Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, I applaud your efforts to curb the problem of unsolicited bulk email. The issue of addressing this problem is very challenging, and I personally appreciate your interest and efforts to address a situation that affects so many Americans. However, I am concerned about the proposed requirement for merchants to maintain suppression lists. There are so many problems and costs associated with this idea, and so much damage done to consumers and businesses alike, that I feel I must urge you to consider this matter most carefully. Requiring the use of suppression lists will seriously damage many of the legitimate publications and services available on the internet. I personally support double opt-in options for inclusion on a list. There are many examples of companies who use very effective double opt-in practices and also provide a single opt-out option in each of their "mailings." I believe the two pronged approach described above would be far superior to maintaining lists. As a consumer and a small business owner, I am concerned suppression lists could easily fall into the hands of spammers, leading to more spam instead of less. This would undue the good CAN-SPAM has accomplished to date. I also believe reporting and enforcement should be made easier. As a consumer who has received enormous volumes of SPAM, I have found it exceedingly challenging to report (whether directly to the FTC or through my ISP). The lack of information once the complaint has been made (agin from both the FTC and/or ISP) is surprising. Currently procedures allow me to register a complaint, but not to determine what action, if any, was taken. I urge you in the strongest possible terms to reconsider implementation of this ruling in light of the comments provided above, Respectfully, Stephen G. O'Connor Minnesota, United States of America