MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980827998 · doi:10.1002/nem.664

Prioritized e‐mail servicing to reduce non‐spam delay and loss: A performance analysis

2007· article· en· W1980827998 on OpenAlex
Muhammad Nadzir Marsono, M. Watheq El‐Kharashi, Fayez Gebali

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Network Management · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpam and Phishing Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer networkQueueQueueing theoryScheme (mathematics)ServerService (business)Markov chainMathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper proposes a prioritized e‐mail servicing on e‐mail servers to reduce the delay and loss of non‐spam e‐mails due to queuing. Using a prioritized two‐queue scheme, non‐spam e‐mails are queued in a fast queue and given higher service priority than spam e‐mails that are queued in a slow queue. Four prioritized e‐mail service strategies for the two‐queue scheme are proposed and analyzed. We modeled these four strategies using discrete‐time Markov chain analysis under different e‐mail traffic loads and service capacities. Non‐spam e‐mails can be delivered within a small delay, even under heavy e‐mail loadings and high spam‐to‐non‐spam a priori. Results from our analysis of the two‐queue scheme show that it gives non‐spam delay and loss probability two orders of magnitude smaller than the typical single‐queue approach during heavy spam traffic. Moreover, prioritized e‐mail servicing protects e‐mail servers from spam attacks. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.648
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.251 · 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