Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008To the Commissioners,We don't need any additional expenses of maintaining or subscribing to an "unprescribe" database. When someone double-opts-in, saying they wish to receive email on our products; that is good enough! They realize they can unsubscribe at any time. We do not need any further regulation on this! I am just a small business person, trying to get started, and just trying to survive. Don't make it harder than it has to be, please! The rest of my message is copy/pasted from a suggestion by a fellow online business person, and I wholeheardedly agree with their comments to you!Thank you for considering us too! Gene MooreI applaud your efforts to curb the problem ofunsolicited bulk email. However, I am concerned aboutthe proposed requirement for merchants to maintainsuppression lists.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 publicationsavailable 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,Dennis Eugene Moore North Carolina USA