Comments:

Address "Spoofing" (faking an e-mail as though coming from someone it is not) forD1 F1: A Do Not Email Registry is a destructive idea that goes too far. Unlike the "do not call" registry, a "do not email" would not be effective due to frequent changes in an individual's e-mail address. The list would be expensive and far too large to maintain: A waste of taxpayer money when there are far more important things (like pornographic e-mails) that need to be addressed. F2: Rewarding those who supply information on violations is a GOOD idea, HOWEVER, if found to be falsifying claims, they should be treated the same as a violator of the CAN-SPAM act. F3: The effectiveness thus far has been poor. I recieve more SPAM since the act was enabled with fake mailing (postal) addresses listed as being outside the US, no opt-out information, and in replying, the messages are being bounced. It is causing severe damage to e-mail marketing campaigns even if the recipient has agreed to such messages, they do not remember, and hence too hastily report violations (hence the need for a 'stop-gap' measure in F2). F4: Subject line labeling MUST INCLUDE something referencing a pornographic message so that it can be easily filtered by the user. As a result of the act to date, ISPs have become far too zealous in filtering e-mails, causing those who rely in the Internet for business (such as myself) to miss important e-mails because the ISP "thinks" it is SPAM, when it is not...and does not allow the consumer to filter their own messages. G: Small Business Impact is high. Marketing tools are being taken away because of over-zealous ISPs who are in turn charging their customers more. There are ways for ISPs to identify SPOOF spamming, and this should be addressed. It is becoming more costly to produce or obtain qualified leads for an advertising campaign because of this law. Legitimate marketers are suffering at the cost of those who are breaking all aspects of the law and are so far getting away with it (and probably laughing all the way to the bank). I feel this damages personal choices, damages businesses trying to legitimately advertise to OPT-IN people; costs far too much money when in truth the root cause is a user's inability to learn how to create filters on their own to get rid of SPAM. If mass mailings get tremendous bouncebacks (which can occur if someone knows what they're doing as a user); the Spammer will have no choice but to stop eventually. Viral and worm hijackings are now far more likely because of this law and it's ill-defined meanings.