Comments:

The National Do Not Email Registry: this is an un-reasonable list to maintain. As a small home-based business owner I have witnessed individuals who have specifically requested information either about products/services or business opportunity, and once I have sent the info they have requested, they replied with "Remove". I honored their request even though their "bad memory" has come into play. Individuals signing up for this list can change their minds, and will still be listed on this list. This is un-reasonable. It is more senseable for the sender to clearly label in the subject line ADV if the email is a commercial email (the majority of the contents message is commercial), but if the email is commercial in nature and the individual has previously given permission for the sender to email them, or if they have requested info, the ADV is not neccessary because the individual receiving the email has opt-in for the email. The sender will have listed within the body a clear method for the receiver to opt-out from receiving future emails (from the original sender), and within a given amount of time (greater than 10 business days) the sender has to remove them from their mailing lists. Creating a do not email list also creates a problem in this area: emails can have spaces for advertisements (banner space, or free advertising (used to faciliate reciprocal advertising for two or more companies) ) example popularity for a newsletter will draw in other companies so they may place ads within the newsletter. Now if an individual on the newsletters mailing list, has perviously opt-out from another company, but that company has an ad within the body for the newsletter, that newsletter and the original company sending the nesletter has not violated any acts. Neither has the company in which the individual opt-out. This would only be true if the company which they opt-out of was the original sender of an email. Think about this case, if the individual opt-out from a companies mailing list, but that company has advertising within an email message of another company (which they receive), and the individual clicks into the ad for the company they opt-out in the past, and now shows an interest in the info, what is the case now? Their views and opinions have changed, somthing within the ad has caught their attention and now with a specific action taken by the individual (clicking through the link) they have shown an interest. A violation of the act would only be true if the opt-out company directly contacted the individual in question. Also, if an individual opts-out the act needs to take into consideration, that the first message sent to the company is actually received by the company. How many occurrances does the act allow. My thoughts about this is, if an individual sends an opt-out request, the sender must honor that. But the original request must be received by the sender for them to honor it. The implementation of a system for rewarding those who supply information about CAN-SPAM violations is a bad idea. This will only encourage individuals to prematurely report "violations". Bad memory on their part can come into play. I agree that the serious offenders, the ones that harvest email addresses, clone their sender address or use blatant fake subject lines should be caught. Companies that gather their emails, though opt-in techinques (whether by third parties for related subject matter) are the companies that are operating their business within the laws and should be left alone, and not be in the areas of attempted assault by individuals who want to report every commercial email their receive as Spam, when in reality it isn't. In my opinion the act doesn't address the problem with the more serious violators, the ones that blatantly Spam individuals with no regards to those that opt-out or to the methods they use to gather the email addresses. I email individuals using clear subject line and always provide opt-out method