Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, 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 so many problems and costs associated with this idea, and so much damage done to consumers and businesses alike, that I feel I must urge you to consider this matter most carefully. Requirement of the use of suppression 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 will very likely have that effect. There's also the potential for significant harm to consumers, because of the problem of properly knowing their intent when they unsubscribe from a list. On top of that, these suppression lists could easily fall into the hands of spammers, leading to more spam instead of less. You can read a more detailed explanation of my concerns here: I have contact databases of thousands of customers that value my guidance and this would hinder our relationships. The amount of illegal and disreputable spammers peddling porn and drugs etc over the net are using offshore servers needs to be addressed . This is not the solution. We have spent considerable efforts to make sure we are CAN-SPAM compliant. I feel the consequences of recent legal actions have addressed the problem fairly and set a precedent for those who willfully spam the internet population. Adding unfair legislation will only complicate things for those that do want a large audience and do have beneficial products and services. 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, Michael Schneider Nevada,USA