Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008To the Commissioners,I am concerned about the proposed requirement for merchants to maintain suppression lists, as outlined in your proposed regulation.As a small business owner who uses the Internet for marketing, there are many problems and costs associated with this idea. And frankly, I don't need any additional costs. One of the beauties of the Internet and the associated ability to offer products and services to those who request them is that it is low cost. This enables a broader range of small business owners to operate profitably.As a consumer, I want to be able to receive the emails to which I subscribe. While I do receive a lot of spam (as does everyone), it's no worse than the amount of junk mail I receive through the post office each day. In both cases, I merely throw away what I don't want.While I sympathize with your need to develop the CAN-SPAM act in order to make an effort to appease the public, I think it is unreasonable to put additional requirements on consumers and legitimate businesses. You cannot legislate the removal of the spam that everyone is complaining about. It is not possible. The technology behind the objectionable spam is not under your control, regardless of rules and regulations. Please do not add an additional burden to the legitimate online merchants who use the Internet and email marketing responsibly. We are taxpayers who rely on the Internet to market our businesses. Adding more regulations to us will affect our bottom line, our taxable income, and ultimately the economy of the United States. The wrong-doers that you seek are not among us and they won't follow any proposed additional requirements. Instead, we will be burdened while they continue to spam. We will be required to maintain a suppression list, while they steal and use them for additional spam.I urge you to not move forward with this regulation.Respectfully,Jeanette S Cates, PhDAustin, Texas