Comments:

B4 - Messages should not have to be deemed in any particular way as people make their own choice as to whether they open a message or not. D2&3 - This will be difficult to monitor particular in the case of affiliates. The affiliate might be the sender of messages but the actual company manages the server that holds details of opt-outs. E3 - There are many people like myself building a small business from home and with limited budgets so forcing people like us to use our private residential address or having to spend on a post office box, that we do not need for any other reason than CANSPAM regulations, would force us out of business. Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, I am in support of your efforts to curb the problem of unsolicited bulk email. However, I am concerned about how this ruling will affect online merchants like myself. The damage that can be done to consumers and businesses alike, is detrimental as it increases the problems and costs, for this reason I feel I must urge you to consider this matter most carefully. The need for the use of suppression lists will damage many of the legitimate publications available on the net. My actual concern is for harm to publishers who require permission from the consumer prior to adding them to any list. Surely it is not the legitimate small business persons who CAN-SPAM was designed to put out of business, but this ruling will very likely have that effect. I was surprised to receive the notification about the CAN SPAM regulation changes from a fellow online publisher. As an overseas consumer and publisher, I am concerned as to how this will affect global activity on the internet. I hope there can be some serious considerations made prior to its implementation. With respect Ms Fran London, UK