Comments:

E.2.6 - original sender should be required to have all the correct information AND opt-out option in the original email, but not be held liable if some of the content is deleted by subsequent forwards. Please be careful of this one because if you go to far on this it could be construed that if I like something I see on a web site and send the URL to a friend, the owner of the web site may end up liable for compliance with this law despite never having initiated an email. The worst that could happen is some bad emails. The other part of this is if I wanted to hurt someone, I could take their valid email, delete the opt-out portion, forward it to another of MY email addresses, then report them for a violation of the law. Bad idea. E.3.1 - The valid physical address should allow a court to track the senders physical street address if necessary. P.O. Boxes require identification etc. Many commercial mail drops do not. IF a commercial mail drop was set up so that a court could track the senders valid street address, then that would be good enough for me. The other side is people will go to a drop box, give a false name and address so it is worthless to have it at all. E.4.1 - This does not specify whether you need an actual name of the sender. The way this is currently worded, I could put James@123.com and would not violate the law. James IS my middle name, so satisfies the requirement. I really don't want to require a senders full legal name in the from field, there are too many wacko's out there that may trace someone down and do something stupid. The subject line labeling could be a problem for clever marketeers. I believe that there should be some flexibility here as long as the subject line is not intentionally misleading. For example if the subject line says "great loan rates on your home" and the content if for yet another penis enlargement product, I think that should be a violation. If the subject line says "Find out why your life sucks", and it has the same content, that should not be a violation because it is in a gray area. I believe that the gray area should be left alone to not unduly burden legal advertising. (I really hate spam, but I believe in the 1st amendment more.) Enforcement: Just give a few people a blank credit card to order from the violaters, follow the money trail and spank them hard when you find them. The do not email registry is dangerous. If this happens, then a next logical step is a national do not send postal junk mail registry. The phone do not call registry was a good thing because of the different nature of phone calls. It was impossible to know who the originator of the phone calls was so you were forced to answer the phone to know for sure. IF this can spam law is implemented correctly, we will be able to know who an email is from and what it is about without interrupting our dinners etc. and delete messages without opening them. This is a very different thing. As much as I hate spam, I am more opposed to the do not email registry. Just implement the rest of these provisions and most people will be happy. Thank you all for your efforts!