Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 I appreciate that you're trying to stop spammers. I'm concerned that some aspects of the proposed regulations will, if adopted, have a chilling effect on the exercise of free speech rights online by legitimate parties both commercial and otherwise. First, I don't think any government agency has any business examining the content of our emails, in order to determine whether they are "commercial" or not. Commercial or not, emails between consenting parties, except the transmission of pornographic materials to minors, are purely the business of the parties involved. It seems to me, the definition of "spam" ought to be restricted to the issue of whether the recipient has consented to receive mail from the sender, not what “type” of message it is. The other point I’d like to make is that legitimate opt in lists already quite effectively avoid spamming, by only adding names of people who’ve signed up, and providing an opt out mechanism with every email. This is how it should be done. It’s unfair to require of the thousands of legitimate businesses maintaining proper opt in lists that they further burden themselves with the expense of maintaining “suppression” lists, a cost to be born by the consumer. We don’t need more regulation to catch spammers; they’re already violating existing regulations. Does anyone believe that spammers are going to keep “suppression” lists? Enforcement of existing laws is the key to stopping spam, not further regulation that punishes legitimate businesses, and their customers. Sincerely, Greg Vinson