Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, As a legitimate internet marketer for a cruise sales corporation I truly appreciate these efforts to curb the problem of unsolicited bulk email. It is quite the bane to those of us who wish to contact our opt-in database in a timely, efficient manner. However, I am concerned about the proposed requirement for merchants to maintain suppression lists. My problem with this idea comes with the potential repurcussions for my business. I feel I must urge you to consider this matter most carefully. Both as a marketer, and a consumer, I have grave misgivings about someone having access to opt-out/supression lists. This does not seem like a logical solution to the problem. 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. What I foresee is punishment and forclosure of the legitimate businesses and continued practice by the spammers. If you make it near impossible to do business via email the only ones who will try it are the thieves and scam artists because they would see profit in it. 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. Actually, who are we kidding with the "lawyer-speak" here? There will not be a "potential" for harm, it logically stands as inevitable. And the potentiality the suppression lists are somehow utilized by spammers is, by my way of thinking, a foregone conclusion. I was quite astonished this type of thing would even be considered as a potential part of the solution to the overall SPAM issue, and urge you in the strongest possible terms to reconsider its implementation in light of these problems, Respectfully, Stephen C. Ohl Orlando, FL USA