Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, I agree with some of your efforts to stop the use of SPAM. As a relative newcomer to Internet marketing, however, I am concerned aboutthe proposed requirement for merchants to maintain suppression lists. The role of government is supposed to make life less difficult, not the reverse. This proposed change will complicate and increase the expense of trying to do buisiness on the Internet. This idea will do so much damage to both consumers and businesses alike and I feel strongly that this action should be reconsidered altogether! If you want to do something for the consumer, do something about pop-ups that can't be blocked. Those are more disruptive and aggravating than anything else I know of. 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. Resonable laws will help but nothing at all has been done so far to stop the flow of porno, prescription drugs, etc. Please try to do something about that instead of legitament businesses just trying to make a living. 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, KC FarmerYour Name Florida, USA