Comments:

CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To whom it may concern, Look, as proved by the No Call Registry per junk phone calls, the bottom line is that no matter what any agency does, it won't eliminate SPAM. It's about time that the Government got involved in this issue, but there are a few reasons why this is futile: 1) Little to No control on out of Country policies/habits, etc. 2) Built in loopholes by the bureaucrats 3) Quick to respond, Swiss Cheese Regulation Bills weakly thought out and supported. 4) We can go on forever with a number of associated reasons Before a hasty “we Gotta do something now” knee jerk reaction that is being rammed through legislation now, it is vitally important that someone views the long term with some common sense. What should be controlled are the obvious that we hear on the nightly news: The Pornification, the Viagra, well all know the ones well. However, an example of “BAD” legislation is the requirement of the use of suppression lists that 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. 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. There are a ton of legitimate businesses that use legitimate means in terms of acceptable Internet Marketing, that would be in the same content as legitimate, acceptable snail mail practices (and we don’t see any of that stopping…could it be because the bureaucrats are responsible for that Government Agency…hhmm?) In the long term, what is going to eventually end up happening is that SPAM is somewhat controlled. However, the current bill/idea is spotted with unfair or impossible to meet standards that not only actually hurt consumers, but is potentially only going to be prosecuted State side (the cost and legal support outside the U.S. makes this nothing more than a violation and will have no “teeth” anywhere else. 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 and more. Sincerely, Rob Conn California, USA