> Quote: "Opt-Out – The email must provide easily-accessible, legitimate, and free ways for you to reject future messages from that sender" Precisely, there is

> Quote: "Opt-Out – The email must provide easily-accessible, legitimate, and free ways for you to reject future messages from that sender" Precisely, there is no requirement for an opt out link. It seems hard to argue based on anything you've supplied there that replying to the email isn't covered by this. E.g. "Please reply to this email with the word unsubscribe" meets this guideline. To quote the relevant section of the act: "It is unlawful for any person to initiate the transmission to a protected computer of a commercial electronic mail message that does not contain a functioning return electronic mail address or other Internet-based mechanism, clearly and conspicuously displayed, that- (i) a recipient may use to submit, in a manner specified in the message, a reply electronic mail message or other form of Internet-based communication requesting not to receive future commercial electronic mail messages from that sender at the electronic mail address where the message was received;" Which explicitly states that providing a reply-to address which the recipient can reply to in order to opt out is sufficient. The full text of the act is available here: http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0723041/canspam.pdf http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0723041/canspam.pdf > Absolutely false and universally discouraged -- never reply to a spam e-mail. Bit of a myth, clicking an unsubscribe link gives the spammer basically the same information, e.g. that it's a valid email address. The spammer ignoring an email which meets this requirement is in exactly the same position as if they ignore an opt out link. Clicking on links in unsolicited emails is if anything far more risky than replying. Yes the link can be copy pasted but 99% of people won't know to do this. >> I might be missing something with can-spam though? > I'll say. Very much appreciate you taking the time to reply but based on the responses and reading through the site you reference it looks like my original interpretation of can-spam is accurate. If any lawyers out there who've been involved in cases care to weigh in I'd be very interested. EDIT: Provide the relevant text from the act which confirms that an email reply is a sufficient opt out.