" button. This is the same for junk snail mail - there's the trash can!! 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 pammers, 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, Catarina Flores San Antonio, TX