Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, I applaud your efforts to curb the problem of unsolicited bulk email. However, 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. I don't like SPAM, but this proposal could potentially make it nearly impossible for legitimate companies to contact me, at my request, with appropriate messages via email. Also, with regard to "physical address" limitations. I work out of my home as freelance writer/consultant and I issue a newsletter and updates to my clients (people who have opt-in to receive such information); however, I'm not sure I want to publish my home address in these communications, for fear that they are forwarded to individuals that I do not know. I have both a PO Box and a Commerical mail drop and consider both of them to be sufficient in supplying my address to those who need it. Respectfully, Corrie Ann Gray California, United States