Senders of ‘spam’ e-mail would be obligated to ease the e-mail filtering process, according to legislation introduced by Attorney General Tom Reilly at a Statehouse hearing yesterday.

According to the proposal, senders of unsolicited commercial e-mail would need to include ‘ADV:’ in the subject line, alerting computer programs or users to remove the e-mail, and would be charged a $500 fine for each e-mail violating the law.

‘The difficulties we face are in locating the original offenders,’ said Senate Majority Leader Linda Melconian, a member of the Senate Committee on Science and Technology. ‘With the ability of violators to send ‘spam’ to an intermediate party, it can be hard to determine who the true violator is and where that person is located.’

Another major difficulty, according to Melconian, is that, if passed, the bill would only cover e-mails sent from companies or equipment within Massachusetts and ‘spam’ sent ‘knowingly’ to Massachusetts residents.

‘I highly doubt it would be a problem for a marketing company to change the point of origin of their ‘spam’ to somewhere outside Massachusetts,’ she said. ‘Also, it would be difficult to prove that an unsolicited mailer had previous knowledge of someone’s residency in Massachusetts.’

Legitimate advertising causes yet another problem for legislators seeking to put an end to ‘spam.’ According to Melconian, the ability of senders to change location and avoid potential roadblocks makes it necessary to institute an ‘all-or-nothing’ policy. But that policy would also violate the rights of legitimate businesses seeking to advertise via e-mail.

But despite concerns about the feasibility of anti-spam legislation, the bill does have support from lawmakers. Senator David Magnini said it was necessary to pass some form of legislation to limit ‘spam.’

”Spam’ is a nuisance and in many cases, ‘spam’ is overly offensive, even pornographic,’ he said. ‘It has an origin; therefore there must be a way to stop it without violating the constitution. It’s just a matter of finding that way.’

Local residents also expressed support for the bill. Stephanie Rogers, a second-year Harvard law student, said she would support any legislation that would prevent sending ‘spam,’ but doubted the constitutionality of such changes.

‘I’m sick of getting sexually oriented ‘spam,’ she said. ‘The funny thing is that they usually send solicitations to the wrong gender: how to enlarge such-and-such, or five ways to make it last longer. I’m sorry, but that’s just wrong.’

Joseph Pantuliano, a local banker, said he gets between 20 and 30 ‘spams’ each day, and that they continue to increase.

‘They just keep coming,’ he said. ‘Every time I check my e-mail, there are five or 10 more. I just want it to stop.’