Data Mining Email to Discover Organizational Networks and Emergent Communities in Work Flows. The social graph above shows the email flows amongst a large project . The company acknowledges scanning the emails of Apps for Education users and faces allegations in a federal lawsuit that it built "surreptitious user profiles" for. In the context of email mining, spam detection is to identify unsolicited bulk emails using data mining techniques. In general, based on the information mainly used, spam detection methods can be divided into two categories, namely content-based detection and .
Data Mining and Email Marketing Many businesses place email marketing programs on the back burner because of uncertainties about where to obtain credible email addresses. The most practical and effective solution to this problem is to collect required information with data mining. in emailing, email mining, which applies data mining techniques on emails, has been conducted extensively and achieved remarkable progress in both research and practice. Particularly, emails can be regarded as a mixed information cabinet containing both textual data and human social, organizational relations. Data Mining Email to Discover Organizational Networks and Emergent Communities in Work Flows. The social graph above shows the email flows amongst a large project . The company acknowledges scanning the emails of Apps for Education users and faces allegations in a federal lawsuit that it built "surreptitious user profiles" for. In the context of email mining, spam detection is to identify unsolicited bulk emails using data mining techniques. In general, based on the information mainly used, spam detection methods can be divided into two categories, namely content-based detection and .
Spam email datasets
Welcome to the CSDMC2010 SPAM corpus, which is one of the datasets for the data mining competition associated with ICONIP 2010.
This dataset is composed of a selection of mail messages, suitable for
use in testing spam filtering systems.
- All headers are reproduced in full. Some address obfuscation has taken place, and hostnames in some cases email data mining been replaced with "csmining.org" (which has a valid MX record) and with most of the recipents replaced with 'hibody.csming.org' In most cases though, the headers appear as they were received.
- All of these messages were posted to public fora, were sent to me in the knowledge that they may be made public, were sent by me, or originated as newsletters from public mail lists. A part of the data is from other public corpus(es), however, for some reason, information will be open after the competion.
- Copyright for the text in the messages remains with the original senders.
The corpus file -- CSDMC2010_SPAM.tar.bz2
On Linux platforms, it can be extracted by command tar -xjf CSDMC2010_SPAM.tar.bz2 -C email/
In an MS Windows environment, use the bzip2 software http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/packages/bzip2.htm
The corpus description
The dataset contains two parts:
- TRAINING: 4327 messages out of which there are 2949 non-spam messages (HAM) and 1378 spam messagees (SPAM), email data mining, all received from non-spam-trap sources.
SPAMTrain.label contains the labels of the emails, email data mining 1 stands for a HAM and 0 stands for a SPAM.
- TESTING: 4292 messages without known class labels.
The email format description
The format of the .eml file is definde in RFC822, and information on recent standard of email, i.e., MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) can be find in RFC2045-2049.
On the provide python script
Since some data mining techniques only make use of the subject and body of the email to identify spam. In this package, we have included a simple python script (ExtractContent.py) which can help to extract the subject and body of the email.
In a python compatible environment, ( the code is test on python 2.5.1 and should work on python 2.x)
1, invoke the script by command ./ExtractContent.py
2, input source directory -- where you store the source files For exmaple C:\EMAILPro\CSDMC2010_SPAM\TEST
3, input destination directory -- where you want the extracted body to be For example C:\EMAILPro\CSDMC2010_SPAM\TEST_NEW
4, we are done
Note that, the script only extract limited information from the email (no information of fields like to, email data mining, from, attachment are extract but only the subject and the first part of the body.) By oferring such a script we just want to show a simple preprocessing mehtod where the participants can start from. More advanced method mining game iphone makes use of email header information or even attachment information are encouraged.
Please direct any questions regarding this dataset to email@example.com.
Mozenda Web Data Mining Software Trusted by EnterpriseIn the context of email mining, spam detection is to identify unsolicited bulk emails using data mining techniques. In general, based on the information mainly used, spam detection methods can be divided into two categories, namely content-based detection and . Used by over 100 of the top fortune 500 businesses for cloud based Data Mining Software. Start a free Trial Today! 1-801-995-4550. The Natural History of Gmail Data Mining We cannot know for certain what Google is doing with the output of its vast and highly sophisticated email data mining. The email format description. The format of the.eml file is definde in RFC822, and information on recent standard of email, i.e., MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) can be find in RFC2045-2049. On the provide python script. Since some data mining techniques only make use of the subject and body of the email to identify spam. Data mining is the process of discovering patterns in a data mining algorithm trying to distinguish "spam" from "legitimate" emails would be trained on. email data mining free download - Data Mining, Data Mining, NeoNeuro Data Mining, and many more programs.
email data mining free download - Data Mining, Data Mining, NeoNeuro Data Mining, and many more programs. Data mining is the process of discovering patterns in a data mining algorithm trying to distinguish "spam" from "legitimate" emails would be trained on. Data Mining Email to Discover Organizational Networks and Emergent Communities in Work Flows. The social graph above shows the email flows amongst a large project .
Androutsopoulos I, Koutsias J, Chandrinos K, Spyropoulos C, (2000) An experimental comparison of naive bayesian and keyword-based anti-spam filtering with personal e-mail messages, In: Proceedings of the 23rd annual international special interest group on information retrieval (SIGIR) conference on research and development in information retrieval, SIGIR’00, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 160–167Google Scholar
Androutsopoulos I, Paliouras G, Karkaletsis V, Sakkis G, Spyropoulos, C, Stamatopoulos P (2000) Learning to filter spam e-mail: a comparison of a naive bayesian and a memory-based approach. Computing Research Repository (CoRR) cs.CL/0009009Google Scholar
Bälter O (2000) Keystroke level analysis of email message organization. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, CHI’00, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 105–112Google Scholar
Bellotti V, Ducheneaut N, Howard M, Smith I, Grinter RE (2005) Quality versus quantity: e-mail-centric task management and its relation with overload. Hum Comput Interact 20:89–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel S, Scheffer T (2004) Learning from message pairs for automatic email answering. In: Proceedings of the European conference on machine learning (ECML), pp 87–98Google Scholar
Bird C, Gourley A, Devanbu P, Gertz M, Swaminathan A (2006a), Mining email social networks. In: Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on mining software repositories, MSR’06, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 137–143Google Scholar
Bird C, Gourley A, Devanbu P, Gertz M , Swaminathan A (2006b) Mining email social networks in postgres. In: Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on mining software repositories, MSR’06, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 185–186Google Scholar
Blanzieri E, Bryl A (2008) A survey of learning-based techniques of email spam filtering. Artif Intell Rev 29:63–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blei DM, Ng AY, Jordan MI (2003) Latent dirichlet allocation. J Mach Learn Res 3:993–1022MATHGoogle Scholar
Boykin PO, Roychowdhury VP (2004) Personal email networks: an effective anti-spam tool. Computing Research Repository (CoRR) cond-mat/0402143Google Scholar
Bradley A (1997) The use of the area under the ROC curve in the evaluation of machine learning algorithms. Pattern Recogn 30:1145–1159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45:5–32CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
Breiman L, Friedman J, Stone CJ, Olshen RA (1984) Classification regression trees, 1st edn. Wadsworth and Brooks, Monterey, CAMATHGoogle Scholar
Brutlag JD, Meek C (2000) Challenges of the email domain for text classification. In: Proceedings of the seventeenth international conference on machine learning, ICML’00, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, pp 103–110Google Scholar
Campbell CS, Maglio PP, Cozzi A, Dom B (2003) Expertise identification using email communications. In: Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on Information and knowledge management, CIKM’03, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 528–531Google Scholar
Carvalho VR, Cohen WW (2008) Ranking users for intelligent message addressing. In: Proceedings of the IR research, 30th European conference on Advances in information retrieval, ECIR’08, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 321–333Google Scholar
Claburn T (2005) Spam costs billions. Website http://www.informationweek.com/news/59300834
Cohen W (1996) Learning rules that classify e-mail. In: Papers from the association for the advancement of artificial intelligence (AAAI) spring symposium on machine learning in information access, AAAI Press, pp 18–25Google Scholar
Cohen WW (1995) Fast effective rule induction. In: Proceedings of the twelfth international Conference on machine learning, Morgan Kaufmann, pp 115–123Google Scholar
Cormack G, Lynam T (2004) A study of supervised spam detection applied to eight months of personal e-mailGoogle Scholar
Cormack G, Lynam T (2005) Spam corpus creation for trec. In: Proceedings of the second conference on email and anti-spam (CEAS), Mountain View, CAGoogle Scholar
Corney MW, Anderson AM, Mohay GM, de Vel O (2001) Identifying the authors of suspect emailGoogle Scholar
Cortes C, Vapnik V (1995) Support-vector networks. Mach Learn 20:273–297MATHGoogle Scholar
Cui Y, Pei J, Tang G, Jiang D, Luk W-S, Hua M (2011) Finding email correspondents in online social networks. World Wide Web J, 2012, Springer, Netherlands, pp 1–24Google Scholar
Dabbish LA, Kraut RE (2006) Email overload at work: an analysis of factors associated with email strain. In: Proceedings of the (2006) 20th anniversary conference on computer supported cooperative work, CSCW’06. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 431–440Google Scholar
De Choudhury M, Mason WA, Hofman JM, Watts DJ (2010) Inferring relevant social networks from interpersonal communication. In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web, WWW’10, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 301–310Google Scholar
de Vel O, Anderson A, Corney M, Mohay G (2001) Multi-topic e-mail authorship attribution forensics. In: Proceedings of the workshop on data mining for security applications, 8th ACM conference on computer security (CCS)Google Scholar
Delaney KJ, Vara V (2007) Will social features make email sexy again? Wall Str J, (18 Oct)Google Scholar
Dhillon IS, Modha DS (2001) Concept decompositions for large sparse text data using clustering. Mach Learn 42:143–175CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
Drucker H, Wu D, Vapnik V (1999) Support vector machines for spam categorization. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 10(5):1048–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ducheneaut N, Watts LA (2005) In search of coherence: a review of e-mail research. Hum Comput Interact 20:11–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman LC (1977) A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry 40(1):35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girvan M, Newman MEJ (2002) Community structure in social and biological networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci 99(12):7821–7826CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
Golbeck J, Hendler JA (2004) Reputation network analysis for email filtering. In: Proceedings of the first conference on email and anti-spam (CEAS), Mountain View, CAGoogle Scholar
Golub GH, van Van Loan CF (1996) Matrix computations, 3rd edn. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MDMATHGoogle Scholar
Gomes LH, Castro FDO, Almeida RB, Bettencourt LMA, Almeida VAF, Almeida JM (2005) Improving spam detection based on structural similarity. Computing Research Repository (CoRR) abs/cs/0504012Google Scholar
Gomez JC, Boiy E, Moens M-F (2012) Highly discriminative statistical features for email classification. Knowl Inf Syst 31(3):23–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hőlzer R, Malin B, Sweeney L (2005) Email alias detection using social network analysis. In: Proceedings of the international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (KDD) workshop on link discovery: issues, approaches, and applications, ACM PressGoogle Scholar
Internet Threats Trend Report Q1 2010 (2010), Company PressGoogle Scholar
Johansen L, Rowell M, Butler K, Mcdaniel P (2007) Email communities of interest. In: Proceedings of the fourth conference on email and anti-spam (CEAS), Mountain View, CAGoogle Scholar
John GH, Langley P (1995) Estimating continuous distributions in bayesian classifiers. In: Proceedings of the eleventh conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence, UAI’95, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, pp 338–345Google Scholar
Jolliffe IT (1986) Principal component analysis. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karagiannis T, Vojnovic M (2009) Behavioral profiles for advanced email features. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on world wide web’, WWW’09, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 711–720Google Scholar
Katakis I, Tsoumakas G, Vlahavas I (2007) Web data management practices: emerging techniques and technologies. IGI Publishing, Hershey, PAGoogle Scholar
Keila PS, Skillicorn DB (2005) Structure in the enron email data set. Comput Math Organ Theory 11:183–199CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
Kleinberg JM (1999) Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment. J ACM 46:604–632CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
Klimt B, Yang Y (2004) The enron corpus: A new data set for email classification research. In: The European conference on machine learning (ECML), pp 217–226Google Scholar
Koprinska I, Poon J, Clark J, Chan J (2007) Learning to classify e-mail. Inf Sci 177:2167–2187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lam H-Y, Yeung D-Y (2007) A learning approach to spam detection based on social networks. In: Proceedings of the fourth conference on email and anti-spam (CEAS), Mountain View, CAGoogle Scholar
Lockerd A, Selker T (2003) DriftCatcher: The implicit social context of email. In: Proceedings of the ninth IFIP TC13 international conference on human–computer interaction (INTERACT) 2003, pp 1–5Google Scholar
MacQueen JB (1967) Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. In: Cam LML, Neyman J (eds) Proceedings of the fifth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability, vol 1, University of California Press, pp 281–297Google Scholar
McArthur R, Bruza P (2003) Discovery of implicit and explicit connections between people using email utterance. In: Proceedings of the eighth conference on European conference on computer supported cooperative work (ECSCW) 2003, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, USA, pp 21–40Google Scholar
Mccallum A, Corrada-emmanuel A, Wang X (2004) The author-recipient-topic model for topic and role discovery in social networks: experiments with enron and academic email, Technical report, University of Massachusetts AmherstGoogle Scholar
McCallum A, Nigam K (1998) A comparison of event models for naive bayes text classification. In: Proceedings of the association for the advancement of artificial intelligence (AAAI) workshop on learning for text categorization, AAAI Press, pp 41–48Google Scholar
Myers JL, Well AD (2003) Research design and statistical analysis, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
Nagwani NK, Bhansali A (2010) An object oriented email clustering model using weighted similarities between emails attributes. Int J Res Rev Comput Sci 1(2):1–6Google Scholar
Neustaedter C, Brush AJB, Smith MA (2005) Beyond ”from” and ”received”: exploring the dynamics of email triage. In: ACM CHI’05 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, CHI EA’05, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 1977–1980Google Scholar
Nucleus Research Inc. (2007) Spam, the repeat offender. Notes and reportsGoogle Scholar
Perer A, Smith MA (2006) Contrasting portraits of email practices: visual approaches to reflection and analysis. In: Proceedings of the working conference on advanced visual interfaces, AVI’06, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 389–395Google Scholar
Radicati S, Hoang Q (2010) Email statistics report, 2011–2015. Company PressGoogle Scholar
Rennie JDM (2000) Ifile: An application of machine learning to e-mail filtering. In: Proceedings of the international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (KDD) workshop on text miningGoogle Scholar
Rijsbergen CJV (1979) Information retrieval, 2nd edn. Butterworth-Heinemann, Newton, MAGoogle Scholar
Rios G, Zha H (2004) Exploring support vector machines and random forests for spam detection. In: Proceedings of the first conference on email and anti-spam (CEAS), Mountain View, CAGoogle Scholar
Roth M, Ben-David A, Deutscher D, Flysher G, Horn I, Leichtberg A, Leiser N, Matias Y, Merom R (2010) Suggesting friends using the implicit social graph. In: Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, KDD’10, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 233–242Google Scholar
Rowe R, Creamer G, Hershkop S, Stolfo SJ (2007) Automated social hierarchy detection through email network analysis. In: Proceedings of the 9th WebKDD and 1st SNA-KDD (2007) workshop on Web mining and social network analysis, WebKDD/SNA-KDD’07. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 109–117Google Scholar
Sahami M, Dumais S, Heckerman D, Horvitz E (1998) A bayesian approach to filtering junk e-mailGoogle Scholar
Salton G, McGill MJ (1986) Introduction to modern information retrieval. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NYGoogle Scholar
Salton G, Wong A, Yang CS (1997) A vector space model for automatic indexing. In: Sparck Jones K, Willett P (eds) Readings in information retrieval. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, pp 273–280Google Scholar
Sasaki M, Shinnou H (2005) Spam detection using text clustering. In: Proceedings of the 2005 international conference on cyberworlds (CW), IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, pp 316–319Google Scholar
Scheffer T (2004) Email answering assistance by semi-supervised text classification. Intell Data Anal 8:481–493Google Scholar
Schwartz MF, Wood DCM (1993) Discovering shared interests using graph analysis. Commun ACM 36:78–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal RB, Kephart JO (1999) Mailcat: an intelligent assistant for organizing e-mail. In: Proceedings of the sixteenth national conference on artificial intelligence and the eleventh innovative applications of artificial intelligence conference innovative applications of artificial intelligence’, AAAI’99/IAAI’99, American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Menlo Park, CA, USA, pp 925–926Google Scholar
Silverman BW, Jones MC (1951) E. fix and j.l. hodges (1951): an important contribution to nonparametric discriminant analysis and density estimation: commentary on fix and hodges (1951). Int Stat Rev/Revue Internationale de Statistique 57(3):233–238Google Scholar
Sparck Jones K (1988) A statistical interpretation of term specificity and its application in retrieval. Taylor Graham Publishing, LondonGoogle Scholar
Stolfo SJ, Hershkop S, Wang K, Nimeskern O, Hu C-W (2003a), A behavior-based approach to securing email systems. In: Proceedings of the Computer network security, second international workshop on mathematical methods, models, and architectures for computer network security, MMM-ACNS 2003, St. Petersburg, Russia, September 21–23, 2003 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science) vol 2776. SpringerGoogle Scholar
Stolfo SJ, Hershkop S, Wang K, Nimeskern O, Hu C-W (2003b), Behavior profiling of email. In: Proceedings of the 1st NSF/NIJ conference on intelligence and security informatics, ISI’03, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 74–90Google Scholar
Stuit M, Wortmann H (2012) Discovery and analysis of email-driven business processes. Inf Syst 37(2):142–168Google Scholar
Taylor B (2006) Sender reputation in a large webmail service. In: Proceedings of the third conference on email and anti-spam (CEAS), Mountain View, CAGoogle Scholar
Techopedia.com (n.d.) Social network analysis (SNA). Website http://www.techopedia.com/definition/3205/social-network-analysis-sna
Tyler JR, Wilkinson DM, Huberman BA (2003) Email as spectroscopy: automated discovery of community structure within organizations. In: Communities and technologies, Kluwer, B.V., Deventer, The Netherlands, pp 81–96Google Scholar
van Rijsbergen C, Robertson S, Porter M (1980) New models in probabilistic information retrievalGoogle Scholar
Venolia GD, Neustaedter C (2003) Understanding sequence and reply relationships within email conversations: a mixed-model visualization. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI’03), ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 361–368Google Scholar
Viégas FB, Golder S, Donath J (2006) Visualizing email content: portraying relationships from conversational histories. In: Grinter R, Rodden T, Aoki P, Cutrell E, Jeffries R, Olson G (eds) Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI’06, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 979–988Google Scholar
Vleck TV (2001) The history of electronic mail. Website http://www.multicians.org/thvv/mail-history.html
Wang M-F, Jheng S-L, Tsai M-F, Tang C-H (2011) Enterprise email classification based on social network features. In: Proceedings of the international conference on advances in social networks analysis and mining, 2011, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, pp 532–536Google Scholar
Wang X-L, Cloete I (2005) Learning to classify email: a survey. In: Proceedings of the international conference on machine learning and, cybernetics, 2005, vol 9, pp 5716–5719Google Scholar
Whittaker S, Sidner C (1996) Email overload: exploring personal information management of email. In: Proceedings of the special interest group on computer human interaction (SIGCHI) conference on Human factors in computing systems: common ground, CHI’96, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 276–283Google Scholar
Whittaker S, Matthews T, Cerruti J, Badenes H, Tang J (2011) Am I wasting my time organizing email? A study of email refinding. In: Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI’11. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 3449–3458Google Scholar
Wikipedia (2012) E-mail spam. Website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-mail_spam
Yang Y (2001) A study on thresholding strategies for text categorization. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM international conference on research and development in information retrieval. ACM Press, pp 137–145Google Scholar
Yarow J (2011) 107,000,000,000,000. Website http://www.businessinsider.com/internet-statistics-2011-1-2011-1
Yoo S, Yang Y, Lin F, Moon I-C (2009) Mining social networks for personalized email prioritization. In: Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, KDD’09, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 967–976Google Scholar
|STEP BY STEP BITCOIN MINING||589|
|Prospecting mining activities||278|
|MINING URANIUM RISKS||956|
|950 gtx mining||536|
|Email data mining||753|