Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, Below is a well worded letter to explain reasons why this proposed requirement for merchants to maintain suppression lists would be a mistake. Yes I agree that spam is awful, but I can see by my inbox alone today, that what you are suggesting will not change the messages I'm getting at all. The reason is, my inbox is full from illegal scams, viruses and outright attempts to steal my bank information from me. The REAL problem for me, is that there is no place to report these frauds to, and no authority to prosecute these people, because they are outside of our country and hiding, even using proxy email addresses to circulate this garbage. I don't mind getting honest ads in my inbox, but I DO mind the subject lines that put x rated visuals in my mind before I even open them. That means even my kids can't check my mail. There are many ways you CAN help us but this measure is DEFINITELY NOT one of them. I have not yet become an Internet marketer, although I am just beginning. I have started a free, Christian newsletter, and although I don't sell anything from my site at this time, I would like to do so in the future. I will not be able to do this if this measure is passed, because of the time and knowledge required to comply. This means that you are making it impossible for me to use the Internet to legitimately help my family meet our financial needs. Quite possibly, this measure would force honest advertisers to give in to pressure to use those dishonest mass spammer companies out of the country to spread their messages too. This would ADD to the problem not stop it. Spam exists because of supply and demand. Spam will die out a natural death IF everyone treated it as a matter of supply and demand. IF people stop clicking on the ads in their inbox, there would be no feedback of supply to keep people advertising. Traffic Exchanges and member only safelists are the advertising medium of the future for entreprenuers, but for the general public, MUCH needs to be done and you need to get detailed information about the type of problems people are having BEFORE attempting to make legislation that would cover a wide area. This is not something that you can put a legislative bandaid on and expect it to be one size fits all. If I can be of service to you, please contact me. *REDACTED PERSONAL INFORMATION*  If you know of an agency I can forward these illegal scam emails to, please let me know. Thank you and God bless you. Lisa Tyler Georgia, USA 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, Respectfully, Your Name Your State and Country