Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, Though I applaud your efforts to curb the problem of unsolicited bulk email. I feel that there has to be a better solution. I am concerned that the Can Spam laws are shots in the dark. A knee jerk reaction to the ongoing irritation of Unsolicited commercial email in an attempt to hit and kill an unseen enemy - the spammers. I feel that there needs to be a universal approach to this issue by inviting national and international representatives of government, ISP's, relevant software developers, and online commerce leaders together to create a holistic solution. Here is what I see going on as a legitimate online business professional. Consumers ask for information at my website. Some are seriously interested, and some are merely curious at that moment. I send them the information they have requested only to have to thread my way though filter after filter. Many people don't get the information they have asked for. If a Hotmail user chooses not to receive any more email from me, they click the 'this is spam' button instead of my remove link contained in the email. This means that others from hotmail receive their information in their hotmail spam folder. Most of the ISP's are filtering any messages that contain words that identify a method of removal. So what has all this piece meal legislation achieved.....chaos for businesses following the guidelines, and a bonanza for the spammers. It's the spammers with the never ending Viagra, and prescription ad's, and pornography that you have still not addressed. Falsified headers have increased in 2004. Now we have unscrupulous spammers using legitimate marketers email addresses as their from address. What a great way to hurt marketers! I have someone using my primary business email address sending a worm virus all over the internet. Subsequently my email address is on most black ban lists. The truckload of relayed forged spam is what needs addressing and the spammers have really thrown down the gauntlet and demonstrated that your legislation is useless. It's time to catch a few of these spammers and prosecute them very publicly. Furthermore, 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. 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, David Harrison IN Indiana