Who gets the most spam? This message brought to you by the letter "A"

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


If your e-mail address begins “ajolie@” or “mphelps," your inbox is likely overflowing with messages sporting subject lines that read “Your Lady Will Become Crayzed” (sic) or “Urgent Request for Business Relationship from Lagos, Nigeria.” Believe it or not, the spam load has nothing to do with celebrity and everything to do with the first letter in your e-mail address.

University of Cambridge computer security researcher Richard Clayton presented a paper at the recent Fifth Conference on Email and Anti-Spam showing that e-mail addresses  beginning with the letters “A,” “M,” “S,” “R,” and “P” attracted about 40 percent junk mail, whereas addresses  that start with the letters “Q,” “Y,” and “Z” brought in only 20 percent or less. The paper entitled “Do Zebras Get More Spam than Aardvarks" analyzed more than 550 million e-mail messages sent over the U.K.'s Demon Internet service  during an eight-week period this year.

The reason for the disparity probably has to do with “dictionary” or “Rumpelstiltkin” attacks in which spammers guess addresses—and, of course, more names incorporated in these addresses begin with “A” for Angelina than “Z” for Zack.  Some anomalies require further probing, such as why addresses that begin with the letter “U” garnered a 50 percent junk influx? 

Clayton's advice (presented on Light Blue Touchpaper, Cambridge's computer lab blog): “Aardvarks should consider changing species—or asking their favorite email filter designer to think about how an unexpected empirical result can be leveraged into blocking more of their unwanted email.” In other words -- it’s better to be last (zebra) than first (aardvark), a fitting admonition to mark the 30th anniversary of the first Internet marketing e-mail, which plugged minicomputers not sex potions.

 

 


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


 

 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe