Comments:

1 the commercial advertisement or promotion in an email is the only information provided in the email. E4 This statement is completely illogical - The original sender of the email message and whose product, service or web site is advertised in the message - the original sender can not control who is sending out their information and should not be punished. One receiver opt out should opt out only that particular senders transactions, not all other affiliated or cooperative senders. Each receiver email opt out should be handled as a separate transaction with that 1 sender for opt out purposes. This opt out rule should be kept broadly translated. E5 each person who forwards the message be required to comply with the Act - but maybe after a period of attempts have been made and not complied to and can be documented by the receiver. E7 Again, this a ridiculous assertion. The internet is built upon the idea of information. Information dissemination should be an essential capability to every website and every individual. An opt out violation should be punished only after repeated and documented opt outs, and only to the actual sender of the messages. B1 E-mail messages that "facilitate, complete, or confirm" a commercial transaction that the recipient has previously agreed to enter into with the sender - this statement should also include "ongoing information" that the recipient has agreed to receive from the original sender. This statement should be defined by more than just facilitate, but should also include email messages that pertain to the transaction, once the relationship has been agreed to. E-mail messages that "deliver goods or services, including product updates or upgrades, that the recipient is entitled to receive under the terms of a transaction that the recipient has previously agreed to enter into with the sender." - This statement should also include goods, services, or "information". F1 Rewarding people to report CAN SPAM is begging for legal suits - especially in American society. If the authorities can catch and prove that the original sender repeated violations, then that and only that should determine violation of the CAN SPAM law. Enforcement of the law should only be done on the worst offenders, not just on people who are being targeted by 1 or 2 individuals or companies with a vendetta against a certain other individual company. Violators should be proven to have violated the Law after repeated attempts at notifying them of their wrongdoing. Proof should always be required that there was a fair attempt at notifying the offender of the wrongdoing and then time for them to implement the changes. Even still the effectiveness of the Act is still in question for me. And it only worries me that more lawsuits are coming for people who have legitimately established relationships with people, but are still targeted by those same people. Thank you,