A Review of Techniques to Counter Spam and Spit

  • Angelos Nakulas
  • Lambros Ekonomou
  • Stavroula Kourtesi
  • Georgios P. Fotis
  • Emmanouil Zoulias
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 27)


This paper studies the most important techniques with which to challenge the problem of unsolicited e-mails (spam) and unsolicited messages in Internet telephony (spit). First an introduction to the problem of spam demonstrates the importance (economic and technological) of finding a solution. Then we analyze the most important techniques that exist to counter the problem. After that we concentrate on a new problem: spam using new internet telephony technologies (spit). This problem, even if existing only theoretically until now, very soon will be one of the main factors affecting the broad use of VoIP. We analyze the most important methods and techniques of countering spit. Finally, we mentione differences between spam and spit and state some useful conclusions.


Session Initiation Protocol Internet Service Provider Electronic Mail Reputation System Turing Test 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Telecommunications Engineering and Certification Industry Canada (2005) Anti-spam technology overview.
  2. 2.
    Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group (MAAWG) (2006) Email metrics program.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Bishop M (2005) Spam and the CAN-SPAM act expert report. Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goodman J (2003) Spam: technologies and policies. White paper. Microsoft ResearchGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ramachandran A, Feamster N (2006) Understanding the network­level behavior of spammers. ACM SIGCOMM (Special Interest Group on Data Communications), Pisa, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Judge QP, An analysis of technological and marketplace developments from 2003 to present and their impact on the effectiveness of CAN-SPAM.
  8. 8.
    Seltzer L (2003) Challenge-response spam blocking challenges patience. eWEEKGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    O’Donnell A (2006) Applying collaborative anti-spam techniques to the anti-virus problem. In: Virus bulletin 2006 (VB2006) conference, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liu D, Camp J (2006) Proof of work can work. In: The fifth workshop on the economics of information security (WEIS 2006), Robinson College, University of Cambridge, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Prakash V, O’Donnell A (2005) Fighting spam with reputation systems. ACM Queu 3(9)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jennings C, Peterson J, Rosenberg J (2006) The session initiation protocol (SIP) and spam. Internet draftGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angelos Nakulas
    • 1
  • Lambros Ekonomou
    • 2
  • Stavroula Kourtesi
    • 3
  • Georgios P. Fotis
    • 4
  • Emmanouil Zoulias
    • 1
  1. 1.National and Kapodistrian University of AthensGreece
  2. 2.Hellenic American UniversityGreece
  3. 3.Hellenic Public Power Corporation S.A.Greece
  4. 4.National Technical University of AthensGreece

Personalised recommendations