Download:
by Benjamin J. Kuipers, Alex X. Liu, Aashin Gautam, Mohamed G. Gouda
Proceedings of the 25 th IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~pbeeson/_papers_/Kuipers-asdn-05.pdf
Add To MetaCart
Abstract:
The problem of spam is a classic “tragedy of the commons” [10]. We propose the Zmail protocol as a way to preserve email as a “free ” common resource for most users, while imposing enough cost on bulk mailers so that market forces will control the volume of spam. A key idea behind Zmail is that the most important resource consumed by email is not the transmission process but the end user’s attention. Zmail requires the sender of an email to pay a small amount (called an “e-penny”) which is paid directly to the receiver of the email. Zmail is thus a “zero-sum ” email protocol. Users who receive as much email as they send, on average, will neither pay nor profit from email, once they have set up initial balances with their ESPs (Email Service Providers) to buffer the fluctuations. Spammers will incur costs that will moderate their behavior. Importantly, Zmail requires no definition of what is and is not spam, so spammers ’ efforts to evade such definitions become irrelevant. We describe methods within Zmail for supporting “free ” goods such as volunteer mailing lists, and for limiting exploitation by email viruses and zombies. Zmail is not a micro-payment scheme among end-users. It is an accounting relationship among “compliant ESPs”, which reconcile payments to and from their users. Zmail can be implemented on top of the existing SMTP email protocol. We describe an incremental deployment strategy that can start with as few as two compliant ESPs and provides positive feedback for growth as Zmail spreads over the Internet.
Citations
|
369
|
The Tragedy of the Commons
– HARDIN
- 1968
|
|
265
|
Simple Mail Transfer Protocol
– Postel
- 1982
|
|
228
|
A bayesian approach to filtering junk e-mail
– Sahami, Dumais, et al.
- 1998
|
|
129
|
Support vector machines for spam categorization
– Drucker, Wu, et al.
- 1999
|
|
124
|
Pricing via processing or combatting junk mail
– Dwork, Naor
- 1992
|
|
66
|
An Experimental Comparison of Naive Bayesian and Keyword-Based Anti-Spam Filtering with Personal E-mail Messages
– Androutsopoulos, Koutsias, et al.
- 2000
|
|
58
|
Moderately Hard, Memory-bound Functions
– Abadi, Burrows, et al.
- 2003
|
|
58
|
On Memory-Bound Functions for Fighting Spam
– Dwork, Goldberg, et al.
- 2003
|
|
56
|
unknown title
– Back
- 2002
|
|
56
|
Boosting trees for anti-spam email filtering
– Carreras, Márquez
- 2001
|
|
53
|
Elements of Network Protocol Design
– Gouda
- 1998
|
|
30
|
Bankable Postage for Network Services
– Abadi, Birrell, et al.
- 2003
|
|
10
|
SHRED: Spam harassment reduction via economic disincentives. http://www.research.att.com/~bala/papers/shred-ext.pdf
– Krishnamurthy, Blackmond
- 2004
|
|
8
|
Using latent semantic indexing to filter spam
– Gee
- 2003
|
|
7
|
The impact of feature selection on signature-driven spam detection
– Kolcz, Chowdhury, et al.
- 2004
|
|
7
|
Resisting spam delivery by TCP damping
– Li, Pu, et al.
- 2004
|
|
6
|
Density-based spam detector
– Yoshida, Adachi, et al.
- 2004
|
|
2
|
Diverging estimates of the costs of spam
– Hansell
- 2003
|
|
1
|
http://www.easylink.com/ services north america/boundary spam.cfm
– MailWatch
- 2004
|
|
1
|
http://www.mailabuse.com/services/mds rbl.html
– RBL
- 2004
|