Another alternative is the imposition of liability on ISPs. ISPs could be co-opted into the enforcement regime by imposing liability on the ISP for permitting their system to be used for spamming activities. It would only be equitable for ISPs to be held liable in the case where the actions of the spammer have been brought to the ISPs attention and the ISP has chosen to ignore it.  For example, in certain states in America, it is unlawful to use an ISP’s services to send spam where the spammer violates the ISPs terms and conditions.  Indeed, certain states, ISPs will not be liable for the suppression or blocking of messages where the ISP reasonably believes that the英语论文网 【http://www.51lunwen.org】 communications are illegal. 

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development has created an international task force to coordinate the fight against spam.   Japan, the United States and the EU have all enacted anti-spam legislation.  The effectiveness of the American CanSpam Act cannot realistically be assessed since it has only been in operation for 8 months but initial views are not encouraging: the US is still a major spam exporting country. The European regime similarly fails to address the extra-territorial dimension of spam since the regime only applies to EU spam. Therefore, an international convention is required since most spam originates from outside the big trading blocs.  Any attempt to reduce the number of ‘safe havens’ for spammers is welcome.