|Received:||3/17/2004 2:31:39 PM|
|Agency:||Federal Trade Commission|
Re: D1: Selling unsubscribe lists and sending unrequested pornographic material should be considered aggravated violations. Re: E.4.2 If the return address is a working address that can be tracked to a sender it should be okay. It's the bogus, non-functioning addresses that are the problem. Re: F.1: A do not email registry would be impossible to maintain and if the initial ineffectiveness of the CAN-SPAM Act is a sign of how relieable it would be I think there is more potential for harm than good...Rewarding people for supplying information is only going to encourage complaints against legitimate email marketers, whether or not they are truly in violation of the CAN-SPAM Act or not...The CAN-SPAM Act, while fair as written to both the consumer and legitimate email marketers, seems to have had NO effect on the real spammers...Because there is a limited amount of space in subject lines, there should be no rule or law requiring specific text like "ADV", but there should be a system to enforce and punish spammers using misleading subject lines like adding "Re:" in front to fake a reply message, or putting things like "About your son" when the message has nothing to do with your son.