Click the comments link on any story to see comments or add your own.
Subscribe to this blog
10 Sep 2006
In July I wrote about a
The new paper, which refers back to the previous one, makes a more detailed analysis. The first paper used limited spam data from a small archive and publicly available price data. The new paper started with some of the author's own spam and then added large amounts from the news.admin.net-abuse.sightings newsgroup. For price information they persuaded Pink Sheets, who publish price quotes for most of the thinly traded stocks in the spam, to provide historical data.
Once again, they show that there are small but statistically significant price jumps on the day that a stock is touted, so that a spammer who has bought the stock a day or two before will make money. Surprisingly, tout spam was more effective in 2005 than 2004, which suggests that spammers learned to select stocks and suckers more effectively, and that the suckers will never learn.
The new paper has gotten more press than the previous one, such as this article in the New York Times. Maybe that will get someone's attention.
comments... (Jump to the end to add your own comment)
Add your comment...
Note: all comments require an email address to send a confirmation to verify that it was posted by a person and not a spambot. The comment won't be visible until you click the link in the confirmation. Unless you check the box below, which almost nobody does, your email won't be displayed, and I won't use it for other purposes.
My other sites
© 2005-2020 John R. Levine.
CAN SPAM address harvesting notice: the operator of this website will not give, sell, or otherwise transfer addresses maintained by this website to any other party for the purposes of initiating, or enabling others to initiate, electronic mail messages.