A spam rejection scheme during SMTP sessions based on layer-3 e-mail classification

Journal of Network and Computer Applications

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 236-257

  Marsono, Muhammad N ^a   El Kharashi, M Watheq ^b   Gebali, Fayez ^c  

^a UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA   (Malaysia)

^b The British University in Egypt   (Egypt)

^c UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Layer 3 spam detection; Markov chain analysis; SMTP rejection; Spam control

Indexed keywords

INTERNET; INTERNET PROTOCOLS; MARKOV PROCESSES; SERVERS; SPAMMING;

CLASSIFICATION TECHNIQUES; LAYER-3 SPAM DETECTION; LOSS PROBABILITIES; MAIL SERVERS; MARKOV CHAIN ANALYSIS; MARKOV CHAINS; QUEUING DELAYS; RETRANSMISSION; SERVICE CAPACITIES; SMTP REJECTION; SPAM CONTROL; SPAM CONTROLS; SPAM E-MAILS; SPAM TRAFFICS; TRAFFIC LOADS; TRANSFER PROTOCOLS; ZOMBIE SYSTEMS;

ELECTRONIC MAIL;

EID: 55949102951     PISSN: 10848045     EISSN: 10958592     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jnca.2008.03.005     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Bratko A, Filipič B. Spam filtering using compression models. Technical Report IJS-DP-9227, Department of Intelligent Systems, Jožef Stefan Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia; 2005.
2. Clayton R. Stopping spam by extrusion detection. In: Proceedings of the first conference on email and anti-spam (CEAS), Mountain View, CA, USA, July 2004 URL 〈http://www.ceas.cc/papers-2004/172.pdf〉.
3. Damiani E, De Capitani di Vimercati S, Paraboschi S, Samarati P. An open digest-based technique for spam detection. In: Proceedings of the 2004 international workshop on security in parallel and distributed systems (PDCS'04), San Francisco, CA, USA, September 2004 URL 〈http://seclab.dti.unimi.it/Papers/pdcs04.pdf〉.
4. Drucker H., Wu D., and Vapnik V. Support vector machines for spam categorization. IEEE Trans Neural Networks 10 5 (1999) 1048-1054
5. Espion Interceptor Interprise spam solution, May 2007 URL 〈http://www.espionintl.com/index.php〉.
6. Gebali F. Computer communications networks: analysis and design. 3rd ed. Victoria, BC, Canada: North Star Digital Design; 2004.
7. Geer D. Will new standards help curb spam?. IEEE Comput 37 2 (2004) 14-16
8. Gomes LH, Cazita C, Almeida JM, Almeida V, Wagner Meira J. Characterizing a spam traffic. In: Proceedings of the fourth ACM SIGCOMM conference on internet measurement (IMC), Taormina, Italy, October 2004. p. 356-69.
9. Goodman J, Rounthwaite R. Stopping outgoing spam. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on electronic commerce (EC'04), New York, NY, USA, 2004. p. 30-9.
10. Goodman J., Heckerman D., and Rounthwaite R. Stopping spam. Sci Am 292 4 (2005) 42-49
11. Hird S. Technical solutions for controlling spam. In: Proceedings of the Australian UNIX and Open Systems User Group (AUUG), Melbourne, Australia, September 2002 URL 〈http://security.dstc.edu.au/papers/technical_spam.pdf〉.
12. Jesdanun A. As spam filters improve, attention shifts to containment; 2007 URL 〈http://www.technologyreview.com/TR/wtr_14284,323,p1.html〉.
13. Klensin J. RFC2821: simple mail transfer protocol; 2001 URL 〈http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2821.txt〉.
14. Levy E. The making of a spam zombie army: dissecting the Sobig worms. IEEE Secur Privacy Mag 1 4 (2003) 58-59
15. Markatos E. Speeding up TCP/IP: faster processors are not enough. In: Proceedings of the 21st IEEE international performance, computing, and communications conference (IPCCC 2002), Phoenix, AZ, USA, April 2002. p. 341-5.
16. Marsono MN, El-Kharashi MW, Gebali F, Ganti S. A distributed e-mail classification for spam control. In: Proceedings of the 2006 Canadian conference on electrical and computer engineering (CCECE 2006), Ottawa, ON, Canada, May 2006. p. 438-41.
17. Marsono MN, El-Kharashi MW, Gebali F. Prioritized e-mail servicing to reduce non-spam delay and loss: a performance-cost analysis. Int J Network Manage 2007, in press. 〈http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/89013642/issue〉.
18. Marsono M.N., El-Kharashi M.W., and Gebali F. Binary LNS-based nai{dotless}̈ve Bayes inference engine for spam control: noise analysis and FPGA synthesis. IET Comput Digital Tech 2 1 (2008) 56-62
19. Pfleeger S., and Bloom G. Canning SPAM: proposed solutions to unwanted email. IEEE Secur Privacy Mag 3 2 (2005) 40-47
20. Ptacek TH, Newsham TN. Insertion, evasion, and denial of service: eluding network intrusion detection. Technical Report T2R-0Y6, Secure Networks, Calgary, AB, Canada; 1998.
21. Real-time Spam Black Lists (RBL). URL 〈http://www.email-policy.com/Spam-black-lists.htm〉.
22. Resnick P. RFC2822: Internet message format; 2001 URL 〈http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2822.txt〉.
23. Segal R, Crawford J, Kephart J, Leiba B. Spamguru: an enterprise anti-spam filtering system. In: Proceedings of the first conference on email and anti-spam (CEAS), Mountain View, CA, USA, July 2004 URL 〈http://www.ceas.cc/papers-2004/126.pdf〉.
24. Sirbu M. RFC1049: a content-type header field for Internet messages; 1988 URL 〈http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1049.txt〉.
25. Tran M, Armitage G. Evaluating the use of spam-triggered TCP/IP rate control to protect SMTP servers. In: Proceedings of the Australian telecommunications networks & applications conference (ATNAC), Sydney, Australia, December 2004. p. 329-35.
26. Twining RD, Williamson MM, Mowbray M, Rahmouni M. Email prioritization: reducing delays on legitimate mail caused by junk mail. Technical Report HPL-2004-5(R.1), HP Digital Media Systems Laboratory, Bristol, UK, May 2004 URL 〈http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2004/HPL-2004-5R1.pdf〉.
27. Wiehes A. Comparing anti spam methods. Masters of science in information security, Department of Computer Science and Media Technology, Gjøvik University College, Oppland, Norway; 2005 URL 〈http://www.hig.no/imt/file.php?id=1040〉.