Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 Honorable Commissioners, Thank you for attempting to reduce the delivery of useless bulk email. Nonetheless, I am not in favor of the proposed requirement for merchants to maintain the equivilent of a "do-not-email" list. In addition to the problems and costs this proposed law would unfairly impose on small business people like me, and the damage it would do to consumers, please consider these undisputed facts... These so-called "suppression lists" will cause serious damage to many legitimate publications that are available online. Specifically, publishers who require permission from the consumer before we add them to our list. These are not the people who CAN-SPAM was supposed to put out of business, but this law will very likely have precisely that effect. Please consider the potential for significant and meaningful harm to consumers, because of the problem of properly knowing their intent when they unsubscribe from a list. Additionally, if spammers attain these "do not email" lists, there will be a lot more spam instead of less. While the *intention* of this proposed law is magificent, I am convinced that the reality is that honarable businesses (who don't "spam") and educated consumers who have made a thoughtful and concious choice will be harmed. It is my sincere hope that you will consider this side of the debate more carefully and take action to prevent the furtherance of "CAN-SPAM" legislation. Most Respectfully, Lloyd B "Tad" Griffin, II The Commonwealth of Virginia Chesterfield County