<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_02_0027207</id>
	<title>SpamAssassin 2010 Bug</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1262437800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>SEWilco writes <i>"You might want to check your spam folder, as SpamAssassin has a rule which is tending to <a href="https://secure.grepular.com/blog/index.php/2010/01/01/spamassassin-2010-bug/">mark email sent in 2010 as spam</a>.  There is some discussion in <a href="https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show\_bug.cgi?id=6269">a bug report</a>.  The <a href="http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/Rules/FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX">SpamAssassin Wiki FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX page</a> doesn't have discussion, but it was updated today with a different date rule."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>SEWilco writes " You might want to check your spam folder , as SpamAssassin has a rule which is tending to mark email sent in 2010 as spam .
There is some discussion in a bug report .
The SpamAssassin Wiki FH \ _DATE \ _PAST \ _20XX page does n't have discussion , but it was updated today with a different date rule .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SEWilco writes "You might want to check your spam folder, as SpamAssassin has a rule which is tending to mark email sent in 2010 as spam.
There is some discussion in a bug report.
The SpamAssassin Wiki FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX page doesn't have discussion, but it was updated today with a different date rule.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618228</id>
	<title>What do we call this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262356080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Y2.01k?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Y2.01k ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Y2.01k?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619712</id>
	<title>Re:Millenium bug, how I have missed thee</title>
	<author>Sparr0</author>
	<datestamp>1262370060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think 2038 is a nonissue.  Technological progress is accelerating.  It took us 30 years to upgrade from 2 decimal digits to 4 for storing years.  It will not take 30 years to upgrade from 32 bits to 256 bits for time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think 2038 is a nonissue .
Technological progress is accelerating .
It took us 30 years to upgrade from 2 decimal digits to 4 for storing years .
It will not take 30 years to upgrade from 32 bits to 256 bits for time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think 2038 is a nonissue.
Technological progress is accelerating.
It took us 30 years to upgrade from 2 decimal digits to 4 for storing years.
It will not take 30 years to upgrade from 32 bits to 256 bits for time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618018</id>
	<title>First post to the bit bucket</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262355060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This post has been removed due to spam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This post has been removed due to spam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This post has been removed due to spam.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30621230</id>
	<title>Re:FIX details:</title>
	<author>rduke15</author>
	<datestamp>1262434980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are running amavis, sa-update alone is not enough. You also need to restart amavis so that it picks up the new rules. On a Debian system, that would be something like:</p><p><tt>sa-update &amp;&amp;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/init.d/amavis restart</tt></p><p>The spamassassin daily cron job does sa-update, and reloads spamassassin, but doesn't reload amavis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are running amavis , sa-update alone is not enough .
You also need to restart amavis so that it picks up the new rules .
On a Debian system , that would be something like : sa-update &amp;&amp; /etc/init.d/amavis restartThe spamassassin daily cron job does sa-update , and reloads spamassassin , but does n't reload amavis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are running amavis, sa-update alone is not enough.
You also need to restart amavis so that it picks up the new rules.
On a Debian system, that would be something like:sa-update &amp;&amp; /etc/init.d/amavis restartThe spamassassin daily cron job does sa-update, and reloads spamassassin, but doesn't reload amavis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618410</id>
	<title>Re:crapola</title>
	<author>smartaleckkill</author>
	<datestamp>1262357040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>depends--i have a cheap n cheerful shared hosting account with the same issue, but i do have cpanel access which allows me to override the score for any rule--check out the last link in the summary
basically if you have access to local config files (even through a frontend like cpanel) you can do it without root access</htmltext>
<tokenext>depends--i have a cheap n cheerful shared hosting account with the same issue , but i do have cpanel access which allows me to override the score for any rule--check out the last link in the summary basically if you have access to local config files ( even through a frontend like cpanel ) you can do it without root access</tokentext>
<sentencetext>depends--i have a cheap n cheerful shared hosting account with the same issue, but i do have cpanel access which allows me to override the score for any rule--check out the last link in the summary
basically if you have access to local config files (even through a frontend like cpanel) you can do it without root access</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618834</id>
	<title>Re:FIX details:</title>
	<author>nmb3000</author>
	<datestamp>1262360220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>score FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX 0.0</i></p><p>You'd probably be better off changing the rule instead of the score.  Putting something like:</p><blockquote><div><p># Fixes bug: <a href="https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show\_bug.cgi?id=6269" title="apache.org">https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show\_bug.cgi?id=6269</a> [apache.org]<br>header   FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX  Date =~<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/20[2-9][0-9]/ [if-unset: 2006]<br>describe FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX  The date is grossly in the future.</p></div></blockquote><p>in your local SA config would probably be better (unless you really want to just drop the rule entirely).</p><p>That said, you'd probably be better off updating everything with sa-update, but this fix works in case you cannot or don't want to do that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>score FH \ _DATE \ _PAST \ _20XX 0.0You 'd probably be better off changing the rule instead of the score .
Putting something like : # Fixes bug : https : //issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show \ _bug.cgi ? id = 6269 [ apache.org ] header FH \ _DATE \ _PAST \ _20XX Date = ~ /20 [ 2-9 ] [ 0-9 ] / [ if-unset : 2006 ] describe FH \ _DATE \ _PAST \ _20XX The date is grossly in the future.in your local SA config would probably be better ( unless you really want to just drop the rule entirely ) .That said , you 'd probably be better off updating everything with sa-update , but this fix works in case you can not or do n't want to do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>score FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX 0.0You'd probably be better off changing the rule instead of the score.
Putting something like:# Fixes bug: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show\_bug.cgi?id=6269 [apache.org]header   FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX  Date =~ /20[2-9][0-9]/ [if-unset: 2006]describe FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX  The date is grossly in the future.in your local SA config would probably be better (unless you really want to just drop the rule entirely).That said, you'd probably be better off updating everything with sa-update, but this fix works in case you cannot or don't want to do that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30622134</id>
	<title>2K10 is not 2010</title>
	<author>Ivan Stepaniuk</author>
	<datestamp>1262446680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is 2100... even if you don't like how 2k01 sounds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is 2100... even if you do n't like how 2k01 sounds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is 2100... even if you don't like how 2k01 sounds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618296</id>
	<title>Re:crapola</title>
	<author>ngc5194</author>
	<datestamp>1262356500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Is there a way to work around this that doesn't involve root access?"
<p>
Yes, but it isn't a good way.  Check your scores file for the scores associated with the FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX.  This indicates the number of points added to the spam score of every message that fails this test.  Basically, increase your spam threshold by this amount until you can apply this patch.
</p><p>
Good for a quick-n-dirty fix.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Is there a way to work around this that does n't involve root access ?
" Yes , but it is n't a good way .
Check your scores file for the scores associated with the FH \ _DATE \ _PAST \ _20XX .
This indicates the number of points added to the spam score of every message that fails this test .
Basically , increase your spam threshold by this amount until you can apply this patch .
Good for a quick-n-dirty fix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Is there a way to work around this that doesn't involve root access?
"

Yes, but it isn't a good way.
Check your scores file for the scores associated with the FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX.
This indicates the number of points added to the spam score of every message that fails this test.
Basically, increase your spam threshold by this amount until you can apply this patch.
Good for a quick-n-dirty fix.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618978</id>
	<title>Great workaround</title>
	<author>xororand</author>
	<datestamp>1262361600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The suggested fix is just silly... They postpone the problem to 2020-01-01:<br>3) change '/20[1-9][0-9]/' to '/20[2-9][0-9]/'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The suggested fix is just silly... They postpone the problem to 2020-01-01 : 3 ) change '/20 [ 1-9 ] [ 0-9 ] / ' to '/20 [ 2-9 ] [ 0-9 ] /'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The suggested fix is just silly... They postpone the problem to 2020-01-01:3) change '/20[1-9][0-9]/' to '/20[2-9][0-9]/'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618150</id>
	<title>"I'll just use a regex!"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262355720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What the... must all SpamAssassin rule be regexes? Because I can't see any (non brain dead) reason why not to implement this by just checking if $current\_year &lt; $header\_year if that's not the case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What the... must all SpamAssassin rule be regexes ?
Because I ca n't see any ( non brain dead ) reason why not to implement this by just checking if $ current \ _year &lt; $ header \ _year if that 's not the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the... must all SpamAssassin rule be regexes?
Because I can't see any (non brain dead) reason why not to implement this by just checking if $current\_year &lt; $header\_year if that's not the case.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618530</id>
	<title>Nice....</title>
	<author>kramer</author>
	<datestamp>1262357940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[url]https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show\_bug.cgi?id=5852[/url]</p><p>Noticed 14 months ago. Fixed 5 months ago. Released today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ url ] https : //issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show \ _bug.cgi ? id = 5852 [ /url ] Noticed 14 months ago .
Fixed 5 months ago .
Released today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[url]https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show\_bug.cgi?id=5852[/url]Noticed 14 months ago.
Fixed 5 months ago.
Released today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30620882</id>
	<title>Re:One hack replaced by another</title>
	<author>jamesh</author>
	<datestamp>1262429340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's no fix, it just puts the problem off for another 10 years.</p></div><p>I had that thought too. Then I had another thought which was 'Meh'.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's no fix , it just puts the problem off for another 10 years.I had that thought too .
Then I had another thought which was 'Meh' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's no fix, it just puts the problem off for another 10 years.I had that thought too.
Then I had another thought which was 'Meh'.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30633888</id>
	<title>Re:Millenium bug, how I have missed thee</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262510640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, we absolutely need time support for 3671743063080802746815416825491118336290905145409708398004109081935347 years. Using 64 bits for time, would only give us support for 584942417355 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , we absolutely need time support for 3671743063080802746815416825491118336290905145409708398004109081935347 years .
Using 64 bits for time , would only give us support for 584942417355 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, we absolutely need time support for 3671743063080802746815416825491118336290905145409708398004109081935347 years.
Using 64 bits for time, would only give us support for 584942417355 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30620746</id>
	<title>Re:End User</title>
	<author>doshea</author>
	<datestamp>1262427060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you can't get the rule to stop firing (by changing the rule or zeroing the score) you could increase your spam threshold by the amount of the rule's score (anywhere from 2 to 3.6 or more depending on your config).  This would essentially cancel out the rule.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ca n't get the rule to stop firing ( by changing the rule or zeroing the score ) you could increase your spam threshold by the amount of the rule 's score ( anywhere from 2 to 3.6 or more depending on your config ) .
This would essentially cancel out the rule .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can't get the rule to stop firing (by changing the rule or zeroing the score) you could increase your spam threshold by the amount of the rule's score (anywhere from 2 to 3.6 or more depending on your config).
This would essentially cancel out the rule.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30621098</id>
	<title>Re:crapola</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262433120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like a bad idea to me. Potentially too many open connections wasting memory, which is PRECIOUS and CRUCIAL on servers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a bad idea to me .
Potentially too many open connections wasting memory , which is PRECIOUS and CRUCIAL on servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a bad idea to me.
Potentially too many open connections wasting memory, which is PRECIOUS and CRUCIAL on servers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619700</id>
	<title>I almost missed some important mail!</title>
	<author>darthwader</author>
	<datestamp>1262369940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"You might want to check your spam folder, as SpamAssassin has a rule<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>
Thanks for the heads-up.  There was a very important e-mail from the Internet Lottery people telling me my e-mail address had been picked as the winner of the EUR 20,000 prize.  All I have to do is send them $200 by Western Union to cover the processing fees.  And to think I almost missed it!
</p><p>
It's terrible that SpamAssassin flags such important messages as spam.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" You might want to check your spam folder , as SpamAssassin has a rule .. . Thanks for the heads-up .
There was a very important e-mail from the Internet Lottery people telling me my e-mail address had been picked as the winner of the EUR 20,000 prize .
All I have to do is send them $ 200 by Western Union to cover the processing fees .
And to think I almost missed it !
It 's terrible that SpamAssassin flags such important messages as spam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You might want to check your spam folder, as SpamAssassin has a rule ...
Thanks for the heads-up.
There was a very important e-mail from the Internet Lottery people telling me my e-mail address had been picked as the winner of the EUR 20,000 prize.
All I have to do is send them $200 by Western Union to cover the processing fees.
And to think I almost missed it!
It's terrible that SpamAssassin flags such important messages as spam.

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30623796</id>
	<title>Re:One hack replaced by another</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262456820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't get it. The XX part is Roman.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't get it .
The XX part is Roman .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't get it.
The XX part is Roman.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30624280</id>
	<title>Many thanks to the poster!</title>
	<author>admiraljayce</author>
	<datestamp>1262459220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks for the timely tip (no pun intended)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for the timely tip ( no pun intended ) : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for the timely tip (no pun intended) :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30621990</id>
	<title>Re:One hack replaced by another</title>
	<author>tendays</author>
	<datestamp>1262445300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why call the rule FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX, shouldn't it be FH\_DATE\_PAST\_201X? At least then the hack would be documented.</p></div><p>Changing the rule name would break existing configuration files changing the rule score and/or description (like in <a href="http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1495300&amp;cid=30619362" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">that comment</a> [slashdot.org]).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why call the rule FH \ _DATE \ _PAST \ _20XX , should n't it be FH \ _DATE \ _PAST \ _201X ?
At least then the hack would be documented.Changing the rule name would break existing configuration files changing the rule score and/or description ( like in that comment [ slashdot.org ] ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why call the rule FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX, shouldn't it be FH\_DATE\_PAST\_201X?
At least then the hack would be documented.Changing the rule name would break existing configuration files changing the rule score and/or description (like in that comment [slashdot.org]).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619424</id>
	<title>Re:"I'll just use a regex!"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262366520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great Scott! Now how am I going to email Marty from the year 2015?</p><p>I don't want to jump in the Delorian to go see him everytime, the fluxcapacitor is starting to wear out.</p><p>Dr Emmett Brown</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great Scott !
Now how am I going to email Marty from the year 2015 ? I do n't want to jump in the Delorian to go see him everytime , the fluxcapacitor is starting to wear out.Dr Emmett Brown</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great Scott!
Now how am I going to email Marty from the year 2015?I don't want to jump in the Delorian to go see him everytime, the fluxcapacitor is starting to wear out.Dr Emmett Brown</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619484</id>
	<title>Re:crapola</title>
	<author>Penguinshit</author>
	<datestamp>1262367240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not to rub it in but I want to give a shout to my provider (Cruzio) who also use Spamassassin and were apparently on top of this (as they usualLY are0. i haven't noticed anything wrong with my email today.

Thanks Cruzio!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to rub it in but I want to give a shout to my provider ( Cruzio ) who also use Spamassassin and were apparently on top of this ( as they usualLY are0 .
i have n't noticed anything wrong with my email today .
Thanks Cruzio !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to rub it in but I want to give a shout to my provider (Cruzio) who also use Spamassassin and were apparently on top of this (as they usualLY are0.
i haven't noticed anything wrong with my email today.
Thanks Cruzio!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30622226</id>
	<title>Fine grain rule to stop anything after 2014</title>
	<author>freaker\_TuC</author>
	<datestamp>1262447520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This rule is a little bit more fine-grained. It will not allow anything to be sent after 2014.</p><p>edit the file<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/share/spamassassin/72\_active.cf</p><p>##{ FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX<br>header   FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX      Date =~<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/20[1-9][4-9]/ [if-unset: 2006]<br>describe FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX      The date is grossly in the future.<br>##} FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX</p><p>I wish variables could be used in regexps like these, like <b>$year + 2</b> would be a nice start....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This rule is a little bit more fine-grained .
It will not allow anything to be sent after 2014.edit the file /usr/share/spamassassin/72 \ _active.cf # # { FH \ _DATE \ _PAST \ _20XXheader FH \ _DATE \ _PAST \ _20XX Date = ~ /20 [ 1-9 ] [ 4-9 ] / [ if-unset : 2006 ] describe FH \ _DATE \ _PAST \ _20XX The date is grossly in the future. # # } FH \ _DATE \ _PAST \ _20XXI wish variables could be used in regexps like these , like $ year + 2 would be a nice start... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This rule is a little bit more fine-grained.
It will not allow anything to be sent after 2014.edit the file /usr/share/spamassassin/72\_active.cf##{ FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XXheader   FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX      Date =~ /20[1-9][4-9]/ [if-unset: 2006]describe FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX      The date is grossly in the future.##} FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XXI wish variables could be used in regexps like these, like $year + 2 would be a nice start....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619362</id>
	<title>Re:crapola</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262365800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My provider runs spamassassin, and given their track record in updating their other software, I rather doubt that they'll update spamassassin anytime soon.  Is there any way around this that doesn't involve root access?</p></div><p>If you have shell access, it should be trivial, although you do have to edit a file.</p><p>Add the following to ~/.spamassassin/user\_prefs:</p><p> <tt>score FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX 0.0</tt> </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My provider runs spamassassin , and given their track record in updating their other software , I rather doubt that they 'll update spamassassin anytime soon .
Is there any way around this that does n't involve root access ? If you have shell access , it should be trivial , although you do have to edit a file.Add the following to ~ /.spamassassin/user \ _prefs : score FH \ _DATE \ _PAST \ _20XX 0.0</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My provider runs spamassassin, and given their track record in updating their other software, I rather doubt that they'll update spamassassin anytime soon.
Is there any way around this that doesn't involve root access?If you have shell access, it should be trivial, although you do have to edit a file.Add the following to ~/.spamassassin/user\_prefs: score FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX 0.0 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619228</id>
	<title>Re:crapola</title>
	<author>mhrivnak</author>
	<datestamp>1262364240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The new rule gets picked up when "sa-update" is run. spamassassin deployments should run sa-update automatically on a regular basis, for example every day via a cronjob. Thus, most deployments will pick up the update automatically tonight if a sysadmin doesn't do it first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The new rule gets picked up when " sa-update " is run .
spamassassin deployments should run sa-update automatically on a regular basis , for example every day via a cronjob .
Thus , most deployments will pick up the update automatically tonight if a sysadmin does n't do it first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The new rule gets picked up when "sa-update" is run.
spamassassin deployments should run sa-update automatically on a regular basis, for example every day via a cronjob.
Thus, most deployments will pick up the update automatically tonight if a sysadmin doesn't do it first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30630856</id>
	<title>Re:crapola</title>
	<author>Pigskin-Referee</author>
	<datestamp>1262520660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh yeah, the other wonderfully helpful stock response "stop using the software if you don't like it".  Sure, I'd love to go back to getting 500 spams a day.</p></div><p>Is the alternative of receiving no mail more palatable?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yeah , the other wonderfully helpful stock response " stop using the software if you do n't like it " .
Sure , I 'd love to go back to getting 500 spams a day.Is the alternative of receiving no mail more palatable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yeah, the other wonderfully helpful stock response "stop using the software if you don't like it".
Sure, I'd love to go back to getting 500 spams a day.Is the alternative of receiving no mail more palatable?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618954</id>
	<title>holy crap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262361360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for the heads up, my kid's birthday party is next weekend and when I look at the spam folder it turns out 3 more people have replied that I hadn't seen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for the heads up , my kid 's birthday party is next weekend and when I look at the spam folder it turns out 3 more people have replied that I had n't seen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for the heads up, my kid's birthday party is next weekend and when I look at the spam folder it turns out 3 more people have replied that I hadn't seen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076</id>
	<title>crapola</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1262355360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My provider runs spamassassin, and given their track record in updating their other software, I rather doubt that they'll update spamassassin anytime soon.  Is there any way around this that doesn't involve root access?  (I love helpful responses from idiots that start with "first, edit the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/spamassassin.conf file" or whatever.)  </p><p>Oh yeah, the other wonderfully helpful stock response "stop using the software if you don't like it".  Sure, I'd love to go back to getting 500 spams a day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My provider runs spamassassin , and given their track record in updating their other software , I rather doubt that they 'll update spamassassin anytime soon .
Is there any way around this that does n't involve root access ?
( I love helpful responses from idiots that start with " first , edit the /etc/spamassassin.conf file " or whatever .
) Oh yeah , the other wonderfully helpful stock response " stop using the software if you do n't like it " .
Sure , I 'd love to go back to getting 500 spams a day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My provider runs spamassassin, and given their track record in updating their other software, I rather doubt that they'll update spamassassin anytime soon.
Is there any way around this that doesn't involve root access?
(I love helpful responses from idiots that start with "first, edit the /etc/spamassassin.conf file" or whatever.
)  Oh yeah, the other wonderfully helpful stock response "stop using the software if you don't like it".
Sure, I'd love to go back to getting 500 spams a day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619460</id>
	<title>Re:What do we call this?</title>
	<author>andreyvul</author>
	<datestamp>1262367060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Y2KX has a better ring to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Y2KX has a better ring to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Y2KX has a better ring to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619932</id>
	<title>Re:crapola</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262372760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Is there any way around this that doesn't involve root access? (I love helpful responses from idiots that start with "first, edit the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/spamassassin.conf file" or whatever.) </i></p><p>Well, that should be the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf file. Local customizations shouldn't be in the main config file since the main config file will get overwritten when spamassassin is upgraded<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>But seriously, assuming your provider allows per-user customization, edit your ~/.spamassassin/user\_prefs file, and add a line like this:</p><p>score FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX 0 0 0 0</p><p>That sets the rule to add zero points to the spam score in all situations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there any way around this that does n't involve root access ?
( I love helpful responses from idiots that start with " first , edit the /etc/spamassassin.conf file " or whatever .
) Well , that should be the /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf file .
Local customizations should n't be in the main config file since the main config file will get overwritten when spamassassin is upgraded : ) But seriously , assuming your provider allows per-user customization , edit your ~ /.spamassassin/user \ _prefs file , and add a line like this : score FH \ _DATE \ _PAST \ _20XX 0 0 0 0That sets the rule to add zero points to the spam score in all situations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there any way around this that doesn't involve root access?
(I love helpful responses from idiots that start with "first, edit the /etc/spamassassin.conf file" or whatever.
) Well, that should be the /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf file.
Local customizations shouldn't be in the main config file since the main config file will get overwritten when spamassassin is upgraded :)But seriously, assuming your provider allows per-user customization, edit your ~/.spamassassin/user\_prefs file, and add a line like this:score FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX 0 0 0 0That sets the rule to add zero points to the spam score in all situations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30621008</id>
	<title>Why does this rule exist anyway?</title>
	<author>Animaether</author>
	<datestamp>1262431620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can only guess that it's a rule to flag e-mails as being spammy (all of my new years' wishes to brits and americans I got replies to with the subject tagged "{Spam?}") when they are 'sent from the future'.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I can also only guess that this is done via a regex on the date with the date being somewhere far into the future (but that future kinda crept up on us the other day, right?) so as not to burden CPUs with actual date conversions to universal time and doing comparisons on that, and flagging e-mails sent greater than a 24 hour period or so into the future.</p><p>But given that<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 1. such e-mails hardly exist in the first place (In my archives, I just found 2*.. out of 19,836 and counting)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 2. spammers will be readily aware of this rule and really why would they make an effort to inject a future date anyway when their mail daemons will happily use the -current date-<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 3. in case of an actual entity from the future informing us of impending doom with instructions on how to stave it off, we'll have seriously fucked ourselves?</p><p>I just don't see why this rule exists at all, and why it needs to be 'fixed'.  Maybe somebody can inform me of a very good reason for the rule existing.  If not: I say the rule doesn't need fixing.. it needs removing.</p><p>*<br>E-mail number 1: A travel itinerary auto-sent from expedia back in May 2004.  It has a date of February 7th, 2101.<br>E-mail number 2: An e-mail from a friend back in June 2005.  It inexplicably has a date of June 26th, 2165.  ThunderBird oddly enough reports a date in the search results reading May 21st, 2029 - though that's nowhere to be found in the mail's source.  Display bug?<br>Neither are spam, regardless. (yes, I know, there's no telling how many (spam) e-mails from the future I never received because they were spam-flagged in the first place.  I think I'd rather take my chances.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can only guess that it 's a rule to flag e-mails as being spammy ( all of my new years ' wishes to brits and americans I got replies to with the subject tagged " { Spam ?
} " ) when they are 'sent from the future' .
    I can also only guess that this is done via a regex on the date with the date being somewhere far into the future ( but that future kinda crept up on us the other day , right ?
) so as not to burden CPUs with actual date conversions to universal time and doing comparisons on that , and flagging e-mails sent greater than a 24 hour period or so into the future.But given that     1. such e-mails hardly exist in the first place ( In my archives , I just found 2 * .. out of 19,836 and counting )     2. spammers will be readily aware of this rule and really why would they make an effort to inject a future date anyway when their mail daemons will happily use the -current date-     3. in case of an actual entity from the future informing us of impending doom with instructions on how to stave it off , we 'll have seriously fucked ourselves ? I just do n't see why this rule exists at all , and why it needs to be 'fixed' .
Maybe somebody can inform me of a very good reason for the rule existing .
If not : I say the rule does n't need fixing.. it needs removing .
* E-mail number 1 : A travel itinerary auto-sent from expedia back in May 2004 .
It has a date of February 7th , 2101.E-mail number 2 : An e-mail from a friend back in June 2005 .
It inexplicably has a date of June 26th , 2165 .
ThunderBird oddly enough reports a date in the search results reading May 21st , 2029 - though that 's nowhere to be found in the mail 's source .
Display bug ? Neither are spam , regardless .
( yes , I know , there 's no telling how many ( spam ) e-mails from the future I never received because they were spam-flagged in the first place .
I think I 'd rather take my chances .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can only guess that it's a rule to flag e-mails as being spammy (all of my new years' wishes to brits and americans I got replies to with the subject tagged "{Spam?
}") when they are 'sent from the future'.
    I can also only guess that this is done via a regex on the date with the date being somewhere far into the future (but that future kinda crept up on us the other day, right?
) so as not to burden CPUs with actual date conversions to universal time and doing comparisons on that, and flagging e-mails sent greater than a 24 hour period or so into the future.But given that
    1. such e-mails hardly exist in the first place (In my archives, I just found 2*.. out of 19,836 and counting)
    2. spammers will be readily aware of this rule and really why would they make an effort to inject a future date anyway when their mail daemons will happily use the -current date-
    3. in case of an actual entity from the future informing us of impending doom with instructions on how to stave it off, we'll have seriously fucked ourselves?I just don't see why this rule exists at all, and why it needs to be 'fixed'.
Maybe somebody can inform me of a very good reason for the rule existing.
If not: I say the rule doesn't need fixing.. it needs removing.
*E-mail number 1: A travel itinerary auto-sent from expedia back in May 2004.
It has a date of February 7th, 2101.E-mail number 2: An e-mail from a friend back in June 2005.
It inexplicably has a date of June 26th, 2165.
ThunderBird oddly enough reports a date in the search results reading May 21st, 2029 - though that's nowhere to be found in the mail's source.
Display bug?Neither are spam, regardless.
(yes, I know, there's no telling how many (spam) e-mails from the future I never received because they were spam-flagged in the first place.
I think I'd rather take my chances.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618202</id>
	<title>Re:crapola</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262355960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I lol'd. Quit managing servers if you don't want to SSH in and make easy changes. Software has bugs, welcome to technology.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I lol 'd .
Quit managing servers if you do n't want to SSH in and make easy changes .
Software has bugs , welcome to technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I lol'd.
Quit managing servers if you don't want to SSH in and make easy changes.
Software has bugs, welcome to technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618378</id>
	<title>One hack replaced by another</title>
	<author>tomp</author>
	<datestamp>1262356920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the "fix"</p><p>&gt; FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX<br>&gt; change '/20[1-9][0-9]/' to '/20[2-9][0-9]/'</p><p>That's no fix, it just puts the problem off for another 10 years. Why call the rule FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX, shouldn't it be FH\_DATE\_PAST\_201X? At least then the hack would be documented.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the " fix " &gt; FH \ _DATE \ _PAST \ _20XX &gt; change '/20 [ 1-9 ] [ 0-9 ] / ' to '/20 [ 2-9 ] [ 0-9 ] /'That 's no fix , it just puts the problem off for another 10 years .
Why call the rule FH \ _DATE \ _PAST \ _20XX , should n't it be FH \ _DATE \ _PAST \ _201X ?
At least then the hack would be documented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the "fix"&gt; FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX&gt; change '/20[1-9][0-9]/' to '/20[2-9][0-9]/'That's no fix, it just puts the problem off for another 10 years.
Why call the rule FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX, shouldn't it be FH\_DATE\_PAST\_201X?
At least then the hack would be documented.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618182</id>
	<title>Re:crapola</title>
	<author>godrik</author>
	<datestamp>1262355840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I love helpful responses from idiots that start with "first, edit the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/spamassassin.conf file"</p> </div><p>Yes. That's easy! First edit the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/spamassassin.conf file!<br>Wait a sec...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love helpful responses from idiots that start with " first , edit the /etc/spamassassin.conf file " Yes .
That 's easy !
First edit the /etc/spamassassin.conf file ! Wait a sec.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love helpful responses from idiots that start with "first, edit the /etc/spamassassin.conf file" Yes.
That's easy!
First edit the /etc/spamassassin.conf file!Wait a sec...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619198</id>
	<title>End User</title>
	<author>Kenshin</author>
	<datestamp>1262363940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As an end user, with no real ability to configure SpamAssassin other than through cPanel, what can I do about this? (Unless my webhost is right on top of it.)</p><p>I've disabled it, for now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As an end user , with no real ability to configure SpamAssassin other than through cPanel , what can I do about this ?
( Unless my webhost is right on top of it .
) I 've disabled it , for now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an end user, with no real ability to configure SpamAssassin other than through cPanel, what can I do about this?
(Unless my webhost is right on top of it.
)I've disabled it, for now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618420</id>
	<title>Implicit whitelisting?</title>
	<author>YouDoNotWantToKnow</author>
	<datestamp>1262357160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is so last decade<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;P</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is so last decade ; P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is so last decade ;P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30630952</id>
	<title>Re:crapola</title>
	<author>jonathan1979</author>
	<datestamp>1262522640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My provider runs spamassassin, and given their track record in updating their other software, I rather doubt that they'll update spamassassin anytime soon.  Is there any way around this that doesn't involve root access?</p></div><p>Not that I know of, but perhaps you might have access to a local.cf file in which you can set the score of the rule to a lower value or ignore it by setting the score to 0.

Before the update I did this (in my case) by adding the following line to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf:

score FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX 0.0

The new rule however is not released in a new spamassassin release yet, but the rules are pushed through the udpate channels, so perhaps your provider might have received the update. Othwerwise it is wise to inform your provider (as this would affect all the users in a heavy way due to the high score assigned to this test) or switch provider.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My provider runs spamassassin , and given their track record in updating their other software , I rather doubt that they 'll update spamassassin anytime soon .
Is there any way around this that does n't involve root access ? Not that I know of , but perhaps you might have access to a local.cf file in which you can set the score of the rule to a lower value or ignore it by setting the score to 0 .
Before the update I did this ( in my case ) by adding the following line to /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf : score FH \ _DATE \ _PAST \ _20XX 0.0 The new rule however is not released in a new spamassassin release yet , but the rules are pushed through the udpate channels , so perhaps your provider might have received the update .
Othwerwise it is wise to inform your provider ( as this would affect all the users in a heavy way due to the high score assigned to this test ) or switch provider .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My provider runs spamassassin, and given their track record in updating their other software, I rather doubt that they'll update spamassassin anytime soon.
Is there any way around this that doesn't involve root access?Not that I know of, but perhaps you might have access to a local.cf file in which you can set the score of the rule to a lower value or ignore it by setting the score to 0.
Before the update I did this (in my case) by adding the following line to /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf:

score FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX 0.0

The new rule however is not released in a new spamassassin release yet, but the rules are pushed through the udpate channels, so perhaps your provider might have received the update.
Othwerwise it is wise to inform your provider (as this would affect all the users in a heavy way due to the high score assigned to this test) or switch provider.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619400</id>
	<title>Re:End User</title>
	<author>6Yankee</author>
	<datestamp>1262366160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Making sure they're aware of the issue might be a good place to start.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Making sure they 're aware of the issue might be a good place to start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Making sure they're aware of the issue might be a good place to start.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30621042</id>
	<title>Re:Millenium bug, how I have missed thee</title>
	<author>snaz555</author>
	<datestamp>1262432340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If they had decided to start using 64-bit time on the 1st of January, 1970 none of these problems would have happened</p></div><p>
The pattern:<br>
<br> <tt>
##{ FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX<br>
header   FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX      Date =~<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/20[1-9][0-9]/ [if-unset: 2006]<br>
describe FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX      The date is grossly in the future.<br>
##} FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX
<br> </tt>
</p><p>
Will match 2010 no matter how many bits are used to keep time.  This is a problem that has been know for years; it's a total embarrassment to OSS practices that it wasn't fixed before 1/1/10, before becoming critical.  It's not based on a bad architectural decision, or even particularly bad code - it's just a typo where the fix wasn't pushed in a timely manner.  I suspect a problem here is that open source development doesn't separate  bug fixes from feature additions, which means non-critical fixes get backed up with features to be considered stable enough to ship.  A <i>critical</i> fix can be spun separately (being backported to the current stable branch) - but this problem wasn't critical... yet...
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they had decided to start using 64-bit time on the 1st of January , 1970 none of these problems would have happened The pattern : # # { FH \ _DATE \ _PAST \ _20XX header FH \ _DATE \ _PAST \ _20XX Date = ~ /20 [ 1-9 ] [ 0-9 ] / [ if-unset : 2006 ] describe FH \ _DATE \ _PAST \ _20XX The date is grossly in the future .
# # } FH \ _DATE \ _PAST \ _20XX Will match 2010 no matter how many bits are used to keep time .
This is a problem that has been know for years ; it 's a total embarrassment to OSS practices that it was n't fixed before 1/1/10 , before becoming critical .
It 's not based on a bad architectural decision , or even particularly bad code - it 's just a typo where the fix was n't pushed in a timely manner .
I suspect a problem here is that open source development does n't separate bug fixes from feature additions , which means non-critical fixes get backed up with features to be considered stable enough to ship .
A critical fix can be spun separately ( being backported to the current stable branch ) - but this problem was n't critical... yet.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they had decided to start using 64-bit time on the 1st of January, 1970 none of these problems would have happened
The pattern:
 
##{ FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX
header   FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX      Date =~ /20[1-9][0-9]/ [if-unset: 2006]
describe FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX      The date is grossly in the future.
##} FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX
 

Will match 2010 no matter how many bits are used to keep time.
This is a problem that has been know for years; it's a total embarrassment to OSS practices that it wasn't fixed before 1/1/10, before becoming critical.
It's not based on a bad architectural decision, or even particularly bad code - it's just a typo where the fix wasn't pushed in a timely manner.
I suspect a problem here is that open source development doesn't separate  bug fixes from feature additions, which means non-critical fixes get backed up with features to be considered stable enough to ship.
A critical fix can be spun separately (being backported to the current stable branch) - but this problem wasn't critical... yet...

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30620564</id>
	<title>Note from the VP, Apache SpamAssassin</title>
	<author>doshea</author>
	<datestamp>1262424480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clearly we dropped the ball on this one.  As far as I know it's our first big rule screw up in the project's 10 years.  If you're going to screw up you might as well do it well.</p><p>I posted the following note to the Apache SpamAssassin website (http://spamassassin.apache.org/).  Updates are available via sa-update, please run sa-update immediately.  It's included in all versions of 3.2.x (the affected version of SpamAssassin).  Alternatively zero the rule's score in your local.cf file if you have access to it.  If you don't, increase your spam threshold by 3.6 points if your mail provider allows you to do that.</p><p>Y2K10 Rule Bug - Update Your Rules Now!</p><p>2010-01-01:</p><p>Versions of the FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX rule released with versions of Apache SpamAssassin 3.2.0 thru 3.2.5 will trigger on most mail with a Date header that includes the year 2010 or later.  The rule will add a score of up to 3.6 towards the spam classification of all email.  You should take corrective action immediately; there are two easy ways to correct the problem:</p><p>* If your system is configured to use sa-update run sa-update now.  An update is available that will correct the rule.  No further action is necessary (other than restarting spamd or any service that uses SpamAssassin directly).</p><p>* Add "score FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX 0" without the quotes to the end of your local.cf file to disable the rule.</p><p>If you require help updating your rules to correct this issue you are encouraged to ask for assistance on the Apache SpamAssassin Users' list.  Users' mailing list info is here.</p><p>On behalf of the Apache SpamAssassin project I apologize for this error and the grief it may have caused you.</p><p>Regards,</p><p>Daryl C. W. O'Shea</p><p>VP, Apache SpamAssassin</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly we dropped the ball on this one .
As far as I know it 's our first big rule screw up in the project 's 10 years .
If you 're going to screw up you might as well do it well.I posted the following note to the Apache SpamAssassin website ( http : //spamassassin.apache.org/ ) .
Updates are available via sa-update , please run sa-update immediately .
It 's included in all versions of 3.2.x ( the affected version of SpamAssassin ) .
Alternatively zero the rule 's score in your local.cf file if you have access to it .
If you do n't , increase your spam threshold by 3.6 points if your mail provider allows you to do that.Y2K10 Rule Bug - Update Your Rules Now ! 2010-01-01 : Versions of the FH \ _DATE \ _PAST \ _20XX rule released with versions of Apache SpamAssassin 3.2.0 thru 3.2.5 will trigger on most mail with a Date header that includes the year 2010 or later .
The rule will add a score of up to 3.6 towards the spam classification of all email .
You should take corrective action immediately ; there are two easy ways to correct the problem : * If your system is configured to use sa-update run sa-update now .
An update is available that will correct the rule .
No further action is necessary ( other than restarting spamd or any service that uses SpamAssassin directly ) .
* Add " score FH \ _DATE \ _PAST \ _20XX 0 " without the quotes to the end of your local.cf file to disable the rule.If you require help updating your rules to correct this issue you are encouraged to ask for assistance on the Apache SpamAssassin Users ' list .
Users ' mailing list info is here.On behalf of the Apache SpamAssassin project I apologize for this error and the grief it may have caused you.Regards,Daryl C. W. O'SheaVP , Apache SpamAssassin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly we dropped the ball on this one.
As far as I know it's our first big rule screw up in the project's 10 years.
If you're going to screw up you might as well do it well.I posted the following note to the Apache SpamAssassin website (http://spamassassin.apache.org/).
Updates are available via sa-update, please run sa-update immediately.
It's included in all versions of 3.2.x (the affected version of SpamAssassin).
Alternatively zero the rule's score in your local.cf file if you have access to it.
If you don't, increase your spam threshold by 3.6 points if your mail provider allows you to do that.Y2K10 Rule Bug - Update Your Rules Now!2010-01-01:Versions of the FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX rule released with versions of Apache SpamAssassin 3.2.0 thru 3.2.5 will trigger on most mail with a Date header that includes the year 2010 or later.
The rule will add a score of up to 3.6 towards the spam classification of all email.
You should take corrective action immediately; there are two easy ways to correct the problem:* If your system is configured to use sa-update run sa-update now.
An update is available that will correct the rule.
No further action is necessary (other than restarting spamd or any service that uses SpamAssassin directly).
* Add "score FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX 0" without the quotes to the end of your local.cf file to disable the rule.If you require help updating your rules to correct this issue you are encouraged to ask for assistance on the Apache SpamAssassin Users' list.
Users' mailing list info is here.On behalf of the Apache SpamAssassin project I apologize for this error and the grief it may have caused you.Regards,Daryl C. W. O'SheaVP, Apache SpamAssassin</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30622250</id>
	<title>Re:Note from the VP, Apache SpamAssassin</title>
	<author>Old Sparky</author>
	<datestamp>1262447700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Working great over here - all I had to do was run sa-update.</p><p>Thanks for the hard work!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Working great over here - all I had to do was run sa-update.Thanks for the hard work !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Working great over here - all I had to do was run sa-update.Thanks for the hard work!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30620564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30626448</id>
	<title>Re:crapola</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262429160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>edit<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.spamassassin/user\_prefs</p><p>or substract 3.6 from spam-score by an own filter program.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>edit .spamassassin/user \ _prefsor substract 3.6 from spam-score by an own filter program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>edit .spamassassin/user\_prefsor substract 3.6 from spam-score by an own filter program.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618572</id>
	<title>Fixed in spamassassin 3.2.5-7 in Debian/Unstable</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1262358480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>n/t</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>n/t</tokentext>
<sentencetext>n/t</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30621382</id>
	<title>Re:"I'll just use a regex!"</title>
	<author>jandoedel</author>
	<datestamp>1262437200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... or it could be an important message from your future self, containing instructions for making a time machine that send mails backwards in time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... or it could be an important message from your future self , containing instructions for making a time machine that send mails backwards in time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... or it could be an important message from your future self, containing instructions for making a time machine that send mails backwards in time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30620066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30641740</id>
	<title>Re:Millenium bug, how I have missed thee</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262624880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great comment bro.</p><p>Now actually <em>read the fucking article</em>, and explain to me how using 64 bit time since 1970 would have prevented this problem (somebody hardwiring 2010 into a config file at a time when 2010 seemed like far in the future, and not noticing it was no longer far in the future until we got here) from happening.</p><p>And this drivel is moderated insightful.  Blah.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great comment bro.Now actually read the fucking article , and explain to me how using 64 bit time since 1970 would have prevented this problem ( somebody hardwiring 2010 into a config file at a time when 2010 seemed like far in the future , and not noticing it was no longer far in the future until we got here ) from happening.And this drivel is moderated insightful .
Blah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great comment bro.Now actually read the fucking article, and explain to me how using 64 bit time since 1970 would have prevented this problem (somebody hardwiring 2010 into a config file at a time when 2010 seemed like far in the future, and not noticing it was no longer far in the future until we got here) from happening.And this drivel is moderated insightful.
Blah.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30621350</id>
	<title>Re:Great workaround</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262436840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you ever done production operations before?<br>Goal 1: Get People Working Again.<br>Goal much-farther-down-the-list: Document, Debug, and get people on the issue to properly patch/ensure it never happens again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you ever done production operations before ? Goal 1 : Get People Working Again.Goal much-farther-down-the-list : Document , Debug , and get people on the issue to properly patch/ensure it never happens again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you ever done production operations before?Goal 1: Get People Working Again.Goal much-farther-down-the-list: Document, Debug, and get people on the issue to properly patch/ensure it never happens again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30620182</id>
	<title>It would be 90\% right!</title>
	<author>SgtXaos</author>
	<datestamp>1262375940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only a small fraction of email I get is legit, so if it dumps all messages into the spam folder, it is pretty much doing the right thing</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only a small fraction of email I get is legit , so if it dumps all messages into the spam folder , it is pretty much doing the right thing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only a small fraction of email I get is legit, so if it dumps all messages into the spam folder, it is pretty much doing the right thing</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618024</id>
	<title>2010</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262355060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe SpamAssassin's AI is trying to tell us something... 2010, the year of spam?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe SpamAssassin 's AI is trying to tell us something... 2010 , the year of spam ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe SpamAssassin's AI is trying to tell us something... 2010, the year of spam?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619330</id>
	<title>Re:crapola</title>
	<author>Daniel\_Staal</author>
	<datestamp>1262365500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simplest non-root way (assuming they have it allowed): Edit the ~/.spamassassin/user\_prefs file.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simplest non-root way ( assuming they have it allowed ) : Edit the ~ /.spamassassin/user \ _prefs file .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simplest non-root way (assuming they have it allowed): Edit the ~/.spamassassin/user\_prefs file.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30620066</id>
	<title>Re:"I'll just use a regex!"</title>
	<author>Hal The Computer</author>
	<datestamp>1262374380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your solution doesn't work.<br>It fails on new years eve if someone is in a different time zone or if their clock is slightly off.</p><p>I'd suggest that any message sent more than seven (pick your favorite number) days in the future is spam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your solution does n't work.It fails on new years eve if someone is in a different time zone or if their clock is slightly off.I 'd suggest that any message sent more than seven ( pick your favorite number ) days in the future is spam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your solution doesn't work.It fails on new years eve if someone is in a different time zone or if their clock is slightly off.I'd suggest that any message sent more than seven (pick your favorite number) days in the future is spam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30620400</id>
	<title>Shouldn't the real solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262465580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>be something like<br>bad\_date == date() + 1 yr<br>and then compare against bad\_date ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>be something likebad \ _date = = date ( ) + 1 yrand then compare against bad \ _date ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>be something likebad\_date == date() + 1 yrand then compare against bad\_date ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618594</id>
	<title>Aha!</title>
	<author>/dev/trash</author>
	<datestamp>1262358600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So this is why my Schwab Stock Alert was marked as Spam this morning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So this is why my Schwab Stock Alert was marked as Spam this morning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So this is why my Schwab Stock Alert was marked as Spam this morning.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618936</id>
	<title>Now it shows up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262361180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ahh, the y2k.01 bug, naturally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahh , the y2k.01 bug , naturally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahh, the y2k.01 bug, naturally.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30623512</id>
	<title>Re:End User</title>
	<author>smartaleckkill</author>
	<datestamp>1262455440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>as pointed out in a couple of places above, without root access you may still be able to edit your own user prefs for spamassassin, either by editing the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.spamassassin/user\_prefs file, or through cpanel dpending on your provider's setup--in the configure options (where you can set required\_score for example) you add the FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX rule to one of the 'score' boxes with a value of 0--but note that this disables the rule entirely--i did it last night and my inbox was full of spam this morning, currently trying to figure out a +ve value/required\_score combination that'll minimize the false +ve risk but still keep the spam down--by default the rule has a score of 3.4 i think, so with a threshold of 5 it might be ok to crank it back a little rather than zero it--you might still get some false +ves tho, i've disabled auto-delete meantime</htmltext>
<tokenext>as pointed out in a couple of places above , without root access you may still be able to edit your own user prefs for spamassassin , either by editing the /.spamassassin/user \ _prefs file , or through cpanel dpending on your provider 's setup--in the configure options ( where you can set required \ _score for example ) you add the FH \ _DATE \ _PAST \ _20XX rule to one of the 'score ' boxes with a value of 0--but note that this disables the rule entirely--i did it last night and my inbox was full of spam this morning , currently trying to figure out a + ve value/required \ _score combination that 'll minimize the false + ve risk but still keep the spam down--by default the rule has a score of 3.4 i think , so with a threshold of 5 it might be ok to crank it back a little rather than zero it--you might still get some false + ves tho , i 've disabled auto-delete meantime</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as pointed out in a couple of places above, without root access you may still be able to edit your own user prefs for spamassassin, either by editing the /.spamassassin/user\_prefs file, or through cpanel dpending on your provider's setup--in the configure options (where you can set required\_score for example) you add the FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX rule to one of the 'score' boxes with a value of 0--but note that this disables the rule entirely--i did it last night and my inbox was full of spam this morning, currently trying to figure out a +ve value/required\_score combination that'll minimize the false +ve risk but still keep the spam down--by default the rule has a score of 3.4 i think, so with a threshold of 5 it might be ok to crank it back a little rather than zero it--you might still get some false +ves tho, i've disabled auto-delete meantime</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618770</id>
	<title>Re:crapola</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262359740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My provider runs spamassassin, and given their track record in updating their other software, I rather doubt that they'll update spamassassin anytime soon.  Is there any way around this that doesn't involve root access?  (I love helpful responses from idiots that start with "first, edit the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/spamassassin.conf file" or whatever.)  </p><p>Oh yeah, the other wonderfully helpful stock response "stop using the software if you don't like it".  Sure, I'd love to go back to getting 500 spams a day.</p></div><p>
My car is so old it doesn't have an airbag.  I heard about this glitch where I have a higher chance of dying because my car doesn't have an airbag.  Given my track record in buying new cards, I doubt I'll update my gremlin anytime soon.  Is there a way around this that doesn't involve require spending money? (I love helpful responses from idiots that start with "first go to NAPA" or whatever.)  Oh yeah, the other wonderfully helpful stock response "stop driving the car if you're worried about dying in a wreck".  Sure, I'd love to go back to the horse and buggy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My provider runs spamassassin , and given their track record in updating their other software , I rather doubt that they 'll update spamassassin anytime soon .
Is there any way around this that does n't involve root access ?
( I love helpful responses from idiots that start with " first , edit the /etc/spamassassin.conf file " or whatever .
) Oh yeah , the other wonderfully helpful stock response " stop using the software if you do n't like it " .
Sure , I 'd love to go back to getting 500 spams a day .
My car is so old it does n't have an airbag .
I heard about this glitch where I have a higher chance of dying because my car does n't have an airbag .
Given my track record in buying new cards , I doubt I 'll update my gremlin anytime soon .
Is there a way around this that does n't involve require spending money ?
( I love helpful responses from idiots that start with " first go to NAPA " or whatever .
) Oh yeah , the other wonderfully helpful stock response " stop driving the car if you 're worried about dying in a wreck " .
Sure , I 'd love to go back to the horse and buggy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My provider runs spamassassin, and given their track record in updating their other software, I rather doubt that they'll update spamassassin anytime soon.
Is there any way around this that doesn't involve root access?
(I love helpful responses from idiots that start with "first, edit the /etc/spamassassin.conf file" or whatever.
)  Oh yeah, the other wonderfully helpful stock response "stop using the software if you don't like it".
Sure, I'd love to go back to getting 500 spams a day.
My car is so old it doesn't have an airbag.
I heard about this glitch where I have a higher chance of dying because my car doesn't have an airbag.
Given my track record in buying new cards, I doubt I'll update my gremlin anytime soon.
Is there a way around this that doesn't involve require spending money?
(I love helpful responses from idiots that start with "first go to NAPA" or whatever.
)  Oh yeah, the other wonderfully helpful stock response "stop driving the car if you're worried about dying in a wreck".
Sure, I'd love to go back to the horse and buggy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618252</id>
	<title>Re:crapola</title>
	<author>DaMattster</author>
	<datestamp>1262356260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, I am not sure what OS your running, but you can use OpenBSD Spamd which works very well.  Rather than taking a defensive approach, Spamd goes on the offense by allowing known spam-sending IP addresses to attempt to send to you but throttling the connection down to 1 byte per second.  This shakes most people off with no perceivable impact on your part.  Even if the spam bot decides to wait the entire time to complete the connection, Spamd ends up dropping the message anyway.  I use this solution in my business and I've gone from getting 500+ per day to maybe 2 per week.  It is delightfully elegant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I am not sure what OS your running , but you can use OpenBSD Spamd which works very well .
Rather than taking a defensive approach , Spamd goes on the offense by allowing known spam-sending IP addresses to attempt to send to you but throttling the connection down to 1 byte per second .
This shakes most people off with no perceivable impact on your part .
Even if the spam bot decides to wait the entire time to complete the connection , Spamd ends up dropping the message anyway .
I use this solution in my business and I 've gone from getting 500 + per day to maybe 2 per week .
It is delightfully elegant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I am not sure what OS your running, but you can use OpenBSD Spamd which works very well.
Rather than taking a defensive approach, Spamd goes on the offense by allowing known spam-sending IP addresses to attempt to send to you but throttling the connection down to 1 byte per second.
This shakes most people off with no perceivable impact on your part.
Even if the spam bot decides to wait the entire time to complete the connection, Spamd ends up dropping the message anyway.
I use this solution in my business and I've gone from getting 500+ per day to maybe 2 per week.
It is delightfully elegant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619100</id>
	<title>Re:One hack replaced by another</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262362860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>my favorite response ever:</p><p>Not really much of a "fix" - more like a work-around that'll come back and bite<br>again in  10 years. "grossly in the future" is directly related to the current<br>time, so shouldn't this rule take the current time into account?</p><p>Comment 4 Henrik Krohns 2010-01-01 05:27:17 UTC</p><p>Right. But we have years of time to fix it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>my favorite response ever : Not really much of a " fix " - more like a work-around that 'll come back and biteagain in 10 years .
" grossly in the future " is directly related to the currenttime , so should n't this rule take the current time into account ? Comment 4 Henrik Krohns 2010-01-01 05 : 27 : 17 UTCRight .
But we have years of time to fix it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my favorite response ever:Not really much of a "fix" - more like a work-around that'll come back and biteagain in  10 years.
"grossly in the future" is directly related to the currenttime, so shouldn't this rule take the current time into account?Comment 4 Henrik Krohns 2010-01-01 05:27:17 UTCRight.
But we have years of time to fix it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619236</id>
	<title>Re:crapola</title>
	<author>Mana Mana</author>
	<datestamp>1262364240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OpenBSD spamd(8) is wholly unrelated from spamassassin spamd. FYI.</p><p>OpenBSD spamd(8) has no code from any other project. Its similarity in appellation is name deep.</p><p>OpenBSD spamd(8) approach is different and was created by deraadt@.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OpenBSD spamd ( 8 ) is wholly unrelated from spamassassin spamd .
FYI.OpenBSD spamd ( 8 ) has no code from any other project .
Its similarity in appellation is name deep.OpenBSD spamd ( 8 ) approach is different and was created by deraadt @ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OpenBSD spamd(8) is wholly unrelated from spamassassin spamd.
FYI.OpenBSD spamd(8) has no code from any other project.
Its similarity in appellation is name deep.OpenBSD spamd(8) approach is different and was created by deraadt@.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619018</id>
	<title>Re:Millenium bug, how I have missed thee</title>
	<author>JWSmythe</author>
	<datestamp>1262362020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I'm actually thankful that they ran this one as a story.  After seeing it, I remembered that rule.  I just hopped in and fixed my servers.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; The better rule would have been to watch for dates more than X days from today.  But, they're using  regular expressions, so that makes it a bit harder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    I 'm actually thankful that they ran this one as a story .
After seeing it , I remembered that rule .
I just hopped in and fixed my servers .
    The better rule would have been to watch for dates more than X days from today .
But , they 're using regular expressions , so that makes it a bit harder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    I'm actually thankful that they ran this one as a story.
After seeing it, I remembered that rule.
I just hopped in and fixed my servers.
    The better rule would have been to watch for dates more than X days from today.
But, they're using  regular expressions, so that makes it a bit harder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30620262</id>
	<title>Re:crapola</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1262463660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> My provider runs spamassassin, and given their track record in updating their other software, I rather doubt that they'll update spamassassin anytime soon</p></div><p>If they are slow enough updating, it's possible you don't have the bug. I haven't bothered to update my home mail server past Ubuntu 6.06 LTS, since it works fine. The version of Spamassassin it uses, 3.1.7, does not appear to have this bug.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My provider runs spamassassin , and given their track record in updating their other software , I rather doubt that they 'll update spamassassin anytime soonIf they are slow enough updating , it 's possible you do n't have the bug .
I have n't bothered to update my home mail server past Ubuntu 6.06 LTS , since it works fine .
The version of Spamassassin it uses , 3.1.7 , does not appear to have this bug .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> My provider runs spamassassin, and given their track record in updating their other software, I rather doubt that they'll update spamassassin anytime soonIf they are slow enough updating, it's possible you don't have the bug.
I haven't bothered to update my home mail server past Ubuntu 6.06 LTS, since it works fine.
The version of Spamassassin it uses, 3.1.7, does not appear to have this bug.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30620926</id>
	<title>Re:One hack replaced by another</title>
	<author>techdoc70</author>
	<datestamp>1262430240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This won't help</htmltext>
<tokenext>This wo n't help</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This won't help</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30622286</id>
	<title>Re:crapola</title>
	<author>Sleepy</author>
	<datestamp>1262448000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; (I love helpful responses from idiots that start with "first, edit the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/spamassassin.conf file" or whatever.)</p><p>&gt;Oh yeah, the other wonderfully helpful stock response "stop using the software if you don't like it". Sure, I'd love to go back to getting 500 spams a day.</p><p>"Idiots?"</p><p>You might have a point if the ONLY step began with "first". But here you see a bunch of people answered you.. and yes, ALL of them began with editing the "whatever" file.</p><p>You know... paid support for SpamAssassin IS available.<br>I suppose it could even work for someone who doesn't have TIME to "edit the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/spamassassin.conf file".</p><p>Even during the holidays there are folks like you who have the audacity to demand FREE free support... while pre-emptively demeaning those who would provide it. Unbelievable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ( I love helpful responses from idiots that start with " first , edit the /etc/spamassassin.conf file " or whatever .
) &gt; Oh yeah , the other wonderfully helpful stock response " stop using the software if you do n't like it " .
Sure , I 'd love to go back to getting 500 spams a day. " Idiots ?
" You might have a point if the ONLY step began with " first " .
But here you see a bunch of people answered you.. and yes , ALL of them began with editing the " whatever " file.You know... paid support for SpamAssassin IS available.I suppose it could even work for someone who does n't have TIME to " edit the /etc/spamassassin.conf file " .Even during the holidays there are folks like you who have the audacity to demand FREE free support... while pre-emptively demeaning those who would provide it .
Unbelievable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; (I love helpful responses from idiots that start with "first, edit the /etc/spamassassin.conf file" or whatever.
)&gt;Oh yeah, the other wonderfully helpful stock response "stop using the software if you don't like it".
Sure, I'd love to go back to getting 500 spams a day."Idiots?
"You might have a point if the ONLY step began with "first".
But here you see a bunch of people answered you.. and yes, ALL of them began with editing the "whatever" file.You know... paid support for SpamAssassin IS available.I suppose it could even work for someone who doesn't have TIME to "edit the /etc/spamassassin.conf file".Even during the holidays there are folks like you who have the audacity to demand FREE free support... while pre-emptively demeaning those who would provide it.
Unbelievable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618216</id>
	<title>FIX details:</title>
	<author>drDugan</author>
	<datestamp>1262356020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this is also happening on Ubuntu server, running Spamassassin 3.2.5</p><p>The linked article references a workaround:<br>add this line to the "local.cf" spamassassin config file, on this system is was<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/spamassassin/local.cf</p><p>score FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX 0.0</p><p>If you're running spamassassin as a daemon, you *may* also want to restart spamd<br>with something like:</p><p>sudo<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/init.d/spamassassin restart</p><p>This solution simply removes the rule by setting the score for that rule to 0.<br>You'll want to undo this once a solution is deployed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is also happening on Ubuntu server , running Spamassassin 3.2.5The linked article references a workaround : add this line to the " local.cf " spamassassin config file , on this system is was /etc/spamassassin/local.cfscore FH \ _DATE \ _PAST \ _20XX 0.0If you 're running spamassassin as a daemon , you * may * also want to restart spamdwith something like : sudo /etc/init.d/spamassassin restartThis solution simply removes the rule by setting the score for that rule to 0.You 'll want to undo this once a solution is deployed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is also happening on Ubuntu server, running Spamassassin 3.2.5The linked article references a workaround:add this line to the "local.cf" spamassassin config file, on this system is was /etc/spamassassin/local.cfscore FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX 0.0If you're running spamassassin as a daemon, you *may* also want to restart spamdwith something like:sudo /etc/init.d/spamassassin restartThis solution simply removes the rule by setting the score for that rule to 0.You'll want to undo this once a solution is deployed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618406</id>
	<title>Re:crapola</title>
	<author>stms</author>
	<datestamp>1262357040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well you don't have to get 500 spam emails a day just because you don't use their software use some other software idiot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well you do n't have to get 500 spam emails a day just because you do n't use their software use some other software idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well you don't have to get 500 spam emails a day just because you don't use their software use some other software idiot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618056</id>
	<title>Millenium bug, how I have missed thee</title>
	<author>ickleberry</author>
	<datestamp>1262355240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Instead of having one millenium bug, letting it do it's thing and get it over with we get similar bugs every year. The 2007 zune issue, the impending 2038 issue and this. Of course many more similar bugs that don't deserve their own slashdot article. If they had decided to start using 64-bit time on the 1st of January, 1970 none of these problems would have happened</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of having one millenium bug , letting it do it 's thing and get it over with we get similar bugs every year .
The 2007 zune issue , the impending 2038 issue and this .
Of course many more similar bugs that do n't deserve their own slashdot article .
If they had decided to start using 64-bit time on the 1st of January , 1970 none of these problems would have happened</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of having one millenium bug, letting it do it's thing and get it over with we get similar bugs every year.
The 2007 zune issue, the impending 2038 issue and this.
Of course many more similar bugs that don't deserve their own slashdot article.
If they had decided to start using 64-bit time on the 1st of January, 1970 none of these problems would have happened</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30626448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30620262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30620746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30620882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30621382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30620066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30641740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30633888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30622286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30621008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30622250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30620564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30630856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30623796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30621098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30621042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30623512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30621990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30630952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30620926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30621230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0027207_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30621350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0027207.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30620066
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30621382
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0027207.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30622134
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0027207.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30622226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0027207.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30621230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0027207.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30623512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30620746
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0027207.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0027207.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30620262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30630856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30626448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30630952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30622286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618252
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30621098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0027207.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0027207.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0027207.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618024
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0027207.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30620564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30622250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0027207.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0027207.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619712
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30633888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30641740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30621042
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0027207.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30621350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0027207.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0027207.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30618378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30621008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30623796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30620926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30621990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30620882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0027207.30619100
</commentlist>
</conversation>
