What is Digg?35 Comments
- allocate, on 05/16/2009, -1/+23So what happens when I'm one of the 20% who deviates from the norm?
- hyderalamgir, on 05/16/2009, -0/+14You end up on reddit frontpage ranting about how Yahoo screwed up your life.
- DeskFlyer, on 05/17/2009, -0/+8Because spammy rhymes with naughty I guess.
- inactive, on 05/17/2009, -1/+9How about if the timestamps are a millisecond apart, for the past 3 hours. It might be a spammer.
- Hellman109, on 05/17/2009, -1/+5Actually this is a good idea.
I look after many spam filters, and about 90% of legit emails come during business hours, and ~70% of spam out of hours.
Therfore, using it as ONE metric on classifying spam works well, as stuff outside of business hours is more likely to be spam.
This is ofcourse for business domains, not generic domains like yahoo though... - greenspans, on 05/17/2009, -2/+6Buried for being like 5 years too late and for being a digg story about Yahoo!. My old yahoo mail account is full of 100% spam with their new ***** ajax attempt ***** and tons of spammed IM messages. Why can't you die already Yahoo! Didn't microsoft offer to buy them up for like $32 a share, but noo, they're worth much more, and now they're at... While google was improving its algorithms Yahoo! was harboring chats full of spam bots and pedophiles while concentrating on their premium directory where you pay like $200 per listing.
Just genius! Emails can actually be used to learn about the users and offer contextual ads. Google engineers are probably laughing at this article since they'd done so much more. - waydee, on 05/17/2009, -0/+3Every time I've attempted to sell something online I've got the usual scamming attempts and they always, without fail, use yahoo mail accounts. Now I just automatically associate yahoo mail with spammers/scammers.
- philodygmn, on 05/17/2009, -1/+3Translation: fascism is so much easier to program! A complex, robust, open, secure infrastructure is required, but there's too much money to be made in legislating on the basis of irrelevancies like IP address and timestamp data. ***** you, Yahoo!
- darkane, on 05/17/2009, -0/+2This is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard of. I guess Yahoo doesn't realize that spammers aren't actually hijacking accounts, and that they're just using open mail servers that allow relaying to spoof an e-mail address. They should be embarrassed for wasting all this time studying a completely ineffective method for spam prevention.
- whitesaint, on 05/17/2009, -5/+7Bull ***** *****. It's not like everybody who sends out e-mails regularly sends it at a certain time of the day, every day. We just send them out when it's most convenient and the relative urgency of the e-mail. Buried for lame.
- inactive, on 05/17/2009, -0/+2No, it's because you're a bot. STFU, bot.
- mattearle, on 05/17/2009, -1/+3Yahoo is so badly run it's sickening. They need to setup their Yahoo Search Marketing console to be able to run display ads on all of their A class properties like Yahoo Finance and Yahoo Sports. It needs to be as easy and efficient as Google Image Ads. Until they fix that, I refuse to see them as innovative and they should not be getting distracted with stuff like this.
- leontes, on 05/17/2009, -2/+4This is just part of a greater trend of digital forensics that reminds me of the psychohistory idea that is in Asimov's foundation books. With enough data, great trends in complex systems become mostly predictable. Our behavior, our style of typing, our use of words, our formation of syntax, our style of formatting all says something about who and what we are online. Even if we obfuscate personal details we still put ourselves out there in a very public way every time we plug into a computer network.
By necessity, such formations will be incomplete, but as with any form of putting ourselves out there, true anonymity is an impossibility: trends emerge. This is the business that facebook, google and yahoo is latching onto and is the birth of a new science. Imperfect, sure, but nevertheless powerful. - DivisibleByZero, on 05/17/2009, -0/+2Take it easy there chief. Unlike you, some of us are here to have a discussion and learn more, not just try to belittle everybody without actually presenting any relevant data.
- DeusNova, on 05/17/2009, -0/+2Gmail has a good enough spam filter for me! I shouldn't have signed up for that porn thing when I was younger or else I'd have no spam.
- inactive, on 05/17/2009, -2/+4Yes...because after reading this article (if you did even that) you now know ALL the criteriua they will use! And therefore, yo have more than enough information to know that it is lame.
If only Google had done this. Then you would be typing with sticky cum drenched fingers thinking about how GREAT an idea this is! - kd1s, on 05/17/2009, -0/+1There was a very easy way to stop the flow of spam years ago. Simply require authentication on SMTP. But I understand, SMTP also accepts connections from other SMTP servers. So modify the spec so that a trusted authority (Verisign anyone?) authenticates trusts between SMTP servers.
- inactive, on 05/17/2009, -3/+4Yahoo is doing this, not Google. Therefore there is NO AY this could work! What a sutpid idea! What the hell are they thinking!
- NathanielJ, on 05/17/2009, -0/+1Original publication that this article is about: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0905/0905.0106 ...
- Ben1220, on 05/17/2009, -0/+1And on top of that the average IQ of those on yahoo answers is pretty mediocre. Why bother using it if you can just ask randoms in the street and get the same level of insight.
- inactive, on 05/17/2009, -0/+1With the wacky non-contiguous hours I keep, all of my emails will be marked by their system.
- DivisibleByZero, on 05/17/2009, -0/+1I don't see how this will help distinguish spammers. Before you can compare somebody against their pattern, you first have to have an established pattern for that user. Spammers have long sent email from bogus addresses, so they by definition don't have an established pattern. Anybody who gets a new email address is going to get mistakenly spam filtered.
- jiveturkeyblues, on 05/17/2009, -0/+1hey maybe it will help me not send crazy drunken emails to exes
any email i sent at 4am is going to be the equivalent of spam anyway - Somefoo, on 05/17/2009, -0/+1This idea is terrible. I guess they found someone clueless enough to let them "work" on this for a while, but I doubt even they thought it would actually catch spam without a massive false positive rate.
- inactive, on 05/17/2009, -0/+1Seams your new to digg, and the internet on the whole. Welcome. In order to avoiding having a heart attack (or possibly another one), there's something you should understand; most people on the internet, just as in real life, don't know what they're talking about most of the time. Now have fun.
- inactive, on 05/17/2009, -0/+0nothing. unless you also fit the other critera
- MindStalker, on 05/17/2009, -1/+1You didn't read the article. Basically if your account regularly sends emails out 9-5 but suddenly your sending emails out more frequently at odd hours of the day its likely you have a bot. A flag will be added and you will be investigated based upon other criteria as well.
- zeeohsix, on 05/17/2009, -0/+0correct me if i'm wrong but i think what they are doing is determining YOUR SENT e-mail pattern. any e-mails being SENT under YOUR email address that does not match the pattern of when you usually use e-mail would be considered spam from a spambot using your e-mail address.
by blocking spam being sent, you reduce the spam to the recipients.
it won't affect incoming mail because it's only filtering outgoing mail.
if you want to send e-mail outside your pattern you might have to do a step to verify it is not spam like captcha.
you could use captcha now for sending every outgoing e-mail but no one would want to captcha every single time you want to send mail. that's why by knowing your pattern it knows what times to disable that filter.
everyone is thinking it filters out all INCOMING mail except when you read e-mail according to your pattern. - WomensUnderwear, on 05/18/2009, -0/+0seems
- inactive, on 05/17/2009, -2/+1Wow! There is no doubt in any sane person's mind that if this were Google you would be saying "INCREDIBLE! Just goes to show you that Google is amazing."
Again...it is amazing that stupid ***** like you tihn that by reading OE article on it, you know exactly how it is going to work and therefore are qualified to make a judgement.
You are not qualified to make a judgement on ANYTHING. And never will be. - hpymondays, on 05/17/2009, -2/+1This is the dumbest ***** I ever heard. What if I usually send emails during business hours but one day decide to send in the evening or I am traveling to another country and I am 12 hours behind so my emails seem to come in the wee hours?
- inactive, on 05/17/2009, -2/+0Ahhh! So..if YOU...a complete nobody with ZERO expertise on the subject can't see how this will work, after reading an entire one page article on it that BRIEFLY summarized the concept, then there is no way it will work.
Un-*****-believeable how pahtetic diggers are in thinking that they know EVERYTHING when in fact, they are not experts on anything.
There is a whole ***** of things that work in this world that you know nothing about. Such as 99.9999999999999999999999999 of everything in existence. - inactive, on 05/17/2009, -3/+0except Google HASN'T done so much more.
I don't get SPAM in my Yahoo. Maybe because I am not a ***** idiot who uses that e-mail to sign up for shady sites. Or maybe I am just EXTREMELY lucky. - inactive, on 05/17/2009, -4/+0How sad for you. You are judging somethiung based on who is doing it, not its merit. And somehow, you think this makes you look INTELLIGENT?
Sorry, but from now on, you have no credibility. So no matter what you say, even if it is obvously true, I will decide it is wrong. Just using your own logic. - maddonkey, on 05/16/2009, -9/+2Then you're considered a spammer.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is