Spam classification based on supervised learning using machine learning techniques

Proceedings of 2011 International Conference on Process Automation, Control and Computing, PACC 2011

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages

  Karthika Renuka, D ^a   Hamsapriya, T ^a   Raja Chakkaravarthi, M ^a   Lakshmi Surya, P ^a  

^a PSG COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY   (India)

Author keywords

FBL; J48; Machine learning; MLP; Naive bayesian; Spam classification

Indexed keywords

FBL; J48; MACHINE-LEARNING; MLP; NAIVE BAYESIAN; SPAM CLASSIFICATION;

ELECTRONIC MAIL; INTERNET PROTOCOLS; LEARNING ALGORITHMS; LEARNING SYSTEMS; PROCESS CONTROL; TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORKS;

INTERNET;

EID: 80052255011     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/PACC.2011.5979035     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (8)

1. Witten I. & Frank E., 2000 Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques with Java Implementations, Morgan Kaufmann.
2. M. Embrechts, B. Szymanski, K. Sternickel, T. Naenna, and R. Bragaspathi, 2003. Use of Machine Learning for Classification of Magnetocardiograms, Proc. IEEE Conference on System, Man and Cybernetics, Washington DC.
3. C. Pu and S. Webb. 2006. Observed trends in spam construction techniques: A case study of spam evolution. In Proc. of the 3rd Conf. on EMail and Anti-Spam.
4. Duncan Cook, Catching Spam before it arrives: Domain Specific Dynamic Blacklists, Australian Computer Society, 2006, ACM.
5. D. Puniškis, R. Laurutis, R. Dirmeikis, An Artificial Neural Nets for Spam e-mail Recognition, electronics and electrical engineering ISSN 1392 - 1215 2006. Nr. 5(69).
6. Youn and Dennis McLeod, " A Comparative Study for Email Classification, Seongwook Los Angeles", CA 90089, USA, 2006.
7. Bekker, S 2003, Spam to Cost U.S. Companies $10 Billion in 2003, ENT News, viewed May 11 2005, ttp://www.entmag.com/news/article.asp? EditorialsID=5651.
8. José C. Cortizo., " Discovering Data Dependencies In Web Content Mining" Iadis International Conference Www/Internet 2004.