Research Note—The Cost Impact of Spam Filters: Measuring the Effect of Information System Technologies in Organizations

References

• Becker S. O., Caliendo M. Sensitivity analysis for average treatment effects. Stata J. (2007) 7(1):71–83Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bozionelos N. Socio-economic background and computer use: The role of computer anxiety and computer experience in their relationship. Internat. J. Human-Comput. Stud. (2004) 61(5):725–746Crossref, Google Scholar
• Caliendo M., Kopeinig S. Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. J. Econom. Surveys (2008) 22(1):31–72Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chan Y. E. IT value: The great divide between qualitative and quantitative and individual and organizational measures. J. Management Inform. Systems (2000) 16(4):225–261Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cormack G. V., Lynam T. R. Online supervised spam filter evaluation. ACM Trans. Inform. Systems (2007) 25(3):1–31Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dewan S., Ren F. Risk and return of information technology initiatives: Evidence from electronic commerce announcements. Inform. Systems Res. (2007) 18(4):370–394Link, Google Scholar
• Dewan S., Shi C., Gurbaxani V. Investigating the risk-return relationship of information technology investment: Firm-level empirical analysis. Management Sci. (2007) 53(12):1829–1842Link, Google Scholar
• European Union Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Unsolicited Commercial Communications or “Spam”. (2004) . Accessed January 15, 2011, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUri-Serv/site/en/com/2004/com2004_0028en01.pdfGoogle Scholar
• Goodman J., Cormack G. V., Heckerman D. Spam and the ongoing battle for the in-box. Comm. ACM (2007) 50(2):25–31Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hanke M., Hauser F. On the effects of stock spam e-mails. J. Financial Markets (2008) 11(1):57–83Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison G. W., List J. A. Field experiments. J. Econom. Literature (2004) 42(December):1009–1055Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heckman J. J., Ichimura H., Todd P. Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator. Rev. Econom. Stud. (1998) 65(2):261–294Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heckman J. J., LaLonde R. J., Smith J. A., Ashenfelter A., Card D. The economics and econometrics of active labor market programs. Handbook of Labor Economics (1999) (Elsevier, Amsterdam) 1865–2097Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heckman J. J., Ichimura H., Smith J., Todd P. Characterizing selection bias using experimental data. Econometrica (1998) 66(5):1017–1098Crossref, Google Scholar
• Imbens G. W. Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: A review. Rev. Econom. Statist. (2004) 86(1):4–29Crossref, Google Scholar
• Imbens G. W., Wooldridge J. M. Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. J. Econom. Literature (2009) 47(1):1–81Crossref, Google Scholar
• Joseph K., Thevaranjan A. Investigating pricing solutions to combat spam: Postage stamp and bonded senders. J. Interactive Marketing (2008) 22(1):21–35Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kanich C., Kreibich C., Levchenko K., Enright B., Voelker G. M., Paxson V., Savage S. Spamalytics: An empirical analysis of spam marketing conversion. Comm. ACM (2009) 52(9):99–107Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kraut R. E., Sunder S., Telang R., Morris J. Pricing electronic mail to solve the problem of spam. Human-Comput. Interaction (2005) 20(1–2):195–223Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lechner M. Some practical issues in the evaluation of heterogeneous labour market programmes by matching methods. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. A (2002) 165(1):59–82Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leuven E., Sianesi B. PSMATCH2: Stata module to perform full Mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing. (2003) . Statistical Software Component S432001, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MAGoogle Scholar
• McAfee “McAfee Americans and spam survey” finds consumers waste valuable time deleting spam. (2003) . Accessed April 12, 2010, http://us.mcafee.com/fightspam/default.asp?id=surveyGoogle Scholar
• Melville N., Stevens A., Plice R. K., Pavlov O. V. Unsolicited commercial e-mail: Empirical analysis of a digital commons. Internat. J. Electronic Commerce (2006) 10(4):143–168Crossref, Google Scholar
• MessageLabs MessageLabs intelligence annual report 2010. (2010) . Accessed December 13, 2010, http://www.messagelabs.com/mlireport/MessageLabsIntelligence_2010_Annual_Report_FINAL.pdfGoogle Scholar
• Microsoft Security intelligence report. (2010) . Accessed December 19, 2010, http://www.microsoft.com/security/sir/Google Scholar
• Mithas S., Krishnan M. S. From association to causation via a potential outcomes approach. Inform. Systems Res. (2009) 20(2):295–313Link, Google Scholar
• Morimoto M., Chang S. Consumers' attitudes toward unsolicited commercial e-mail and postal direct mail marketing methods: Intrusiveness, perceived loss of control, and irritation. J. Interactive Advertising (2006) 7(1):8–20Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nucleus Research Spam: The silent ROI killer. (2003) . Accessed January 25, 2010, http://nucleusresearch.com/research/d59.pdfGoogle Scholar
• OECD Spam issues in developing countries. (2005) . Accessed January 25, 2010, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/47/34935342.pdfGoogle Scholar
• Rockbridge Spam costs U.S. nearly $22 billion annually. (2005) . Press release (February 3). Accessed April 12, 2010, http://www.rockresearch.com/news020305.phpGoogle Scholar
• Rosenbaum P. R.Observational Studies (2002) (Springer, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum P. R., Rubin D. B. Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Amer. Statistician (1985) 39(1):33–38Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roy A. Some thoughts on the distribution of earnings. Oxford Econom. Papers (1951) 3(2):135–145Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rubin D. B. Estimating causal effects to treatments in randomised and nonrandomised studies. J. Educational Psych. (1974) 66(5):688–701Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sianesi B. An evaluation of Swedish system of active labour market programmes in the 1990s. Rev. Econom. Statist. (2004) 86(1):133–155Crossref, Google Scholar
• Silverman B.Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis (1986) (Chapman & Hall, London) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith J. A., Todd P. E. Reconciling conflicting evidence on the performance of propensity-score matching methods. Amer. Econom. Rev. (2001) 91(2):112–118Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith J. A., Todd P. E. Does matching overcome Lalonde's critique of nonexperimental estimators? J. Econometrics (2005) 125(1–2):305–353Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vircom. Why spammers spam. (2004) . White paper. Accessed January 25, 2010, http://www.antispam.gov.hk/docs/english/techpapers/NEP_SPAM.pdfGoogle Scholar
• Zhang L. The Can-Spam Act: An insufficient response to the growing spam problem. Berkeley Tech. Law J. (2005) 20(1):301–332Google Scholar