Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 Dear Commission- Though I understand your desire to regulate spam, my great fear is that the "Law Of Unintended Consequences" will rule. That is, you will create so many burdens on us small email users that it will knock us out. I have an email list of about 800 people that I send a newlsetter to. Every time it is mailed, I get on or two people who cry foul. I know they have been getting the newsletter for quite some time. So what changes? Have they forgot? Are they in a bad mood and just want to take it out on somebody? Is there something about the character of newsletter this time they didn't agree with or like? The point is why go through such burdensome regulations when it bothers such few, if highly vocal, people? I suppose you might say it's for the "public good". But why make it so difficult on us, the small guy, who are really responsible for keeping the economy going. Why don't you take that tact, rather than "saving everyone" from some ominous beast? Spam is a pain, supposedly. But it hasn't killed anyone. And the private sector seems to be coming up with real and creative solutions on their own. And that always beats federal regulations. Because in the end if you pass these laws, the spammers who do it big time will just outsmart you again and find loopholes. Is is to much to ask to be reasonable? Thanks for paying attention. John Shoemaker IntuitiveMarketingConsultant.com Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 PS To the Commissioners, I applaud your efforts to curb the problem of unsolicited bulk email. However, I am concerned about the proposed requirement for merchants to maintain suppression lists. There are so many problems and costs associated with this idea, and so much damage done to consumers and businesses alike, that I feel I must urge you to consider this matter most carefully. Requirement of the use of suppression lists will seriously damage many of the legitimate publications available on the net. My specific concern is for harm to publishers who require permission from the consumer prior to adding them to any list. They're not who CAN-SPAM was designed to put out of business, but this requirement will very likely have that effect. 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 spam instead of less. I was quite surprised at the potential problems this ruling could involve, and urge you in the strongest possible terms to reconsider its implementation in light of these problems, Respectfully,