Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, I think that SPAM regulation is a great thing. But I also know that illegal spammers, by their very nature, will find ways to get around (or simply ignore) a great deal of these regulations, while legitimate business people just trying to do business with their customers are left twisting in the wind trying to comply without going out of business or violate the regs. In addition, there seems to be the issue of enforcability to consider - enforcement will fall hardest on those trying to abide by the law, yet falling afoul of it, as the true illegal spammers will have the tech and the commercial intelligence to avoid prosecution. This sort of reality currently exists in the way IRS penalties end up falling on well-intentioned and otherwise law-abiding citizens who fall short of being omniscient enough to understand incomprehensible tax laws, while the true tax criminals have the means to avoid it altogether. Supression lists in particular are a prime example of this paradox - the law will be sufficiently arcane and convoluted to keep the real business owners tap dancing around mousetraps trying to maintain his legitimate business correspondance without commiting a crime, whereas criminals will continue to easily circumvent the laws through deceit, speed, masking or loopholes, much as they do now to avoid spam-filter software and ISP alerts. These legitimate business owners were not who CAN-SPAM was designed to put out of business, but this requirement will very likely have that effect. Then there's the fact that the average consumer will most likely be unable to understand the true and full implications of any CAN-SPAM action they take. And ironically, these suppression lists could easily fall into the hands of spammers, leading to more spam instead of less. I urge you in the strongest possible terms to reconsider its implementation in light of these problems, Respectfully, Soni Pitts Missouri, USA