Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, I applaud your efforts to curb the problem of unsolicited bulk email. However, I am concerned about the proposed requirement for merchants to maintain suppression lists. 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 this matter most carefully. 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. 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. 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, I would also like to comment on a few of the rulemaking categories. 1. A transactional or relationship message is any message sent after the recipient agrees to recieve email from the sender, regardless of the emails contents and should be treated as such. Him/Her opted into my list, end of story. 2. Opt out requests should be honored within 5 days, not 10. This in my opinion is lots of time. I don't need 10 more days of unwanted email. How hard is it to delete my email address. 3. Multiple Senders. Nobody is responsible for commercial email except the actual sender who clicks on the send button. No company, individual, group, or law enforcement agency can control the actions of an individual. If John Doe sends and email to Jane Doe and advertises my company, how does that make me responsible? PLEASE! I'm not sitting at home with him watching his every move. It's absolutely ridiculous to hold me responsible for his actions. Where does it end? This goes for opt out requests and the definition of a sender as well. Only The Person Sending The Email Is Responsible, and should be considered the sender. My company is not the sender if John Doe spams somebody. John Doe is responsible for the opt out request, not me. Think about it. What you have here is an uncontrollable situation. Explain to me how you think any company in the world can prevent people from sending emails which mention their products or services. They would have to have a secret agent in the home of every individual in the world who had a computor and an internet connection capable of sending email. Put them under 24 hour surveiliance, and make sure nobody spammed anybody else with mention of their name. Individual people are responsible for their own actions, and nobody else should have to pay for the discretions of another. 4. Forward to friend scenarios. I do infact have a forward to a friend script on my website. I'm not responsible for anyone who uses it. They are. End of story. 4. Providing a valid mailing address in commercial email does no good whatsoever. A phone number would be better, but still not much good. As of yet, I'm the only person I know who does this anyway. I have yet to see a mailing address in a commercial email. Not once. I'd like to be able to phone companies and tell them first hand, GET ME OFF YOUR LIST. Respectfully, Kim Mossop Saskatchewan Canada