Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, I understand that spam enail is a serious problem,as I get dozens of them daily. But I wonder if this act,"Can_Spam", will be any kind of a deterrent to the "spammers" out there who already flout the laws of the land. I equate this to the maxim--"when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." 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 implore you to consider this matter very carefully. Suppression lists will ONLY damage many of the legitimate publications available on the net. I fail to see how this will stop spammers,as they dont' care and are rarly caught and punished. If you need more power to go after spammers and ONLY spammers, make this law more specific to that end. My specific concern is for damage to publishers who require opt-in 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, Respectfully, Gerald M Boraks San Bernardino,CA Internet business owner