Comments:

About: "Section 5(b) of the Act identifies four “aggravated violations” associated with commercial email" I feel another should be added. It's called "spoofing". This is when the spammer makes the message appear to come from another email address that what it is actually coming from. This has caused a lot of problems for many innocent people. The wrong people often get blamed and sometimes punished for something they did not do. I have been a victim of "spoofing", and it is a very serious problem. it's a way the spammers get rid of some of their legitimate competition, while they continue to abuse email. About: "Should unsolicited commercial email campaigns that rely on having customers refer or forward the email to other parties be treated differently from other unsolicited commercial email?" Yes. They should hold the originator responsible for making all customers who refer or forward the email for them aware that *they* (the sender) will be responsible for compliance with the CAN-SPAM act. They should also make it easy for their users to acces the entire text of the act, and require that they acknowledge they have read and understand it *before* sending any messages. It all cases, the sender of each message should be responsible of compliance. Also, the consumers who opt-it to each publication one at a time should aso be responsible to opt-out one at a time to each they no longer wish to receive. In other words, no blanket opt-outs. They can't just say "I no longer wish to hear about product "a" and expect everyone on every list they opted in to quit talking about product "a". Product "a" might have thousands of hard working affiliates. To then punish each affiliate because the consumer opted-out one time would be totally unfair and not reasonable. Thank you. Norman Vojtaskovic