Many governments have taken an interest in spam, and a few laws are now actively in place. This does not mean that spam will be eliminated from the Internet just yet, but it does make it harder for spammers operating in places where laws have passed to make a living with spam without breaking the law. As the quote in the previous section showed, pressure from governments, as well as anti-spam activists, service providers, and angry recipients is making it more difficult for spam operators.

Anti-spam legislation has focused to date in two directions: mandatory labeling and outright elimination. Several U.S. states, the U.S. government, and several other countries have either recent laws or proposals in consideration. It should be noted that very few of these laws have yet to be tested in court. Large service providers, such as America Online (AOL), have been making headlines while bringing civil actions against spammers. The argument most often used by service providers is that spammers have used computing resources of the service provider in an unacceptable, uninvited, and unlawful way. This combination of criminal laws and civil actions have helped to turn the tide on the worst abuses by bulk emailers.

Mandatory labeling would allow spam in an otherwise unlimited fashion, as long as the messages contain labeling sufficient to filter it by those that wished. This is rather unobtrusive for spammers and would in fact legitimize their actions, but it would obviously not solve the problem for those users who are without strong filtering software or who pay to retrieve messages prior to filtering them. In any case, mandatory labeling puts the onus on the recipient, not the originator of bulk email, for its control.

Outright bans seek to make spam illegal. This would draw a strong line between the Internet and the rest of society, where spam in one form or another is common. Of greater concern to those involved in the protection of civil liberties is the definition of spam under these rules; who decides if a message is unwanted, and how can it be fairly and consistently judged?

One proposal would make the faking of originator addresses illegal. This, too, has ramifications for those on the Internet for whom an online personality has become a way of life and for those anxious for legitimate reasons to keep their address private.

It is interesting to note that all of the legislative solutions being proposed are today limited to individual countries. To date, no transnational solutions have been accepted to address spam. If a spammer wished to continue operating in a hostile legislative environment, one supposes that an operation in a “spam haven,” not unlike an offshore tax haven, would be possible.

Laws, both criminal and civil, regarding spam have today been tested only in a few cases and against well-known and large-scale spammers. Time will tell whether the countries of the world can legislatively address spam while maintaining personal freedoms on the Internet.