<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_05_2025206</id>
	<title>A Look At Google's Email Spam Prevention</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1246782480000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CNet has a story about the security measures Google employs to protect their email systems and <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009\_3-10276548-83.html">fight the never-ending war on spam</a>. Their Postini team, <a href="//it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/09/1347243&amp;tid=217">acquired two years ago</a>, has a variety of monitoring tools and automated response systems to find and block undesirable messages. Quoting:
<i>"The system scores each message on numerous combinations of criteria, assigning a weight to each and then comparing the score to those in a database of several hundred thousand message types that have been flagged as good or bad from Postini honey pots and customer spam reports. ... To block fresh spam attacks not covered by existing heuristic technologies and viruses not covered by existing signature databases Postini relies on proprietary Zero-Hour technology to identify new outbreaks that show up in the traffic patterns and quarantine them for later rescanning. Customers can also create and build out their own white lists of message senders they trust and blacklist others they don't trust. It takes an average of 150 milliseconds for a message to be scanned by the antivirus engines that Postini licenses from McAfee and Authentium.</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CNet has a story about the security measures Google employs to protect their email systems and fight the never-ending war on spam .
Their Postini team , acquired two years ago , has a variety of monitoring tools and automated response systems to find and block undesirable messages .
Quoting : " The system scores each message on numerous combinations of criteria , assigning a weight to each and then comparing the score to those in a database of several hundred thousand message types that have been flagged as good or bad from Postini honey pots and customer spam reports .
... To block fresh spam attacks not covered by existing heuristic technologies and viruses not covered by existing signature databases Postini relies on proprietary Zero-Hour technology to identify new outbreaks that show up in the traffic patterns and quarantine them for later rescanning .
Customers can also create and build out their own white lists of message senders they trust and blacklist others they do n't trust .
It takes an average of 150 milliseconds for a message to be scanned by the antivirus engines that Postini licenses from McAfee and Authentium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CNet has a story about the security measures Google employs to protect their email systems and fight the never-ending war on spam.
Their Postini team, acquired two years ago, has a variety of monitoring tools and automated response systems to find and block undesirable messages.
Quoting:
"The system scores each message on numerous combinations of criteria, assigning a weight to each and then comparing the score to those in a database of several hundred thousand message types that have been flagged as good or bad from Postini honey pots and customer spam reports.
... To block fresh spam attacks not covered by existing heuristic technologies and viruses not covered by existing signature databases Postini relies on proprietary Zero-Hour technology to identify new outbreaks that show up in the traffic patterns and quarantine them for later rescanning.
Customers can also create and build out their own white lists of message senders they trust and blacklist others they don't trust.
It takes an average of 150 milliseconds for a message to be scanned by the antivirus engines that Postini licenses from McAfee and Authentium.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28590231</id>
	<title>Incoming spam isnt the problem outgoing spam is</title>
	<author>grapeape</author>
	<datestamp>1246806720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spam and scams originating from Gmail has been so bad lately that several clients of mine have actually requested that I block gmail entirely.  I have been tempted to do so with my home account as well since its rendered craigslist all but unusable.  When do they plan to address that...but then what could they really do??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spam and scams originating from Gmail has been so bad lately that several clients of mine have actually requested that I block gmail entirely .
I have been tempted to do so with my home account as well since its rendered craigslist all but unusable .
When do they plan to address that...but then what could they really do ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spam and scams originating from Gmail has been so bad lately that several clients of mine have actually requested that I block gmail entirely.
I have been tempted to do so with my home account as well since its rendered craigslist all but unusable.
When do they plan to address that...but then what could they really do?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28592451</id>
	<title>Re: I do care how it works</title>
	<author>mcwidget</author>
	<datestamp>1246878480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gotta say, I've been using Gmail for years.  I still get around 1500 spam messages a month caught by Gmail.  I *maybe* get 1 spam message through a month and I have never had a false positive.  I really can't complain<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Got ta say , I 've been using Gmail for years .
I still get around 1500 spam messages a month caught by Gmail .
I * maybe * get 1 spam message through a month and I have never had a false positive .
I really ca n't complain : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gotta say, I've been using Gmail for years.
I still get around 1500 spam messages a month caught by Gmail.
I *maybe* get 1 spam message through a month and I have never had a false positive.
I really can't complain :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589285</id>
	<title>Gmail and Me</title>
	<author>Petersko</author>
	<datestamp>1246795380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When gmail was "invitation only" I opened an email account. I never used it for anything. Never gave it out, never signed up for anything with it, never sent a single email.<br> <br>

I've logged in to it four times, and I deleted something like 2000 spam messages.<br> <br>

I'll continue to not use it, thanks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When gmail was " invitation only " I opened an email account .
I never used it for anything .
Never gave it out , never signed up for anything with it , never sent a single email .
I 've logged in to it four times , and I deleted something like 2000 spam messages .
I 'll continue to not use it , thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When gmail was "invitation only" I opened an email account.
I never used it for anything.
Never gave it out, never signed up for anything with it, never sent a single email.
I've logged in to it four times, and I deleted something like 2000 spam messages.
I'll continue to not use it, thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28591733</id>
	<title>Re:McAfee</title>
	<author>binaryspiral</author>
	<datestamp>1246910580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really. Think of it like beta testers, or even better - neutral sensors. They aren't paying for the service, so they can't call your helpdesk and bitch about its effectiveness or about that one spam message that really offended them.</p><p>McAfee gets millions of email accounts to monitor and use as sensors for new spam, allowing them to gather that data, crunch it, and redistribute the new spam identifcation data to their own paying customers, including gmail.</p><p>This allows them to be more accurate and have better feedback on how their spam filtration is doing.</p><p>Bigger the sensor net - the better your product, as a rule of thumb anyway. Leave it to McAfee to fuck it all up though.</p><p>Interestingly enough, Cisco's IronPort uses Sophos, McAfee, and Trend for scanning email. They decided they could do better by licensing they spam/virus filters that rolling out their own. I like the idea of leveraging multiple vendors for this kind of work - belt, suspenders, and a jumpsuit...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really .
Think of it like beta testers , or even better - neutral sensors .
They are n't paying for the service , so they ca n't call your helpdesk and bitch about its effectiveness or about that one spam message that really offended them.McAfee gets millions of email accounts to monitor and use as sensors for new spam , allowing them to gather that data , crunch it , and redistribute the new spam identifcation data to their own paying customers , including gmail.This allows them to be more accurate and have better feedback on how their spam filtration is doing.Bigger the sensor net - the better your product , as a rule of thumb anyway .
Leave it to McAfee to fuck it all up though.Interestingly enough , Cisco 's IronPort uses Sophos , McAfee , and Trend for scanning email .
They decided they could do better by licensing they spam/virus filters that rolling out their own .
I like the idea of leveraging multiple vendors for this kind of work - belt , suspenders , and a jumpsuit.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.
Think of it like beta testers, or even better - neutral sensors.
They aren't paying for the service, so they can't call your helpdesk and bitch about its effectiveness or about that one spam message that really offended them.McAfee gets millions of email accounts to monitor and use as sensors for new spam, allowing them to gather that data, crunch it, and redistribute the new spam identifcation data to their own paying customers, including gmail.This allows them to be more accurate and have better feedback on how their spam filtration is doing.Bigger the sensor net - the better your product, as a rule of thumb anyway.
Leave it to McAfee to fuck it all up though.Interestingly enough, Cisco's IronPort uses Sophos, McAfee, and Trend for scanning email.
They decided they could do better by licensing they spam/virus filters that rolling out their own.
I like the idea of leveraging multiple vendors for this kind of work - belt, suspenders, and a jumpsuit...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588809</id>
	<title>Re:Don't care how they do it..</title>
	<author>jo42</author>
	<datestamp>1246790220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Don't care how they do it..</p></div><p>Then I suggest that you don't really belong on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't care how they do it..Then I suggest that you do n't really belong on / .
.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't care how they do it..Then I suggest that you don't really belong on /.
...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28592977</id>
	<title>I am a Heavy Gmail User.</title>
	<author>eBayDoug</author>
	<datestamp>1246885560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They seem to do a great job catching spam. I curious as to why they still bother "sending" the majority of the reported spam? After 5000 people report a spam email as such, why does the spam mail still need to be sent to my spam folder?</htmltext>
<tokenext>They seem to do a great job catching spam .
I curious as to why they still bother " sending " the majority of the reported spam ?
After 5000 people report a spam email as such , why does the spam mail still need to be sent to my spam folder ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They seem to do a great job catching spam.
I curious as to why they still bother "sending" the majority of the reported spam?
After 5000 people report a spam email as such, why does the spam mail still need to be sent to my spam folder?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28591355</id>
	<title>Is Google complicit in spam?</title>
	<author>msblack</author>
	<datestamp>1246819500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it very strange that my Gmail account received so much spam long before I ever started actively using it. It's not like me e-mail address is made up of one or two words. I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone would possibly guess my e-mail address (two letters plus an uncommon word). I'm guessing someone got a hold of their user list. Anyhow, their spam filter is fairly accurate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it very strange that my Gmail account received so much spam long before I ever started actively using it .
It 's not like me e-mail address is made up of one or two words .
I can not for the life of me understand how anyone would possibly guess my e-mail address ( two letters plus an uncommon word ) .
I 'm guessing someone got a hold of their user list .
Anyhow , their spam filter is fairly accurate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it very strange that my Gmail account received so much spam long before I ever started actively using it.
It's not like me e-mail address is made up of one or two words.
I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone would possibly guess my e-mail address (two letters plus an uncommon word).
I'm guessing someone got a hold of their user list.
Anyhow, their spam filter is fairly accurate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28594021</id>
	<title>Re: I do care how it works</title>
	<author>Ash Vince</author>
	<datestamp>1246892580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...because it's actually not working - Gmail spam filter recently became very ineffective - i have to classify about 5-10 Viagra spams daily. (Google, have you heard of it? geez!) then it occurred to me that a while ago Gmail captcha was cracked, so I imagine spammers send themselves hundreds of spams only to classify them as "non-spam". - as a consequence, spams are now slipping through the crowd-sourced filter because the crowd is infiltrated. c'mon google this can't possibly that hard to fix!</p></div><p>Actually I think they already have. I noticed the same thing only I was receiving a far greater volume. I think I suddenly went to a couple of hundred emails per day, some getting as far as my spam folder, some getting in to my inbox. Now just this weekend I noticed that this has now ceased and the number in my spam folder is working its way back down as they are deleted.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...because it 's actually not working - Gmail spam filter recently became very ineffective - i have to classify about 5-10 Viagra spams daily .
( Google , have you heard of it ?
geez ! ) then it occurred to me that a while ago Gmail captcha was cracked , so I imagine spammers send themselves hundreds of spams only to classify them as " non-spam " .
- as a consequence , spams are now slipping through the crowd-sourced filter because the crowd is infiltrated .
c'mon google this ca n't possibly that hard to fix ! Actually I think they already have .
I noticed the same thing only I was receiving a far greater volume .
I think I suddenly went to a couple of hundred emails per day , some getting as far as my spam folder , some getting in to my inbox .
Now just this weekend I noticed that this has now ceased and the number in my spam folder is working its way back down as they are deleted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...because it's actually not working - Gmail spam filter recently became very ineffective - i have to classify about 5-10 Viagra spams daily.
(Google, have you heard of it?
geez!) then it occurred to me that a while ago Gmail captcha was cracked, so I imagine spammers send themselves hundreds of spams only to classify them as "non-spam".
- as a consequence, spams are now slipping through the crowd-sourced filter because the crowd is infiltrated.
c'mon google this can't possibly that hard to fix!Actually I think they already have.
I noticed the same thing only I was receiving a far greater volume.
I think I suddenly went to a couple of hundred emails per day, some getting as far as my spam folder, some getting in to my inbox.
Now just this weekend I noticed that this has now ceased and the number in my spam folder is working its way back down as they are deleted.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589261</id>
	<title>Re:now am worried !!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246794960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>150 milliseconds sounds fast, but equates to only 7 messages per second.</p><p>Sure that may be faster, presuming it's a deep intensive scan, than what one can do on their home PC, and yes Google has zillions of boxes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but anyways, my point is that 7 messages per second illustrates the very real, high cost of dealing with spam; scanning of just a million messages, which is a fraction of the spam volume, at 7 messages per second, takes well over a day of computer time.</p><p>Ron</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>150 milliseconds sounds fast , but equates to only 7 messages per second.Sure that may be faster , presuming it 's a deep intensive scan , than what one can do on their home PC , and yes Google has zillions of boxes ... but anyways , my point is that 7 messages per second illustrates the very real , high cost of dealing with spam ; scanning of just a million messages , which is a fraction of the spam volume , at 7 messages per second , takes well over a day of computer time.Ron</tokentext>
<sentencetext>150 milliseconds sounds fast, but equates to only 7 messages per second.Sure that may be faster, presuming it's a deep intensive scan, than what one can do on their home PC, and yes Google has zillions of boxes ... but anyways, my point is that 7 messages per second illustrates the very real, high cost of dealing with spam; scanning of just a million messages, which is a fraction of the spam volume, at 7 messages per second, takes well over a day of computer time.Ron</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28591881</id>
	<title>Re:But what about spam from "me"?</title>
	<author>Serious Callers Only</author>
	<datestamp>1246913100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's a perfectly legitimate (and common) for non-webmail users to have their outgoing server be their local ISP. So if google did what you're suggesting, all those people that use an IMAP client to receive their gmail, and send via their ISP wouldn't be able to send to other gmail users</p></div><p>This does not make it legitimate (though it may be common) to forge the From address line. They should use Reply To if they want to send <b>From</b> another address/mail server, and have replies to go their gmail account.</p><p>If you want to send with the correct From header, you should be using secured email and sending via the gmail servers (SMTP is the protocol used in any case). No ISPs I know of block the ports for secured email, so you can easily send via the google servers.</p><p>Forged From headers are a big problem for naive users (who think that spam message really did come from their account, or from msn.com etc), and google would be correct to ban those purporting to come from their server - they could at least offer the option to do this, so that I could stop spammers forging my from address with impunity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a perfectly legitimate ( and common ) for non-webmail users to have their outgoing server be their local ISP .
So if google did what you 're suggesting , all those people that use an IMAP client to receive their gmail , and send via their ISP would n't be able to send to other gmail usersThis does not make it legitimate ( though it may be common ) to forge the From address line .
They should use Reply To if they want to send From another address/mail server , and have replies to go their gmail account.If you want to send with the correct From header , you should be using secured email and sending via the gmail servers ( SMTP is the protocol used in any case ) .
No ISPs I know of block the ports for secured email , so you can easily send via the google servers.Forged From headers are a big problem for naive users ( who think that spam message really did come from their account , or from msn.com etc ) , and google would be correct to ban those purporting to come from their server - they could at least offer the option to do this , so that I could stop spammers forging my from address with impunity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a perfectly legitimate (and common) for non-webmail users to have their outgoing server be their local ISP.
So if google did what you're suggesting, all those people that use an IMAP client to receive their gmail, and send via their ISP wouldn't be able to send to other gmail usersThis does not make it legitimate (though it may be common) to forge the From address line.
They should use Reply To if they want to send From another address/mail server, and have replies to go their gmail account.If you want to send with the correct From header, you should be using secured email and sending via the gmail servers (SMTP is the protocol used in any case).
No ISPs I know of block the ports for secured email, so you can easily send via the google servers.Forged From headers are a big problem for naive users (who think that spam message really did come from their account, or from msn.com etc), and google would be correct to ban those purporting to come from their server - they could at least offer the option to do this, so that I could stop spammers forging my from address with impunity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28600737</id>
	<title>Re:now am worried !!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246879800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ron,<br>You are an idiot.</p><p>Not only is 1000/150 =  6.6666666 but you need to consider concurrent connections.  I would GUESS Google's concurrent SMTP connections to be 80/server.  So 1000*80/150= 533.33333 messages/sec or over 46million messages/day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ron,You are an idiot.Not only is 1000/150 = 6.6666666 but you need to consider concurrent connections .
I would GUESS Google 's concurrent SMTP connections to be 80/server .
So 1000 * 80/150 = 533.33333 messages/sec or over 46million messages/day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ron,You are an idiot.Not only is 1000/150 =  6.6666666 but you need to consider concurrent connections.
I would GUESS Google's concurrent SMTP connections to be 80/server.
So 1000*80/150= 533.33333 messages/sec or over 46million messages/day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28590273</id>
	<title>No spam at all</title>
	<author>Kiuas</author>
	<datestamp>1246807560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have had two gmail accounts for a couple years now. One of them has my name on it (in the form of: "firstname.lastname@gmail.com") and the other is a nick (not the same as my<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. one) that I often use in forums/games. Curiosuly enough, neither of these accounts gets any spam at all. And by this I don't mean that the spam filters are effective because there is no to be filtered. I can understand that my name based account doesn't get spam, after all I rarely give it out to anyone except people I know in person and very important sites (mostly web-stores that require my full name anyways) that I trust.  However, I use my nick based email on nearly all forums and sites that require an email address during registration and despite that, I only get mail from those sites. No unwanted viagra adds or anything. Now I know from earlier comments and stories such as this that spam is a huge problem to many people. So am I just incredibly lucky? I honestly don't know.</p><p>The only thing I have consciously done to avoid being spammed is that I have never typed my adress directly to any forum post/site. In fact, most forums allow you to hide the email address, and even the sites that option of sending email to other users usually require registration to see the adress and have methods such as CAPTCHAS in place to prevent bots from getting in to harvest the addresses. If somebody asks for my email I'll just send it to them via private message or similar method instead of leaving it "in public view".</p><p>Like I said, I have no idea if I'm just lucky or something, but spam has never been a problem for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have had two gmail accounts for a couple years now .
One of them has my name on it ( in the form of : " firstname.lastname @ gmail.com " ) and the other is a nick ( not the same as my / .
one ) that I often use in forums/games .
Curiosuly enough , neither of these accounts gets any spam at all .
And by this I do n't mean that the spam filters are effective because there is no to be filtered .
I can understand that my name based account does n't get spam , after all I rarely give it out to anyone except people I know in person and very important sites ( mostly web-stores that require my full name anyways ) that I trust .
However , I use my nick based email on nearly all forums and sites that require an email address during registration and despite that , I only get mail from those sites .
No unwanted viagra adds or anything .
Now I know from earlier comments and stories such as this that spam is a huge problem to many people .
So am I just incredibly lucky ?
I honestly do n't know.The only thing I have consciously done to avoid being spammed is that I have never typed my adress directly to any forum post/site .
In fact , most forums allow you to hide the email address , and even the sites that option of sending email to other users usually require registration to see the adress and have methods such as CAPTCHAS in place to prevent bots from getting in to harvest the addresses .
If somebody asks for my email I 'll just send it to them via private message or similar method instead of leaving it " in public view " .Like I said , I have no idea if I 'm just lucky or something , but spam has never been a problem for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have had two gmail accounts for a couple years now.
One of them has my name on it (in the form of: "firstname.lastname@gmail.com") and the other is a nick (not the same as my /.
one) that I often use in forums/games.
Curiosuly enough, neither of these accounts gets any spam at all.
And by this I don't mean that the spam filters are effective because there is no to be filtered.
I can understand that my name based account doesn't get spam, after all I rarely give it out to anyone except people I know in person and very important sites (mostly web-stores that require my full name anyways) that I trust.
However, I use my nick based email on nearly all forums and sites that require an email address during registration and despite that, I only get mail from those sites.
No unwanted viagra adds or anything.
Now I know from earlier comments and stories such as this that spam is a huge problem to many people.
So am I just incredibly lucky?
I honestly don't know.The only thing I have consciously done to avoid being spammed is that I have never typed my adress directly to any forum post/site.
In fact, most forums allow you to hide the email address, and even the sites that option of sending email to other users usually require registration to see the adress and have methods such as CAPTCHAS in place to prevent bots from getting in to harvest the addresses.
If somebody asks for my email I'll just send it to them via private message or similar method instead of leaving it "in public view".Like I said, I have no idea if I'm just lucky or something, but spam has never been a problem for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588673</id>
	<title>But what about spam from "me"?</title>
	<author>Peaquod</author>
	<datestamp>1246789020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least 75\% of my spam is addressed as though it was sent from *my* gmail account.  Of course, it's easy to set up a filter to reject all such spam, but then I lose the ability to send reminder messages to myself.  Seems like it would be extraordinarily simple for google to outright reject messages that claim to be sent from their servers that in fact were not.  I sure wish they would!</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least 75 \ % of my spam is addressed as though it was sent from * my * gmail account .
Of course , it 's easy to set up a filter to reject all such spam , but then I lose the ability to send reminder messages to myself .
Seems like it would be extraordinarily simple for google to outright reject messages that claim to be sent from their servers that in fact were not .
I sure wish they would !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least 75\% of my spam is addressed as though it was sent from *my* gmail account.
Of course, it's easy to set up a filter to reject all such spam, but then I lose the ability to send reminder messages to myself.
Seems like it would be extraordinarily simple for google to outright reject messages that claim to be sent from their servers that in fact were not.
I sure wish they would!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589513</id>
	<title>Re:Don't care how they do it..</title>
	<author>trawg</author>
	<datestamp>1246798200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, what Bayesian filter are you using that is only giving you a 20\% catch rate?</p><p>I'm using <a href="http://spambayes.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net">spambayes</a> [sourceforge.net] (a pop3 proxy) and I would estimate it catches well above 95\% of my spam. My inbox would be utterly unusable without it.</p><p>It requires some training - the more training you give it and the more religious you are, the better it works. I've trained it on around 3000 ham and 3000 spam messages and it is incredibly accurate (almost scarily, sometimes) at catching spam. False positives are extremely low - here's the stats it reports:</p><p>SpamBayes has processed 114790 messages - 56469 (49\%) good, 54032 (47\%) spam and 4289 (3\%) unsure.<br>2328 messages were manually classified as good (2 were false positives).<br>2483 messages were manually classified as spam (829 were false negatives).<br>34 unsure messages were manually identified as good, and 1583 as spam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , what Bayesian filter are you using that is only giving you a 20 \ % catch rate ? I 'm using spambayes [ sourceforge.net ] ( a pop3 proxy ) and I would estimate it catches well above 95 \ % of my spam .
My inbox would be utterly unusable without it.It requires some training - the more training you give it and the more religious you are , the better it works .
I 've trained it on around 3000 ham and 3000 spam messages and it is incredibly accurate ( almost scarily , sometimes ) at catching spam .
False positives are extremely low - here 's the stats it reports : SpamBayes has processed 114790 messages - 56469 ( 49 \ % ) good , 54032 ( 47 \ % ) spam and 4289 ( 3 \ % ) unsure.2328 messages were manually classified as good ( 2 were false positives ) .2483 messages were manually classified as spam ( 829 were false negatives ) .34 unsure messages were manually identified as good , and 1583 as spam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, what Bayesian filter are you using that is only giving you a 20\% catch rate?I'm using spambayes [sourceforge.net] (a pop3 proxy) and I would estimate it catches well above 95\% of my spam.
My inbox would be utterly unusable without it.It requires some training - the more training you give it and the more religious you are, the better it works.
I've trained it on around 3000 ham and 3000 spam messages and it is incredibly accurate (almost scarily, sometimes) at catching spam.
False positives are extremely low - here's the stats it reports:SpamBayes has processed 114790 messages - 56469 (49\%) good, 54032 (47\%) spam and 4289 (3\%) unsure.2328 messages were manually classified as good (2 were false positives).2483 messages were manually classified as spam (829 were false negatives).34 unsure messages were manually identified as good, and 1583 as spam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28593551</id>
	<title>It's the users, stupid</title>
	<author>quasigenx</author>
	<datestamp>1246889760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gmail's biggest advantage is sheer number of users, not the actual technology. Their filtering would be pretty effective if all they did was learn from their users hitting the spam button.

If you get a spam into your inbox, chances are that hundreds or maybe thousands of other gmail users read that message before you and marked it as spam. After a certain number of these manual filtering events, Gmail can simply blow it out of all other mailboxes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gmail 's biggest advantage is sheer number of users , not the actual technology .
Their filtering would be pretty effective if all they did was learn from their users hitting the spam button .
If you get a spam into your inbox , chances are that hundreds or maybe thousands of other gmail users read that message before you and marked it as spam .
After a certain number of these manual filtering events , Gmail can simply blow it out of all other mailboxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gmail's biggest advantage is sheer number of users, not the actual technology.
Their filtering would be pretty effective if all they did was learn from their users hitting the spam button.
If you get a spam into your inbox, chances are that hundreds or maybe thousands of other gmail users read that message before you and marked it as spam.
After a certain number of these manual filtering events, Gmail can simply blow it out of all other mailboxes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588687</id>
	<title>now am worried !!</title>
	<author>alsmair</author>
	<datestamp>1246789080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext> <p><div class="quote"><p>It takes an average of 150 milliseconds for a message to be scanned by the antivirus engines that Postini licenses from<b> McAfee</b></p> </div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It takes an average of 150 milliseconds for a message to be scanned by the antivirus engines that Postini licenses from McAfee</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It takes an average of 150 milliseconds for a message to be scanned by the antivirus engines that Postini licenses from McAfee 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28591303</id>
	<title>What is your mail average in your spam's folder?</title>
	<author>KamuZ</author>
	<datestamp>1246819020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My folder have an average of 3,800.

What about yours?

<a href="http://i44.tinypic.com/2j4vd76.jpg" title="tinypic.com" rel="nofollow">http://i44.tinypic.com/2j4vd76.jpg</a> [tinypic.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>My folder have an average of 3,800 .
What about yours ?
http : //i44.tinypic.com/2j4vd76.jpg [ tinypic.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My folder have an average of 3,800.
What about yours?
http://i44.tinypic.com/2j4vd76.jpg [tinypic.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589067</id>
	<title>Re:Postini may or may not work,</title>
	<author>hannson</author>
	<datestamp>1246792740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi</p><p>I like money<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Please reply to this message with your contact information</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HiI like money : ) Please reply to this message with your contact information</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HiI like money :)Please reply to this message with your contact information</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588471</id>
	<title>Yawn...</title>
	<author>Linker3000</author>
	<datestamp>1246786920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...has a quick look and goes back to catching up with news on the MailScanner mailing list.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...has a quick look and goes back to catching up with news on the MailScanner mailing list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...has a quick look and goes back to catching up with news on the MailScanner mailing list.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589035</id>
	<title>Re:"Postini" - why I use my own mail server</title>
	<author>ei4anb</author>
	<datestamp>1246792200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I use SSL/TLS encryption on my SMTP traffic using STARTTLS. The reason is a long story but it has to do with my work in infosec. So I run my own mail server with STARTTLS configured. After having the same problem with their anal spam blocks I too had to set up a special mail route for anything to gmail to go via my ISPs mail relay.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use SSL/TLS encryption on my SMTP traffic using STARTTLS .
The reason is a long story but it has to do with my work in infosec .
So I run my own mail server with STARTTLS configured .
After having the same problem with their anal spam blocks I too had to set up a special mail route for anything to gmail to go via my ISPs mail relay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use SSL/TLS encryption on my SMTP traffic using STARTTLS.
The reason is a long story but it has to do with my work in infosec.
So I run my own mail server with STARTTLS configured.
After having the same problem with their anal spam blocks I too had to set up a special mail route for anything to gmail to go via my ISPs mail relay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588565</id>
	<title>better then their fishing 'algorithm'</title>
	<author>cliffski</author>
	<datestamp>1246787820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>part of gmails phishing filter seems to do this</p><p>if(hyperlink in email ends in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.exe)<br>{<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; isphishing = true.<br>}</p><p>Even if this is an email from someone in your whitelist and is merely quoting text from your own message you sent them.<br>And there seems to be NO way to prevent a message with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.exe in it to be marked this way<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>part of gmails phishing filter seems to do thisif ( hyperlink in email ends in .exe ) {     isphishing = true .
} Even if this is an email from someone in your whitelist and is merely quoting text from your own message you sent them.And there seems to be NO way to prevent a message with .exe in it to be marked this way : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>part of gmails phishing filter seems to do thisif(hyperlink in email ends in .exe){
    isphishing = true.
}Even if this is an email from someone in your whitelist and is merely quoting text from your own message you sent them.And there seems to be NO way to prevent a message with .exe in it to be marked this way :(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28591685</id>
	<title>Re:But what about spam from "me"?</title>
	<author>binaryspiral</author>
	<datestamp>1246823640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Keep in mind:<br>It's a perfectly legitimate (and common) for non-webmail users to have their outgoing server be their local ISP.  So if google did what you're suggesting, all those people that use an IMAP client to receive their gmail, and send via their ISP wouldn't be able to send to other gmail users</p></div><p>Also keep in mind, Google is actively marketing their email services to ISPs... many ISPs are using GMail for their email services.</p><p>Mine switched from an internal co-located email service to completely outsourced Gmail based, ISP branded email solution in less than a month. They lost a lot of control - but saved a metric shit-ton of cash in the process.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep in mind : It 's a perfectly legitimate ( and common ) for non-webmail users to have their outgoing server be their local ISP .
So if google did what you 're suggesting , all those people that use an IMAP client to receive their gmail , and send via their ISP would n't be able to send to other gmail usersAlso keep in mind , Google is actively marketing their email services to ISPs... many ISPs are using GMail for their email services.Mine switched from an internal co-located email service to completely outsourced Gmail based , ISP branded email solution in less than a month .
They lost a lot of control - but saved a metric shit-ton of cash in the process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep in mind:It's a perfectly legitimate (and common) for non-webmail users to have their outgoing server be their local ISP.
So if google did what you're suggesting, all those people that use an IMAP client to receive their gmail, and send via their ISP wouldn't be able to send to other gmail usersAlso keep in mind, Google is actively marketing their email services to ISPs... many ISPs are using GMail for their email services.Mine switched from an internal co-located email service to completely outsourced Gmail based, ISP branded email solution in less than a month.
They lost a lot of control - but saved a metric shit-ton of cash in the process.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28592501</id>
	<title>Re:Don't care how they do it..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246879140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must not be training your Bayesian filter right. In my experience nothing beats a well maintained Bayesian filter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must not be training your Bayesian filter right .
In my experience nothing beats a well maintained Bayesian filter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must not be training your Bayesian filter right.
In my experience nothing beats a well maintained Bayesian filter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588579</id>
	<title>Spam Poetry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246788060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We go to cinema. Join us.<br>Waiting for a telephone call.<br>Club you asked about.<br>Check this song.</p><p>---</p><p>Is it worth a try?<br>Stop ruining yourself.<br>From Gaston Woodard to me,<br>Buy unexpensive, best price pharmaceutical products online.</p><p>---</p><p>And here's my favorite, Aloha by Josie:</p><p>loss enable smug filth!<br>joy smug. stable smug egress smug? telly comity argue jocose?<br>entail haggle. abbess sleigh dalle filler. loss quid egress.<br>ennui smug put. scrap stable haggle. focal terse.<br>furore pirn spur uptake? tower alert dagger tower! pinto abbess.<br>tother diver tower solar! jocose solar lower juicy. proem common pant.<br>enable today whack juicy! winy bane juicy. jocose sleigh drill uptake.<br>hern haggle khan abbess? enable common pant egress! sinewy ennui.<br>focal robin tower potto. paid jocose legal hunch. parish whack loss paid?<br>tother brooch tower lower! metope tendon. scrap boh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We go to cinema .
Join us.Waiting for a telephone call.Club you asked about.Check this song.---Is it worth a try ? Stop ruining yourself.From Gaston Woodard to me,Buy unexpensive , best price pharmaceutical products online.---And here 's my favorite , Aloha by Josie : loss enable smug filth ! joy smug .
stable smug egress smug ?
telly comity argue jocose ? entail haggle .
abbess sleigh dalle filler .
loss quid egress.ennui smug put .
scrap stable haggle .
focal terse.furore pirn spur uptake ?
tower alert dagger tower !
pinto abbess.tother diver tower solar !
jocose solar lower juicy .
proem common pant.enable today whack juicy !
winy bane juicy .
jocose sleigh drill uptake.hern haggle khan abbess ?
enable common pant egress !
sinewy ennui.focal robin tower potto .
paid jocose legal hunch .
parish whack loss paid ? tother brooch tower lower !
metope tendon .
scrap boh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We go to cinema.
Join us.Waiting for a telephone call.Club you asked about.Check this song.---Is it worth a try?Stop ruining yourself.From Gaston Woodard to me,Buy unexpensive, best price pharmaceutical products online.---And here's my favorite, Aloha by Josie:loss enable smug filth!joy smug.
stable smug egress smug?
telly comity argue jocose?entail haggle.
abbess sleigh dalle filler.
loss quid egress.ennui smug put.
scrap stable haggle.
focal terse.furore pirn spur uptake?
tower alert dagger tower!
pinto abbess.tother diver tower solar!
jocose solar lower juicy.
proem common pant.enable today whack juicy!
winy bane juicy.
jocose sleigh drill uptake.hern haggle khan abbess?
enable common pant egress!
sinewy ennui.focal robin tower potto.
paid jocose legal hunch.
parish whack loss paid?tother brooch tower lower!
metope tendon.
scrap boh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589809</id>
	<title>Re:"Postini"?</title>
	<author>Cadre</author>
	<datestamp>1246801620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are definitely not alone. I'm having the same issue with Google. I have my domain hosted with a very popular hosting company. I have correct SPF records. I have domain keys. I am not on any blacklists. Though quite often email sent to Google will get filed into people's spam boxes and I'll have to tell them they need to go digging through it and click the not-spam button.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are definitely not alone .
I 'm having the same issue with Google .
I have my domain hosted with a very popular hosting company .
I have correct SPF records .
I have domain keys .
I am not on any blacklists .
Though quite often email sent to Google will get filed into people 's spam boxes and I 'll have to tell them they need to go digging through it and click the not-spam button .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are definitely not alone.
I'm having the same issue with Google.
I have my domain hosted with a very popular hosting company.
I have correct SPF records.
I have domain keys.
I am not on any blacklists.
Though quite often email sent to Google will get filed into people's spam boxes and I'll have to tell them they need to go digging through it and click the not-spam button.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28590103</id>
	<title>Re:But what about spam from "me"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246805220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As far as I know, gmail doesn't let you send emails to yourself- spam filter or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I know , gmail does n't let you send emails to yourself- spam filter or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I know, gmail doesn't let you send emails to yourself- spam filter or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28593573</id>
	<title>But no SPF</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246889880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Postini's service is 'nice' but not great.  SpamAssassin still blows it away.  Why on earth do I receive 'viagra' sales emails from my co-workers?  Oh right because user@domain.com can email user@domain.com even with SPF.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Postini 's service is 'nice ' but not great .
SpamAssassin still blows it away .
Why on earth do I receive 'viagra ' sales emails from my co-workers ?
Oh right because user @ domain.com can email user @ domain.com even with SPF .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Postini's service is 'nice' but not great.
SpamAssassin still blows it away.
Why on earth do I receive 'viagra' sales emails from my co-workers?
Oh right because user@domain.com can email user@domain.com even with SPF.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588939</id>
	<title>Re:Don't care how they do it..</title>
	<author>Threni</author>
	<datestamp>1246791420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I get loads more spam than I used to.  Something broke in Google's spam prevention about 4 months or so ago, and it's not been fixed yet.  I redirect my email to my phone, where I get a notification of new email, and I've had to turn the sound and vibrate alert off because I got too much spam coming through.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I get loads more spam than I used to .
Something broke in Google 's spam prevention about 4 months or so ago , and it 's not been fixed yet .
I redirect my email to my phone , where I get a notification of new email , and I 've had to turn the sound and vibrate alert off because I got too much spam coming through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get loads more spam than I used to.
Something broke in Google's spam prevention about 4 months or so ago, and it's not been fixed yet.
I redirect my email to my phone, where I get a notification of new email, and I've had to turn the sound and vibrate alert off because I got too much spam coming through.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589533</id>
	<title>SPAM volume patterns</title>
	<author>flyingfsck</author>
	<datestamp>1246798440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I find telling is how my SPAM volume rises and falls according to the American holidays.  Whenever the Yanks have a holiday, SPAM drops to a trickle.</p><p>That to me is a clear indication that most SPAM originates in the US even though it mostly gets relayed through Asian proxies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I find telling is how my SPAM volume rises and falls according to the American holidays .
Whenever the Yanks have a holiday , SPAM drops to a trickle.That to me is a clear indication that most SPAM originates in the US even though it mostly gets relayed through Asian proxies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I find telling is how my SPAM volume rises and falls according to the American holidays.
Whenever the Yanks have a holiday, SPAM drops to a trickle.That to me is a clear indication that most SPAM originates in the US even though it mostly gets relayed through Asian proxies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589875</id>
	<title>150ms per message is a joke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246802460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry but my laptop can do it faster when using something like <a href="http://crm114.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net" rel="nofollow">CRM114</a> [sourceforge.net] or <a href="http://dspam.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net" rel="nofollow">DSPAM</a> [sourceforge.net].</p><p>When ever I see those wild claims how good and accurate a commercial service or filter is, then I get reminded on the excellent text written in 2005 by Jonathan A. Zdziarski called <a href="http://www.zdziarski.com/papers/justifying.html" title="zdziarski.com" rel="nofollow">Justifying Statistical Filtering</a> [zdziarski.com].<br>
&nbsp; <br>Postini might be good but I am not letting them decide what spam is and what not. Users have their own opinion and something so static as Postini can not adapt fast/good enough to my needs. And the same goes for the other services like MXLogic, SpamSpy, MessageLabs, Barracuda, IronPort and all the others out there.<br>
&nbsp; <br>And why paying money when I can have better for free?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry but my laptop can do it faster when using something like CRM114 [ sourceforge.net ] or DSPAM [ sourceforge.net ] .When ever I see those wild claims how good and accurate a commercial service or filter is , then I get reminded on the excellent text written in 2005 by Jonathan A. Zdziarski called Justifying Statistical Filtering [ zdziarski.com ] .
  Postini might be good but I am not letting them decide what spam is and what not .
Users have their own opinion and something so static as Postini can not adapt fast/good enough to my needs .
And the same goes for the other services like MXLogic , SpamSpy , MessageLabs , Barracuda , IronPort and all the others out there .
  And why paying money when I can have better for free ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry but my laptop can do it faster when using something like CRM114 [sourceforge.net] or DSPAM [sourceforge.net].When ever I see those wild claims how good and accurate a commercial service or filter is, then I get reminded on the excellent text written in 2005 by Jonathan A. Zdziarski called Justifying Statistical Filtering [zdziarski.com].
  Postini might be good but I am not letting them decide what spam is and what not.
Users have their own opinion and something so static as Postini can not adapt fast/good enough to my needs.
And the same goes for the other services like MXLogic, SpamSpy, MessageLabs, Barracuda, IronPort and all the others out there.
  And why paying money when I can have better for free?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588983</id>
	<title>Spam is getting through,</title>
	<author>Colourspace</author>
	<datestamp>1246791780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't know about anyone else... I've been with gmail since it really *was* a beta, and it has been pretty good about not letting spam through. Past couple of months though and I have been getting three to four a day through. Are the spammers getting better or is the filter getting worse?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't know about anyone else... I 've been with gmail since it really * was * a beta , and it has been pretty good about not letting spam through .
Past couple of months though and I have been getting three to four a day through .
Are the spammers getting better or is the filter getting worse ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't know about anyone else... I've been with gmail since it really *was* a beta, and it has been pretty good about not letting spam through.
Past couple of months though and I have been getting three to four a day through.
Are the spammers getting better or is the filter getting worse?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28594093</id>
	<title>Most decent-sized companies</title>
	<author>SCHecklerX</author>
	<datestamp>1246893000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...are better off doing their own solution using a combination of sendmail, mimedefang, spamassassin, and greylisting.  If you are big enough to 'need' postini, you likely have a staff that can do it better themselves using open tools and tuning that solution to your particular environment.  But nowadays, nobody wants to hire competent staff, it seems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...are better off doing their own solution using a combination of sendmail , mimedefang , spamassassin , and greylisting .
If you are big enough to 'need ' postini , you likely have a staff that can do it better themselves using open tools and tuning that solution to your particular environment .
But nowadays , nobody wants to hire competent staff , it seems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...are better off doing their own solution using a combination of sendmail, mimedefang, spamassassin, and greylisting.
If you are big enough to 'need' postini, you likely have a staff that can do it better themselves using open tools and tuning that solution to your particular environment.
But nowadays, nobody wants to hire competent staff, it seems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28590883</id>
	<title>Re:Don't care how they do it..</title>
	<author>Glonoinha</author>
	<datestamp>1246815060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Beyond the obvious keyword flags (any various drug names and the various ways to spell mortgage) I have three pretty simple rules :<br>1. If it has invalid html tags in the text, it is probably spam.<br>2. If the originating IP address isn't from within the US, it is probably spam.<br>3. If my email address isn't the only email address the email was sent to, it is probably spam.  Anybody who emails me knows that if it isn't worth sending me my very own copy, it probably isn't worth me reading either.</p><p>Honestly for me though, gmail filtering has been very, very good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Beyond the obvious keyword flags ( any various drug names and the various ways to spell mortgage ) I have three pretty simple rules : 1 .
If it has invalid html tags in the text , it is probably spam.2 .
If the originating IP address is n't from within the US , it is probably spam.3 .
If my email address is n't the only email address the email was sent to , it is probably spam .
Anybody who emails me knows that if it is n't worth sending me my very own copy , it probably is n't worth me reading either.Honestly for me though , gmail filtering has been very , very good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Beyond the obvious keyword flags (any various drug names and the various ways to spell mortgage) I have three pretty simple rules :1.
If it has invalid html tags in the text, it is probably spam.2.
If the originating IP address isn't from within the US, it is probably spam.3.
If my email address isn't the only email address the email was sent to, it is probably spam.
Anybody who emails me knows that if it isn't worth sending me my very own copy, it probably isn't worth me reading either.Honestly for me though, gmail filtering has been very, very good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28593847</id>
	<title>Re:now am worried !!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246891740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>layered approach blocks based on IP address range, known bad senders and lastly bad subject lines.</p><p>150ms will be for when it actually needs to read the message content which should be way less that</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>layered approach blocks based on IP address range , known bad senders and lastly bad subject lines.150ms will be for when it actually needs to read the message content which should be way less that</tokentext>
<sentencetext>layered approach blocks based on IP address range, known bad senders and lastly bad subject lines.150ms will be for when it actually needs to read the message content which should be way less that</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588703</id>
	<title>Re:"Postini"?</title>
	<author>icydog</author>
	<datestamp>1246789260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have had a similar experience with Postini, but from a different point of view. I usually use my own mailserver to send emails, and in the beginning I was greylisted and occasionally blocked by a few servers here and there, but after just a few quick emails here and there to ask why I was blocked, I was always promptly unblocked. I just use it for personal email so I'm not sending commercial or bulk emails. And before someone asks, no it's not on a dynamic IP or anything, it's in a fairly large colocation facility.<br> <br>

Google is the only mail service that I know of who still just won't accept my emails. They make it very difficult to contact them. There is a form buried somewhere in their help system, but it says that they won't respond unless they need additional info from you, which leads me to believe that they never actually read anything submitted through that form. (I have tried a few times.) They also specifically say they don't take whitelist requests. I have SPF records, I have correct reverse DNS, I'm not on any blacklists, etc.<br> <br>

This means when I send emails to my friends who use Gmail, or comparies who use Postini, I get blocked without cause. Then I have to use a different server. It's kind of annoying.<br> <br>

(Why do I use my own email server? Because I can. This is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., after all.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have had a similar experience with Postini , but from a different point of view .
I usually use my own mailserver to send emails , and in the beginning I was greylisted and occasionally blocked by a few servers here and there , but after just a few quick emails here and there to ask why I was blocked , I was always promptly unblocked .
I just use it for personal email so I 'm not sending commercial or bulk emails .
And before someone asks , no it 's not on a dynamic IP or anything , it 's in a fairly large colocation facility .
Google is the only mail service that I know of who still just wo n't accept my emails .
They make it very difficult to contact them .
There is a form buried somewhere in their help system , but it says that they wo n't respond unless they need additional info from you , which leads me to believe that they never actually read anything submitted through that form .
( I have tried a few times .
) They also specifically say they do n't take whitelist requests .
I have SPF records , I have correct reverse DNS , I 'm not on any blacklists , etc .
This means when I send emails to my friends who use Gmail , or comparies who use Postini , I get blocked without cause .
Then I have to use a different server .
It 's kind of annoying .
( Why do I use my own email server ?
Because I can .
This is /. , after all .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have had a similar experience with Postini, but from a different point of view.
I usually use my own mailserver to send emails, and in the beginning I was greylisted and occasionally blocked by a few servers here and there, but after just a few quick emails here and there to ask why I was blocked, I was always promptly unblocked.
I just use it for personal email so I'm not sending commercial or bulk emails.
And before someone asks, no it's not on a dynamic IP or anything, it's in a fairly large colocation facility.
Google is the only mail service that I know of who still just won't accept my emails.
They make it very difficult to contact them.
There is a form buried somewhere in their help system, but it says that they won't respond unless they need additional info from you, which leads me to believe that they never actually read anything submitted through that form.
(I have tried a few times.
) They also specifically say they don't take whitelist requests.
I have SPF records, I have correct reverse DNS, I'm not on any blacklists, etc.
This means when I send emails to my friends who use Gmail, or comparies who use Postini, I get blocked without cause.
Then I have to use a different server.
It's kind of annoying.
(Why do I use my own email server?
Because I can.
This is /., after all.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589407</id>
	<title>Re:"Postini"?</title>
	<author>d7415</author>
	<datestamp>1246797060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't permanently delete from a search - it all ends up in the bin unless you delete it from the spam folder view.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't permanently delete from a search - it all ends up in the bin unless you delete it from the spam folder view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't permanently delete from a search - it all ends up in the bin unless you delete it from the spam folder view.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588487</id>
	<title>Postini may or may not work,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246787040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but what I really want to tell you is that I've inherited a great deal of money and I need someone to help me transfer it to the US. I live in Nigeria. You all seem to be great gentleman, so I will pay appropiately.</p><p>Contact me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but what I really want to tell you is that I 've inherited a great deal of money and I need someone to help me transfer it to the US .
I live in Nigeria .
You all seem to be great gentleman , so I will pay appropiately.Contact me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but what I really want to tell you is that I've inherited a great deal of money and I need someone to help me transfer it to the US.
I live in Nigeria.
You all seem to be great gentleman, so I will pay appropiately.Contact me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589457</id>
	<title>Re:Don't care how they do it..</title>
	<author>fullfactorial</author>
	<datestamp>1246797660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's see...  200-300 spams a day, 1:100 legit-to-spam ratio....You only get 3 legit emails a day?</p><p>You need more friends!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see... 200-300 spams a day , 1 : 100 legit-to-spam ratio....You only get 3 legit emails a day ? You need more friends !
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see...  200-300 spams a day, 1:100 legit-to-spam ratio....You only get 3 legit emails a day?You need more friends!
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588399</id>
	<title>yawn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246786260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>postini isnt that great.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>postini isnt that great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>postini isnt that great.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588833</id>
	<title>How come this is still not always filtered ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246790460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LAGOS, NIGERIA.</p><p>ATTENTION: SLASHDOT USER</p><p>DEAR SIR,</p><p>CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS PROPOSAL</p><p>HAVING CONSULTED WITH MY COLLEAGUES AND BASED ON THE INFORMATION GATHERED FROM THE NIGERIAN CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE TO REQUEST FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE TO TRANSFER THE SUM OF $47,500,000.00 (FORTY SEVEN MILLION, FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND UNITED STATES DOLLARS) INTO YOUR ACCOUNTS. THE ABOVE SUM RESULTED FROM AN OVER-INVOICED CONTRACT, EXECUTED COMMISSIONED AND PAID FOR ABOUT FIVE YEARS (5) AGO BY A FOREIGN CONTRACTOR. THIS ACTION WAS HOWEVER INTENTIONAL AND SINCE THEN THE FUND HAS BEEN IN A SUSPENSE ACCOUNT AT THE CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA APEX BANK.</p><p>WE ARE NOW READY TO TRANSFER THE FUND OVERSEAS AND THAT IS WHERE YOU COME IN. IT IS IMPORTANT TO INFORM YOU THAT AS CIVIL SERVANTS, WE ARE FORBIDDEN TO OPERATE A FOREIGN ACCOUNT; THAT IS WHY WE REQUIRE YOUR ASSISTANCE. THE TOTAL SUM WILL BE SHARED AS FOLLOWS: 70\% FOR US, 25\% FOR YOU AND 5\% FOR LOCAL AND INTERNATIONAL EXPENSES INCIDENT TO THE TRANSFER.</p><p>THE TRANSFER IS RISK FREE ON BOTH SIDES. I AM AN ACCOUNTANT WITH THE NIGERIAN NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION (NNPC). IF YOU FIND THIS PROPOSAL ACCEPTABLE, WE SHALL REQUIRE THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS:</p><p>(A) YOUR BANKER'S NAME, TELEPHONE, ACCOUNT AND FAX NUMBERS.</p><p>(B) YOUR PRIVATE TELEPHONE AND FAX NUMBERS -- FOR CONFIDENTIALITY AND EASY COMMUNICATION.</p><p>(C) YOUR LETTER-HEADED PAPER STAMPED AND SIGNED.</p><p>ALTERNATIVELY WE WILL FURNISH YOU WITH THE TEXT OF WHAT TO TYPE INTO YOUR LETTER-HEADED PAPER, ALONG WITH A BREAKDOWN EXPLAINING, COMPREHENSIVELY WHAT WE REQUIRE OF YOU. THE BUSINESS WILL TAKE US THIRTY (30) WORKING DAYS TO ACCOMPLISH.</p><p>PLEASE REPLY URGENTLY.</p><p>BEST REGARDS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LAGOS , NIGERIA.ATTENTION : SLASHDOT USERDEAR SIR,CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS PROPOSALHAVING CONSULTED WITH MY COLLEAGUES AND BASED ON THE INFORMATION GATHERED FROM THE NIGERIAN CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY , I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE TO REQUEST FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE TO TRANSFER THE SUM OF $ 47,500,000.00 ( FORTY SEVEN MILLION , FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND UNITED STATES DOLLARS ) INTO YOUR ACCOUNTS .
THE ABOVE SUM RESULTED FROM AN OVER-INVOICED CONTRACT , EXECUTED COMMISSIONED AND PAID FOR ABOUT FIVE YEARS ( 5 ) AGO BY A FOREIGN CONTRACTOR .
THIS ACTION WAS HOWEVER INTENTIONAL AND SINCE THEN THE FUND HAS BEEN IN A SUSPENSE ACCOUNT AT THE CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA APEX BANK.WE ARE NOW READY TO TRANSFER THE FUND OVERSEAS AND THAT IS WHERE YOU COME IN .
IT IS IMPORTANT TO INFORM YOU THAT AS CIVIL SERVANTS , WE ARE FORBIDDEN TO OPERATE A FOREIGN ACCOUNT ; THAT IS WHY WE REQUIRE YOUR ASSISTANCE .
THE TOTAL SUM WILL BE SHARED AS FOLLOWS : 70 \ % FOR US , 25 \ % FOR YOU AND 5 \ % FOR LOCAL AND INTERNATIONAL EXPENSES INCIDENT TO THE TRANSFER.THE TRANSFER IS RISK FREE ON BOTH SIDES .
I AM AN ACCOUNTANT WITH THE NIGERIAN NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION ( NNPC ) .
IF YOU FIND THIS PROPOSAL ACCEPTABLE , WE SHALL REQUIRE THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS : ( A ) YOUR BANKER 'S NAME , TELEPHONE , ACCOUNT AND FAX NUMBERS .
( B ) YOUR PRIVATE TELEPHONE AND FAX NUMBERS -- FOR CONFIDENTIALITY AND EASY COMMUNICATION .
( C ) YOUR LETTER-HEADED PAPER STAMPED AND SIGNED.ALTERNATIVELY WE WILL FURNISH YOU WITH THE TEXT OF WHAT TO TYPE INTO YOUR LETTER-HEADED PAPER , ALONG WITH A BREAKDOWN EXPLAINING , COMPREHENSIVELY WHAT WE REQUIRE OF YOU .
THE BUSINESS WILL TAKE US THIRTY ( 30 ) WORKING DAYS TO ACCOMPLISH.PLEASE REPLY URGENTLY.BEST REGARDS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LAGOS, NIGERIA.ATTENTION: SLASHDOT USERDEAR SIR,CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS PROPOSALHAVING CONSULTED WITH MY COLLEAGUES AND BASED ON THE INFORMATION GATHERED FROM THE NIGERIAN CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE TO REQUEST FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE TO TRANSFER THE SUM OF $47,500,000.00 (FORTY SEVEN MILLION, FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND UNITED STATES DOLLARS) INTO YOUR ACCOUNTS.
THE ABOVE SUM RESULTED FROM AN OVER-INVOICED CONTRACT, EXECUTED COMMISSIONED AND PAID FOR ABOUT FIVE YEARS (5) AGO BY A FOREIGN CONTRACTOR.
THIS ACTION WAS HOWEVER INTENTIONAL AND SINCE THEN THE FUND HAS BEEN IN A SUSPENSE ACCOUNT AT THE CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA APEX BANK.WE ARE NOW READY TO TRANSFER THE FUND OVERSEAS AND THAT IS WHERE YOU COME IN.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO INFORM YOU THAT AS CIVIL SERVANTS, WE ARE FORBIDDEN TO OPERATE A FOREIGN ACCOUNT; THAT IS WHY WE REQUIRE YOUR ASSISTANCE.
THE TOTAL SUM WILL BE SHARED AS FOLLOWS: 70\% FOR US, 25\% FOR YOU AND 5\% FOR LOCAL AND INTERNATIONAL EXPENSES INCIDENT TO THE TRANSFER.THE TRANSFER IS RISK FREE ON BOTH SIDES.
I AM AN ACCOUNTANT WITH THE NIGERIAN NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION (NNPC).
IF YOU FIND THIS PROPOSAL ACCEPTABLE, WE SHALL REQUIRE THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS:(A) YOUR BANKER'S NAME, TELEPHONE, ACCOUNT AND FAX NUMBERS.
(B) YOUR PRIVATE TELEPHONE AND FAX NUMBERS -- FOR CONFIDENTIALITY AND EASY COMMUNICATION.
(C) YOUR LETTER-HEADED PAPER STAMPED AND SIGNED.ALTERNATIVELY WE WILL FURNISH YOU WITH THE TEXT OF WHAT TO TYPE INTO YOUR LETTER-HEADED PAPER, ALONG WITH A BREAKDOWN EXPLAINING, COMPREHENSIVELY WHAT WE REQUIRE OF YOU.
THE BUSINESS WILL TAKE US THIRTY (30) WORKING DAYS TO ACCOMPLISH.PLEASE REPLY URGENTLY.BEST REGARDS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589029</id>
	<title>Re:"Postini"?</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1246792200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For what it's worth, Gmail has been just the opposite for me. It's Yahoo and AOL which randomly decide to block me -- sometimes with some cause, sometimes just because it's on a residential connection.</p><p>Yet Gmail never so much as greylists me -- everything goes straight through, every time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For what it 's worth , Gmail has been just the opposite for me .
It 's Yahoo and AOL which randomly decide to block me -- sometimes with some cause , sometimes just because it 's on a residential connection.Yet Gmail never so much as greylists me -- everything goes straight through , every time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For what it's worth, Gmail has been just the opposite for me.
It's Yahoo and AOL which randomly decide to block me -- sometimes with some cause, sometimes just because it's on a residential connection.Yet Gmail never so much as greylists me -- everything goes straight through, every time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588883</id>
	<title>Re:But what about spam from "me"?</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1246790820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could filter your own address and then add another rule for messages with a 'self:' at the beginning of the subject line.</p><p>Not ideal, but some middle ground anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could filter your own address and then add another rule for messages with a 'self : ' at the beginning of the subject line.Not ideal , but some middle ground anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could filter your own address and then add another rule for messages with a 'self:' at the beginning of the subject line.Not ideal, but some middle ground anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589005</id>
	<title>Re:Don't care how they do it..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246792020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Spam is now so bad for me on my home account that I reckon for every 100 messages, only two or three are legitimate contact. I literally get 200-300 spams a day. Bayesian filters will get rid of about 20\%, and rules I've added such as deleting any email with cyrillics or other foreign characters still leave me with 100 or so to delete manually.
<p>
I've set up GMail to filter my email and by comparison I'd say one or two spams get through. So I'm very happy with GMail's level of coverage. It's not perfect but it makes things tolerable. I'm not at all happy with Yahoo's level of coverage. Yahoo allegedly also has spam filters, but I've yet to see they actually work. It's not uncommon to find my email box filled with Nigerian and other scams.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spam is now so bad for me on my home account that I reckon for every 100 messages , only two or three are legitimate contact .
I literally get 200-300 spams a day .
Bayesian filters will get rid of about 20 \ % , and rules I 've added such as deleting any email with cyrillics or other foreign characters still leave me with 100 or so to delete manually .
I 've set up GMail to filter my email and by comparison I 'd say one or two spams get through .
So I 'm very happy with GMail 's level of coverage .
It 's not perfect but it makes things tolerable .
I 'm not at all happy with Yahoo 's level of coverage .
Yahoo allegedly also has spam filters , but I 've yet to see they actually work .
It 's not uncommon to find my email box filled with Nigerian and other scams .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spam is now so bad for me on my home account that I reckon for every 100 messages, only two or three are legitimate contact.
I literally get 200-300 spams a day.
Bayesian filters will get rid of about 20\%, and rules I've added such as deleting any email with cyrillics or other foreign characters still leave me with 100 or so to delete manually.
I've set up GMail to filter my email and by comparison I'd say one or two spams get through.
So I'm very happy with GMail's level of coverage.
It's not perfect but it makes things tolerable.
I'm not at all happy with Yahoo's level of coverage.
Yahoo allegedly also has spam filters, but I've yet to see they actually work.
It's not uncommon to find my email box filled with Nigerian and other scams.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588823</id>
	<title>Re:"Postini"?</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1246790340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>My previous ISP switched me over to Postini with no advance notice</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Who uses their ISP's email/webspace anymore anyway? It makes switching ISPs much more difficult, unless you don't  mind breaking all your old addresses or feeling stuck with your current ISP.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My previous ISP switched me over to Postini with no advance notice Who uses their ISP 's email/webspace anymore anyway ?
It makes switching ISPs much more difficult , unless you do n't mind breaking all your old addresses or feeling stuck with your current ISP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My previous ISP switched me over to Postini with no advance notice
Who uses their ISP's email/webspace anymore anyway?
It makes switching ISPs much more difficult, unless you don't  mind breaking all your old addresses or feeling stuck with your current ISP.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28592437</id>
	<title>Re:Don't care how they do it..</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1246878180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>2 or 3 legit emails per 100 * 200-300 messages = 4-9 legit emails a day. Anyway I don't use my POP3 account for much personal correspondence any more since its too easy for it to be deleted by accident.</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 or 3 legit emails per 100 * 200-300 messages = 4-9 legit emails a day .
Anyway I do n't use my POP3 account for much personal correspondence any more since its too easy for it to be deleted by accident .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2 or 3 legit emails per 100 * 200-300 messages = 4-9 legit emails a day.
Anyway I don't use my POP3 account for much personal correspondence any more since its too easy for it to be deleted by accident.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588613</id>
	<title>It was me!</title>
	<author>Dynamoo</author>
	<datestamp>1246788420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was me who submitted that old<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. story. I'm still with Postini, and it still does the job. The problem? Well, no spam filter is 100\% effective.. and just about every time Postini lets spam through (very rarely), then they phone up the helpdesk irately and say "Postini should have stopped this!".
<p>
So, the product is still great. Tech support has gone downhill though. Anyone who has tried to deal with Google tech support for anything will know how it feels..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was me who submitted that old / .
story. I 'm still with Postini , and it still does the job .
The problem ?
Well , no spam filter is 100 \ % effective.. and just about every time Postini lets spam through ( very rarely ) , then they phone up the helpdesk irately and say " Postini should have stopped this ! " .
So , the product is still great .
Tech support has gone downhill though .
Anyone who has tried to deal with Google tech support for anything will know how it feels. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was me who submitted that old /.
story. I'm still with Postini, and it still does the job.
The problem?
Well, no spam filter is 100\% effective.. and just about every time Postini lets spam through (very rarely), then they phone up the helpdesk irately and say "Postini should have stopped this!".
So, the product is still great.
Tech support has gone downhill though.
Anyone who has tried to deal with Google tech support for anything will know how it feels..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28600789</id>
	<title>Re:Don't care how they do it..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246880040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I now get a couple of shed loads less spam. I used to check the apam directory for false positives. Don't bother doing that either.</p><p>Go gmail<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div><p>It's ok, but not all that different (or better) than other spam solutions.</p><p>One big issue I have, is the way anti-spam companies react to how people use those "this is spam" buttons. 98\% of emails reported by those buttons are NOT spam, and generally consist of either newsletters or collections notices. Most people think "Spam" means "anything I don't want in my mailbox", and when some dickhead reports my bank's collections department because he doesn't want to see the past due mortgage notice, I suddenly stop getting my monthly statement. Pisses me right off, I constantly have to re-whitelist various newsletter, mailers, etc.</p><p>The other thing that bugs me is when they rely on 3rd party blacklist companies like MAPS (trend micro) which is notorious for adding people to their database for no good reason at all, and being dicks about removing them. I actually used to run a mail server, and have been blacklisted several dozen times... and every time I said "Hey, I don't spam. Send me the email that came from my server please." NEVER has any company been able to provide such data, and in a couple cases they had the balls to send me an email that had a spoofed return address (in my domain), with all the header info intact showing it sourced out of the Ukraine. Fucking idiots.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I now get a couple of shed loads less spam .
I used to check the apam directory for false positives .
Do n't bother doing that either.Go gmail : - ) It 's ok , but not all that different ( or better ) than other spam solutions.One big issue I have , is the way anti-spam companies react to how people use those " this is spam " buttons .
98 \ % of emails reported by those buttons are NOT spam , and generally consist of either newsletters or collections notices .
Most people think " Spam " means " anything I do n't want in my mailbox " , and when some dickhead reports my bank 's collections department because he does n't want to see the past due mortgage notice , I suddenly stop getting my monthly statement .
Pisses me right off , I constantly have to re-whitelist various newsletter , mailers , etc.The other thing that bugs me is when they rely on 3rd party blacklist companies like MAPS ( trend micro ) which is notorious for adding people to their database for no good reason at all , and being dicks about removing them .
I actually used to run a mail server , and have been blacklisted several dozen times... and every time I said " Hey , I do n't spam .
Send me the email that came from my server please .
" NEVER has any company been able to provide such data , and in a couple cases they had the balls to send me an email that had a spoofed return address ( in my domain ) , with all the header info intact showing it sourced out of the Ukraine .
Fucking idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I now get a couple of shed loads less spam.
I used to check the apam directory for false positives.
Don't bother doing that either.Go gmail :-)It's ok, but not all that different (or better) than other spam solutions.One big issue I have, is the way anti-spam companies react to how people use those "this is spam" buttons.
98\% of emails reported by those buttons are NOT spam, and generally consist of either newsletters or collections notices.
Most people think "Spam" means "anything I don't want in my mailbox", and when some dickhead reports my bank's collections department because he doesn't want to see the past due mortgage notice, I suddenly stop getting my monthly statement.
Pisses me right off, I constantly have to re-whitelist various newsletter, mailers, etc.The other thing that bugs me is when they rely on 3rd party blacklist companies like MAPS (trend micro) which is notorious for adding people to their database for no good reason at all, and being dicks about removing them.
I actually used to run a mail server, and have been blacklisted several dozen times... and every time I said "Hey, I don't spam.
Send me the email that came from my server please.
" NEVER has any company been able to provide such data, and in a couple cases they had the balls to send me an email that had a spoofed return address (in my domain), with all the header info intact showing it sourced out of the Ukraine.
Fucking idiots.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589243</id>
	<title>Re:But what about spam from "me"?</title>
	<author>JSG</author>
	<datestamp>1246794720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So why on earth don't you sign your mail.  Some really clever people have come up with some pretty good ways of proving your electronic identity.  </p><p>Alternatively, why not tell your system where your mail comes from and then reject anything that doesn't come from those sources.</p><p>Its not that hard to persuade your own mail system what mail is really from you and not a fake.</p><p>There's no need to lose functionality, you just have to think around the problem</p><p>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So why on earth do n't you sign your mail .
Some really clever people have come up with some pretty good ways of proving your electronic identity .
Alternatively , why not tell your system where your mail comes from and then reject anything that does n't come from those sources.Its not that hard to persuade your own mail system what mail is really from you and not a fake.There 's no need to lose functionality , you just have to think around the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why on earth don't you sign your mail.
Some really clever people have come up with some pretty good ways of proving your electronic identity.
Alternatively, why not tell your system where your mail comes from and then reject anything that doesn't come from those sources.Its not that hard to persuade your own mail system what mail is really from you and not a fake.There's no need to lose functionality, you just have to think around the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28590959</id>
	<title>all of my GMail is spam</title>
	<author>bstender</author>
	<datestamp>1246815720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i never use the account except as a backup, and have never used it as a throwaway address (i use the awesome spamgourmet for that) but it has a full page or two of spam whenever i visit it.

my daily mail goes through <a href="http://www.junkemailfilter.com/spam/" title="junkemailfilter.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.junkemailfilter.com/spam/</a> [junkemailfilter.com]   THAT is the bomb, GMail can't touch it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>i never use the account except as a backup , and have never used it as a throwaway address ( i use the awesome spamgourmet for that ) but it has a full page or two of spam whenever i visit it .
my daily mail goes through http : //www.junkemailfilter.com/spam/ [ junkemailfilter.com ] THAT is the bomb , GMail ca n't touch it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i never use the account except as a backup, and have never used it as a throwaway address (i use the awesome spamgourmet for that) but it has a full page or two of spam whenever i visit it.
my daily mail goes through http://www.junkemailfilter.com/spam/ [junkemailfilter.com]   THAT is the bomb, GMail can't touch it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28591863</id>
	<title>Re: I do care how it works</title>
	<author>bjhavard</author>
	<datestamp>1246912860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...because it's actually not working - Gmail spam filter recently became very ineffective - i have to classify about 5-10 Viagra spams daily. (Google, have you heard of it? geez!)</p></div><p>I wouldn't call it "totally ineffective" but it's not totally effective either. For months I was getting "I saw your profile on (random, probably made up site) and would like to meet you" type spam several times a day. These aren't coming though any more but it looks like it's because they're not being sent, not that the spam filter has finally learned to classify them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...because it 's actually not working - Gmail spam filter recently became very ineffective - i have to classify about 5-10 Viagra spams daily .
( Google , have you heard of it ?
geez ! ) I would n't call it " totally ineffective " but it 's not totally effective either .
For months I was getting " I saw your profile on ( random , probably made up site ) and would like to meet you " type spam several times a day .
These are n't coming though any more but it looks like it 's because they 're not being sent , not that the spam filter has finally learned to classify them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...because it's actually not working - Gmail spam filter recently became very ineffective - i have to classify about 5-10 Viagra spams daily.
(Google, have you heard of it?
geez!)I wouldn't call it "totally ineffective" but it's not totally effective either.
For months I was getting "I saw your profile on (random, probably made up site) and would like to meet you" type spam several times a day.
These aren't coming though any more but it looks like it's because they're not being sent, not that the spam filter has finally learned to classify them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588761</id>
	<title>Re:"Postini"?</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1246789740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you noticed?  GMail gives one no way at all to sort the captured spam.  Since I <b>still</b> endure false positives from the system and there is NO way to disable or bypass it, having means to sort all of it by From:, To:, and other criteria would make it easier to identify the false positives and rescue them from the trash bin.</p><p>Well, I'll take that back, in part: that applies to the Webmail interface, but if ones uses IMAP with a local IMAP client, then the spam folder could be subscribed and sorted within the client.  God only knows how GMail's system interprets the dragging of a message from Spam to Inbox via IMAP: does that automatically whitelist that sender in the future, or do I have to still log into the Web site and identify it as Not Spam manually?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you noticed ?
GMail gives one no way at all to sort the captured spam .
Since I still endure false positives from the system and there is NO way to disable or bypass it , having means to sort all of it by From : , To : , and other criteria would make it easier to identify the false positives and rescue them from the trash bin.Well , I 'll take that back , in part : that applies to the Webmail interface , but if ones uses IMAP with a local IMAP client , then the spam folder could be subscribed and sorted within the client .
God only knows how GMail 's system interprets the dragging of a message from Spam to Inbox via IMAP : does that automatically whitelist that sender in the future , or do I have to still log into the Web site and identify it as Not Spam manually ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you noticed?
GMail gives one no way at all to sort the captured spam.
Since I still endure false positives from the system and there is NO way to disable or bypass it, having means to sort all of it by From:, To:, and other criteria would make it easier to identify the false positives and rescue them from the trash bin.Well, I'll take that back, in part: that applies to the Webmail interface, but if ones uses IMAP with a local IMAP client, then the spam folder could be subscribed and sorted within the client.
God only knows how GMail's system interprets the dragging of a message from Spam to Inbox via IMAP: does that automatically whitelist that sender in the future, or do I have to still log into the Web site and identify it as Not Spam manually?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28591507</id>
	<title>Re:McAfee</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246821180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks God they don't license Symantec stuff. Symantec would put all google boxes on knees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks God they do n't license Symantec stuff .
Symantec would put all google boxes on knees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks God they don't license Symantec stuff.
Symantec would put all google boxes on knees.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588701</id>
	<title>Not for everyone</title>
	<author>findoutmoretoday</author>
	<datestamp>1246789260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>The filtering works for me.&nbsp; But I know people where the filter catches 400 spams a day and 5 hams,&nbsp; making it totally useless.</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>The filtering works for me.   But I know people where the filter catches 400 spams a day and 5 hams ,   making it totally useless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The filtering works for me.  But I know people where the filter catches 400 spams a day and 5 hams,  making it totally useless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589929</id>
	<title>Gmail spam filter spot on for me, but it has to be</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246803060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because I get so much more spam than I do to my 4,  older ISP accounts.  Almost from day 1 (about 4 years ago) on my gmail account, the spammers had my address figured out, and it is not what I would consider a very obvious one with some numbers mixed in to make a non-dictionary/non-normal name.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because I get so much more spam than I do to my 4 , older ISP accounts .
Almost from day 1 ( about 4 years ago ) on my gmail account , the spammers had my address figured out , and it is not what I would consider a very obvious one with some numbers mixed in to make a non-dictionary/non-normal name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because I get so much more spam than I do to my 4,  older ISP accounts.
Almost from day 1 (about 4 years ago) on my gmail account, the spammers had my address figured out, and it is not what I would consider a very obvious one with some numbers mixed in to make a non-dictionary/non-normal name.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588879</id>
	<title>Re:But what about spam from "me"?</title>
	<author>hidden</author>
	<datestamp>1246790760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Keep in mind:<br>It's a perfectly legitimate (and common) for non-webmail users to have their outgoing server be their local ISP.  So if google did what you're suggesting, all those people that use an IMAP client to receive their gmail, and send via their ISP wouldn't be able to send to other gmail users</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep in mind : It 's a perfectly legitimate ( and common ) for non-webmail users to have their outgoing server be their local ISP .
So if google did what you 're suggesting , all those people that use an IMAP client to receive their gmail , and send via their ISP would n't be able to send to other gmail users</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep in mind:It's a perfectly legitimate (and common) for non-webmail users to have their outgoing server be their local ISP.
So if google did what you're suggesting, all those people that use an IMAP client to receive their gmail, and send via their ISP wouldn't be able to send to other gmail users</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28592143</id>
	<title>Re:McAfee</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246873320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IMHO<br>no the free gmail service does not use 3th party spam scanning, why should they?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IMHOno the free gmail service does not use 3th party spam scanning , why should they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMHOno the free gmail service does not use 3th party spam scanning, why should they?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588655</id>
	<title>Brilliant</title>
	<author>HavocXphere</author>
	<datestamp>1246788840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its brilliant. End of story.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its brilliant .
End of story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its brilliant.
End of story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588855</id>
	<title>Re: I do care how it works</title>
	<author>npwa</author>
	<datestamp>1246790640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>...because it's actually not working - Gmail spam filter recently became very ineffective - i have to classify about 5-10 Viagra spams daily. (Google, have you heard of it? geez!)
then it occurred to me that a <a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/27/0045242" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">while ago</a> [slashdot.org] Gmail captcha was cracked, so I imagine spammers send themselves hundreds of spams only to classify them as "non-spam". - as a consequence, spams are now slipping through the crowd-sourced filter because the crowd is infiltrated. c'mon google this can't possibly that hard to fix!</htmltext>
<tokenext>...because it 's actually not working - Gmail spam filter recently became very ineffective - i have to classify about 5-10 Viagra spams daily .
( Google , have you heard of it ?
geez ! ) then it occurred to me that a while ago [ slashdot.org ] Gmail captcha was cracked , so I imagine spammers send themselves hundreds of spams only to classify them as " non-spam " .
- as a consequence , spams are now slipping through the crowd-sourced filter because the crowd is infiltrated .
c'mon google this ca n't possibly that hard to fix !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...because it's actually not working - Gmail spam filter recently became very ineffective - i have to classify about 5-10 Viagra spams daily.
(Google, have you heard of it?
geez!)
then it occurred to me that a while ago [slashdot.org] Gmail captcha was cracked, so I imagine spammers send themselves hundreds of spams only to classify them as "non-spam".
- as a consequence, spams are now slipping through the crowd-sourced filter because the crowd is infiltrated.
c'mon google this can't possibly that hard to fix!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28590399</id>
	<title>Re:But what about spam from "me"?</title>
	<author>Aehgts</author>
	<datestamp>1246808940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One amusingly annoying anecdote about this:
Emails sent to me by ticking the 'Send me a copy of this email' box when sharing Google Reader articles were put in my spam folder.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One amusingly annoying anecdote about this : Emails sent to me by ticking the 'Send me a copy of this email ' box when sharing Google Reader articles were put in my spam folder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One amusingly annoying anecdote about this:
Emails sent to me by ticking the 'Send me a copy of this email' box when sharing Google Reader articles were put in my spam folder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28593235</id>
	<title>Re:But what about spam from "me"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246887780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I notice that too but any mails I send to myself actually appear in my inbox. It seems they already do what you wish them to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I notice that too but any mails I send to myself actually appear in my inbox .
It seems they already do what you wish them to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I notice that too but any mails I send to myself actually appear in my inbox.
It seems they already do what you wish them to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28593823</id>
	<title>Re:"Postini"?</title>
	<author>LihTox</author>
	<datestamp>1246891560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would like spam sorting also; I never empty my spam folder without reviewing it for false positives (which I rarely get, but still), and it would be very handy to sort it by subject, so that I can bypass duplicate spams all at once.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like spam sorting also ; I never empty my spam folder without reviewing it for false positives ( which I rarely get , but still ) , and it would be very handy to sort it by subject , so that I can bypass duplicate spams all at once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like spam sorting also; I never empty my spam folder without reviewing it for false positives (which I rarely get, but still), and it would be very handy to sort it by subject, so that I can bypass duplicate spams all at once.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589111</id>
	<title>Processing load</title>
	<author>electrostatic</author>
	<datestamp>1246793340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"...computerized systems monitor 3 billion messages per day"<br>
"It takes an average of 150 milliseconds for a message to be scanned by the antivirus engines..."<br> <br>

A little arithmetic: 3E9 * 0.150<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/(60*60*24) = 5200 messages being processed at any given time.<br>
I take it that there must be more than 5200 processors at work -- on average.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...computerized systems monitor 3 billion messages per day " " It takes an average of 150 milliseconds for a message to be scanned by the antivirus engines... " A little arithmetic : 3E9 * 0.150 / ( 60 * 60 * 24 ) = 5200 messages being processed at any given time .
I take it that there must be more than 5200 processors at work -- on average .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...computerized systems monitor 3 billion messages per day"
"It takes an average of 150 milliseconds for a message to be scanned by the antivirus engines..." 

A little arithmetic: 3E9 * 0.150 /(60*60*24) = 5200 messages being processed at any given time.
I take it that there must be more than 5200 processors at work -- on average.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588921</id>
	<title>Recently...</title>
	<author>jefu</author>
	<datestamp>1246791180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I started getting much more unfiltered spam.    Lots of it looks like this (a real example) :

Subject : acceptant accelerometer

abysmal abusive accession accolade

So, no website, no valid return address.   Just random words.   I'm wondering if either there's a bug in the spam generator (I get others that start with a line of similarly random words, but then continue for a page or so and are followed by an ad), or if they're trying to confuse spam filters.
</p><p>
There's another variant that looks more like english text with a number of errors in spelling so only a few of the words are real.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I started getting much more unfiltered spam .
Lots of it looks like this ( a real example ) : Subject : acceptant accelerometer abysmal abusive accession accolade So , no website , no valid return address .
Just random words .
I 'm wondering if either there 's a bug in the spam generator ( I get others that start with a line of similarly random words , but then continue for a page or so and are followed by an ad ) , or if they 're trying to confuse spam filters .
There 's another variant that looks more like english text with a number of errors in spelling so only a few of the words are real .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I started getting much more unfiltered spam.
Lots of it looks like this (a real example) :

Subject : acceptant accelerometer

abysmal abusive accession accolade

So, no website, no valid return address.
Just random words.
I'm wondering if either there's a bug in the spam generator (I get others that start with a line of similarly random words, but then continue for a page or so and are followed by an ad), or if they're trying to confuse spam filters.
There's another variant that looks more like english text with a number of errors in spelling so only a few of the words are real.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588845</id>
	<title>McAfee</title>
	<author>contrapunctus</author>
	<datestamp>1246790580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>So by using gmail, am I indirectly making money for McAfee?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So by using gmail , am I indirectly making money for McAfee ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So by using gmail, am I indirectly making money for McAfee?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589333</id>
	<title>Great</title>
	<author>Amazing Quantum Man</author>
	<datestamp>1246796100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now apply this technology to Google Groups.</p><p>Yeah, I know it's usenet, but they could apply it to their web interface (see comp.lang.c++ for a sample of what it has to deal with).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now apply this technology to Google Groups.Yeah , I know it 's usenet , but they could apply it to their web interface ( see comp.lang.c + + for a sample of what it has to deal with ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now apply this technology to Google Groups.Yeah, I know it's usenet, but they could apply it to their web interface (see comp.lang.c++ for a sample of what it has to deal with).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28592249</id>
	<title>my email spam prevention system</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1246875360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Use one email account to respond to emails, never subscribe to online magazines with this. Change the first email account ever three months<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Use one email account to respond to emails , never subscribe to online magazines with this .
Change the first email account ever three months . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use one email account to respond to emails, never subscribe to online magazines with this.
Change the first email account ever three months ..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28592957</id>
	<title>Re:Don't care how they do it..</title>
	<author>arth1</author>
	<datestamp>1246885500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm using spambayes (a pop3 proxy) and I would estimate it catches well above 95\% of my spam. My inbox would be utterly unusable without it.<br>[chop]<br>2483 messages were manually classified as spam (829 were false negatives).</p></div></blockquote><p>1 out of 3 manually fed spams was classified incorrectly?  That's <i>incredibly</i> high.  After feeding it the first few hundred spam e-mails, it should already be working well enough that the end ratio should be <i>much</i> lower.</p><p>Anyhow, how fast is it?  GMail's system appears to be horribly slow.  150 ms per message means it can only handle 8 messages per second.  And that's likely on fairly new hardware -- my old PIII mail server can do far better than that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm using spambayes ( a pop3 proxy ) and I would estimate it catches well above 95 \ % of my spam .
My inbox would be utterly unusable without it .
[ chop ] 2483 messages were manually classified as spam ( 829 were false negatives ) .1 out of 3 manually fed spams was classified incorrectly ?
That 's incredibly high .
After feeding it the first few hundred spam e-mails , it should already be working well enough that the end ratio should be much lower.Anyhow , how fast is it ?
GMail 's system appears to be horribly slow .
150 ms per message means it can only handle 8 messages per second .
And that 's likely on fairly new hardware -- my old PIII mail server can do far better than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm using spambayes (a pop3 proxy) and I would estimate it catches well above 95\% of my spam.
My inbox would be utterly unusable without it.
[chop]2483 messages were manually classified as spam (829 were false negatives).1 out of 3 manually fed spams was classified incorrectly?
That's incredibly high.
After feeding it the first few hundred spam e-mails, it should already be working well enough that the end ratio should be much lower.Anyhow, how fast is it?
GMail's system appears to be horribly slow.
150 ms per message means it can only handle 8 messages per second.
And that's likely on fairly new hardware -- my old PIII mail server can do far better than that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28591017</id>
	<title>Re:Don't care how they do it..</title>
	<author>Have Brain Will Rent</author>
	<datestamp>1246816380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have quite a few different mail accounts through a couple of different ISPs and access them all with Thunderbird. I get maybe 10 spams a week that I have to manually identify - all the rest Thunderbird catches and I can't remember the last time I got a false positive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have quite a few different mail accounts through a couple of different ISPs and access them all with Thunderbird .
I get maybe 10 spams a week that I have to manually identify - all the rest Thunderbird catches and I ca n't remember the last time I got a false positive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have quite a few different mail accounts through a couple of different ISPs and access them all with Thunderbird.
I get maybe 10 spams a week that I have to manually identify - all the rest Thunderbird catches and I can't remember the last time I got a false positive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588993</id>
	<title>Maybe there's less spam nowadays</title>
	<author>FRiC</author>
	<datestamp>1246791840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to have 20,000+ in my spam folder every day for years. Recently it dropped to the low 400's.</p><p>But because there's much less spam, I actually check the spam folder quite often to see if there are false positives, and I almost always find a few. Makes me wonder how much mail I missed all this time?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to have 20,000 + in my spam folder every day for years .
Recently it dropped to the low 400 's.But because there 's much less spam , I actually check the spam folder quite often to see if there are false positives , and I almost always find a few .
Makes me wonder how much mail I missed all this time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to have 20,000+ in my spam folder every day for years.
Recently it dropped to the low 400's.But because there's much less spam, I actually check the spam folder quite often to see if there are false positives, and I almost always find a few.
Makes me wonder how much mail I missed all this time?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588747</id>
	<title>Re:"Postini"?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1246789620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My publisher uses Postini.  Whenever I send my editor an article, I need to also send an IM so he can check it isn't in his spam folder (happens a good 10\% of the time).  Meanwhile, SpamAssassin has been giving me no false positives and very few false negatives for years. I'd much rather have false negatives than false positives in a spam filter.  A false positive means I can lose (or have delayed) an important email.  A false negative just means that I have to waste a second or two clicking the 'spam' button in my mail client.  Postini generates far more false negatives than any system I'd trust.<p>
That said, since we turned on greylisting, I've seen a massive reduction in spam.  The number hitting my spam folder has gone from about ten a day to one every few days.  I assumed spammers had worked out how to get around greylisting by now, but apparently not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My publisher uses Postini .
Whenever I send my editor an article , I need to also send an IM so he can check it is n't in his spam folder ( happens a good 10 \ % of the time ) .
Meanwhile , SpamAssassin has been giving me no false positives and very few false negatives for years .
I 'd much rather have false negatives than false positives in a spam filter .
A false positive means I can lose ( or have delayed ) an important email .
A false negative just means that I have to waste a second or two clicking the 'spam ' button in my mail client .
Postini generates far more false negatives than any system I 'd trust .
That said , since we turned on greylisting , I 've seen a massive reduction in spam .
The number hitting my spam folder has gone from about ten a day to one every few days .
I assumed spammers had worked out how to get around greylisting by now , but apparently not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My publisher uses Postini.
Whenever I send my editor an article, I need to also send an IM so he can check it isn't in his spam folder (happens a good 10\% of the time).
Meanwhile, SpamAssassin has been giving me no false positives and very few false negatives for years.
I'd much rather have false negatives than false positives in a spam filter.
A false positive means I can lose (or have delayed) an important email.
A false negative just means that I have to waste a second or two clicking the 'spam' button in my mail client.
Postini generates far more false negatives than any system I'd trust.
That said, since we turned on greylisting, I've seen a massive reduction in spam.
The number hitting my spam folder has gone from about ten a day to one every few days.
I assumed spammers had worked out how to get around greylisting by now, but apparently not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589639</id>
	<title>Re:Don't care how they do it..</title>
	<author>MoeDrippins</author>
	<datestamp>1246799580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>20\% on a Bayesian filter is ridiculously low; so low in fact I believe you are stretching the truth to make or point, or you're not training it.</p><p>My gmail account is quite old (gotten when only google employees were giving out beta requests), using an extraordinary common firstname.lastname account name, and since Jun 17, I've gotten 2247 spams.  So that's what, 19 days?    Gmail has *let through* probably fewer than 10 actual spam in that time frame (0.44\%), and I haven't checked for any false positives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>20 \ % on a Bayesian filter is ridiculously low ; so low in fact I believe you are stretching the truth to make or point , or you 're not training it.My gmail account is quite old ( gotten when only google employees were giving out beta requests ) , using an extraordinary common firstname.lastname account name , and since Jun 17 , I 've gotten 2247 spams .
So that 's what , 19 days ?
Gmail has * let through * probably fewer than 10 actual spam in that time frame ( 0.44 \ % ) , and I have n't checked for any false positives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>20\% on a Bayesian filter is ridiculously low; so low in fact I believe you are stretching the truth to make or point, or you're not training it.My gmail account is quite old (gotten when only google employees were giving out beta requests), using an extraordinary common firstname.lastname account name, and since Jun 17, I've gotten 2247 spams.
So that's what, 19 days?
Gmail has *let through* probably fewer than 10 actual spam in that time frame (0.44\%), and I haven't checked for any false positives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28590811</id>
	<title>GMail Spam Filter != Postini</title>
	<author>aligas</author>
	<datestamp>1246814280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Keep in mind folks, Gmail's Spam filtering is <b>seperate</b> from Postini.
<br> <br>
From the article:<br>
<i>"Google's Gmail antispam efforts are separate from those of Postini, which Google acquired two years ago, although it follows similar computerized operations and the teams have started to integrate the processes."</i>
<br> <br>
I've had email at an ISP that uses Postini, and I have email at Gmail.  IMHO, Gmail &gt; Postini.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep in mind folks , Gmail 's Spam filtering is seperate from Postini .
From the article : " Google 's Gmail antispam efforts are separate from those of Postini , which Google acquired two years ago , although it follows similar computerized operations and the teams have started to integrate the processes .
" I 've had email at an ISP that uses Postini , and I have email at Gmail .
IMHO , Gmail &gt; Postini .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep in mind folks, Gmail's Spam filtering is seperate from Postini.
From the article:
"Google's Gmail antispam efforts are separate from those of Postini, which Google acquired two years ago, although it follows similar computerized operations and the teams have started to integrate the processes.
"
 
I've had email at an ISP that uses Postini, and I have email at Gmail.
IMHO, Gmail &gt; Postini.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28603085</id>
	<title>Re:Don't care how they do it..</title>
	<author>trawg</author>
	<datestamp>1246894560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1 out of 3 manually fed spams was classified incorrectly? That's incredibly high. After feeding it the first few hundred spam e-mails, it should already be working well enough that the end ratio should be much lower.</p></div><p> That is only the stuff I've trained. The vast, vast, vast majority of that 829 were at the start of the training session, when I bulk-trained it on a few hundred items. I probably have to manually classify between 0-10 emails as spam on a given day so it is gradually increasing. So that stat looks a bit scary, but I don't feel it accurately portrays how it's working.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 out of 3 manually fed spams was classified incorrectly ?
That 's incredibly high .
After feeding it the first few hundred spam e-mails , it should already be working well enough that the end ratio should be much lower .
That is only the stuff I 've trained .
The vast , vast , vast majority of that 829 were at the start of the training session , when I bulk-trained it on a few hundred items .
I probably have to manually classify between 0-10 emails as spam on a given day so it is gradually increasing .
So that stat looks a bit scary , but I do n't feel it accurately portrays how it 's working .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1 out of 3 manually fed spams was classified incorrectly?
That's incredibly high.
After feeding it the first few hundred spam e-mails, it should already be working well enough that the end ratio should be much lower.
That is only the stuff I've trained.
The vast, vast, vast majority of that 829 were at the start of the training session, when I bulk-trained it on a few hundred items.
I probably have to manually classify between 0-10 emails as spam on a given day so it is gradually increasing.
So that stat looks a bit scary, but I don't feel it accurately portrays how it's working.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28592957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588425</id>
	<title>"Postini"?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1246786440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My previous ISP switched me over to Postini with no advance notice (we got a cheery note from marketing after the deed was done).  Blocked half the spam and half the ham.  They told us how to disable the filtering "features" but it turned out that all the filtering could not be turned off.</p><p>I'm not with that ISP any more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My previous ISP switched me over to Postini with no advance notice ( we got a cheery note from marketing after the deed was done ) .
Blocked half the spam and half the ham .
They told us how to disable the filtering " features " but it turned out that all the filtering could not be turned off.I 'm not with that ISP any more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My previous ISP switched me over to Postini with no advance notice (we got a cheery note from marketing after the deed was done).
Blocked half the spam and half the ham.
They told us how to disable the filtering "features" but it turned out that all the filtering could not be turned off.I'm not with that ISP any more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28593145</id>
	<title>Barking up the wrong tree...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246887120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hell, they might not even be in the right forest, for that matter.  Google should know well enough that spam is an <b>economic</b> problem, not a software one.  They can write all the fancy filters they want, they will never win the war that way.<br> <br>
They have the resources, they should fight the war the right way - by going after the people who sponsor spam.  They are electronically reading our gmail email, they can see the headers.  They know where the spam comes from, and when.  They know what domains are being spamvertised, and they can determine who owns those domains.  They should be going after the registrars, the ISPs, and the owners of the mail relays.  Only when spam becomes too expensive to be a viable business model for the spammers will it go away.  Until then we will only continue to play spam filter whack-a-mole.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hell , they might not even be in the right forest , for that matter .
Google should know well enough that spam is an economic problem , not a software one .
They can write all the fancy filters they want , they will never win the war that way .
They have the resources , they should fight the war the right way - by going after the people who sponsor spam .
They are electronically reading our gmail email , they can see the headers .
They know where the spam comes from , and when .
They know what domains are being spamvertised , and they can determine who owns those domains .
They should be going after the registrars , the ISPs , and the owners of the mail relays .
Only when spam becomes too expensive to be a viable business model for the spammers will it go away .
Until then we will only continue to play spam filter whack-a-mole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hell, they might not even be in the right forest, for that matter.
Google should know well enough that spam is an economic problem, not a software one.
They can write all the fancy filters they want, they will never win the war that way.
They have the resources, they should fight the war the right way - by going after the people who sponsor spam.
They are electronically reading our gmail email, they can see the headers.
They know where the spam comes from, and when.
They know what domains are being spamvertised, and they can determine who owns those domains.
They should be going after the registrars, the ISPs, and the owners of the mail relays.
Only when spam becomes too expensive to be a viable business model for the spammers will it go away.
Until then we will only continue to play spam filter whack-a-mole.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588573</id>
	<title>Toughest spam</title>
	<author>Pessimist+Cynic</author>
	<datestamp>1246787880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>They can filter out the obvious spam mail, but some spammers are so clever and so well hung - because they've taken some DrMaxMan to acquire an enlarged sexual wand with which you can perform better and be bigger for f.r.e.e - that they can actually embed their spam offers inside real messages in such a way as to be completely undetectable by filters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They can filter out the obvious spam mail , but some spammers are so clever and so well hung - because they 've taken some DrMaxMan to acquire an enlarged sexual wand with which you can perform better and be bigger for f.r.e.e - that they can actually embed their spam offers inside real messages in such a way as to be completely undetectable by filters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can filter out the obvious spam mail, but some spammers are so clever and so well hung - because they've taken some DrMaxMan to acquire an enlarged sexual wand with which you can perform better and be bigger for f.r.e.e - that they can actually embed their spam offers inside real messages in such a way as to be completely undetectable by filters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588401</id>
	<title>Don't care how they do it..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246786260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I now get a couple of shed loads less spam. I used to check the apam directory for false positives. Don't bother doing that either.<br> <br>
Go gmail<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I now get a couple of shed loads less spam .
I used to check the apam directory for false positives .
Do n't bother doing that either .
Go gmail : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I now get a couple of shed loads less spam.
I used to check the apam directory for false positives.
Don't bother doing that either.
Go gmail :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588713</id>
	<title>Spam</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246789320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All I know is gmail's spam filter is amazing, mabye 1 gets through a month but thats it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All I know is gmail 's spam filter is amazing , mabye 1 gets through a month but thats it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I know is gmail's spam filter is amazing, mabye 1 gets through a month but thats it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28592209</id>
	<title>Gmail spam</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1246874700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I get about 100 spams a day in my gmail account. All of them are obvious, bad spelling, oddly capitalised letters, promising wondrous things. There are maybe 10 of those 100 that the filter doesn't catch. On the odd day it will miss maybe 50. I do think the filter has become less effective over the last few months.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I get about 100 spams a day in my gmail account .
All of them are obvious , bad spelling , oddly capitalised letters , promising wondrous things .
There are maybe 10 of those 100 that the filter does n't catch .
On the odd day it will miss maybe 50 .
I do think the filter has become less effective over the last few months .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get about 100 spams a day in my gmail account.
All of them are obvious, bad spelling, oddly capitalised letters, promising wondrous things.
There are maybe 10 of those 100 that the filter doesn't catch.
On the odd day it will miss maybe 50.
I do think the filter has become less effective over the last few months.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28590091</id>
	<title>So many spammers -from- gmail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246805100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I run a moderate sized community and last month alone we banned over 50 throw away gmail spammerbots. That might seem to be a small number, but we're currently blocking<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.cn and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ru, and most other free email providers. Gmail addresses account for over 95\% of our spam problem.</p><p>Be nice if they did something about that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I run a moderate sized community and last month alone we banned over 50 throw away gmail spammerbots .
That might seem to be a small number , but we 're currently blocking .cn and .ru , and most other free email providers .
Gmail addresses account for over 95 \ % of our spam problem.Be nice if they did something about that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run a moderate sized community and last month alone we banned over 50 throw away gmail spammerbots.
That might seem to be a small number, but we're currently blocking .cn and .ru, and most other free email providers.
Gmail addresses account for over 95\% of our spam problem.Be nice if they did something about that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588943</id>
	<title>Postini works</title>
	<author>twistah</author>
	<datestamp>1246791420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my humble and largely anecdotal experience, Postini works well. We send out e-mail that can often be flagged as SPAM when we perform penetration testing, and Postini seems to be the toughest to get around. We see in-house devices such as IronMain, and outsourced services such as MXLogic and FrontBridge/hosted Exchange, but Postini seems to do the best at stopping illegitimate messages. The company I work for uses this it as well, and logging into my Postini inbox I see a lot of spam but no false positives. I think it's a pretty good solution if you don't want to handle SPAM in-house.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my humble and largely anecdotal experience , Postini works well .
We send out e-mail that can often be flagged as SPAM when we perform penetration testing , and Postini seems to be the toughest to get around .
We see in-house devices such as IronMain , and outsourced services such as MXLogic and FrontBridge/hosted Exchange , but Postini seems to do the best at stopping illegitimate messages .
The company I work for uses this it as well , and logging into my Postini inbox I see a lot of spam but no false positives .
I think it 's a pretty good solution if you do n't want to handle SPAM in-house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my humble and largely anecdotal experience, Postini works well.
We send out e-mail that can often be flagged as SPAM when we perform penetration testing, and Postini seems to be the toughest to get around.
We see in-house devices such as IronMain, and outsourced services such as MXLogic and FrontBridge/hosted Exchange, but Postini seems to do the best at stopping illegitimate messages.
The company I work for uses this it as well, and logging into my Postini inbox I see a lot of spam but no false positives.
I think it's a pretty good solution if you don't want to handle SPAM in-house.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28593111</id>
	<title>Re:Don't care how they do it..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246886880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been told by some people that part of the reason of the recent suckage of gmail's spam filter are people who think they're smarter than google and automatically mark all their messages as ham so they can get via pop or smtp to their computers and then run their own spamassassin/razor/bla tools on the mail. Thus, messages that are \_obviously\_ spam get marked as ham and are forwarded to the rest of users. I don't think it's the main reason, but worth sharing anyway in case somone knows more about this 'trend'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been told by some people that part of the reason of the recent suckage of gmail 's spam filter are people who think they 're smarter than google and automatically mark all their messages as ham so they can get via pop or smtp to their computers and then run their own spamassassin/razor/bla tools on the mail .
Thus , messages that are \ _obviously \ _ spam get marked as ham and are forwarded to the rest of users .
I do n't think it 's the main reason , but worth sharing anyway in case somone knows more about this 'trend' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been told by some people that part of the reason of the recent suckage of gmail's spam filter are people who think they're smarter than google and automatically mark all their messages as ham so they can get via pop or smtp to their computers and then run their own spamassassin/razor/bla tools on the mail.
Thus, messages that are \_obviously\_ spam get marked as ham and are forwarded to the rest of users.
I don't think it's the main reason, but worth sharing anyway in case somone knows more about this 'trend'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589319</id>
	<title>Re:Don't care how they do it..</title>
	<author>ghetto2ivy</author>
	<datestamp>1246795920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So true. Gmail and Hotmail are both incredible at their spam filters. I do get a few more false positives at hotmail though -- but thats also where I send all my receipts and mailing lists so its understandable. With Gmail its pretty flawless -- just one spam message a month or so gets through. As with others -- yes Yahoo filters seem to suck in spam. Especially 419 type spam.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So true .
Gmail and Hotmail are both incredible at their spam filters .
I do get a few more false positives at hotmail though -- but thats also where I send all my receipts and mailing lists so its understandable .
With Gmail its pretty flawless -- just one spam message a month or so gets through .
As with others -- yes Yahoo filters seem to suck in spam .
Especially 419 type spam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So true.
Gmail and Hotmail are both incredible at their spam filters.
I do get a few more false positives at hotmail though -- but thats also where I send all my receipts and mailing lists so its understandable.
With Gmail its pretty flawless -- just one spam message a month or so gets through.
As with others -- yes Yahoo filters seem to suck in spam.
Especially 419 type spam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588843</id>
	<title>Re:"Postini"?</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1246790520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Have you noticed? GMail gives one no way at all to sort the captured spam. Since I still endure false positives from the system and there is NO way to disable or bypass it, having means to sort all of it by From:, To:, and other criteria would make it easier to identify the false positives and rescue them from the trash bin.</p></div><p>I haven't noticed - filters make this pretty trivial:
</p><p>
in:spam from:blah</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you noticed ?
GMail gives one no way at all to sort the captured spam .
Since I still endure false positives from the system and there is NO way to disable or bypass it , having means to sort all of it by From : , To : , and other criteria would make it easier to identify the false positives and rescue them from the trash bin.I have n't noticed - filters make this pretty trivial : in : spam from : blah</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you noticed?
GMail gives one no way at all to sort the captured spam.
Since I still endure false positives from the system and there is NO way to disable or bypass it, having means to sort all of it by From:, To:, and other criteria would make it easier to identify the false positives and rescue them from the trash bin.I haven't noticed - filters make this pretty trivial:

in:spam from:blah
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589893</id>
	<title>McAfee Sucks</title>
	<author>Sam36</author>
	<datestamp>1246802640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>McAfee Sucks</htmltext>
<tokenext>McAfee Sucks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>McAfee Sucks</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588633</id>
	<title>Praise Gmail</title>
	<author>zhilla2</author>
	<datestamp>1246788600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is great for business mail too... small company where I work was literally BURIED with spam until we moved to gmail. Since their mail addresses were "in the open" on our website for years, some of them get 200+ spams a day. Now, if 1 in 1000 passes, it's a bad day.
Also, in my private inbox, I had an VERY old mail address still redirected to gmail address... turned out that was the source of 1/2 spams (100+ / day). But those were filtered too without problem.
So far so good... not a single false detection for ham. Nothing but praise so far.
Disclaimer: I do not work for gmail. I am the genuine satisfied customer with smile on my face, from "after" picture, as seen on TV!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is great for business mail too... small company where I work was literally BURIED with spam until we moved to gmail .
Since their mail addresses were " in the open " on our website for years , some of them get 200 + spams a day .
Now , if 1 in 1000 passes , it 's a bad day .
Also , in my private inbox , I had an VERY old mail address still redirected to gmail address... turned out that was the source of 1/2 spams ( 100 + / day ) .
But those were filtered too without problem .
So far so good... not a single false detection for ham .
Nothing but praise so far .
Disclaimer : I do not work for gmail .
I am the genuine satisfied customer with smile on my face , from " after " picture , as seen on TV !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is great for business mail too... small company where I work was literally BURIED with spam until we moved to gmail.
Since their mail addresses were "in the open" on our website for years, some of them get 200+ spams a day.
Now, if 1 in 1000 passes, it's a bad day.
Also, in my private inbox, I had an VERY old mail address still redirected to gmail address... turned out that was the source of 1/2 spams (100+ / day).
But those were filtered too without problem.
So far so good... not a single false detection for ham.
Nothing but praise so far.
Disclaimer: I do not work for gmail.
I am the genuine satisfied customer with smile on my face, from "after" picture, as seen on TV!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28590963</id>
	<title>Re: I do care how it works</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1246815780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Contrary to what another poster who replied to you has to say, I agree that Postini has gone down hill within the last month or so.  The software is missing virii attached as normal attachments to emails.  Virii that the Symantec anti-virus on our in house Exchange server is catching.  I never in a million years thought I would see the day when Symantec would be doing a better job than Google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Contrary to what another poster who replied to you has to say , I agree that Postini has gone down hill within the last month or so .
The software is missing virii attached as normal attachments to emails .
Virii that the Symantec anti-virus on our in house Exchange server is catching .
I never in a million years thought I would see the day when Symantec would be doing a better job than Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Contrary to what another poster who replied to you has to say, I agree that Postini has gone down hill within the last month or so.
The software is missing virii attached as normal attachments to emails.
Virii that the Symantec anti-virus on our in house Exchange server is catching.
I never in a million years thought I would see the day when Symantec would be doing a better job than Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588457</id>
	<title>damm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246786680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and now, where I am supposed to to get my weekly viagra supplies?</htmltext>
<tokenext>and now , where I am supposed to to get my weekly viagra supplies ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and now, where I am supposed to to get my weekly viagra supplies?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28593787</id>
	<title>Summary...</title>
	<author>EddyPearson</author>
	<datestamp>1246891320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...is misleading. New summary:</p><p>Bayesian filtering.</p><p>NEXT PLEASE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...is misleading .
New summary : Bayesian filtering.NEXT PLEASE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is misleading.
New summary:Bayesian filtering.NEXT PLEASE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28593279</id>
	<title>Meh.</title>
	<author>cyberfr0g</author>
	<datestamp>1246887960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No matter what Postini does, they will still be simply Postini owned by Google.</p><p>Wake me up when Postini is run on Google hardware in the Google network managed by Google employees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No matter what Postini does , they will still be simply Postini owned by Google.Wake me up when Postini is run on Google hardware in the Google network managed by Google employees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No matter what Postini does, they will still be simply Postini owned by Google.Wake me up when Postini is run on Google hardware in the Google network managed by Google employees.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28600737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28592451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28593847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28590963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28590103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588993
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28600789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28603085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28592957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28591881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28591733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28592143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28593235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28590959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28591863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28593823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28592501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28591017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28591685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28592437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28594021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28590399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28591507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28590883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2025206_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28593111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_2025206.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588573
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_2025206.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28593551
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_2025206.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588401
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588939
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28593111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588993
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588855
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28594021
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28592451
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28591863
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28590963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589005
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589513
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28592957
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28603085
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589639
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589457
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28592437
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28590883
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28592501
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28591017
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28600789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28590959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588809
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_2025206.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589261
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28600737
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28593847
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_2025206.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588761
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28593823
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588843
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588823
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588703
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589035
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589029
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589809
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_2025206.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589285
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_2025206.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28593145
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_2025206.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588845
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28592143
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28591733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28591507
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_2025206.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588673
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588879
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28591685
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28591881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28590103
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28590399
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28593235
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_2025206.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589067
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_2025206.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589875
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_2025206.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588613
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_2025206.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28590091
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_2025206.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28589533
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_2025206.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588833
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_2025206.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588457
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_2025206.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588565
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_2025206.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2025206.28588399
</commentlist>
</conversation>
