Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, In terms of the "mail forwarding' problem, also known as viral marketing. It's really a fad, and will eventually fall into disfavor when better outreach methods appear. Right now, anyone can email forward anything they receive - even when asked not to. Example. I have created a paid subscription newsletter about grants for conservation field projects. I ask paid subscribers NOT to forward or share the newsletter information. People still forward newsletter to their friends. It is not within my power to stop them from forwarding email I send them any more than I could stop people from copying and re-mailing a physical letter to others, and I don't know who they might email. I have zero control over anyone forwarding information for which they have paid to receive. I have, upon occasion, received requests from people to be taken off the 'mailing list' who aren't even on my mailing list. I do not send out email to non-subscribers and have to ask them to look at the message headers to see who sent them the email and ask them to tell that person to quit sending them unwanted forwarded material. Generally it's a small problem, but it would be unfair of the FTC to hold me responsible for people forwarding email that I specifically asked subscribers NOT TO FORWARD, particularly when it's not an ad or selling something! I am also concerned about the proposed requirement for merchants to maintain suppression lists. This concept has no parallel in regular retail business operations. No retailer is required to keep a list of people who for any reason choose to no longer shop with them. Can you imaging Walmart keeping track of all the people who shopped there once but not again for a year? Or Safeway? or a gas station that you stopped at once on a long distance trip? Mananging such a database of people who "opted in" and then unsubscribed for any reason could eventually consume all of a small business's time and resources. As a one-person business I would find it daunting. If a business is required to create such a list and then 'share' such a list of 'opted out' people, it would simply expand and exponetially compound the problem for both the initiating retailer and for all whom they 'share' the 'opt-out' list. Can you imaging the difficulty of keeping a list of all the people with you you don't do business? How can you keep a list of all the people you don't know? Making a small business receive 'opted out' lists from other retailers with whom the small business does business doesn't make sense. As a small business owner, I don't need to get lists of email addresses or information about people with whom I have never done business directly. I have enough trouble keeping track of the people who do buy my services or subscribe to my newsletter. What am I supposed to do with endless lists of people who 'opted out' of somebody else's elist, newsletter or whatever? It's simply a bad idea. It won't reduce spam. It might even increase it. Legitimate businesses are addressing the problem of spam by using 'opt in' lists. I, as an email user, find 'opt in', 'opt out' quite satisfactory. As a business, I don't send out email to people who don't want to hear from me. Making me keep and share a list of email addresses of former customers won't stop people receiving an opt-out list from spamming those addresses, and certainly negates any claims I might make that I don't 'share' email information with others. In terms of "aggravated violations" could you add something about the aggravation of having your email address 'spoofed' by spammers thus making you look like a spammer when you aren't? I applaud your efforts to control spam, but let's penalize the spammers, not legitimate businesses who are trying to e-mail responsibly. Respectfully, Jean Saffell California, USA