Comments:

BAsic coments about this survey below but first the forward to a freind issue. The term is forward to a freind which implies the person forwarding a message has a relationship with that person. If that person values the relationship then he will accept emails from that person and vise versa if the person is truely a freind he will not spam that person. Let the recipiant tell the forwarder if his no longer wants his emails. Do not regulate this, it will hurt business trying to spread their word. All the loyalty programs and reward programs will hurt advertisers. I do believe the email should state in the subjet line this is a commercial email that has been forward to the recepient. That brings me to the subject of comercial/ relationship emails. These emails should be labeled as so. If I have a business relationship with a person I want to be able to tell them more anout my comany but I should feel oligated to inform this person that this is a relationship / commercial email. A new form of labeling should accur. It could be argued that the email sender line will get the email opened and no further lable is required but I feel an additional email stateing its purpose would be fair. Please see copied notes below. Most spammers won't adhere to the registry. CAN-SPAM enforcement is only now beginning, and tracking down the majority of spammers is difficult. The registry will create a near-impossible enforcement environment. The registry significantly risks being compromised and used to spam. There are numerous ways the data could be obtained by unscrupulous e-mailers. Once compromised, the registry can't be re-secured. A domain-wide suppression option could potentially kill legitimate e-mail marketing. A proposed option is for all domain owners to submit their domains for commercial e-mail exclusion. Such a process would be fraught with misuse. If implemented at the ISP level, this could curtail significant amounts of legitimate e-mail. The proposal contains no exemptions for preexisting business relationships. An exemption for e-mail desired by recipients is necessary to ensure the continued efficacy of e-mail communications. Consumers would have false hopes about less spam. The registry would lead to millions of frustrated consumer complaints but no solution. The FTC would waste resources dealing with complaints rather than enforcing more important aspects of the law. A preemption clause should be considered to ensure state DNE registries aren't created. Give Self-Regulation a Chance