MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W170178447

Global-scale Anti-spam Testing in Your Own Back Yard.

2008· article· en· W170178447 on OpenAlexaff
Margaret Nielsen, Dane Bertram, Sampson Pun, John Aycock, Nathan Friess

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpam and Phishing Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceChecksumServerBotnetScale (ratio)The InternetDistributed computingComputer networkComputer securityOperating system
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A class of anti-spam techniques requires large-scale, sometimes globally distributed networks of computers in order to operate successfully. Testing the effectiveness of these types of anti-spam systems – being able to run large controlled experiments – has not been well-explored in previous work on antispam testing. To address this problem, we describe a system we have constructed to test global antispam techniques that is built on top of the Spamulator, a system that simulates relevant parts of the Internet on a single computer. We demonstrate the viability of our testing system by deploying over 10,000 SMTP servers, and using them to perform proof-ofconcept experiments on SMTP tarpits and a variation on the Distributed Checksum Clearinghouse. 1

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpam and Phishing DetectionFrench-language works237,207