Other methods The general tightening of the requirements for letters and senders, for example – refusing to accept letters with the wrong return address (letters from non-existent domain), check the domain name to IP-address, which is a letter, etc. Through these measures eliminated only most primitive spam – a small number of messages. However, it is not zero, so the meaning of their use remains. Sort the letters on the contents of the letter header fields allows to get rid of a certain amount of spam. Some clients (eg, Mozilla Thunderbird or The Bat!) Provide an opportunity to examine the headers without downloading from the server all the email as well, and thus save bandwidth. System type «a challenge-response» to verify that the sender – the person, not the robot software.
Using this method requires the sender of the fulfillment of certain additional actions, often it may be desirable. Many such systems pose an additional burden on the postal system, in many cases, they send requests to fake addresses, it is in professional circles, such decisions are not respected. In addition, the system can not distinguish a robot spammers from any other, for example those that send news. Systems to measure signs of mass communication, such as Razor and Distributed Checksum Clearinghouse. Built-in mail server software modules count checksums of each passing through them and check their email on the servers of Razor, or DCC, which reported the number of appearances letter on the Internet.
If a letter appears, for example, tens of thousands of times – perhaps this is spam. On the other hand, mass communication can be a legitimate mailing list. In addition, spammers can vary the text message, for example, by adding at the end of random characters. Legal aspects of the problem In some countries, legislative action against spammers. Attempts by outlawing or limiting the activities of spammers face a number of difficulties. Is not easy to define in law what is a legitimate mailing list, and what not. Worst of all, that the company (or person), spammers can be located in another country. To ensure that such laws were effective, it is necessary to develop a coherent legislation, which would be operated in most countries, which seems elusive for the foreseeable future.
In Russia, spam is prohibited by «the Law on Advertising» (Article 18, Clause 1) The proliferation of advertising on the networks of telecommunications, including through the use of telephone, facsimile, mobile radio communication is permitted only with prior consent of the caller or recipient to receive advertising. At the same time recognizes the widespread advertising without the prior consent of the caller or recipient, if reklamorasprostranitel not prove that such consent was obtained. In formal comments, the Federal Antimonopoly Service, entrusted with the responsibilities for monitoring compliance with this Act, referred to the applicability of the rule for Internet delivery.
For violation of Article 18 reklamorasprostranitel is responsible under the law on Administrative Violations. However, FAS has no authority to carry out operational search activities of the person responsible for the spam, and authorized to do so their bodies can not hold in the absence of the Russian administrative and criminal law responsibility for the delivery of spam. Therefore, despite the periodic publication of materials to bring the perpetrators to justice , currently, the legislative rule ineffective. From 1 January 2004 in the U.S. the federal law, known as the Can-Spam Act. Attempts to bring spammers to court, and sometimes these attempts are successful.
American Robert Solouey lost to the process in federal court against a small company oklahomskoy provider of Internet services, the operator which has accused him of sending spam. The sentence the court included damages of $ 10 075 000 . The first case, when the user has won a case against a company involved in the visual occurred in December 2005, when businessman Nigel Roberts from the island of Alderney (Channel Islands) has won court against Media Logistics UK, receiving as compensation for 270 £.