The whole concept wasn't feasible and had serious privacy issues. Good summary of why it was rejected at the national level here: https://www.govtech.com/securi

The whole concept wasn't feasible and had serious privacy issues. Good summary of why it was rejected at the national level here: https://www.govtech.com/security/us-turns-down-do-not-spam.html https://www.govtech.com/security/us-turns-down-do-not-spam.h... > A registry of individual e-mail addresses also suffers from severe security/privacy risks that would likely result in registered addresses receiving more spam because spammers would use such a registry as a directory of valid e-mail addresses. It ultimately would become the National Do Spam List. Furthermore, a registry of domains would have no impact on spam and a third-party forwarding service model could have a devastating impact on the e-mail system. Also, the laws Unspam pushed for were intentionally tailored to make them the only suitable vendor. Leveraging personal connections and paid lobbying to compel taxpayers to fund a counterproductive, privacy-violating and monopolistic service is not what I'd call "doing good" but YMMV.