Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, It is my opinion that when an unwanted email arrives, that it is sufficient to have a "remove me" link or section, that is simple and does not require anything other than hitting the reply button. I don't want to have to go to some webpage and fill in information. There should be severe penalties if the "remove me" link or reply does not intentionally work. 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. Here's why, I am a small, not so tech savvy businessman. It would place a huge burden on me to do this. I might be forced to abandon my internet marketing, and use direct mail where I can purchase a list of names and mail it at a higher cost. 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, John Shull Tenino, WA