Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 Dear Commissioners, I am very pleased that you are considering ways to eliminate spam ... PARTICULARLY pornography. It is also very frustrating receiving e-mails that want to sell me viagra or a patch to make certain body parts larger. I don't have the body part affected by these products. I am using a software program to control the e-mail I receive and there are a multitude of other programs and spam filters that do a good job. I am afraid that the legislation you are considering will kill the business I have struggled to build through RESPONSIBLE e-mail marketing, and I encourage you to reconsider Suppression Lists. The solution to the spam problem has been addressed by most internet service providers as well as the aforementioned e-mail software programs that provide spam filters. I'm subscribed to many electronic Newsletters, most of which are operated by individuals and not large organizations. The cost associated with your proposal would put these individuals out of business. I'm almost positive that is not the intent of this legislation. There are hundreds, no THOUSANDS, of legitimate publications and businesses that would not be able to afford implementing a Suppression List. This portion of the CAN-SPAM act would put legitimate, responsible small businessowners out of business yet would have little or no affect on irresponsible marketers who insist on sending spam. They have found and always WILL find a way around the law(s). When I unsubscribe from an electronic publication, it's because I have chosen to do so. Please do not take that choice from me. I don't wish to have my name added to some list that would prevent me from receiving e-mails from those I subscribe to and choose to read. The writers of the CAN-SPAM act undoubtedly have good intentions. However, I strongly believe that a Suppression List would be counter-productive. It will create financial ruin for many a small business or e-Zine owner. Please do not take away my ability to choose. I urge you to reconsider the implementation of this legislation. Consider, instead, the consequences that will befall thousands of legitimate publishers and small businessowners. I honestly believe that this legislation will have the opposite affect of what you are so admirably trying to achieve, and in the process, many, many American taxpayers will lose their capacity to produce the income you tax. And still the spammers will run rampant ... In this "Land of the Free", please leave the decision of what we receive in our e-mail inboxes up to us. Please don't pass this aspect of your CAN-SPAM law! Thank you, Sue Simonsen, Internet Marketing Professional Akron, IA 51001 USA