Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners: I appreciate your efforts to curb the growing problem of unsolicited bulk email. However, I am greatly concerned about your proposed requirement for merchants to maintain suppression lists. It is draconian and effectively a case of using the law to put down the legitimate as well as the non-legitimate. It is a knee jerk reaction to a problem which will have no significant effect on the real culprits I believe that there are a great number of problems and with them, related costs associated with this idea, and so much economic damage will be donedone to consumers and businesses alike, that I feel I must urge you to consider this matter most carefully. I think that your requirements are so stringent as to be a barrier to free and honest trading by the vast majority of users. Additionally, the requirement for the use of suppression lists will seriously damage many of the legitimate publications available on the Internet. My specific concern is for harm to publishers who require permission from the consumer prior to adding them to any list. These people are surely not the trash whom CAN-SPAM was designed to put out of business, but this requirement will almost certainly have that effect. It is, in effect, an unconstitutional proposition which will do nothing to deal with the root cause of the problem, and will do much to harm legitimate business activity. 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 rather than less spam. I was quite appalled at the potential problems this ruling could involve, and urge you in the strongest possible terms to reconsider its implementation in the light of these problems. I also happen to feel that as it stands, your country will seriously damage its own commercial success and international reputation. As an Englishman, I consider that this proposal is undemocratic, an assault on freedom of speech and trade and above all, ill-considered. Yours sincerely, Dr Paddy Coker Dryas Associates Orpington, Kent, UK