2009Network SecurityRequires access

Technologies for spam detection

Simon Heron

Open publisher page 36 citations

Abstract

The underlying problem with spam detection is how to define spam. Simon Heron of Network Box examines current techniques for defining and detecting spam and how spamming itself has evolved in order to avoid detection. From early whitelisting and blacklisting systems through to the most up-to-date defence solutions based on relationship management, a vast array of detection techniques have been deployed to try to fix the spam problem. Spam is a fast-moving target, however, and none of these techniques work in isolation. Spammers’ financial rewards mean that they will always work to keep ahead of protection systems. The only real solution is to combine many of the techniques laid out here, that adapt and ‘learn’ from new threats, and to continuously develop new solutions. The underlying problem with spam detection is how to define what spam is. One person's spam is another person's newsletter. Although definition may be easy for end users (“I don't want it and I didn't ask for it.”), it isn't that simple legally. In the USA, the spam definition in the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 runs to 21 pages. 1 Definition of spam is vital to effective spam detection. This article examines techniques used to define and detect (not avoid) spam and also how spam has evolved to avoid detection.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The underlying problem with spam detection is how to define spam. Simon Heron of Network Box examines current techniques for defining and detecting spam and how spamming itself has evolved in order to avoid detection. From early whitelisting and blacklisting systems through to the most up-to-date defence solutions based on relationship management, a vast array of detection techniques have been deployed to try to fix the spam problem. Spam is a fast-moving target, however, and none of these techniques work in isolation. Spammers’ financial rewards mean that they will always work to keep ahead of protection systems. The only real solution is to combine many of the techniques laid out here, that adapt and ‘learn’ from new threats, and to continuously develop new solutions. The underlying problem with spam detection is how to define what spam is. One person's spam is another person's newsletter. Although definition may be easy for end users (“I don't want it and I didn't ask for it.”), it isn't that simple legally. In the USA, the spam definition in the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 runs to 21 pages. 1 Definition of spam is vital to effective spam detection. This article examines techniques used to define and detect (not avoid) spam and also how spam has evolved to avoid detection.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 36 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The underlying problem with spam detection is how to define spam. Simon Heron of Network Box examines current techniques for defining and detecting spam and how spamming itself has evolved in order to avoid detection. From early whitelisting and blacklisting systems through to the most up-to-date defence solutions based on relationship management, a vast array of detection techniques have been deployed to try to fix the spam problem. Spam is a fast-moving target, however, and none of these techniques work in isolation. Spammers’ financial rewards mean that they will always work to keep ahead of protection systems. The only real solution is to combine many of the techniques laid out here, that adapt and ‘learn’ from new threats, and to continuously develop new solutions. The underlying problem with spam detection is how to define what spam is. One person's spam is another person's newsletter. Although definition may be easy for end users (“I don't want it and I didn't ask for it.”), it isn't that simple legally. In the USA, the spam definition in the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 runs to 21 pages. 1 Definition of spam is vital to effective spam detection. This article examines techniques used to define and detect (not avoid) spam and also how spam has evolved to avoid detection.

Key concepts: Spamming, Spambot, Blacklisting, Forum spam, Computer science, Computer security, Isolation (microbiology), Internet privacy

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Technologies for spam detection — Research Paper | ScholarLens