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 am a small operator of a web site retail store. I have an opt in news letter. I do not send the newsletter unless the customer signs up for it. I do have an opt out trigger as well. When a customer opt out I drop them from the newsletter list. They would have to sign up again to receive additional communications from my company. I believe this is your intent. If a customer sighs up send it, if they opt out don't send it. Why cause me additional expense and work to make up for people that abuse the system. REGULATE AND PUNISH THE ABUSERS NOT THE HONEST BUSINESSMAN. I do not email anyone who has not visited my site and signed up for my newsletter. Don't make me pay for other's abuse. 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, Respectfully, Dale Fries Nebraska, USA