Papers › Active Countermeasures for Email Fraud
Active Countermeasures for Email Fraud
Wentao Chen, Fuzhou Wang, Matthew Edwards
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
As a major component of online crime, email-based fraud is a threat that causes substantial economic losses every year. To counteract these scammers, volunteers called scam-baiters play the roles of victims, reply to scammers, and try to waste their time and attention with long and unproductive conversations. To curb email fraud and magnify the effectiveness of scam-baiting, we developed and deployed an expandable scam-baiting mailserver that can conduct scam-baiting activities automatically. We implemented three reply strategies using three different models and conducted a one-month-long experiment during which we elicited 150 messages from 130 different scammers. We compare the performance of each strategy at attracting and holding the attention of scammers, finding tradeoffs between human-written and automatically-generated response strategies. We also demonstrate that scammers can be engaged concurrently by multiple servers deploying these strategies in a second experiment, which used two server instances to contact 92 different scammers over 12 days. We release both our platform and a dataset containing conversations between our automatic scam-baiters and real human scammers, to support future work in preventing online fraud.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections