| Comment Number: | OL-100006 |
| Received: | 8/14/2004 6:30:29 PM |
| Organization: | |
| Commenter: | Walt french |
| State: | CA |
| Agency: | Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: | Definitions, Implementation, and Reporting Requirements Under the CAN-SPAM Act (NPRM) |
| Docket ID: | [3084-AA96] |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
I don't see that the proposed 3-part test is an improvement. Your everyday spammer could easily switch to a Joke of the Day format. (Today's joke brought to you by JunkSpam.Com, now offering the world's best prices on Viagra...) <BR><BR> Spam is spam if it is unsolicited mail sent WITH COMMERCIAL INTENT. There must be a better definition of intent than what the majority of the content is about, or it could be left to courts. <BR><BR> I already get lots of spam at work offering me research into possible stock buys. A reasonable interpretation could be that the e-mail is mostly information, not a solicitation of business. There's a tag about getting it more regularly, and (usually) the opt-out information, but it's still a pain to get dozens of spams a week. It'll be worse when it's all legal under thi new definition.