Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, I am happy with your efforts to manage the problem of unsolicited bulk email. However, I am concerned about the proposed requirement for merchants to maintain suppression lists. There are many problems and costs associated with this idea both to businesses and to consumers. I urge you to re-consider this rule. Requirement of the use of suppression lists will seriously damage legitimate publications who use "double opt-in" subscriptions where the consumer first requests information, then confirms that they really want it. This double confirmation has proven to be satisfactory for consumers. They can opt out at any time, but they have to confirm twice that they want the information. Instead of suppression lists, the law should require "double opt-in lists" from publishers when a complaint is made. This will be much more effective both from the publisher's point of view and the consumer. The CAN-SPAM was not designed to put legitimate enterprises 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. I was quite concerned when I realized all the potential problems this ruling could involve. I urge you in the strongest possible terms to reconsider its implementation in light of these problems. Respectfully, Neeraj Varma Alberta, Canada