Comments:

A3. Additional ways to determine whether an e-mail is commercial: I suggest the law take into account whether the recipient expressed an interest in receiving the e-mail, and also whether it is clearly an ezine, as opposed to spam. (Perhaps the same standards used to determine whether something is obscene could apply here, meaning that the average person in the community would say it's a spam, instead of an ezine.) I suggest that because as a responsible e-mail publisher, sometimes I do send what are called solo mailings, where I'm promoting a special sale, or even a product of a colleague. These types of mails are very profitable, and my subscribers expect them, and they're interested in general in receiving them because I've carefully screened these products and only share with them ones I believe will be of interest to them and serve them in some way. By the way, please do not include the proposed provisions for the suppression lists. I'm not sure what that would accomplish, yet it would prove challenging and would hurt responsible newsletter publishers. Please do give serious consideration to my proposal that you set up the standard to determine whether something is spam or a genuine newsletter what a typical Internet user would describe it as. It's obvious to the typical user, and I think this would do wonders to rid us of all the garbage viagra and similar messages, yet would keep the Internet as a valid place for people with unique talents to share them and teach others interested in learning those talents. My understanding from covering the issues of creating a "standard of decency" for the Herald Times Reporter in Manitowoc, WI, give me the impression that issue was far from clear cut, similar to asking "what is art". I realize it may be challenging for you to come up with a legal description of "what is spam" that is broad enough to make a dent in all the spam that's out there, yet not so restrictive that it hurts legitimate e-mail publishers. So far, all the pornography and other spams I receive now say words to the effect that "this e-mail conforms with CAN-SPAM: Our address is ..." Although I would guess that I am receiving about a third less of that obvious spam. I believe using the same "community standard" test for spam would give you the fine line that balances both sides, eliminating the clear and obvious garbage polluting people's inboxes, yet not jeapardizing the average small business person from making an honest living online. Please let me know whether I can be of service to you in implementing this idea if you agree with its merit. Thank you much for giving me a voice, and for sincerely caring about the ramifications of this law. Sincerely, Dan Klatt *REDACTED PERSONAL INFORMATION*