Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008Dear Commissioners, I feel I must speak out about your efforts to stop spam where it concerns "suppression lists" for the simple reason that it may very well kill my business. Forcing me to use a suppression list prior to sending an email offer to subscribers (people that have opted in to my list but, who, for any multitude of reasons, my be on a suppression list), put my business in total jepodary of being in violation of the law. SPAM an email sent by someone/company totally unknown or unassociated to/with you. NOT SPAM is an email sent by someone with whom you have a prior relationship with, ie; some encounter where an exchange is made and the exchange of email/URL addresses is made. In your deliberations of enacting these rules please take the above into consideration. I don't know the percentages but a lot of spam complaints are generated by people who forgot that they have, sometime in the past, opted in to receive email from the sender or agreed to receive email from the associates of the site where they opted in, a third party blanket opt in. This area, the third party opt in, may be an area where regulation would be appropriate, for rule making under CANSPAM. The area I am most concerned with is where the opt in to receive email is direct. Any rule making in that regard is totally out of bounds as we are speaking to two individuals simply entering into an agreement by and between themselves. Any and all rule making must exempt this type of contact from the rules specifically as NO RULE MAKING BODY has the authority to regulate this type of conduct. I highly support your efforts to enact rules to cover the intent of CANSPAM. But please do so with both the consumers and businesses rights in mind. Thank you for allowing me to express my concerns to your commission.Keeping Love FirstPatrick Creech*REDACTED PERSONAL INFORMATION*