Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, I honestly applaud you in your efforts to curb the problem of unsolicited bulk email. I seem to get more spam every day, and one big problem is that the unsubscribe links are bogus and don't work - if the spammer even includes such a link, which the majority of spammers do not. But I'm very deeply concerned about the proposed requirement for legitimate merchants to maintain suppression lists for several reasons ... Here's why: There are so many problems and costs associated with this idea, and so much damage done to consumers and businesses alike, I must ask and urge you to please consider this matter VERY, VERY carefully. Requirement of the use of suppression lists will seriously damage many (if not all) of the *legitimate* publications available on the net. My specific concern is for harm to publishers like myself who *require permission* from the consumer *prior to* adding them to any list, AND provide a one-step fully-operational unsubscribe link in *every* email. As you know, this means that the subscriber first actively and on purpose requested to receive any and all emails from me. That's the correct step one. Allowing the subscriber to change his or her mind at any time, and request to stop receiving said emails, is the function of the unsubscribe link. That's the correct step two. And it works ... We're not who CAN-SPAM was designed to put out of business, but this requirement will very likely have that effect, which might have the net effect of creating literally thousands of lawsuits against the government by legitimate optin/optout publishers who would consider your actions a direct restriction of fair trade and free speech, as well as reducing the taxable income of thousands of people, thereby reducing the dollars collected by the government for taxes. That would be awful. And embarrassing and expensive. There's also the potential for significant harm to consumers, because of the problem of properly *knowing their intent* when they subscribe to and 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. This is a real and distinct possibility. It'll happen. Perhaps consider a one-step methodology where the offended consumer could merely and simply forward all spam email to a central depository for databasing. It would be pretty easy to see the threshold of complaints that might require investigation, as well as intervention. I mention the potential threshold because, like it or not, some folks will call others spammers for strategic reasons to eliminate their competition, while others might just be simply considered troublemakers with no justification. So this would take some obvious analysis / thought ... I understand that the spirit of your actions is to stop the *illegitimate* emailers, not the legitimate businesses, and I'm 100% behind you for many valid reasons. But then the next step you'd have to implement is stopping all the direct mail spam, too, and every telemarketing center and its business customer base. My mailbox is filled with stuff every day that I never asked for. My phone rings every day with unsolicited calls. The problem is that I have NO WAY to stop it. For you to accomplish this, you'd have to go after most every business, every direct mailer, and every telemarketing company in the world. To me, this is not a practical solution ... and obviously entails going outside your jurisdiction, as well. So what may happen is that you damage all of the US businesses, while the international crooks have a heyday. Yes - I urge you in the strongest possible terms to reconsider its implementation in light of these problems, Respectfully, Chip Tarver Sevierville, TN USA