Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008To the Commissioners,I 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,RespectfullyName:Thorald Reid Country: United KingdomPS: Why don't you give your citzens choice in visiting the websites they choose. You could put a warning that this website may contain spam if you think strongly about them entering the website that may contain spamBut when making that endorsement you should carefully inform by survey to all online business to conform to certain democractically agreed policies with all internet industries making them aware of how you came to the conclusions by what set of groups and statistics you based your data so that all industries could review the report at a certain point in time before making an endorsement to what site should contain a spam warning from another site that has income potential with consent from the subscribers.