Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, I applaud your efforts to curb the problem of unsolicited bulk email. 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. Just because a person opts out of my emailing list, doesn't mean they don't want to receive other business' emails. It is illogical to have a person opt out of pornography emails and not to receive health emails pertaining to preventing illness that they have requested or emails on how to improve their website. You have to give the public credit for having a brain and being able to decide what emails they wish to receive and which emails they do not. There must be a way to set it up that no email can go out without an opt-out ability that works. I would be able to eradicate 100% of the unwanted emails that I receive if they had a working opt-out clause. Most of the pornographic emails and drug-pushing emails that I receive, do not have the opt-out ability. Lycos, aol, earthlink, etc should be able to write a program that will prevent emails from being mailed if they do not have an opt-out clause that WORKS! 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. There's also the potential for significant harm to consumers, because of the problem of properly knowing their intent when they unsubscribe from a list. On top of that, these suppression lists could easily fall into the hands of spammers, leading to more spam instead of less. I was quite surprised at the potential problems this ruling could involve, and urge you in the strongest possible terms to reconsider its implementation in light of these problems, Are there any additional activities or practices that should be treated as “aggravated violations” under the Act? Yes, misleading subject lines. Subject lines need to be accurate, but I understand there is no way in which you can enforce that. Respectfully, Lynn Remelski Arizona, USA