Comments:

To the Commissioners, I am glad someone is finally making an effort to curb the problem of unsolicited bulk email. Well over 95% of the mail I receive is unsolicited. However, I am concerned about the proposed requirement for merchants to maintain suppression lists. I am afraid that this is akin to using a shotgun to get rid of your dog's fleas. You do much more damage to the dog than to the fleas. If you nuke the city you will get rid of the sleeper cell of terrorists, the rats and a lot of cockroaches. but there will be noone left to be safe from these scourges. I suggest you go after the bad guys, identified by consistent, statistical denunciations to your designated complaint reciever. Therefore the occasional angered or disgruntled client, will not precipitate the disastrous downfall of an honest, hardworking affiliate . Efforts should be made to perfect the filtering system for the infinite says of disguising spam with punctuation and symbols replacing letters in words such as "p3n1s" and "fr*e" and "V1agra". The internet is a source of vast income for anyone having the initiative, willpower and tenacity needed to reap its benefits. It is also a great forum for the anonymous coward to bilk the innocent. Please rethink the implementation of this mechanism so that it attacks the intended target while protecting the legitimate user of the worlds most versatile tool. 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. Respectfully, Charles Swett San Jose, Costa Rica