Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 Good morning, Commissioners, I appreciate your attempts to curb the spread of unsolicited pornography and other undesirable commercial email imposed on consumers as unsolicited bulk email. However, the Internet and email communication are crucial for helping ordinary citizens conduct business and exchange information about useful products and services. I am concerned about further proposals for changing the CAN-SPAM regulations. Any strict regulations such as requiring merchants and affiliates to maintain suppression lists or control the behavior of its customers and affiliates will undermine this voluntary or opt-in activity. I certainly assume that publishers who require permission from the consumer prior to adding them to any list are NOT the group CAN-SPAM was designed to put out of business. From my viewpoint, they are providing the information services many Americans have chosen. Unfortunately, supression list requirements and other fine tuning of the CAN-SPAM act is only likely to help the lawyers. I fear it will put my favorite publications out of business because of the time, expense, and stress of increased recordkeeping and accusations from a few irrational consumers and envious competitors who seem to be causing more problems than the spammers lately. Just today, I accidentally hit the Spam key instead of the Save key in my email for crucial material mailed by my mortgage company. I'm trying to keep them in my address book by setting up a special filter, but I will really be in trouble if they land on a suppression list. Another time, I unsubscribed from a newsletter simply because I wanted it to go to a different email address. If my name is on a suppression list, I would have problems resubscribing immediately. Other times, I unsubscribe and resubscribe as my consumer or research interests change, just as I might drop Time or Newsweek one year and resubscribe another. If I unsubscribe from mailings from one company, I certainly don't care if a valued publication includes one of their ads or mention of their products! It would be like demanding that my favorite magazines stop publishing ads from companies I don't like. The logistics are mind-boggling. And so are the lawsuit possibilities revolving around freedom of speech and privacy (requiring individual names and street addresses rather than organization names and P.O. Boxes). Unwanted Forward-to-a-Friend or opt-in affiliate messages can easily be handled by individual citizens. They can erase the mail, or they can filter it out. Employers already have their own policies and software to handle the problem in the workplace. Further government regulations would be unnecessary and undesirable. It would be like a Federal Do Not Call or Email list for obnoxious friends and acquaintances! Governments certainly aren't responsible for regulating human nature. You've got bigger fish to fry. Imagine how expensive and difficult it will be for government to enforce further regulations fairly. The groups hurt the most will be law-abiding citizens and merchants, who will comply while the spammers continue to spam. I'm grateful not to have so much pornography filling my email box. Your regulations have helped in this regard. I'm also grateful to have access to many online publications I can subscribe to or offer myself. Please don't undermine one of the greatest assets of email and the Internet to go into the mind-reading business about consumer's intents. Thank you for considering my opinions. Please know that your hard work is appreciated. Best regards, Mary M. Greene Columbia, Maryland USA