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. I have found that once a person fills out an actual form to be on my mailing list (Ezine not sales) is either confused by a second opt-in process or thinks it’s an unsubscribe link. Once they have filled out a form – not subscribed simply by email) and their IP address has been recorded, that should be permission enough to receive my monthly ezine. They're (ezine editors/publishers) 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. Just like the use of an unsubscribe link was subverted to show “lie” email addresses out of millions on a spammers list! There is also no viable way to keep track of all affiliates mailings and removal requests from their emailing lists. My ezine content is very different than a sales message potentially sent by an affiliate even if I provided a “base letter” to start from as a template. I also have no control other than requiring my affiliates to sign (digitally or otherwise) an agreement and / or requirement sheet to do business with my company setting forth spamming examples and removing those I feel have violated the agreement they signed.. 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, Teri Mramer Washington, USA