Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, You have my sincere thanks for addressing the complex and growing problem of unsolicited bulk email. However, I am concerned about the proposed requirement for merchants to maintain suppression (opt-out) lists, as well as the potential forced distribution of these lists. Not only are the costs of doing so too high for legitimate small businesses which rely on email to develop and maintain relationships with customers, but the likelihood of more unsolicited email being sent to opt-out subscribers is enormous if the CAN-SPAM requirement to maintain lists of people who opt-out and to distribute such suppression lists to advertisers succeeds. This requirement does little but create potential for email address theft and more unsolicited email. It is an offensive and frightening violation of privacy. Imagine a list of unlisted phone numbers being published to telemarketers with the admonition of "Do not call these people!" attached! It defeats the purpose of privacy--just as does this requirement of the CAN-SPAM Act. This requirement would be detrimental to everyone but the spammers. It reduces consumer trust, which in turn harms businesses in addition to the cost of maintaining and distributing such lists. I was dismayed when I contemplated the harm this ruling could cause, and I fervently urge you to reconsider its implementation in light of these problems. Please penalize the spammers, not legitimate businesses that e-mail responsibly and their customers for whom privacy is of the utmost importance. Respectfully, Ann M. Wilson Placer County, California