Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008To the Commissioners,We all appreciate your efforts to curb the problem ofunsolicited bulk email, however... the proposal thatmerchants be required to maintain supression listscould be very detrimental to legitimate businesses.Implementation of this ruling is not going to have mucheffect on spammers but will raise the cost of doingbusiness in a legitimate manner and in some casesmake it virtually impossible to to do so.Isn't it time you contacted some legitimate marketersto ask their advice of how to deal with this problem?Punishing legitimate business is NOT going to help.Please consider...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,Peter MasonVictoria, Australia