Comments:

Re: Regulatory Flexibility Act I have been a newsletter publisher for 5 years and have 3 popular edition, one paid. I understand what the FTC is trying to do. I have been following it for years. I personally know many publishers. They are hard working, honest and reputable people trying to make a difference with the online media. We have many hundreds of thousands of readers - just like your daily news paper. We have subscribers. We offer subscriptions. No one MUST buy or subscribe to our newsletters. It is a choice. A freedom and it goes both ways. Newsletters should be exempt from your suppression list and any other attempts at stopping the real, offshore bulk emailers. We are not of that ilk. Much evidence of this is available. If you don't have the time or personal to investigate this, let me know. I will do it for you. That is what I do - investigative reporting. Punishing the innocent along with the guilty is not the way to improve ecommerce. That will just give it to the spammers, free and clear. Also, charging legitimate publishers and business owners with lists to send email will stop online ecommerce. If this is your aim as many believe, just do what you are about to do. If it isn't and you are truly intent on stopping the real spammers - don't go after publishers and small business owners - target the real spammers. Those who just keep on spamming, no matter what you or we do. If I can help in any way, feel free to email me and let me know. After five years I'd hate to be forced to quit what I love doing because an entity of the government took my right to make a living on the Internet away. Thank you for your time, Bobbette Madonna *REDACTED PERSONAL INFORMATION*  Blaine WA *REDACTED PERSONAL INFORMATION* ============================ Most of the questions above will be answered by the belief of the one who answers - either for commercial email or against it. Government is politics and politics is either right or left or nothing. I will answer just the following in hopes that the Internet Press won't be shut down by politics and those special interest groups that cry the loudest. Answer to #A3: When the advertisement in the email is sent to a person who asked to receive that email through a subscription to a newsletter. If the subscriber doesn't want to continue receiving email from a publisher, they click a link or tell the publisher and are removed for that publisher's newsletter. Side Note: Publishers get spam, too. We are experts at handling it. We break our necks making sure our subscribers don't get mail from us that they don't want. Most of us DON'T SPAM no matter what the "other side" wants you to believe. Answer to #D1: When an entity like spamcop's (Julian Haight) rouge software allows for the shutting down of businesses because one unknown person, for whatever reason, uses that software and complains to spamcop and the complaint is forwarded to an ISP and that ISP shuts down the owner of the list without due process or the right to defend themselves. No one should have to right to send a business owner 'spam' telling them they have been shut down because Haight's software made a false positive decision and makes that call. Haight's emails are 'spam' because no publisher asked for a business relationship with Haight or any other ecommerce hater. I investigate this also and have many members to whom this has happened. You could fix that unjust problem and serve the legitimate publishers and business owners greatly. Cleaning up spam should start from within, where it all started. As you know there is big money in spam. Well, there is big money made by those supposedly trying to stop spam. They are in bed together and paybacks and bribes are rampant. Look to those who cry foul the loudest and you will find the solution to really stopping spam. ISPs are paid to let spam through by those who can well afford it. Long live the Internet press and freedom of speech