Comments:

Commissioners, Thank-you for your efforts to curb the problem of unsolicited bulk email. However, I am concerned about the proposed requirement for merchants to maintain suppression lists. I urge you to consider this matter most carefully. I feel that the implementation of suppression lists would in fact open a very large can-of-worms that would work against your good intentions. 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. (Often a double opt-in list to make sure that the consumer is actually making the request) They're not who CAN-SPAM was designed to put out of business, but this requirement will very likely have that effect. This could lead to possible harm to the consumers. When I personally opt-out of an email list, I expect to be opted out of the actual company that I am contacting, not any other company. It concerns me to think that instead of my email address and name being removed from their database, it would instead be added to a large list that is shared with multiple companies that I am not even aware of. This seems to be backwards thinking. I fear that these supression lists would become highly sought after by those who intend harm (virus, trojan horse, etc. creaters) and/or be sold to the pornographic companies and others who don't ethically send emails. I believe that this is what the CAN SPAM act was originally created to prevent. I strongly urge you to look at this issue and it's wording from both the legitimate business and consumer stand points and strongly consider whether a suppression list is really the best way to deal with the problem. I believe that supression lists would do a lot of harm to both consumers and legitimate business owners while assisting those who continue to violate people's personal information. Respectfully, Wendy Auckerman Ohio, United States