Advertisement

Abstract

Legal matters related to unsolicited commercial email often involve several hundred thousand messages. Manual examination and interpretation methods are unable to deal with such large volumes of evidence. Furthermore, as the actors gain experience, it is increasingly difficult to show evidence of spoliation and detect intentional evidence construction. This paper presents improved automated techniques for bulk email analysis and presentation to aid in evidence interpretation.

Keywords

Unsolicited commercial email bulk forensic analysis 

References

  1. 1.
    F. Cohen, Challenges to Digital Forensic Evidence, ASP Press, Livermore, California, 2008.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Crowley and S. Harris (Eds.), The Sedona Conference Glossary: E-Discovery and Digital Information Management, The Sedona Conference, Sedona, Arizona, 2007.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Government of California, Article 18: Restrictions on Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail Advertisers, West’s Annotated California Codes (Business and Professions Code), §17500 to §18999.99, pp. 101–117, 2008.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Government of Maryland, Definitions, Commercial Electronic Mail (Subtitle 30), Michie’s Annotated Code of the Public Laws of Maryland (Commercial Law), pp. 476–477, 2005.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. McClain, Member of U.S. Chess Federation’s board is asked to resign in dispute over an election, New York Times, January 15, 2008.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Postel, RFC 821: Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California, Marina del Rey, California (tools.ietf.org/html/rfc821), 1982.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    SpamLinks, Anti-spam laws (spamlinks.net/legal-laws.htm).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sun Microsystems, mbox, Manual pages from /var/qmail (version 1.01), Santa Clara, California (www.qmail.org/qmail-manual-html /man5/mbox.html).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Supreme Court of California, Intel Corporation v. Hamidi, West’s Pacific Reporter (Third Series), vol. 71, pp. 296–332, 2003.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    U.S. District Court (Northern District of California), ASIS Internet Services v. Optin Global, Inc., Case No. C-05-5124 JCS, December 17, 2008.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    U.S. Government, Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act, Public Law 108–187, 108th Congress, United States Statutes at Large, vol. 117(3), pp. 2699–2719, 2004.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fred Cohen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations