Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, Thank you for trying to curb the problem of unsolicited bulk email. I don't know if you noticed, but it hasn't helped very much. Most of the spam comes from foreign countries not affected by the CAN-Spam law. I am concerned about the proposed requirement for merchants to maintain suppression lists. This aspect of the law could further ruin legitimate business and do nothing about the real problem. The truth is, trying to comply to the law will be a nightmare for legitimate marketers. Most of them will be forced to shut down or face prosecution. Most businesses keep their own house lists. How will they be able to purge their lists of the millions of people who request being on the supression list for every product or manufacturer they mention (even in passing), every single time they want to do a mailing? The amount of time, resources and money required for such a task are beyond the capacity of most businesses. I hope you see that it would cause more problems that it would solve. Whether it would have any effect at all on true bulk email is highly questionable. It would also have so many cost associated with it and create so many difficulties for legitimate businesses on the web that I must urge you to consider this matter very carefully. Have you considered that suppression lists could easily fall into the hands of spammers, leading to more spam instead of less? True spammer stop at nothing, and this is a very likely scenario. The potential problems with this ruling are staggering to legitimate marketers and consumers, while they probabaly won't affect the real spammers in the least. I urge you in the strongest possible terms to reconsider this ruling's implementation in light of these problems, Respectfully, Rufina Jame Rocklin, Calfornia