Comments:

April 16, 2004 Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 Respectfully to the Commissioners: Your intention and efforts to curb the problem of unsolicited email is admirable, but the current proposed requirement for merchants to maintain suppression lists is of grave concern to me. One of my concerns is that attempts to curtail the negative actions of true spammers will, unfortunately, also negatively affect honest merchants, such as myself, from conducting honest business on the Internet. Specifically, curtailing the use of email that informs selected clients of recommended products and services will undoubtedly be lumped in with the unwanted spam email presently in circulation and be at the whim of anyone who is mad, disgusted or just sick and tired of receiving unwanted email. The potential to lose clients who have signed up for notice of these and like products and services is, to say the very least, extremely risky because appearance on one list presupposes appearance on all lists. As a very new Internet merchant, and because of receiving so many unsolicited spam emails myself over the past year, to the point of feeling victimized and reporting to my ISP, I have made efforts to become more aware of how to deal as effectively as possible with spammers without harming those wishing to advertise their products or services I may be interested in, to say nothing of advertising my products and services to clients and potential clients. At this point of “progress” on the Internet, it has become fairly impossible to know the origin of how one gets on these spam lists, and I doubt seriously if suppression lists are the answer to this problem. My concern amounts to those few good apples in the barrel being thrown out with the bad ones. Once the apples are gone, there are no more apples. Once I appear on a suppression list, I'm at the risk of being on all suppression lists. I am one of those merchants who requires client permission to be added to any mailing list. In the above scenario, I, and other honest merchants like me, run the risk of being denied the opportunity to do business at the potential whim of a disgruntled client due to spam that continues to pervade their email. A further problem is that my client may not be aware I could end up on a suppression list due to a keystroke mistake despite the intention to get rid of unwanted spam email. I strongly urge you to reconsider implementation of this act and to more fully survey the merchants and consumers who legitimately conduct business on the Internet about ways to end unwanted spam email without endangering honest trade for goods and services. Respectfully, Cynthia Bull Northampton County, Virginia