Comments:

E2. #4: Other - The original sender of the Email should provide opt-out, whether or not it is his product being advertised. 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. I am a disabled 44 year-old man who has been studying the possibility of beginning an internet-based home business. I have invested a great deal of money and time in preparing for my opportunity, and this interpretation of the law will likely put me out of business before I have even begun. I also feel certain that this interpretation will have practically NO effect on the real abusers of email advertising and marketing. I believe that it equates with the old adage, “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” 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, Joel S. Roberts Andalusia, Alabama USA