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. Please be aware that, speaking from a country outside the USA that we are receiving an increased amount fo unwanted, pornographic, and often very offensive SPAM emails, from senders who clearly do not comply with the law as it now exists. They have no reply address, and seem to very carefully hide their tracks so that they can hide from prosecution. The problem is, that though well intentioned, it also exposes legitimate marketers and specialised consultants to the very real danger of inadvertantly fall prey to draconian and inappropriate prosecution by zealos officials because they are an easier target than the real offenders who cover their tracks and would be far more difficult to trace. 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. 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, Respectfully, Your Name Your State and Country