Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, Your efforts are commendable, but misguided. Commercial email is irritating, but causes no injury. It is quick and easy to throw "unwanted emails away". Your time and efforts would be much better spent preventing the junk bulk mail we all receive that also kills trees. Implementation of this Act will put an tremendous strain on business resources. In this day of tight margins for small business which provide most of the jobs in this country, this kind of administrative burden could put a significant number out of business...for no useful purpose. Surely there is a better way to spend our tax money. In fact, here is an idea: Why not eliminate any emails for Viagra, Calis, etc. and porn? I fail to understand why the FTC wants to throw the baby out with the bath water. Many firms depend on email to stay in business. I purchase thousands of dollars of items on the net each year. Much of what I purchase was advertised through spam from companies that I have done business with at some point in the past. They're not who CAN-SPAM was designed to put out of business, but this requirement will very likely have that effect. Perhaps another solution is to simply let the market handle spam. Some companies will develop and sell spam blockers and provide good jobs. Individuals and companies that insist on continuing to spam will ultimately go out of business. Let the market decide. Respectfully, Roy Quinn Florida, USA