Furthermore, different approaches to regulate E-mails would lead to the different contents of specific legislations. For instance, the specific contents of the U. S.’ legislations concentrate on what is forbidden. That means the behaviors which are outside the forbidding stipulations are legal and free. The legislations of the U.S. forbid the wrong or misleading header information, forbid the use of fraud head, forbid the misleading contents of E-mails or the topics of E-mails, and forbid selling the E-mail addresses to others. [32] By comparison, the legislations of Australia with the legal approach of opt-in focus on listing what are legal, and the E-mails which come from or send to territory of Australia must comply with these rules. Under the legislations of Australia, the E-mails must show and confirm the way in which receivers could contact and notice the senders apparently; the contents of E-mails could only include two kinds of information, the factual information and the information about the senders. [33]In sum, these differences are the reflections of the regulation philosophies.

　　Third, the rules about liability for violating the related laws exists some differences.

　　Generally, these differences in the legal liabilities of illegal E-mails are shown in two aspects. One divergence is that whether the illegal senders sustain the criminal responsibilities. As for the point, countries such as the U.S.A and Italy stipulate that the illegal senders would have the criminal liabilities in addition to the administrative sanctions if the illegal situations are serious. On the other hand, there are no criminal liabilities for illegal E-mails in Australia, but only the administrative liabilities led by the Communication and Media Department of Australia. These administrative sanctions include warning, the notice of violation of law, or the fine on the illegal senders which is through the judicial system and needs the consent of the court （the biggest fines are 222.000 of Australian dollars）。

　　Besides, another divergence in the liabilities for violating related anti-spam rules is whether the private litigation is allowed legally. For instance, the legislations of the U.S.A allow the Internet Service Providers sue the spam-senders in order to compensate the loss. Conversely, the internet users do not have the right to sue and get the compensation from the spam-senders according to the rules of the U.S.A. In contrast, anyone who has losses due to the E-mails which violates the laws has the right to sue and get the compensation under the legislation of Australia.

　　3.2. The issue of anti-spam has some particularities itself.

　　In general, there are three features of the anti-spam issue.

　　First, it has been not long since the appearance of internet and the debates about how to govern internet are fierce.

　　The final declarations of the two sessions of the WSIS did not clarify what is internet governance. According to the definition proposed by the Work Group of Internet Governance, internet governance is the development and application by Governments, the private sector, and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programs that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. [34]The definition may be obscure in some sense. In practice, the specific issues under the subject of internet governance are internet crime, spam, the protection of privacy, the protection of intellectual property rights, and the management of the Domain Name System.

　　Internet is new. The application of the internet in the civil society and social life began at about the mid of 1900s’ and lasted just a little less than 20 years. The time span is short for the international society to form the cross-country governance consensus regarding the internet and spam. In fact, there are totally different views about how to solve the problems the internet brings about and whether there is need and feasibility for the nations’ regulation. Even it is debatable whether it is possible for the government to play a role in the internet community. One view is that there is no need for the nations to intervene and the problems that emerge from the internet society can be solved by autonomy and only by this can the openness and freedom of the internet society maintain. Of course, another view is that internet needs the intervening of the nation power and government regulation. The divergences in the methodology of internet governance directly lead to just only some non-binding principles or declarations in the final documents of the WSIS, not a binding convention on any sub-topic under the subject of internet governance. And finally the Forum on the Internet Governance was established to continue the discuses of issue in order to arrive at consensus.

　　Second, the issue of E-mail regulation involves many aspects of rule of law.

　　Towards the new problem of unsolicited bulk E-mails, the domestic attitudes and policies have been related with many legal aspects and specific contents, as following: the policy of communication, trade, competition law, the constitution protection of freedom, the privacy protection, the consumer protection, the identification of crimes and so on. As the methods or ways of marketing and advertising, the E-mails are related with two aspects: on the one hand it is involved with the consumer protection, on the other hand the country need to protect and promote the competition behaviors of enterprises. The E-mails are the methods or ways to express ideas and speeches, and the regulation of E-mails is related with constraint on the speech freedom. The regulation measures and the methods of filtering the E-mails are also involved with spying on the E-mails and the related privacy……