Comments:

Re: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking, Project No. R411008 To the Commissioners, Thank you for this opportunity. Section B.1. The definition of "Transactional or relationship message" should be expanded to include emails to people who have requested and confirmed their preference for receiving emails from a commercial entity (double opt-in or confirmed opt-in). When a the person's confirmation can be proved, and all other respects of truthfulness in the "From" name and "Subject" line are met, and a valid opt-out provision is provided, this constitutes legitimate permission marketing activities and is not spam. E.1.2. The person who initiates the email should be deemed the sender. If that person sends an email that carries an advertisement for four different companies, only the initiating person should be required to provide and execute an opt-out procedure. Otherwise, chaos and severe privacy violations will ensue. The companies who's advertisements are being included are not a party to the email. E.2.1. "Forward to a friend" campaigns involve a second-ordered effect and do not address the primary spam culprits. Please focus on the few people who dump millions of emails into the system daily and don't nibble around the edges of the spam problem. E.3.1 & 2. Both a Post Office Box and a Commercial mail drop should be adequate. There are many people who work on the Internet rom their homes. And there are a lot of crazies on the Internet. Please don't force these "home workers" to disclose their home address to the crazies. The Internet has spawned countless opportunities for large and small entrepreneurs to do legitimate business. In particular there is a huge community of individuals who for the first time have an opportunity to make a living from home with very little investment because of the Internet. A great many are retirees on fixed incomes who can't get jobs because of their age. Many are stay at home moms desperately in need of extra money. Many are handicapped, blocked from work in the physical world, but can now do work on the Internet for their livelihood. Don't allow these people to be hurt as an unintended consequence of trying to stop spam. F.1. Please do not offer a system for rewarding those who supply informatin about violators, unless you include a penalty for "false complaints." Otherwise, your files will be clogged with complaints which were filed because the people filing them had nothing to lose. Legitimate marketers will be tied up in knots responding to false complaints. Professional spammers won't be bothered because they will have already moved on to some other ISP and will never respond to any complaint. General: We urge you in the strongest possible terms to reconsider any implementation of the suppression list and to take note of the damaging effects of all such rulings on those who haven't caused the problem. Respectfully, Robert Bridges Molina Colorado USA