Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, I naturally hate spam and find that it costs me significant time and some loss of producive income energy. I hope to have spam bought under some reasonable control without interference with selected useage of commercial email relationships of an actual enrollment form on my part. Ultimately abuse of free email will be solved by the same means that one would solve abuse of free conventional mail. Postage will be applied and the volume of email or conventional free mail declines to where the volume has value that approximates the fees. Now the massive volume has no value.... and is therefore "JUNK" or "SPAM". That happens with free communication. I applaud your efforts to curb the problem of unsolicited bulk email. However, I am concerned about the proposed requirement for merchants to maintain suppression lists. There are some times when I want to have a continuing relationship with a merchant via regular emails and to have this relationship continue until I opt out. During this time, I expect the merchant to be free to continue corresponding with me without independently submitting my name for "permission" to any third party. Requirement of the use of checking for permission lists will seriously damage many of the legitimate publications available on the net. My specific concern is for harm to publishers who require permission from the consumer prior to adding them to any list. They're not who CAN-SPAM was designed to put out of business, but this requirement could have that effect. On top of that, these suppression lists could easily fall into the hands of spammers, leading to more spam instead of less. I was quite surprised at the potential problems this ruling could involve, and urge you in the strongest possible terms to reconsider its implementation in light of these problems, Respectfully, James D Buch Iowa, USA