Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners: First let me say that I'm very happy that you have taken steps to curb the problem concerning unsolicited bulk email. It is truly out of hand. My own records show that unsolicited mail coming to my Inbox has quadrupled since the implementation of the CAN-SPAM law. This past week saw 24,386 messages attempt to gain entry to my Inbox and only 213 of those were legitimate messages. I don't believe suppression lists are the answer though as there are far too many variables for this to be a viable alternative. 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. In fact, I've stopped using email to deliver my own ezine - it's not worth the hassle or the risk. 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. I strongly feel the problem could be rectified if the protocol for email was changed. Right now it's open to all the spammers, scammers and hackers. They use false headers, non-existent addresses and so on. 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, Lois M. Jeary Elie, Manitoba, Canada