Comments:

RE: D1, also using run-length encoding to hide keywords from software that an end recipient may use to filter their email should be illlegal. It's common practice in a lot of spam to use html formatted email and while readable to the viewer, if you look a the source code of that html... it's gibberish and will get by mail filtering software. Spammers are exploiting weaknesses in the filtering software. What seems silly to me, is why... those people obviously don't wnat emails on particular topics... all the spammers are doing is angering people. RE: E1, by holding the advertised company responsible, you are in effect making it possible for a third party to malisciously damage the advertisted company without their knowledge or consent. It's ridiculous to hold a company resposible for something they have no control over. Under te rules this topic suggests... if John Doe is mad at Company X and wants to damage them, all he would need to do is spam a lot of people with an advertisement about one of their products and a link to their company. This is plain silly and against all common sense. I don't think you have any idea of the ramifications of implmenting such a policy. Instead of hindering spam, the publication of such lists will only cause it to proliferate. The exact same lists you propose will curb spam, will be utilized by the spammers themselves. Also most websites who are ethical about their mailling lists, and implemented policies and promised their subscribers to never share their lists with anyone. This proposal to make companies share their suppression lists... could induce a lot of law suits against ethical legitimate companies who abide by the rules. By forcing them to share their lists... you will force them to violate all agreements with their present customers and subscribers. It would be a disaster for many legitimate ethical online businesses who rely on email communications. There are so many problems and costs associated with this proposal. So much damage will be done to both companies and to consumers. I urge you to consider this proposal very carefully. My specific concern is for harm to legitimate ethical companies who do require permission from consumers and who do enforce opt-out choices by consumers, and for protection of the consumers themselves. This measure will not prevent anything, it will only cause widerspread damage. These supression lists will not put spammers out of business. It will only help them and cause wider spread of spam while simultaneously damaging the very companies and consumers it is 'supposed' to protect. I am very surpised that this ruling is even being contemplated at all, when considering the problems it will create. I urge you in the strongest possible terms to reconsider its implementation in light of these problems. It's going to be bad for both consumers and for businesses. Respectfully, Kelly Eberhard Texas, US