Comments:

1) Relationship messages can be in the form of a newsletter on virtually any subject. Including jokes, recipes, news, weather etc., etc. When the recepient has double opted in to receive it, they have requested a relationship with the sender and should not be allowed to consider the newsletter spam. 2) Regarding forward to a friend issues. If you forwarded a friend a funny joke you saw somewhere and that friend then forwarded to someone that was offended by it. Should you be held liable for what your friend did? The whole idea of holding someone responsible for what someone else does is laughable and if not Unconstitutional, it should be. 3) regarding valid physical postal address In many cases, newsletters and ezines are ran by individuals working from their home. Providing their home address can literally put their life in danger. Often people double opt in to a newsletter then later forget about it. Some of these people get made to the point they make threats up to and including death threats. Thankfully, rarely do these people carry through with their threats, however if even 1 person dies after being forced to include their home address in an email, I would personally consider every person who voted for it to be guilty of at the least manslaughter if not murder. 4) Regarding the effectiveness of the CAN-SPAM Act. I personally run 3 little double opt in newsletters. (less than 1000 members) Prior to the January 1, 2004, I rarely received spam, at most 2 to 3 times a month. Since January 1, 2004, the amount of spam I receive has been growing daily. Most days I am receiving upwards of 20 spams a day. The people sending 95% of spam ARE NOT the various newsletters, stores, banks, charge card companies, etc., etc. They are full time THIEVES that could care less about what laws you pass. Most are from other countries, that literally laugh at the US for thinking they can control them. The more laws you try to pass to control them, the more spam they will be sending. All the CAN SPAM Act is managing to accomplish is making it even harder on the honest businesses. Most of what is being called spam is not spam. Yet all through this Act, it appears law makers are considering any type of commerical email as spam, even when it was requested via a double opt-in method. Spam is UNsolicited. No one requests it. If someone double opts in to receive information, no matter what that information is, it is not spam. Yet the controls are being placed on the people that use a double opt in system and doing absolutely nothing to curb the 100% UNsolicited email. Please, do not allow this to get even further out of control. Go after the true spammers, not ligitimate businesses. Thank you for listening. Denise Freeman Forest Park, GA