|Received:||4/16/2004 10:37:41 AM|
|State:||Not in the US|
|Agency:||Federal Trade Commission|
Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 Dear Commissioners, The problem of unsolicited bulk email is huge, and I think it's commendable you are working to address the issue. However, I am extremely concerned about the proposed requirement of suppression lists. This requirement may seem a simple treatment to empower e-mail users to suppress unwanted e-mail, but the implications of proposal as it lies are much more than the simple stopping of e-mail messages of a single company. It will require businesses that have commercial content from the suppressed company, to check their subscription list against the suppression list of such a company to make sure that that user doesn't receive a commercial message of that company. The problem compounds if you have more than one commercial message in your newsletter. Wow. 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 it very carefully. I really believe that this requirement will seriously damage many legitimate publications available on the net. Many have lists that use double opt-in, to make sure they don't spam. I'm especially concerned about these publishers who require permission from the consumer prior to adding them to any list. I don't believe that they are the ones who CAN-SPAM was designed for to put out of business, but this requirement may very well have that effect. Also, is it completely clear for customers what it will mean if they unsubscribe from a list. As a consumer, I would expect to no longer get e-mail from that customer, not that it will stop all e-mails (even the ones I specifically subscribed to with double opt-in) that may have a message from that company. I really don't believe that this is the true intent of the consumer. Also, how secure are these suppression lists? They may be seized and used by scrupelous persons to spam more, not less. So many potential problems may arise from this ruling, so I really urge you to reconsider it. With highest regards, Erwin Steneker IJsselstein UT, The Netherlands.