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. I personally am affiliated with several organisations, all of which have a No Spam Policy and we are very careful to make sure that we use opt-in mailing lists. That means I don't send anything to anybody that has not requested it prior to my sending the information. As I am a new startup business and am only getting started, these new proposed rules could cause my business a lot of unnecessary damage. It would have the same effect on everyone else that already are taking care not to send unsolicited e-mail. Although I agree that something needs to be done, these proposed rules will do more damage to honest merchants then they will to the few who are guilty of the problem. 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, Warren Grant Missouri, USA