Here’s another paper about spam; this time it’s email spam, and they are interested not so much in the spam itself, but in the differences between collections of spam (
feeds) as used in research. They have ten different feeds, and they compare them to each other looking only at the domain names that appear in each. The goal is to figure out whether or not each feed is an unbiased sample of all the spam being sent at any given time, and whether some types of feed are better at detecting particular sorts of spam. (Given this goal, looking only at the domain names is probably the most serious limitation of the paper, despite being brushed off with a footnote. It means they can’t say anything about spam that doesn’t contain any domain names, which may be rare, but is interesting because it’s rare and different from all the rest. They should have at least analyzed the proportion of it that appeared in each feed.)
The spam feeds differ primarily in how they collect their samples. There’s one source consisting exclusively of manually labeled spam (from a
major email provider); two DNS blacklists (these provide only domain names, and are somehow derived from other types of feed); three MX honeypots (registered domains that accept email to any address, but are never used for legitimate mail); two seeded honey accounts (like honeypots, but a few addresses are made visible to attract more spam); one botnet-monitoring system; and one
hybrid. They don’t have full details on exactly how they all work, which is probably the second most serious limitation.
The actual results of the analysis are basically what you would expect: manually labeled spam is lower-volume but has more unique examples in it, botnet spam is very high volume but has lots of duplication, everything else is somewhere in between. They made an attempt to associate spam domains with
affiliate networks (the business of spamming nowadays is structured as a multi-level marketing scheme) but they didn’t otherwise try to categorize the spam itself. I can think of plenty of additional things to do with the data set—which is the point: it says right in the abstract
most studies [of email spam] use a single They’re not trying so much to produce a comprehensive analysis themselves as to alert people working in this subfield that they might be missing stuff by looking at only one data source.
spam feed and there has been little examination of how such feeds may differ in content.