Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008Dear Sirs,I This is a great move on your part to address the problem of unsolicited bulk email. However, I am concerned about the proposed requirement for merchants to maintainsuppression lists.I think that a focus on problems caused by hackers, viruses, and spyware would help us greatly. I have so many little programs that have forced there way on to my computer from just being online. I am nearly forced to clean install my Operating system from scratch. My computer belongs to Me. Not the Hacker or these businesses that feel the need to download files to my machine with out my permission. I should be paid for the storage of THEIR FILES On MY computer.We have seen int he past few weeks The country's Stellar organizations put on trial for missing the mark- a major intelligence breakdown by the FBI, CIA. This ruling by FTC could lead to even more break down on file shareing.There are so many problems and costs associated withthis idea, and so much damage done to consumers andbusinesses alike, that I feel I must urge you toconsider this matter most carefully. Requirement of the use of suppression lists willseriously damage many of the legitimate publications available on the net. My specific concern is for harm topublishers who require permission from the consumerprior to adding them to any list.They're not who CAN-SPAM was designed to put out ofbusiness, but this requirement will very likely havethat effect.There's also the potential for significant harm toconsumers, because of the problem of properly knowingtheir intent when they unsubscribe from a list. On topof that, these suppression lists could easily fall intothe hands of spammers, leading to more spam instead ofless.I was quite surprised at the potential problems thisruling could involve, and urge you in the strongestpossible terms to reconsider its implementation in lightof these problems,Respectfully,Gene BrownCA, USA