Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008To the Commissioners,First, thank you for your efforts to curb the problem of unsolicited bulk email. It IS annoying and I see the potential for problems. However, I am concerned about the proposed requirement for legitimate merchants to maintain suppression lists.These type of restrictions hurt the legitimate merchants who use email appropriately, and do not stop the spammers intent on finding ways to reach your Inbox anyway. As the laws are written now, the legitimat businesses that try to comply can easily get zinged for making a mistake. The spammers will continue with business as usual and escape (for the most part) unscathed.There are so many problems and costs associated with this idea, and so much damage done not only to businesses, but consumers, as well, that I feel I must urge you to consider 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 to publishers who require permission from the consumer prior to adding them to any list.They're not who CAN-SPAM was designed to put out of business, but this requirement will very likely have that effect.There's also the potential for significant harm toconsumers, because of the problem of properly knowing their intent when they unsubscribe from a list. In addition, you and I know just how people intent on breaking the rules think: these suppression lists could easily become another tool for spammers, leading to more spam instead of ess.I was quite surprised at the potential problems thisruling could involve, and urge you in the strongestpossible terms to reconsider its implementation in light of these problems.There must be a way to out-smart spammers without hurting honest, hardworking people.Thank you for your time and concern.Kind Regards,Patricia PeirsonCaliforniaUSA