<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_07_2049224</id>
	<title>Hotmailers Hawking Hoax Hunan Half-Offs</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1262855100000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Frequent Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton writes <i>"An estimated 200,000 Hotmail users currently have their auto-reply set to a message spamming an advertisement for Chinese scam websites, which sell "discounted" electronics. Presumably the spammers compromised a large number of Hotmail accounts to pull this off, but wouldn't it be pretty easy for Hotmail to query for which users have that set as their auto-reply, and turn the auto-reply off for them?"</i> Read below for Bennett's thoughts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Frequent Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton writes " An estimated 200,000 Hotmail users currently have their auto-reply set to a message spamming an advertisement for Chinese scam websites , which sell " discounted " electronics .
Presumably the spammers compromised a large number of Hotmail accounts to pull this off , but would n't it be pretty easy for Hotmail to query for which users have that set as their auto-reply , and turn the auto-reply off for them ?
" Read below for Bennett 's thoughts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frequent Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton writes "An estimated 200,000 Hotmail users currently have their auto-reply set to a message spamming an advertisement for Chinese scam websites, which sell "discounted" electronics.
Presumably the spammers compromised a large number of Hotmail accounts to pull this off, but wouldn't it be pretty easy for Hotmail to query for which users have that set as their auto-reply, and turn the auto-reply off for them?
" Read below for Bennett's thoughts.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688406</id>
	<title>Re:A Possible Answer to One of the Many Questions</title>
	<author>lpaul55</author>
	<datestamp>1262863020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got one of these from a hijacked Yahoo! mail account.  This isn't limited to HotMail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got one of these from a hijacked Yahoo !
mail account .
This is n't limited to HotMail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got one of these from a hijacked Yahoo!
mail account.
This isn't limited to HotMail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30691784</id>
	<title>Re:Poster misses the point</title>
	<author>amorsen</author>
	<datestamp>1262941500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Email is intended to be unreliable, so there can never be an assumption that your mail isn't going to be blocked as spam for any of a number of reasons.</p></div><p>Email isn't intended to be unreliable. The various Internet email protocols were written in a way that makes the likelihood of failures low and practically guarantees you at least a message bounce. Spam has changed this in numerous ways, but there are two major ones. Systems now intentionally reject mail, even though it could have reached its destination, and bounce messages are no longer sent. You can't change the protocols that way and still have a reliable system, unfortunately, but it was never INTENDED to end this way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Email is intended to be unreliable , so there can never be an assumption that your mail is n't going to be blocked as spam for any of a number of reasons.Email is n't intended to be unreliable .
The various Internet email protocols were written in a way that makes the likelihood of failures low and practically guarantees you at least a message bounce .
Spam has changed this in numerous ways , but there are two major ones .
Systems now intentionally reject mail , even though it could have reached its destination , and bounce messages are no longer sent .
You ca n't change the protocols that way and still have a reliable system , unfortunately , but it was never INTENDED to end this way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Email is intended to be unreliable, so there can never be an assumption that your mail isn't going to be blocked as spam for any of a number of reasons.Email isn't intended to be unreliable.
The various Internet email protocols were written in a way that makes the likelihood of failures low and practically guarantees you at least a message bounce.
Spam has changed this in numerous ways, but there are two major ones.
Systems now intentionally reject mail, even though it could have reached its destination, and bounce messages are no longer sent.
You can't change the protocols that way and still have a reliable system, unfortunately, but it was never INTENDED to end this way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30691980</id>
	<title>Re:tl, dr</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262943480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ahhhhh... I totally understand him. These good, old, heavy IBM keyboards... I also love them! Their tactile feedback is so good, the clicking sound is so relaxing and reassuring... you feel compelled to keep writing just to enjoy the good feeling of the metal springs holding the keys under your fingertips and the regular sound of the... oops, sorry, it happened to me again. Okay okay, I quit typing at once.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahhhhh... I totally understand him .
These good , old , heavy IBM keyboards... I also love them !
Their tactile feedback is so good , the clicking sound is so relaxing and reassuring... you feel compelled to keep writing just to enjoy the good feeling of the metal springs holding the keys under your fingertips and the regular sound of the... oops , sorry , it happened to me again .
Okay okay , I quit typing at once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahhhhh... I totally understand him.
These good, old, heavy IBM keyboards... I also love them!
Their tactile feedback is so good, the clicking sound is so relaxing and reassuring... you feel compelled to keep writing just to enjoy the good feeling of the metal springs holding the keys under your fingertips and the regular sound of the... oops, sorry, it happened to me again.
Okay okay, I quit typing at once.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688260</id>
	<title>How'd they get the accounts?</title>
	<author>wadeal</author>
	<datestamp>1262862240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They wouldn't need to hack any Windows Live accounts, I remember a few months ago a list of 10's of thousands of emails and passwords for some christian site were uploaded to 4chan, from this atleast 1 in 10 had used the same password for their email account. So just find a site with a good number of users and hack that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They would n't need to hack any Windows Live accounts , I remember a few months ago a list of 10 's of thousands of emails and passwords for some christian site were uploaded to 4chan , from this atleast 1 in 10 had used the same password for their email account .
So just find a site with a good number of users and hack that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They wouldn't need to hack any Windows Live accounts, I remember a few months ago a list of 10's of thousands of emails and passwords for some christian site were uploaded to 4chan, from this atleast 1 in 10 had used the same password for their email account.
So just find a site with a good number of users and hack that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688238</id>
	<title>Re:Only 200,000?</title>
	<author>Finallyjoined!!!</author>
	<datestamp>1262862120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I didn't bother reading the full summary, but I wonder what technique the hackers were using</p></div></blockquote><p>
Maybe if you had have read the full summary you wouldn't have had to have asked such a stupid question.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't bother reading the full summary , but I wonder what technique the hackers were using Maybe if you had have read the full summary you would n't have had to have asked such a stupid question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't bother reading the full summary, but I wonder what technique the hackers were using
Maybe if you had have read the full summary you wouldn't have had to have asked such a stupid question.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687856</id>
	<title>Fraudulent sales</title>
	<author>hk117</author>
	<datestamp>1262860440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a shame that there aren't any controls in place for Western Union or MoneyGram. At least the Credit Card companies leave you some manner of recourse against the dishonest. I understand that criminals will continue to prey on hope, but can't some of these companies assume a bit more responsibility than chiding their customers to be careful?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a shame that there are n't any controls in place for Western Union or MoneyGram .
At least the Credit Card companies leave you some manner of recourse against the dishonest .
I understand that criminals will continue to prey on hope , but ca n't some of these companies assume a bit more responsibility than chiding their customers to be careful ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a shame that there aren't any controls in place for Western Union or MoneyGram.
At least the Credit Card companies leave you some manner of recourse against the dishonest.
I understand that criminals will continue to prey on hope, but can't some of these companies assume a bit more responsibility than chiding their customers to be careful?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687642</id>
	<title>Only 200,000?</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1262859360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't bother reading the full summary, but I wonder what technique the hackers were using to only hit 200,000. If it was by individual account, thats some pretty tedious changes to make.<br>If they managed to hack the computers, why not set up a spamming botnet the good old fashion way?<br>If they managed to hack hotmail, why not infect them all?</p><p>My guess is they were using some phishing to get usernames and passwords?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't bother reading the full summary , but I wonder what technique the hackers were using to only hit 200,000 .
If it was by individual account , thats some pretty tedious changes to make.If they managed to hack the computers , why not set up a spamming botnet the good old fashion way ? If they managed to hack hotmail , why not infect them all ? My guess is they were using some phishing to get usernames and passwords ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't bother reading the full summary, but I wonder what technique the hackers were using to only hit 200,000.
If it was by individual account, thats some pretty tedious changes to make.If they managed to hack the computers, why not set up a spamming botnet the good old fashion way?If they managed to hack hotmail, why not infect them all?My guess is they were using some phishing to get usernames and passwords?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30690042</id>
	<title>Re:A Possible Answer to One of the Many Questions</title>
	<author>blackest\_k</author>
	<datestamp>1262875440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A couple of months ago I got emails from other hotmail users giving me a link to a site which offered to check who was blocking or deleted me on msn messenger - just give msn/hotmail address and password to check.<br>checking the site showed it was registered in china.</p><p>I sent a reply or two to the hotmail users who's accounts had been used to send me the link to the site. I guess theres plenty of people trusting enough to give away their passwords. Especially when the link appears to come from a friend.</p><p><a href="http://hapjk3.aww-you-got-blocked.com/?id=Szkph&amp;invitation=amug@hotmail.com" title="aww-you-got-blocked.com">http://hapjk3.aww-you-got-blocked.com/?id=Szkph&amp;invitation=amug@hotmail.com</a> [aww-you-got-blocked.com] (email of victim changed )<br>This was in september.</p><p>typical email was</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Hey!</p><p>amug@hotmail.com invited you to check who has deleted or blocked you from their contact list on MSN Messenger.</p><p>It's Easy, Secure and Free!</p><p>Try it Now, Click Here</p><p>Thanks<br>Status Checker Team.</p><p>\_\_\_\_\_\_<br>This mail is sent by amug@hotmail.com using MSN status checker Application.<br>This is NOT Spam.</p></div><p>The header showed the email at least appeared to originate from the senders hotmail account.<br>looks like straight forward social engineering to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A couple of months ago I got emails from other hotmail users giving me a link to a site which offered to check who was blocking or deleted me on msn messenger - just give msn/hotmail address and password to check.checking the site showed it was registered in china.I sent a reply or two to the hotmail users who 's accounts had been used to send me the link to the site .
I guess theres plenty of people trusting enough to give away their passwords .
Especially when the link appears to come from a friend.http : //hapjk3.aww-you-got-blocked.com/ ? id = Szkph&amp;invitation = amug @ hotmail.com [ aww-you-got-blocked.com ] ( email of victim changed ) This was in september.typical email wasHey ! amug @ hotmail.com invited you to check who has deleted or blocked you from their contact list on MSN Messenger.It 's Easy , Secure and Free ! Try it Now , Click HereThanksStatus Checker Team. \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _This mail is sent by amug @ hotmail.com using MSN status checker Application.This is NOT Spam.The header showed the email at least appeared to originate from the senders hotmail account.looks like straight forward social engineering to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A couple of months ago I got emails from other hotmail users giving me a link to a site which offered to check who was blocking or deleted me on msn messenger - just give msn/hotmail address and password to check.checking the site showed it was registered in china.I sent a reply or two to the hotmail users who's accounts had been used to send me the link to the site.
I guess theres plenty of people trusting enough to give away their passwords.
Especially when the link appears to come from a friend.http://hapjk3.aww-you-got-blocked.com/?id=Szkph&amp;invitation=amug@hotmail.com [aww-you-got-blocked.com] (email of victim changed )This was in september.typical email wasHey!amug@hotmail.com invited you to check who has deleted or blocked you from their contact list on MSN Messenger.It's Easy, Secure and Free!Try it Now, Click HereThanksStatus Checker Team.\_\_\_\_\_\_This mail is sent by amug@hotmail.com using MSN status checker Application.This is NOT Spam.The header showed the email at least appeared to originate from the senders hotmail account.looks like straight forward social engineering to me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687832</id>
	<title>Infinite loop</title>
	<author>psYchotic87</author>
	<datestamp>1262860260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When I mailed all the users again from my Hotmail account, the results were strange -- most of the users' accounts sent back no auto-reply at all, not even a reply that got routed to my junk folder. (Why would Hotmail accounts not send an auto-reply in response to a message from a Hotmail user?</p></div><p>Perhaps to avoid an infinite loop of auto-replying between two compromised hotmail accounts?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I mailed all the users again from my Hotmail account , the results were strange -- most of the users ' accounts sent back no auto-reply at all , not even a reply that got routed to my junk folder .
( Why would Hotmail accounts not send an auto-reply in response to a message from a Hotmail user ? Perhaps to avoid an infinite loop of auto-replying between two compromised hotmail accounts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I mailed all the users again from my Hotmail account, the results were strange -- most of the users' accounts sent back no auto-reply at all, not even a reply that got routed to my junk folder.
(Why would Hotmail accounts not send an auto-reply in response to a message from a Hotmail user?Perhaps to avoid an infinite loop of auto-replying between two compromised hotmail accounts?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688194</id>
	<title>Gmail too..not just Hotmail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262862000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's happened to GMAIL too...my wife had the same message in her OOO</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's happened to GMAIL too...my wife had the same message in her OOO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's happened to GMAIL too...my wife had the same message in her OOO</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30696254</id>
	<title>Re:tl, dr</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1262972880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate long winded hot bags that like the sound of their own voice, however if hotmail spam is a problem for M$, by forcing people to actually write emails, and turning off the auto replay, or maybe making it a pay per send scheme, you would get all those spammers out of hotmail business....this point does work, and I do agree, make it so easy for M$ to implement that they do it for the sake of looking good to their customers.</p><p>I myself never use auto reply, and never will...dont need to, but having it disabled would force whoever to move on from my account should it have been hacked, and I not know about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate long winded hot bags that like the sound of their own voice , however if hotmail spam is a problem for M $ , by forcing people to actually write emails , and turning off the auto replay , or maybe making it a pay per send scheme , you would get all those spammers out of hotmail business....this point does work , and I do agree , make it so easy for M $ to implement that they do it for the sake of looking good to their customers.I myself never use auto reply , and never will...dont need to , but having it disabled would force whoever to move on from my account should it have been hacked , and I not know about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate long winded hot bags that like the sound of their own voice, however if hotmail spam is a problem for M$, by forcing people to actually write emails, and turning off the auto replay, or maybe making it a pay per send scheme, you would get all those spammers out of hotmail business....this point does work, and I do agree, make it so easy for M$ to implement that they do it for the sake of looking good to their customers.I myself never use auto reply, and never will...dont need to, but having it disabled would force whoever to move on from my account should it have been hacked, and I not know about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687846</id>
	<title>Re:tl, dr</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262860380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, Bennett should go back to Fark with his headline.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , Bennett should go back to Fark with his headline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, Bennett should go back to Fark with his headline.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30689062</id>
	<title>I guess I'm the only one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262866680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>To have read that headline the first time as "Hotmailers Hawking Hoax Human Half-Orcs".  This is not nearly as interesting as I first hoped.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To have read that headline the first time as " Hotmailers Hawking Hoax Human Half-Orcs " .
This is not nearly as interesting as I first hoped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To have read that headline the first time as "Hotmailers Hawking Hoax Human Half-Orcs".
This is not nearly as interesting as I first hoped.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688096</id>
	<title>May be the spammers sign up for this mailing list?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262861640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you ever stopped to think that the spammers are subscribing to this particular mailining list?  Basing your proportion on  a small number of mailing -list subscriber is not statistically prudent anyway.  It may not mean any broad issue with hotmail at all, may be the spammer signed up with the mailing list with 18 different ID's</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you ever stopped to think that the spammers are subscribing to this particular mailining list ?
Basing your proportion on a small number of mailing -list subscriber is not statistically prudent anyway .
It may not mean any broad issue with hotmail at all , may be the spammer signed up with the mailing list with 18 different ID 's</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you ever stopped to think that the spammers are subscribing to this particular mailining list?
Basing your proportion on  a small number of mailing -list subscriber is not statistically prudent anyway.
It may not mean any broad issue with hotmail at all, may be the spammer signed up with the mailing list with 18 different ID's</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30699182</id>
	<title>The sky is falling...my mistake, that's rain...</title>
	<author>cornflakes4brains</author>
	<datestamp>1262941860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Old quote (forget who): "You can't con an honest person." Only a moron thinking he can get something for nothing actually jumps at spam emails. Should we ban all email, have the postal carrier "preview" our mail, and have the phone company screen our calls?

Telemarketers get to talk to my phone as it sits on the table all alone...junk mail gets tossed...and emails I have no use for are deleted.

Clueless end users sending me a spam email I will ignore is nothing. Their being one of the army of drones in a bot web is my point of contention. Next topic, please...</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Old quote ( forget who ) : " You ca n't con an honest person .
" Only a moron thinking he can get something for nothing actually jumps at spam emails .
Should we ban all email , have the postal carrier " preview " our mail , and have the phone company screen our calls ?
Telemarketers get to talk to my phone as it sits on the table all alone...junk mail gets tossed...and emails I have no use for are deleted .
Clueless end users sending me a spam email I will ignore is nothing .
Their being one of the army of drones in a bot web is my point of contention .
Next topic , please.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Old quote (forget who): "You can't con an honest person.
" Only a moron thinking he can get something for nothing actually jumps at spam emails.
Should we ban all email, have the postal carrier "preview" our mail, and have the phone company screen our calls?
Telemarketers get to talk to my phone as it sits on the table all alone...junk mail gets tossed...and emails I have no use for are deleted.
Clueless end users sending me a spam email I will ignore is nothing.
Their being one of the army of drones in a bot web is my point of contention.
Next topic, please...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688004</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously</title>
	<author>BlindSpot</author>
	<datestamp>1262861280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is there any way to mod the title to troll?</p></div><p>Make that -1, Belongs In <i>Variety</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there any way to mod the title to troll ? Make that -1 , Belongs In Variety</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there any way to mod the title to troll?Make that -1, Belongs In Variety
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687566</id>
	<title>Better idea</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1262858940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For the infected users on my mailing list, I sent them a link to a set of instructions I'd written about how to set and un-set their Hotmail auto-reply and how to change their Hotmail password, with the hopes that they'd eventually see the message and follow the steps. 18 users rescued, 200,000 to go.</p> </div><p>Why don't you just send them information on how not to use hotmail. And while you are at it, why are you sending mass emails to a bunch of obviously clueless people? Are you a spammer?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the infected users on my mailing list , I sent them a link to a set of instructions I 'd written about how to set and un-set their Hotmail auto-reply and how to change their Hotmail password , with the hopes that they 'd eventually see the message and follow the steps .
18 users rescued , 200,000 to go .
Why do n't you just send them information on how not to use hotmail .
And while you are at it , why are you sending mass emails to a bunch of obviously clueless people ?
Are you a spammer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the infected users on my mailing list, I sent them a link to a set of instructions I'd written about how to set and un-set their Hotmail auto-reply and how to change their Hotmail password, with the hopes that they'd eventually see the message and follow the steps.
18 users rescued, 200,000 to go.
Why don't you just send them information on how not to use hotmail.
And while you are at it, why are you sending mass emails to a bunch of obviously clueless people?
Are you a spammer?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687558</id>
	<title>slimy yellow bastards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262858940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>slimy  yellow bastards</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>slimy yellow bastards</tokentext>
<sentencetext>slimy  yellow bastards</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687720</id>
	<title>Only hotmail?</title>
	<author>davosmith</author>
	<datestamp>1262859780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Why Hotmail accounts, but not Yahoo Mail, GMail, or AOL accounts? I've never noticed any auto-reply spam sent from any accounts at any of those other services.</p></div><p>I've had this happen with friends' Yahoo accounts (also offering Chinese electronics), so it isn't exclusively a Hotmail problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why Hotmail accounts , but not Yahoo Mail , GMail , or AOL accounts ?
I 've never noticed any auto-reply spam sent from any accounts at any of those other services.I 've had this happen with friends ' Yahoo accounts ( also offering Chinese electronics ) , so it is n't exclusively a Hotmail problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Why Hotmail accounts, but not Yahoo Mail, GMail, or AOL accounts?
I've never noticed any auto-reply spam sent from any accounts at any of those other services.I've had this happen with friends' Yahoo accounts (also offering Chinese electronics), so it isn't exclusively a Hotmail problem.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688198</id>
	<title>Sounds like the cause could be</title>
	<author>mrkitty</author>
	<datestamp>1262862000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A <a href="http://www.cgisecurity.com/csrf-faq.html" title="cgisecurity.com">CSRF vulnerability</a> [cgisecurity.com]?</htmltext>
<tokenext>A CSRF vulnerability [ cgisecurity.com ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A CSRF vulnerability [cgisecurity.com]?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688544</id>
	<title>Gmail too</title>
	<author>nstrom</author>
	<datestamp>1262863680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not too sure that gmail isn't a target... A couple weeks ago, my friend's Gmail account got hacked and the spammers sent the following message out to all his contacts:</p><p>I am willing to give you a surprising happiness! Yesterday i had<br>received the digtal camera which i ordered  from ---www.wwooz.com--<br>last week. its quilty is very good , and the price is very low.i am<br>satisfied with it.</p><p>If the products you expect is on the site, it is a wise choice for you<br>to buy from this site.I believe you can get many surprising happiness<br>and concessions.</p><p>Incidentally,they import the products from korea.all of the products<br>are brand new and original. they have good credit and many good<br>feedback.they are worth trusting for us .<br>Best wishes !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not too sure that gmail is n't a target... A couple weeks ago , my friend 's Gmail account got hacked and the spammers sent the following message out to all his contacts : I am willing to give you a surprising happiness !
Yesterday i hadreceived the digtal camera which i ordered from ---www.wwooz.com--last week .
its quilty is very good , and the price is very low.i amsatisfied with it.If the products you expect is on the site , it is a wise choice for youto buy from this site.I believe you can get many surprising happinessand concessions.Incidentally,they import the products from korea.all of the productsare brand new and original .
they have good credit and many goodfeedback.they are worth trusting for us .Best wishes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not too sure that gmail isn't a target... A couple weeks ago, my friend's Gmail account got hacked and the spammers sent the following message out to all his contacts:I am willing to give you a surprising happiness!
Yesterday i hadreceived the digtal camera which i ordered  from ---www.wwooz.com--last week.
its quilty is very good , and the price is very low.i amsatisfied with it.If the products you expect is on the site, it is a wise choice for youto buy from this site.I believe you can get many surprising happinessand concessions.Incidentally,they import the products from korea.all of the productsare brand new and original.
they have good credit and many goodfeedback.they are worth trusting for us .Best wishes !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30691020</id>
	<title>me too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262887380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've seen this too in my mail list,  since maybe six months ago. How is it done? I don't know about XSS so I think maybe those sites to "see who has deleted you" from hotmail.<br>People happily put their passwords there.</p><p>But do they lose their account or it just changes your auto reply?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen this too in my mail list , since maybe six months ago .
How is it done ?
I do n't know about XSS so I think maybe those sites to " see who has deleted you " from hotmail.People happily put their passwords there.But do they lose their account or it just changes your auto reply ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen this too in my mail list,  since maybe six months ago.
How is it done?
I don't know about XSS so I think maybe those sites to "see who has deleted you" from hotmail.People happily put their passwords there.But do they lose their account or it just changes your auto reply?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687884</id>
	<title>Seriously</title>
	<author>jason.sweet</author>
	<datestamp>1262860620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is there any way to mod the title to troll?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there any way to mod the title to troll ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there any way to mod the title to troll?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688106</id>
	<title>Do your part, waste scammers time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262861700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am currently engaged in wasting the time of a scam site by continuously asking instructions on how to pay with "Western UNION", how much euros the dollar is, how to explain to "Western UNION" that this is a legitimate transaction, what to do now, etc.</p><p>All in the name of a Nokia model that doesn't exist.</p><p>The goal is to type as little as possible and make them type as much as possible without giving pre-made answers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am currently engaged in wasting the time of a scam site by continuously asking instructions on how to pay with " Western UNION " , how much euros the dollar is , how to explain to " Western UNION " that this is a legitimate transaction , what to do now , etc.All in the name of a Nokia model that does n't exist.The goal is to type as little as possible and make them type as much as possible without giving pre-made answers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am currently engaged in wasting the time of a scam site by continuously asking instructions on how to pay with "Western UNION", how much euros the dollar is, how to explain to "Western UNION" that this is a legitimate transaction, what to do now, etc.All in the name of a Nokia model that doesn't exist.The goal is to type as little as possible and make them type as much as possible without giving pre-made answers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30691138</id>
	<title>Happens with Yahoo as well</title>
	<author>Rsriram</author>
	<datestamp>1262889600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many yahoo accounts are hacked as well. I get a few autoreplies my way. I haven't seen that happen with gmail and aol though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many yahoo accounts are hacked as well .
I get a few autoreplies my way .
I have n't seen that happen with gmail and aol though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many yahoo accounts are hacked as well.
I get a few autoreplies my way.
I haven't seen that happen with gmail and aol though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687696</id>
	<title>You said why yourself...</title>
	<author>eln</author>
	<datestamp>1262859660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You said yourself, early in this unnecessarily long article, that the wording and URLs varied in these autoreplies.  So, it seems like Microsoft would have to do more than just search for a particular string, and they'd run a very real risk of either not getting them all or, much worse, accidentally deleting someone's legitimate autoreply.  Not to mention, just deleting autoreplies from the affected accounts isn't going to be a solution, because the spammers can just create new ones continually.  I would imagine if this is as major a problem as you seem to think it is, someone at Hotmail is trying to figure out a good solution.
<br> <br>This is a new and novel form of spamming, and presumably the spammers are using Hotmail in particular because they've managed to find an easy way to break into hotmail accounts in particular, and don't have the scripts written or whatever to break into yahoo, gmail, or other accounts.  Hotmail has lots of users, if you can break into them, you've likely got enough accounts that you don't need to break into the others.  Maybe Hotmail will figure out a way to combat this at some point, and the spammers will move on to another provider.
<br> <br>
Also, this whole article seems like an overly long and drawn-out way to advertise your own mailing list.  I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but that's how it seemed to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You said yourself , early in this unnecessarily long article , that the wording and URLs varied in these autoreplies .
So , it seems like Microsoft would have to do more than just search for a particular string , and they 'd run a very real risk of either not getting them all or , much worse , accidentally deleting someone 's legitimate autoreply .
Not to mention , just deleting autoreplies from the affected accounts is n't going to be a solution , because the spammers can just create new ones continually .
I would imagine if this is as major a problem as you seem to think it is , someone at Hotmail is trying to figure out a good solution .
This is a new and novel form of spamming , and presumably the spammers are using Hotmail in particular because they 've managed to find an easy way to break into hotmail accounts in particular , and do n't have the scripts written or whatever to break into yahoo , gmail , or other accounts .
Hotmail has lots of users , if you can break into them , you 've likely got enough accounts that you do n't need to break into the others .
Maybe Hotmail will figure out a way to combat this at some point , and the spammers will move on to another provider .
Also , this whole article seems like an overly long and drawn-out way to advertise your own mailing list .
I 'm not saying that 's what you 're doing , but that 's how it seemed to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You said yourself, early in this unnecessarily long article, that the wording and URLs varied in these autoreplies.
So, it seems like Microsoft would have to do more than just search for a particular string, and they'd run a very real risk of either not getting them all or, much worse, accidentally deleting someone's legitimate autoreply.
Not to mention, just deleting autoreplies from the affected accounts isn't going to be a solution, because the spammers can just create new ones continually.
I would imagine if this is as major a problem as you seem to think it is, someone at Hotmail is trying to figure out a good solution.
This is a new and novel form of spamming, and presumably the spammers are using Hotmail in particular because they've managed to find an easy way to break into hotmail accounts in particular, and don't have the scripts written or whatever to break into yahoo, gmail, or other accounts.
Hotmail has lots of users, if you can break into them, you've likely got enough accounts that you don't need to break into the others.
Maybe Hotmail will figure out a way to combat this at some point, and the spammers will move on to another provider.
Also, this whole article seems like an overly long and drawn-out way to advertise your own mailing list.
I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but that's how it seemed to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687688</id>
	<title>What amazes me is how many of you think ....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262859600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>that MS is not in on this. The anti-spam law PURPOSELY allows the ISP to spam all they want. MS was working with the guy from Denver, Eddie Davidson, until MS got greedy. They were charging 1 million/month for x amount of spams to be sent to their hotmail and MSN account. Then MS told the guy that they were upping the rate to 5 Million. So Davidson decided to approach Qwest.  The deal was 2 million, the fake IPs, and of course, the cooperation on the DNS. Same deal as MSN, but at half the new price. His real mistake was in telling them that the situation with MS, because  Nachio was friends with Gates. Once Gates found that out, THEN he went after Davidson.<br> <br>
Right now, MSN has FULL capability to shut this off. You can scan the email at the server and see that it is the same thing. Of course, will they do so? Nope. They are simply scamming the Westerners just like so many others.</htmltext>
<tokenext>that MS is not in on this .
The anti-spam law PURPOSELY allows the ISP to spam all they want .
MS was working with the guy from Denver , Eddie Davidson , until MS got greedy .
They were charging 1 million/month for x amount of spams to be sent to their hotmail and MSN account .
Then MS told the guy that they were upping the rate to 5 Million .
So Davidson decided to approach Qwest .
The deal was 2 million , the fake IPs , and of course , the cooperation on the DNS .
Same deal as MSN , but at half the new price .
His real mistake was in telling them that the situation with MS , because Nachio was friends with Gates .
Once Gates found that out , THEN he went after Davidson .
Right now , MSN has FULL capability to shut this off .
You can scan the email at the server and see that it is the same thing .
Of course , will they do so ?
Nope. They are simply scamming the Westerners just like so many others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that MS is not in on this.
The anti-spam law PURPOSELY allows the ISP to spam all they want.
MS was working with the guy from Denver, Eddie Davidson, until MS got greedy.
They were charging 1 million/month for x amount of spams to be sent to their hotmail and MSN account.
Then MS told the guy that they were upping the rate to 5 Million.
So Davidson decided to approach Qwest.
The deal was 2 million, the fake IPs, and of course, the cooperation on the DNS.
Same deal as MSN, but at half the new price.
His real mistake was in telling them that the situation with MS, because  Nachio was friends with Gates.
Once Gates found that out, THEN he went after Davidson.
Right now, MSN has FULL capability to shut this off.
You can scan the email at the server and see that it is the same thing.
Of course, will they do so?
Nope. They are simply scamming the Westerners just like so many others.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687650</id>
	<title>Re:tl, dr</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262859360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's absolutely right.  What a waste of space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's absolutely right .
What a waste of space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's absolutely right.
What a waste of space.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688164</id>
	<title>Re:tl, dr</title>
	<author>Chapter80</author>
	<datestamp>1262861880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.gomonews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/blackberry-fruit.jpg" title="gomonews.com">2 Blackberries for that price, here!</a> [gomonews.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2 Blackberries for that price , here !
[ gomonews.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2 Blackberries for that price, here!
[gomonews.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688222</id>
	<title>XSS</title>
	<author>jamesh</author>
	<datestamp>1262862060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds suspiciously like something that could be implemented via cross site scripting. You visit a link and happen to be logged into hotmail and it magically changes your autoreply for you. Like that thing that kept turning my google safe search off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds suspiciously like something that could be implemented via cross site scripting .
You visit a link and happen to be logged into hotmail and it magically changes your autoreply for you .
Like that thing that kept turning my google safe search off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds suspiciously like something that could be implemented via cross site scripting.
You visit a link and happen to be logged into hotmail and it magically changes your autoreply for you.
Like that thing that kept turning my google safe search off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688002</id>
	<title>Huh?</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1262861280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688810</id>
	<title>Re:You said why yourself...</title>
	<author>orkysoft</author>
	<datestamp>1262864880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this &quot;easy way to break into hotmail accounts&quot; is just a collection of websites that offer ringtones or porn or something stupid like that, if only you enter your Hotmail address and password. They can then use that Hotmail/MSN account for spamming MSN contacts, setting autoreplies to spam, or similar stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this " easy way to break into hotmail accounts " is just a collection of websites that offer ringtones or porn or something stupid like that , if only you enter your Hotmail address and password .
They can then use that Hotmail/MSN account for spamming MSN contacts , setting autoreplies to spam , or similar stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this "easy way to break into hotmail accounts" is just a collection of websites that offer ringtones or porn or something stupid like that, if only you enter your Hotmail address and password.
They can then use that Hotmail/MSN account for spamming MSN contacts, setting autoreplies to spam, or similar stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30698042</id>
	<title>Reason for no reply</title>
	<author>NickDngr</author>
	<datestamp>1262980080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When I sent messages to the infected Hotmail users from my Gmail account, to see if the auto-responses would get through Gmail's spam filter, Gmail's blocked only half of the replies. When I mailed all the users again from my Hotmail account, the results were strange -- most of the users' accounts sent back no auto-reply at all, not even a reply that got routed to my junk folder. (Why would Hotmail accounts not send an auto-reply in response to a message from a Hotmail user? Please post if you have any idea what's going on there.)</p></div><p>It was probably your emails getting binned as spam.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I sent messages to the infected Hotmail users from my Gmail account , to see if the auto-responses would get through Gmail 's spam filter , Gmail 's blocked only half of the replies .
When I mailed all the users again from my Hotmail account , the results were strange -- most of the users ' accounts sent back no auto-reply at all , not even a reply that got routed to my junk folder .
( Why would Hotmail accounts not send an auto-reply in response to a message from a Hotmail user ?
Please post if you have any idea what 's going on there .
) It was probably your emails getting binned as spam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I sent messages to the infected Hotmail users from my Gmail account, to see if the auto-responses would get through Gmail's spam filter, Gmail's blocked only half of the replies.
When I mailed all the users again from my Hotmail account, the results were strange -- most of the users' accounts sent back no auto-reply at all, not even a reply that got routed to my junk folder.
(Why would Hotmail accounts not send an auto-reply in response to a message from a Hotmail user?
Please post if you have any idea what's going on there.
)It was probably your emails getting binned as spam.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687732</id>
	<title>Only spammers will see the auto-reply</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262859840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't Hotmail just used as a spam collector anyway? So normal users don't need to send stuff to Hotmail accounts. Therefore, only spammers will ever see this auto-reply.</p><p>What was the problem again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't Hotmail just used as a spam collector anyway ?
So normal users do n't need to send stuff to Hotmail accounts .
Therefore , only spammers will ever see this auto-reply.What was the problem again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't Hotmail just used as a spam collector anyway?
So normal users don't need to send stuff to Hotmail accounts.
Therefore, only spammers will ever see this auto-reply.What was the problem again?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30689318</id>
	<title>account compromised</title>
	<author>chentiangemalc</author>
	<datestamp>1262868720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My sister's hotmail account was compromised by Chinese spammers, and the password as well as secret questions were changed. However hotmail support was able to recover the account by providing 'last successful logon location', where we usually used the service from, original secret question, details about emails inside.

I expect hotmail was chosen as a target for the simple reason high volume of accounts i.e 270+ million accounts, vs gmail 140 million.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My sister 's hotmail account was compromised by Chinese spammers , and the password as well as secret questions were changed .
However hotmail support was able to recover the account by providing 'last successful logon location ' , where we usually used the service from , original secret question , details about emails inside .
I expect hotmail was chosen as a target for the simple reason high volume of accounts i.e 270 + million accounts , vs gmail 140 million .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My sister's hotmail account was compromised by Chinese spammers, and the password as well as secret questions were changed.
However hotmail support was able to recover the account by providing 'last successful logon location', where we usually used the service from, original secret question, details about emails inside.
I expect hotmail was chosen as a target for the simple reason high volume of accounts i.e 270+ million accounts, vs gmail 140 million.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30691744</id>
	<title>Re:XSS</title>
	<author>cerberusss</author>
	<datestamp>1262984100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Like that thing that kept turning my google safe search off.</p></div><p>"That thing" is called your wife.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like that thing that kept turning my google safe search off .
" That thing " is called your wife .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like that thing that kept turning my google safe search off.
"That thing" is called your wife.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687694</id>
	<title>And here I thought it was a Stepen Hawking hoax</title>
	<author>Rene S. Hollan</author>
	<datestamp>1262859660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Silly me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Silly me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Silly me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688258</id>
	<title>Hotmailers Hawking Hoax Hunan Half-Offs</title>
	<author>Knara</author>
	<datestamp>1262862240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly, Boy Wonder!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly , Boy Wonder !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly, Boy Wonder!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688784</id>
	<title>Interesting...</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1262864820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can go and see other people's "orders" on that wedosale site:</p><p><a href="http://www.wedosale.com/vieworders.asp?orderno=20100108063848" title="wedosale.com">http://www.wedosale.com/vieworders.asp?orderno=20100108063848</a> [wedosale.com]<br><a href="http://www.wedosale.com/vieworders.asp?orderno=20100108063731" title="wedosale.com">http://www.wedosale.com/vieworders.asp?orderno=20100108063731</a> [wedosale.com]<br><a href="http://www.wedosale.com/vieworders.asp?orderno=20100108064033" title="wedosale.com">http://www.wedosale.com/vieworders.asp?orderno=20100108064033</a> [wedosale.com]</p><p>The order numbers are not sequential, they seem to be incremented by a random number each time but it would be easy to see what other people have ordered...<br>The first part of the order number is clearly based on the date: 20100108</p><p>The front page says you can pay with visa, but when you get to the order page the visa option seems to be missing... Once you complete an order it doesn't seem to do anything aside from putting your "order" into the vieworders system, it doesn't tell you where to send the money to or anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can go and see other people 's " orders " on that wedosale site : http : //www.wedosale.com/vieworders.asp ? orderno = 20100108063848 [ wedosale.com ] http : //www.wedosale.com/vieworders.asp ? orderno = 20100108063731 [ wedosale.com ] http : //www.wedosale.com/vieworders.asp ? orderno = 20100108064033 [ wedosale.com ] The order numbers are not sequential , they seem to be incremented by a random number each time but it would be easy to see what other people have ordered...The first part of the order number is clearly based on the date : 20100108The front page says you can pay with visa , but when you get to the order page the visa option seems to be missing... Once you complete an order it does n't seem to do anything aside from putting your " order " into the vieworders system , it does n't tell you where to send the money to or anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can go and see other people's "orders" on that wedosale site:http://www.wedosale.com/vieworders.asp?orderno=20100108063848 [wedosale.com]http://www.wedosale.com/vieworders.asp?orderno=20100108063731 [wedosale.com]http://www.wedosale.com/vieworders.asp?orderno=20100108064033 [wedosale.com]The order numbers are not sequential, they seem to be incremented by a random number each time but it would be easy to see what other people have ordered...The first part of the order number is clearly based on the date: 20100108The front page says you can pay with visa, but when you get to the order page the visa option seems to be missing... Once you complete an order it doesn't seem to do anything aside from putting your "order" into the vieworders system, it doesn't tell you where to send the money to or anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687774</id>
	<title>Moderation needed</title>
	<author>rudy\_wayne</author>
	<datestamp>1262860020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can we mod this article -5 way too fucking long</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we mod this article -5 way too fucking long</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we mod this article -5 way too fucking long</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687974</id>
	<title>R E C O V E R Y  !</title>
	<author>redelm</author>
	<datestamp>1262861100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just what is so tough?  Scan autoreplies for the spam sig and delete (leave ar set to blank).  Spam affected [l]users with a msg.</p><p>Or just turn off AR altogether.  It's an optional feature, and people that rely excessively on the internet or optional features get what they pay for.  There will be whiners!  Which would they rather:  buggy code or nothing?  Bugfree code is \_not\_ an option.  No service at all is. [intern BoFH]</p><p>Sure, HotMail has egg all over its' face for allowing an exploitable hole (most likely).  But better to 'fess &amp; fix than duck &amp; cover (up).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just what is so tough ?
Scan autoreplies for the spam sig and delete ( leave ar set to blank ) .
Spam affected [ l ] users with a msg.Or just turn off AR altogether .
It 's an optional feature , and people that rely excessively on the internet or optional features get what they pay for .
There will be whiners !
Which would they rather : buggy code or nothing ?
Bugfree code is \ _not \ _ an option .
No service at all is .
[ intern BoFH ] Sure , HotMail has egg all over its ' face for allowing an exploitable hole ( most likely ) .
But better to 'fess &amp; fix than duck &amp; cover ( up ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just what is so tough?
Scan autoreplies for the spam sig and delete (leave ar set to blank).
Spam affected [l]users with a msg.Or just turn off AR altogether.
It's an optional feature, and people that rely excessively on the internet or optional features get what they pay for.
There will be whiners!
Which would they rather:  buggy code or nothing?
Bugfree code is \_not\_ an option.
No service at all is.
[intern BoFH]Sure, HotMail has egg all over its' face for allowing an exploitable hole (most likely).
But better to 'fess &amp; fix than duck &amp; cover (up).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30704150</id>
	<title>Microsoft is being irresponsible</title>
	<author>abelb</author>
	<datestamp>1262968200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good article, I don't think it's too long, and as a tech that has been trying to deal with this SPAM I appreciate the research that has gone into it. This is the only SPAM which currently makes it through my filters which work on DNSBL's and Greylisting. I'm frustrated the MS has allowed this to go on for so long. Maybe the people who run Spamhaus, SORBS and other blacklists should take action by listing Hotmail's servers. If there was a security breach that isn't being remedied on anyone else's servers they would take action. Maybe that would get MS's attention.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good article , I do n't think it 's too long , and as a tech that has been trying to deal with this SPAM I appreciate the research that has gone into it .
This is the only SPAM which currently makes it through my filters which work on DNSBL 's and Greylisting .
I 'm frustrated the MS has allowed this to go on for so long .
Maybe the people who run Spamhaus , SORBS and other blacklists should take action by listing Hotmail 's servers .
If there was a security breach that is n't being remedied on anyone else 's servers they would take action .
Maybe that would get MS 's attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good article, I don't think it's too long, and as a tech that has been trying to deal with this SPAM I appreciate the research that has gone into it.
This is the only SPAM which currently makes it through my filters which work on DNSBL's and Greylisting.
I'm frustrated the MS has allowed this to go on for so long.
Maybe the people who run Spamhaus, SORBS and other blacklists should take action by listing Hotmail's servers.
If there was a security breach that isn't being remedied on anyone else's servers they would take action.
Maybe that would get MS's attention.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688308</id>
	<title>Spam Solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262862480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why doesn't Microsoft just turn off the auto-replies for these users' accounts? They can query to see exactly which users have these messages in their auto-replies, and then un-set the auto-reply automatically.</p></div><p>Your solution advocates a</p><p>(*) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante</p><p>approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)</p><p>( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses<br>( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected<br>( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money</p><p>( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks<br>( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it<br>( ) Users of email will not put up with it</p><p>(*) Microsoft will not put up with it<br>( ) The police will not put up with it<br>( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers</p><p>( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once<br>( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers<br>( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists</p><p>( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business</p><p>Specifically, your plan fails to account for</p><p>( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it<br>( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email<br>( ) Open relays in foreign countries<br>( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses<br>( ) Asshats<br>( ) Jurisdictional problems<br>( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes<br>( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money<br>( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP<br>( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack<br>( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email<br>( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes<br>( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches<br>( ) Extreme profitability of spam<br>( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft<br>( ) Technically illiterate politicians<br>( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers<br>( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves<br>( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering<br>( ) Outlook</p><p>and the following philosophical objections may also apply:</p><p>( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical<br>( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable<br>( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation<br>( ) Blacklists suck<br>( ) Whitelists suck<br>( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored</p><p>( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud<br>( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks</p><p>( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually<br>( ) Sending email should be free</p><p>( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?<br>( ) Incompatibility with open source or open source licenses<br>( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem<br>( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome</p><p>( ) I don't want the government reading my email<br>( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Furthermore, this is what I think about you:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_<br>( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.<br>( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.<br>( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does n't Microsoft just turn off the auto-replies for these users ' accounts ?
They can query to see exactly which users have these messages in their auto-replies , and then un-set the auto-reply automatically.Your solution advocates a ( * ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilanteapproach to fighting spam .
Your idea will not work .
Here is why it wo n't work .
( One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea , and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed .
) ( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we 'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of email will not put up with it ( * ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users can not afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers do n't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else 's career or businessSpecifically , your plan fails to account for ( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlookand the following philosophical objections may also apply : ( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with , yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers ?
( ) Incompatibility with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I do n't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough .
        Furthermore , this is what I think about you : \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ ( ) Sorry dude , but I do n't think it would work .
( ) This is a stupid idea , and you 're a stupid person for suggesting it .
( ) Nice try , assh0le !
I 'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why doesn't Microsoft just turn off the auto-replies for these users' accounts?
They can query to see exactly which users have these messages in their auto-replies, and then un-set the auto-reply automatically.Your solution advocates a(*) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilanteapproach to fighting spam.
Your idea will not work.
Here is why it won't work.
(One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.
)( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it( ) Users of email will not put up with it(*) Microsoft will not put up with it( ) The police will not put up with it( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or businessSpecifically, your plan fails to account for( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email( ) Open relays in foreign countries( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses( ) Asshats( ) Jurisdictional problems( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches( ) Extreme profitability of spam( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft( ) Technically illiterate politicians( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering( ) Outlookand the following philosophical objections may also apply:( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation( ) Blacklists suck( ) Whitelists suck( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually( ) Sending email should be free( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatibility with open source or open source licenses( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome( ) I don't want the government reading my email( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough.
        Furthermore, this is what I think about you:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le!
I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30689302</id>
	<title>Wrong solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262868660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why doesn't Microsoft just turn off the auto-replies for these users' accounts?</p></div><p>Because that would be wrong. If the accounts are still compromised, the spammer could just turn them on again or use normal messages. It's not even clear how the accounts were hijacked, so how are they going to sanitize them? (By "they" I mean the company, not the account owners. The latter obviously don't care.) If it's 100\% established that the autoreplies weren't forged, these accounts should be cancelled immediately. By letting a spammer take control of their email accounts, these people have become spammers themselves and should be treated as such.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does n't Microsoft just turn off the auto-replies for these users ' accounts ? Because that would be wrong .
If the accounts are still compromised , the spammer could just turn them on again or use normal messages .
It 's not even clear how the accounts were hijacked , so how are they going to sanitize them ?
( By " they " I mean the company , not the account owners .
The latter obviously do n't care .
) If it 's 100 \ % established that the autoreplies were n't forged , these accounts should be cancelled immediately .
By letting a spammer take control of their email accounts , these people have become spammers themselves and should be treated as such .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why doesn't Microsoft just turn off the auto-replies for these users' accounts?Because that would be wrong.
If the accounts are still compromised, the spammer could just turn them on again or use normal messages.
It's not even clear how the accounts were hijacked, so how are they going to sanitize them?
(By "they" I mean the company, not the account owners.
The latter obviously don't care.
) If it's 100\% established that the autoreplies weren't forged, these accounts should be cancelled immediately.
By letting a spammer take control of their email accounts, these people have become spammers themselves and should be treated as such.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30691810</id>
	<title>Re:tl, dr</title>
	<author>CharlyFoxtrot</author>
	<datestamp>1262941740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wow, Bennett. You sure do like the sound of your own typing, don't you? You could really have said all that in 1/10th the space.</p></div><p>TL;DR</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , Bennett .
You sure do like the sound of your own typing , do n't you ?
You could really have said all that in 1/10th the space.TL ; DR</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, Bennett.
You sure do like the sound of your own typing, don't you?
You could really have said all that in 1/10th the space.TL;DR
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30690270</id>
	<title>Why would you read mail from Hotmail?</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1262877780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Or Gmail?  Free email accounts are spammer magnets.  Google doesn't even try hard to stop <a href="http://www.gmailaccountcreator.com/" title="gmailaccountcreator.com">Gmail Account Creator</a> [gmailaccountcreator.com] ("For when one email account isn't enough.")
Mail from a Hotmail account just screams "loser".  That thing should just die a quiet death, like GeoCities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or Gmail ?
Free email accounts are spammer magnets .
Google does n't even try hard to stop Gmail Account Creator [ gmailaccountcreator.com ] ( " For when one email account is n't enough .
" ) Mail from a Hotmail account just screams " loser " .
That thing should just die a quiet death , like GeoCities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Or Gmail?
Free email accounts are spammer magnets.
Google doesn't even try hard to stop Gmail Account Creator [gmailaccountcreator.com] ("For when one email account isn't enough.
")
Mail from a Hotmail account just screams "loser".
That thing should just die a quiet death, like GeoCities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30690772</id>
	<title>Re:XSS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262884020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's cross site request forgery, not XSS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's cross site request forgery , not XSS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's cross site request forgery, not XSS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687638</id>
	<title>A Possible Answer to One of the Many Questions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262859300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why Hotmail accounts, but not Yahoo Mail, GMail, or AOL accounts?</p></div><p>My uneducated guess is the simplest reason for it: of the pervasive services (MSN Games, XBox Live, etc) that comprise the entire "Windows Live" experience, one has become susceptible to some form of attack.  Maybe it's not even full fledged access but some sloppy development that gave someone the ability to set your auto-response on and text to it if they only know your e-mail address?  I don't know if Windows Live has a common sort of authentication service that is so familiar with all Google Apps or Yahoo's many applications but I'm guessing that someone: 1) figured how to hack a MSN app or 2) figured how to monitor one or (most likely) 3) made a page that passed as an MSN log in page and figured how to get on Facebook and Myspace and circulate the link.  Once you logged in, they redirected you to the real page and just went about logging your log in information.  You kind of touched on this later but didn't run with it when you said:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Presumably the Chinese spammers stole large numbers of passwords from Hotmail users either via a huge phishing attack, or through a security hole in Hotmail <b>or some other part of the Windows Live service.</b></p> </div><p>That's my guess.  I wouldn't put it past any of these e-mail providers to slip up when trying to link together seventy different applications to one set of credentials.  Convenience always comes at a cost.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why Hotmail accounts , but not Yahoo Mail , GMail , or AOL accounts ? My uneducated guess is the simplest reason for it : of the pervasive services ( MSN Games , XBox Live , etc ) that comprise the entire " Windows Live " experience , one has become susceptible to some form of attack .
Maybe it 's not even full fledged access but some sloppy development that gave someone the ability to set your auto-response on and text to it if they only know your e-mail address ?
I do n't know if Windows Live has a common sort of authentication service that is so familiar with all Google Apps or Yahoo 's many applications but I 'm guessing that someone : 1 ) figured how to hack a MSN app or 2 ) figured how to monitor one or ( most likely ) 3 ) made a page that passed as an MSN log in page and figured how to get on Facebook and Myspace and circulate the link .
Once you logged in , they redirected you to the real page and just went about logging your log in information .
You kind of touched on this later but did n't run with it when you said : Presumably the Chinese spammers stole large numbers of passwords from Hotmail users either via a huge phishing attack , or through a security hole in Hotmail or some other part of the Windows Live service .
That 's my guess .
I would n't put it past any of these e-mail providers to slip up when trying to link together seventy different applications to one set of credentials .
Convenience always comes at a cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why Hotmail accounts, but not Yahoo Mail, GMail, or AOL accounts?My uneducated guess is the simplest reason for it: of the pervasive services (MSN Games, XBox Live, etc) that comprise the entire "Windows Live" experience, one has become susceptible to some form of attack.
Maybe it's not even full fledged access but some sloppy development that gave someone the ability to set your auto-response on and text to it if they only know your e-mail address?
I don't know if Windows Live has a common sort of authentication service that is so familiar with all Google Apps or Yahoo's many applications but I'm guessing that someone: 1) figured how to hack a MSN app or 2) figured how to monitor one or (most likely) 3) made a page that passed as an MSN log in page and figured how to get on Facebook and Myspace and circulate the link.
Once you logged in, they redirected you to the real page and just went about logging your log in information.
You kind of touched on this later but didn't run with it when you said:Presumably the Chinese spammers stole large numbers of passwords from Hotmail users either via a huge phishing attack, or through a security hole in Hotmail or some other part of the Windows Live service.
That's my guess.
I wouldn't put it past any of these e-mail providers to slip up when trying to link together seventy different applications to one set of credentials.
Convenience always comes at a cost.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30689904</id>
	<title>Re:Better idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262874060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why don't you just send them information on how not to use hotmail. And while you are at it, why are you sending mass emails to a bunch of obviously clueless people? Are you a spammer?</p></div><p>For real.  I haven't used Hotmail in a decade and have no sympathy for anyone who still does.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't you just send them information on how not to use hotmail .
And while you are at it , why are you sending mass emails to a bunch of obviously clueless people ?
Are you a spammer ? For real .
I have n't used Hotmail in a decade and have no sympathy for anyone who still does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't you just send them information on how not to use hotmail.
And while you are at it, why are you sending mass emails to a bunch of obviously clueless people?
Are you a spammer?For real.
I haven't used Hotmail in a decade and have no sympathy for anyone who still does.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30695538</id>
	<title>Re:tl, dr</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1262970360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I couldn't get past the idiotic headline. I figure, if the author thinks he has a captive audience for his exaggeratted wittiness, it's probably not worth even looking at the article/summary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I could n't get past the idiotic headline .
I figure , if the author thinks he has a captive audience for his exaggeratted wittiness , it 's probably not worth even looking at the article/summary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I couldn't get past the idiotic headline.
I figure, if the author thinks he has a captive audience for his exaggeratted wittiness, it's probably not worth even looking at the article/summary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687976</id>
	<title>Re:Better idea</title>
	<author>Mr. DOS</author>
	<datestamp>1262861100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a <a href="http://peacefire.org/circumventor/" title="peacefire.org">mailing list of web proxies</a> [peacefire.org]. Browser-based proxies are popular with clueless people who don't know better ways of circumnavigating web filtering.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; --- Mr. DOS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a mailing list of web proxies [ peacefire.org ] .
Browser-based proxies are popular with clueless people who do n't know better ways of circumnavigating web filtering .
      --- Mr. DOS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a mailing list of web proxies [peacefire.org].
Browser-based proxies are popular with clueless people who don't know better ways of circumnavigating web filtering.
      --- Mr. DOS</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688502</id>
	<title>Re:Moderation needed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262863500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With that attitude, it's a good thing you don't do anything important, like build any devices that must conform to some sort of FCC standard.  If you thought this was long, you'd probably die reading the USB standard or an RFC...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With that attitude , it 's a good thing you do n't do anything important , like build any devices that must conform to some sort of FCC standard .
If you thought this was long , you 'd probably die reading the USB standard or an RFC.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With that attitude, it's a good thing you don't do anything important, like build any devices that must conform to some sort of FCC standard.
If you thought this was long, you'd probably die reading the USB standard or an RFC...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30693482</id>
	<title>Re:tl, dr</title>
	<author>nobodie</author>
	<datestamp>1262961420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>my wife and daughter both have had their hotmail accounts "used". Maybe "hacked" the right word, but i am still not clear about the actual use/abuse.misuse/attack vector. My daughter only uses the account for MSN with a small group of friends. She never actually opens the hotmail interface. My wife used her hotmail daily, but on a Ubuntu laptop with firewalled router, firewalled network inside the home and an iptable firewall on the lappie itself. Call me paranoid but we live in China and our wireless is pretty commonly attacked even though it is set to being hidden and uses WPA encryption. The wife uses Firefox only and it stays on auto update, so it is never more than a few hours behind release cycles on everything. On top of that I run antivirus checks on the system weekly and have never found any signs of intrusion at any time. We are not idiots, we are careful and even running linux computer, network (nfs, not samba) we don't download spicy content or open attachments with shell scripts in them.

What is going on then? I am pretty confident in my security setup here, sure if someone wanted to go through the trouble and challenge of cracking me they could, there are scores of guys around me who could do it, but unless they just wanted a challenge there is so much low hanging fruit around me that it would be a waste of effort to even try.

It looks to me like somebody has a big door into the hotmail servers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>my wife and daughter both have had their hotmail accounts " used " .
Maybe " hacked " the right word , but i am still not clear about the actual use/abuse.misuse/attack vector .
My daughter only uses the account for MSN with a small group of friends .
She never actually opens the hotmail interface .
My wife used her hotmail daily , but on a Ubuntu laptop with firewalled router , firewalled network inside the home and an iptable firewall on the lappie itself .
Call me paranoid but we live in China and our wireless is pretty commonly attacked even though it is set to being hidden and uses WPA encryption .
The wife uses Firefox only and it stays on auto update , so it is never more than a few hours behind release cycles on everything .
On top of that I run antivirus checks on the system weekly and have never found any signs of intrusion at any time .
We are not idiots , we are careful and even running linux computer , network ( nfs , not samba ) we do n't download spicy content or open attachments with shell scripts in them .
What is going on then ?
I am pretty confident in my security setup here , sure if someone wanted to go through the trouble and challenge of cracking me they could , there are scores of guys around me who could do it , but unless they just wanted a challenge there is so much low hanging fruit around me that it would be a waste of effort to even try .
It looks to me like somebody has a big door into the hotmail servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my wife and daughter both have had their hotmail accounts "used".
Maybe "hacked" the right word, but i am still not clear about the actual use/abuse.misuse/attack vector.
My daughter only uses the account for MSN with a small group of friends.
She never actually opens the hotmail interface.
My wife used her hotmail daily, but on a Ubuntu laptop with firewalled router, firewalled network inside the home and an iptable firewall on the lappie itself.
Call me paranoid but we live in China and our wireless is pretty commonly attacked even though it is set to being hidden and uses WPA encryption.
The wife uses Firefox only and it stays on auto update, so it is never more than a few hours behind release cycles on everything.
On top of that I run antivirus checks on the system weekly and have never found any signs of intrusion at any time.
We are not idiots, we are careful and even running linux computer, network (nfs, not samba) we don't download spicy content or open attachments with shell scripts in them.
What is going on then?
I am pretty confident in my security setup here, sure if someone wanted to go through the trouble and challenge of cracking me they could, there are scores of guys around me who could do it, but unless they just wanted a challenge there is so much low hanging fruit around me that it would be a waste of effort to even try.
It looks to me like somebody has a big door into the hotmail servers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688124</id>
	<title>Annoying and unprofessional</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262861760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Trying to make a catchy sounding headline by using the same first letter in every word, while obfuscating the meaning is something that's only done by shoddy would be journalists. It ranks just below turning your headline into a question, and only proves the weak mind of the journalist in question when they a) actually spend time thinking of which words to use and b) pat themselves on the back for how clever they think they are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trying to make a catchy sounding headline by using the same first letter in every word , while obfuscating the meaning is something that 's only done by shoddy would be journalists .
It ranks just below turning your headline into a question , and only proves the weak mind of the journalist in question when they a ) actually spend time thinking of which words to use and b ) pat themselves on the back for how clever they think they are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trying to make a catchy sounding headline by using the same first letter in every word, while obfuscating the meaning is something that's only done by shoddy would be journalists.
It ranks just below turning your headline into a question, and only proves the weak mind of the journalist in question when they a) actually spend time thinking of which words to use and b) pat themselves on the back for how clever they think they are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30690524</id>
	<title>Alliliteration</title>
	<author>Prien715</author>
	<datestamp>1262880960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although amateur, author affirming alliteration actualizes an awful article.</p><p>But that's KDawson for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although amateur , author affirming alliteration actualizes an awful article.But that 's KDawson for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although amateur, author affirming alliteration actualizes an awful article.But that's KDawson for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687744</id>
	<title>Hotmailers Hawking Hoax Hunan Half-Offs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262859900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want spam that matches this article title. Here's an example, spammers:</p><p>Alliteration always alienates affluent accountants;<br>Achievement and acquaintance abhors adultry.<br>Adobe abundantly admires abdominal aborigines.<br>Anus-v1agra-cl1ck-h3re</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want spam that matches this article title .
Here 's an example , spammers : Alliteration always alienates affluent accountants ; Achievement and acquaintance abhors adultry.Adobe abundantly admires abdominal aborigines.Anus-v1agra-cl1ck-h3re</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want spam that matches this article title.
Here's an example, spammers:Alliteration always alienates affluent accountants;Achievement and acquaintance abhors adultry.Adobe abundantly admires abdominal aborigines.Anus-v1agra-cl1ck-h3re</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687690</id>
	<title>Re:tl, dr</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262859600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What kind of asshat has a first name like Bennett anyway?  I say my dear chap, have you seen Smithers Jones recently?  I met Berkshire Hathaway last week and the old boy asked after him.  Heard the news about old Jackson Pollock?  Frightful, what?</p><p>I wonder if hos business card says "frequent slashdot contributor" on it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What kind of asshat has a first name like Bennett anyway ?
I say my dear chap , have you seen Smithers Jones recently ?
I met Berkshire Hathaway last week and the old boy asked after him .
Heard the news about old Jackson Pollock ?
Frightful , what ? I wonder if hos business card says " frequent slashdot contributor " on it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What kind of asshat has a first name like Bennett anyway?
I say my dear chap, have you seen Smithers Jones recently?
I met Berkshire Hathaway last week and the old boy asked after him.
Heard the news about old Jackson Pollock?
Frightful, what?I wonder if hos business card says "frequent slashdot contributor" on it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30690428</id>
	<title>to bad it is a scam</title>
	<author>Ice Station Zebra</author>
	<datestamp>1262879520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sounds interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30691576</id>
	<title>Re:Do your part, waste scammers time</title>
	<author>icepick72</author>
	<datestamp>1262981880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><em>The goal is to type as little as possible and make them type as much as possible without giving pre-made answers.</em> <br>
Sounds a lot like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The goal is to type as little as possible and make them type as much as possible without giving pre-made answers .
Sounds a lot like / .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The goal is to type as little as possible and make them type as much as possible without giving pre-made answers.
Sounds a lot like /.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30693642</id>
	<title>I'd buy it</title>
	<author>bluefoxlucid</author>
	<datestamp>1262962440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd buy an XBox360 or a PSP for $50 if I could get it, even counterfeit hardware.  Just need a temporary card number with a $100 limit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd buy an XBox360 or a PSP for $ 50 if I could get it , even counterfeit hardware .
Just need a temporary card number with a $ 100 limit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd buy an XBox360 or a PSP for $50 if I could get it, even counterfeit hardware.
Just need a temporary card number with a $100 limit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687812</id>
	<title>spamming the spammers</title>
	<author>Ogive17</author>
	<datestamp>1262860200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well if my account was compromised, they'd only be spamming the spammers, since that's all that shows up to my hotmail account.  It's my default email used when email is required for something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well if my account was compromised , they 'd only be spamming the spammers , since that 's all that shows up to my hotmail account .
It 's my default email used when email is required for something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well if my account was compromised, they'd only be spamming the spammers, since that's all that shows up to my hotmail account.
It's my default email used when email is required for something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687548</id>
	<title>tl, dr</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262858880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, Bennett. You sure do like the sound of your own typing, don't you? You could really have said all that in 1/10th the space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , Bennett .
You sure do like the sound of your own typing , do n't you ?
You could really have said all that in 1/10th the space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, Bennett.
You sure do like the sound of your own typing, don't you?
You could really have said all that in 1/10th the space.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688780</id>
	<title>And where would Microsoft make a million dollars..</title>
	<author>wowbagger</author>
	<datestamp>1262864760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Why doesn't Microsoft just disable autoreplies like this?"</p><p>OK, so suppose Microsoft were to do so. They have to expend a non-trivial amount of time to write a program to scan the Hotmail database, locate a set of potentially cracked accounts, and flip the bit - that's going to cost some amount of money.</p><p>Then there is the very significant risk that they will piss off some users by incorrectly disabling their perfectly innocent autoreplies, which can lead to complaints that cost money to process.</p><p>Then there is the risk that, having taken responsibility to deal with THIS particular spam attack, somebody could then hold them legally responsible for some OTHER spam attack - "You took this action, why did you not take these other actions?" Yes, rational people might find that silly, but this <i>is</i> the legal system we are talking about here, and Microsoft DOES have a lot of money.</p><p>So, there is a non-zero risk of cost to Microsoft. So, where in all of this does Microsoft make a million dollars? Where it the UPSIDE to Microsoft to do this?</p><p>That thundering silence you hear in coming up with an upside is why Microsoft doesn't do this.</p><p>(NOTE: you can search-and-replace Microsoft with $RANDOM(EMAIL\_PROVIDER) or $RANDOM(ISP) and not really change this argument - I'm not picking on Microsoft here.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Why does n't Microsoft just disable autoreplies like this ?
" OK , so suppose Microsoft were to do so .
They have to expend a non-trivial amount of time to write a program to scan the Hotmail database , locate a set of potentially cracked accounts , and flip the bit - that 's going to cost some amount of money.Then there is the very significant risk that they will piss off some users by incorrectly disabling their perfectly innocent autoreplies , which can lead to complaints that cost money to process.Then there is the risk that , having taken responsibility to deal with THIS particular spam attack , somebody could then hold them legally responsible for some OTHER spam attack - " You took this action , why did you not take these other actions ?
" Yes , rational people might find that silly , but this is the legal system we are talking about here , and Microsoft DOES have a lot of money.So , there is a non-zero risk of cost to Microsoft .
So , where in all of this does Microsoft make a million dollars ?
Where it the UPSIDE to Microsoft to do this ? That thundering silence you hear in coming up with an upside is why Microsoft does n't do this .
( NOTE : you can search-and-replace Microsoft with $ RANDOM ( EMAIL \ _PROVIDER ) or $ RANDOM ( ISP ) and not really change this argument - I 'm not picking on Microsoft here .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Why doesn't Microsoft just disable autoreplies like this?
"OK, so suppose Microsoft were to do so.
They have to expend a non-trivial amount of time to write a program to scan the Hotmail database, locate a set of potentially cracked accounts, and flip the bit - that's going to cost some amount of money.Then there is the very significant risk that they will piss off some users by incorrectly disabling their perfectly innocent autoreplies, which can lead to complaints that cost money to process.Then there is the risk that, having taken responsibility to deal with THIS particular spam attack, somebody could then hold them legally responsible for some OTHER spam attack - "You took this action, why did you not take these other actions?
" Yes, rational people might find that silly, but this is the legal system we are talking about here, and Microsoft DOES have a lot of money.So, there is a non-zero risk of cost to Microsoft.
So, where in all of this does Microsoft make a million dollars?
Where it the UPSIDE to Microsoft to do this?That thundering silence you hear in coming up with an upside is why Microsoft doesn't do this.
(NOTE: you can search-and-replace Microsoft with $RANDOM(EMAIL\_PROVIDER) or $RANDOM(ISP) and not really change this argument - I'm not picking on Microsoft here.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687938</id>
	<title>Re:Only 200,000?</title>
	<author>asdf7890</author>
	<datestamp>1262860920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If they managed to hack the computers, why not set up a spamming botnet the good old fashion way?</p></div><p>If a company advertises on TV, why both with radio and print also? Simple: multiple outgoing streams of your information improves the total number of people that will see your advert. This works the same for spammers as it does for people who bombard our senses with product information and/or brand identity by more legitimate means.</p><p>Maybe the fishing attacker got lucky and at the same time as picking up a new account to use, the browser used to enter the information was also vulnerable to some sort of drive-by install. Or the other way around: a drive-by install dropped in a botnet client and a key-logger in at the same time, and that logger eventually picked up a username+password.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they managed to hack the computers , why not set up a spamming botnet the good old fashion way ? If a company advertises on TV , why both with radio and print also ?
Simple : multiple outgoing streams of your information improves the total number of people that will see your advert .
This works the same for spammers as it does for people who bombard our senses with product information and/or brand identity by more legitimate means.Maybe the fishing attacker got lucky and at the same time as picking up a new account to use , the browser used to enter the information was also vulnerable to some sort of drive-by install .
Or the other way around : a drive-by install dropped in a botnet client and a key-logger in at the same time , and that logger eventually picked up a username + password .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they managed to hack the computers, why not set up a spamming botnet the good old fashion way?If a company advertises on TV, why both with radio and print also?
Simple: multiple outgoing streams of your information improves the total number of people that will see your advert.
This works the same for spammers as it does for people who bombard our senses with product information and/or brand identity by more legitimate means.Maybe the fishing attacker got lucky and at the same time as picking up a new account to use, the browser used to enter the information was also vulnerable to some sort of drive-by install.
Or the other way around: a drive-by install dropped in a botnet client and a key-logger in at the same time, and that logger eventually picked up a username+password.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687738</id>
	<title>Now what the fud is kdawson rambling about?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262859840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More FUD maybe?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More FUD maybe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More FUD maybe?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687582</id>
	<title>Real smart...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262859060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can we have the mail addresses in the "ad" changed to MailTo: links so the spam bots that troll<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. have an easier time rendering the contact info useless?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we have the mail addresses in the " ad " changed to MailTo : links so the spam bots that troll / .
have an easier time rendering the contact info useless ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we have the mail addresses in the "ad" changed to MailTo: links so the spam bots that troll /.
have an easier time rendering the contact info useless?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687728</id>
	<title>You Seem to Have Dual Expectations</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1262859840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I found these juxtaposed blocks of text interesting:<p><div class="quote"><p>I've written some columns where I strongly believed every word but expected a lot of opposition, some where I wasn't sure if I was right and just wanted to see what people thought, and . But I rarely argue something that I think is a no-brainer. Hotmail should un-set the auto-replies for those users whose accounts are spamming for nonexistent Chinese electronics knockoffs, before those accounts send another several hundred million spams in the coming year. Am I smoking crack?<br> <br>

Then again, maybe expectations for Hotmail shouldn't be set too high. I use SpeakEasy for my mail provider, and on about November 19th I found that all messages sent to hotmail.com addresses from SpeakEasy's servers were being bounced with an error message rejecting them for "spam-like characteristics.</p></div><p>So on one hand you're advocating a no-brainer unsetting auto-replies that have Chinese knockoff sites and then to have Hotmail generated a system that automatically inhibits this for spammers.  Because they'll just make another domain or make the domains dynamic so you can't just block based on a couple URLs.  And the slippery slope might have a few people upset that their mom and pop business link on their signature in their away message keeps forcing Hotmail to unset their auto-reply message.  Because it's probably spam.  And then you go on to complain about being the victim of such a slippery slope.  Someone at SpeakEasy was spamming Hotmail bad.  So they threw the baby (you) out with the bath water (spam).  And you suffered.  Who cares?  Well, obviously you did.  I just caution you that auto censorship is bad<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... just in general.  The least they could do is try to turn their Bayesian filters or whatever spam filters they have on their auto-reply messages.  That's the best solution to me.  No reason to go overboard at the drop of a hat and implement what you're suggesting.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I found these juxtaposed blocks of text interesting : I 've written some columns where I strongly believed every word but expected a lot of opposition , some where I was n't sure if I was right and just wanted to see what people thought , and .
But I rarely argue something that I think is a no-brainer .
Hotmail should un-set the auto-replies for those users whose accounts are spamming for nonexistent Chinese electronics knockoffs , before those accounts send another several hundred million spams in the coming year .
Am I smoking crack ?
Then again , maybe expectations for Hotmail should n't be set too high .
I use SpeakEasy for my mail provider , and on about November 19th I found that all messages sent to hotmail.com addresses from SpeakEasy 's servers were being bounced with an error message rejecting them for " spam-like characteristics.So on one hand you 're advocating a no-brainer unsetting auto-replies that have Chinese knockoff sites and then to have Hotmail generated a system that automatically inhibits this for spammers .
Because they 'll just make another domain or make the domains dynamic so you ca n't just block based on a couple URLs .
And the slippery slope might have a few people upset that their mom and pop business link on their signature in their away message keeps forcing Hotmail to unset their auto-reply message .
Because it 's probably spam .
And then you go on to complain about being the victim of such a slippery slope .
Someone at SpeakEasy was spamming Hotmail bad .
So they threw the baby ( you ) out with the bath water ( spam ) .
And you suffered .
Who cares ?
Well , obviously you did .
I just caution you that auto censorship is bad ... just in general .
The least they could do is try to turn their Bayesian filters or whatever spam filters they have on their auto-reply messages .
That 's the best solution to me .
No reason to go overboard at the drop of a hat and implement what you 're suggesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I found these juxtaposed blocks of text interesting:I've written some columns where I strongly believed every word but expected a lot of opposition, some where I wasn't sure if I was right and just wanted to see what people thought, and .
But I rarely argue something that I think is a no-brainer.
Hotmail should un-set the auto-replies for those users whose accounts are spamming for nonexistent Chinese electronics knockoffs, before those accounts send another several hundred million spams in the coming year.
Am I smoking crack?
Then again, maybe expectations for Hotmail shouldn't be set too high.
I use SpeakEasy for my mail provider, and on about November 19th I found that all messages sent to hotmail.com addresses from SpeakEasy's servers were being bounced with an error message rejecting them for "spam-like characteristics.So on one hand you're advocating a no-brainer unsetting auto-replies that have Chinese knockoff sites and then to have Hotmail generated a system that automatically inhibits this for spammers.
Because they'll just make another domain or make the domains dynamic so you can't just block based on a couple URLs.
And the slippery slope might have a few people upset that their mom and pop business link on their signature in their away message keeps forcing Hotmail to unset their auto-reply message.
Because it's probably spam.
And then you go on to complain about being the victim of such a slippery slope.
Someone at SpeakEasy was spamming Hotmail bad.
So they threw the baby (you) out with the bath water (spam).
And you suffered.
Who cares?
Well, obviously you did.
I just caution you that auto censorship is bad ... just in general.
The least they could do is try to turn their Bayesian filters or whatever spam filters they have on their auto-reply messages.
That's the best solution to me.
No reason to go overboard at the drop of a hat and implement what you're suggesting.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688444</id>
	<title>Re:A Possible Answer to One of the Many Questions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262863140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can confirm that this isn't necessarily limited to hotmail, as I had this happen to me on a gmail account, about a month ago. Virtually the same message. You can find other instances of this happening to gmail accounts as well (but no clear cause).</p><p>Like another poster down below, I strongly suspect an XSS or CRSF based attack was the culprit. My reason for thinking this is that the password on the account was not changed, nor were any other accounts affected (I of course changed all my passwords and thoroughly scanned all my computers - even the macs! - for malware and rootkits. Everything came up clean.)</p><p>The nature of the hack (mass-mail to my contact list happened first, followed by the auto-responder) is consistent with a best-effort to propagate assuming:<br>1. Temporary access to the account, similar to if you walked up to a logged-in session. You can make changes to several account settings, but if you try to change a password you'll be prompted for the old one.<br>2. Unable/unreliable to directly propagate further through the email. Even if the linked site contained bad code (afaik it doesn't), it relies on an active webmail session to operate, so instead they focus on scamming via fraudulent goods, rather than trying to rebroadcast the message.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can confirm that this is n't necessarily limited to hotmail , as I had this happen to me on a gmail account , about a month ago .
Virtually the same message .
You can find other instances of this happening to gmail accounts as well ( but no clear cause ) .Like another poster down below , I strongly suspect an XSS or CRSF based attack was the culprit .
My reason for thinking this is that the password on the account was not changed , nor were any other accounts affected ( I of course changed all my passwords and thoroughly scanned all my computers - even the macs !
- for malware and rootkits .
Everything came up clean .
) The nature of the hack ( mass-mail to my contact list happened first , followed by the auto-responder ) is consistent with a best-effort to propagate assuming : 1 .
Temporary access to the account , similar to if you walked up to a logged-in session .
You can make changes to several account settings , but if you try to change a password you 'll be prompted for the old one.2 .
Unable/unreliable to directly propagate further through the email .
Even if the linked site contained bad code ( afaik it does n't ) , it relies on an active webmail session to operate , so instead they focus on scamming via fraudulent goods , rather than trying to rebroadcast the message .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can confirm that this isn't necessarily limited to hotmail, as I had this happen to me on a gmail account, about a month ago.
Virtually the same message.
You can find other instances of this happening to gmail accounts as well (but no clear cause).Like another poster down below, I strongly suspect an XSS or CRSF based attack was the culprit.
My reason for thinking this is that the password on the account was not changed, nor were any other accounts affected (I of course changed all my passwords and thoroughly scanned all my computers - even the macs!
- for malware and rootkits.
Everything came up clean.
)The nature of the hack (mass-mail to my contact list happened first, followed by the auto-responder) is consistent with a best-effort to propagate assuming:1.
Temporary access to the account, similar to if you walked up to a logged-in session.
You can make changes to several account settings, but if you try to change a password you'll be prompted for the old one.2.
Unable/unreliable to directly propagate further through the email.
Even if the linked site contained bad code (afaik it doesn't), it relies on an active webmail session to operate, so instead they focus on scamming via fraudulent goods, rather than trying to rebroadcast the message.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687718</id>
	<title>I don't beleive it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262859780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Hotmail claims to process 3 billion non-spam e-mails per day"</p><p>I don't beleive that there are 3 billion non-spam e-mails sent every day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Hotmail claims to process 3 billion non-spam e-mails per day " I do n't beleive that there are 3 billion non-spam e-mails sent every day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Hotmail claims to process 3 billion non-spam e-mails per day"I don't beleive that there are 3 billion non-spam e-mails sent every day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687630</id>
	<title>Re:tl, dr</title>
	<author>SUB7IME</author>
	<datestamp>1262859240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Regardless of the information density of his post, I disagree with his assertion that Hotmail should flip the 'autoreply' bit on these accounts. I do not think Hotmail wants to get involved in guessing whether or not someone intended to set any particular auto-reply message: "Surely, Mr. Jones, you didn't intend to drop an F-bomb in your auto-reply."</p><p>More to the point, these are hacked accounts. If you were going to take any action, *disabling* (even temporarily) the accounts and flagging them for forensic follow-up would strike me as more appropriate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Regardless of the information density of his post , I disagree with his assertion that Hotmail should flip the 'autoreply ' bit on these accounts .
I do not think Hotmail wants to get involved in guessing whether or not someone intended to set any particular auto-reply message : " Surely , Mr. Jones , you did n't intend to drop an F-bomb in your auto-reply .
" More to the point , these are hacked accounts .
If you were going to take any action , * disabling * ( even temporarily ) the accounts and flagging them for forensic follow-up would strike me as more appropriate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regardless of the information density of his post, I disagree with his assertion that Hotmail should flip the 'autoreply' bit on these accounts.
I do not think Hotmail wants to get involved in guessing whether or not someone intended to set any particular auto-reply message: "Surely, Mr. Jones, you didn't intend to drop an F-bomb in your auto-reply.
"More to the point, these are hacked accounts.
If you were going to take any action, *disabling* (even temporarily) the accounts and flagging them for forensic follow-up would strike me as more appropriate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688420</id>
	<title>Re:tl, dr</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1262863080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If only there was a way to query slashdot to only return stories which do not have the Bennet Haselton spam content...</htmltext>
<tokenext>If only there was a way to query slashdot to only return stories which do not have the Bennet Haselton spam content.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only there was a way to query slashdot to only return stories which do not have the Bennet Haselton spam content...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30691208</id>
	<title>Article Headline</title>
	<author>taphu</author>
	<datestamp>1262890680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The headline for this article is not clever. It is unclear. Unclear is not the same as clever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The headline for this article is not clever .
It is unclear .
Unclear is not the same as clever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The headline for this article is not clever.
It is unclear.
Unclear is not the same as clever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688744</id>
	<title>Re:tl, dr</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262864520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, if they flip it, the user can flip it back as long as they change the text to something else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , if they flip it , the user can flip it back as long as they change the text to something else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, if they flip it, the user can flip it back as long as they change the text to something else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687742</id>
	<title>Poster misses the point</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1262859900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anti-spam activism is its own goal - if someone (e.g., Microsoft) is blocking mail as spam, well that is just too bad.  Maybe it is spam and maybe it isn't - there is no accountability involved.  Email is intended to be unreliable, so there can never be an assumption that your mail isn't going to be blocked as spam for any of a number of reasons.</p><p>Further, why Microsoft doesn't "fix" these accounts is very simple - it isn't their problem.  It might be their user's problem but again spam has it own rewards.  Nobody gets paid any more or less because of such attacks, so their dedication of limited resources to stopping it isn't going to happen.  As to how effective it might be to try to curb this activity, well, they probably aren't going to succeed.  The attackers have virtually unlimited resources at their disposal, whereas Microsoft has only a small staff that has better things to do than "fixing" compromised user accounts.</p><p>Probably a lot of the accounts compromised have been abandoned anyway.</p><p>Today, spam has its own culture and trying to get in the way of the spam will often cause much more grief than just blocking it or rolling with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anti-spam activism is its own goal - if someone ( e.g. , Microsoft ) is blocking mail as spam , well that is just too bad .
Maybe it is spam and maybe it is n't - there is no accountability involved .
Email is intended to be unreliable , so there can never be an assumption that your mail is n't going to be blocked as spam for any of a number of reasons.Further , why Microsoft does n't " fix " these accounts is very simple - it is n't their problem .
It might be their user 's problem but again spam has it own rewards .
Nobody gets paid any more or less because of such attacks , so their dedication of limited resources to stopping it is n't going to happen .
As to how effective it might be to try to curb this activity , well , they probably are n't going to succeed .
The attackers have virtually unlimited resources at their disposal , whereas Microsoft has only a small staff that has better things to do than " fixing " compromised user accounts.Probably a lot of the accounts compromised have been abandoned anyway.Today , spam has its own culture and trying to get in the way of the spam will often cause much more grief than just blocking it or rolling with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anti-spam activism is its own goal - if someone (e.g., Microsoft) is blocking mail as spam, well that is just too bad.
Maybe it is spam and maybe it isn't - there is no accountability involved.
Email is intended to be unreliable, so there can never be an assumption that your mail isn't going to be blocked as spam for any of a number of reasons.Further, why Microsoft doesn't "fix" these accounts is very simple - it isn't their problem.
It might be their user's problem but again spam has it own rewards.
Nobody gets paid any more or less because of such attacks, so their dedication of limited resources to stopping it isn't going to happen.
As to how effective it might be to try to curb this activity, well, they probably aren't going to succeed.
The attackers have virtually unlimited resources at their disposal, whereas Microsoft has only a small staff that has better things to do than "fixing" compromised user accounts.Probably a lot of the accounts compromised have been abandoned anyway.Today, spam has its own culture and trying to get in the way of the spam will often cause much more grief than just blocking it or rolling with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687848</id>
	<title>Bennet - Duuuuuuuuuude!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262860380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you see yourself up late at night typing like a madman, that's a sign that you forgot a lithium dose<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... or several. And if you didn't, talk to your doctor, you may need to up your dosage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you see yourself up late at night typing like a madman , that 's a sign that you forgot a lithium dose ... or several .
And if you did n't , talk to your doctor , you may need to up your dosage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you see yourself up late at night typing like a madman, that's a sign that you forgot a lithium dose ... or several.
And if you didn't, talk to your doctor, you may need to up your dosage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687792</id>
	<title>Re:tl, dr</title>
	<author>JWSmythe</author>
	<datestamp>1262860080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; tl.dr.  Something about a guess of the number of accounts set with spammy autoresponders.  He does know that it's hotmail, so most of the autoresponses are going back out to other spammers, right?  It sounds like a nice spammy feedback loop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    tl.dr .
Something about a guess of the number of accounts set with spammy autoresponders .
He does know that it 's hotmail , so most of the autoresponses are going back out to other spammers , right ?
It sounds like a nice spammy feedback loop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    tl.dr.
Something about a guess of the number of accounts set with spammy autoresponders.
He does know that it's hotmail, so most of the autoresponses are going back out to other spammers, right?
It sounds like a nice spammy feedback loop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30689658</id>
	<title>Hotmailers Hawking Hoax Hunan Half-Offs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262871660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>Hotmailers Hawking Hoax Hunan Half-Offs</em></p><p>How Horrible!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hotmailers Hawking Hoax Hunan Half-OffsHow Horrible !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hotmailers Hawking Hoax Hunan Half-OffsHow Horrible!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688364</id>
	<title>Hotmail blocking issues</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262862780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If SpeakEasy, which has been in business for 15 years, has annual revenues of $60 million, and was bought in 2007 by Best Buy, can't even get through to Microsoft in less than 10 days to tell them to stop blocking all mail from their servers, then Microsoft should first fix their postmaster trouble ticket system, so that people are not blocked from writing to their friends and family members at Hotmail for a week and a half. Then get to work on the spam auto-responders.</p></div><p>The major UK University I work for had a similar issue with emails to Hotmail being rejected around the same time (late 2009), and it took 2-3 weeks before it was sorted.  Microsoft/Hotmail don't seem to be interested in prompt resolution of incorrect blocking, despite the importance and volume.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If SpeakEasy , which has been in business for 15 years , has annual revenues of $ 60 million , and was bought in 2007 by Best Buy , ca n't even get through to Microsoft in less than 10 days to tell them to stop blocking all mail from their servers , then Microsoft should first fix their postmaster trouble ticket system , so that people are not blocked from writing to their friends and family members at Hotmail for a week and a half .
Then get to work on the spam auto-responders.The major UK University I work for had a similar issue with emails to Hotmail being rejected around the same time ( late 2009 ) , and it took 2-3 weeks before it was sorted .
Microsoft/Hotmail do n't seem to be interested in prompt resolution of incorrect blocking , despite the importance and volume .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If SpeakEasy, which has been in business for 15 years, has annual revenues of $60 million, and was bought in 2007 by Best Buy, can't even get through to Microsoft in less than 10 days to tell them to stop blocking all mail from their servers, then Microsoft should first fix their postmaster trouble ticket system, so that people are not blocked from writing to their friends and family members at Hotmail for a week and a half.
Then get to work on the spam auto-responders.The major UK University I work for had a similar issue with emails to Hotmail being rejected around the same time (late 2009), and it took 2-3 weeks before it was sorted.
Microsoft/Hotmail don't seem to be interested in prompt resolution of incorrect blocking, despite the importance and volume.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30689254</id>
	<title>Re:A Possible Answer to One of the Many Questions</title>
	<author>charlieman</author>
	<datestamp>1262868360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Check who has Deleted you from their contact list on MSN at <a href="http://checkmsnstatus.com/" title="checkmsnstatus.com" rel="nofollow">http://checkmsnstatus.com/</a> [checkmsnstatus.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Check who has Deleted you from their contact list on MSN at http : //checkmsnstatus.com/ [ checkmsnstatus.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check who has Deleted you from their contact list on MSN at http://checkmsnstatus.com/ [checkmsnstatus.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688078</id>
	<title>Re:A Possible Answer to One of the Many Questions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262861640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AOL started blacklisting people who send out a lot of messages YEARS ago.  (I got shut off when I was reporting on a disaster to some emergency volunteer types, who asked to be cc'd on that particular disaster, and had to call up AOL to get them to review my messages and get whitelisted for that address.)  I guess Hotmail's owner doesn't know how to monitor their accounts for spam, or, maybe they get a percentage of the spammer's profits?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AOL started blacklisting people who send out a lot of messages YEARS ago .
( I got shut off when I was reporting on a disaster to some emergency volunteer types , who asked to be cc 'd on that particular disaster , and had to call up AOL to get them to review my messages and get whitelisted for that address .
) I guess Hotmail 's owner does n't know how to monitor their accounts for spam , or , maybe they get a percentage of the spammer 's profits ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AOL started blacklisting people who send out a lot of messages YEARS ago.
(I got shut off when I was reporting on a disaster to some emergency volunteer types, who asked to be cc'd on that particular disaster, and had to call up AOL to get them to review my messages and get whitelisted for that address.
)  I guess Hotmail's owner doesn't know how to monitor their accounts for spam, or, maybe they get a percentage of the spammer's profits?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687676</id>
	<title>TL:DR</title>
	<author>AliasMarlowe</author>
	<datestamp>1262859540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>drone, drone, drone, drone, drone, drone...<br>
a spammer hijacked autoreply on less than 0.1\% of Hotmail lusers.<br>
drone, drone, drone, drone, drone, drone...</p></div><p>Summarized that for you.<br> <br>
I get very similar spam, often masquerading as replies, but never actually a reply from anyone I sent mail to. It's possible that the "autoreply" is just demonstrating that the bot is smart enough to inspect incoming mail as well as harvest the contact list on the infected machine.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>drone , drone , drone , drone , drone , drone.. . a spammer hijacked autoreply on less than 0.1 \ % of Hotmail lusers .
drone , drone , drone , drone , drone , drone...Summarized that for you .
I get very similar spam , often masquerading as replies , but never actually a reply from anyone I sent mail to .
It 's possible that the " autoreply " is just demonstrating that the bot is smart enough to inspect incoming mail as well as harvest the contact list on the infected machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>drone, drone, drone, drone, drone, drone...
a spammer hijacked autoreply on less than 0.1\% of Hotmail lusers.
drone, drone, drone, drone, drone, drone...Summarized that for you.
I get very similar spam, often masquerading as replies, but never actually a reply from anyone I sent mail to.
It's possible that the "autoreply" is just demonstrating that the bot is smart enough to inspect incoming mail as well as harvest the contact list on the infected machine.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688152</id>
	<title>Re:Only 200,000?</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1262861880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><ul><li>Open a chain of internet cafes in china</li><li>Load each machine with a hacked copy of windows which logs user names and passwords</li><li>Collate user names and passwords on a central machine</li><li>??? Not required</li><li>Profit!</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open a chain of internet cafes in chinaLoad each machine with a hacked copy of windows which logs user names and passwordsCollate user names and passwords on a central machine ? ? ?
Not requiredProfit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open a chain of internet cafes in chinaLoad each machine with a hacked copy of windows which logs user names and passwordsCollate user names and passwords on a central machine???
Not requiredProfit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687642</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2049224_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30690524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2049224_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2049224_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2049224_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30690772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2049224_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2049224_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2049224_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30691784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2049224_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2049224_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2049224_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2049224_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2049224_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2049224_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30691810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2049224_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2049224_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30691980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2049224_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30696254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2049224_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2049224_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30691576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2049224_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2049224_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30689904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2049224_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30693482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2049224_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2049224_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30691744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2049224_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30689254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2049224_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2049224_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30690042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2049224_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2049224_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30695538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2049224_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2049224_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2049224.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30691744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30690772
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2049224.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687720
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2049224.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2049224.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687832
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2049224.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2049224.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2049224.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687718
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2049224.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30691576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2049224.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30690042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30689254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688444
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2049224.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687744
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2049224.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2049224.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688810
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2049224.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2049224.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2049224.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30691784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2049224.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30690270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2049224.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2049224.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2049224.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30691810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30695538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30691980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30690524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30696254
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30693482
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30688164
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2049224.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30689904
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2049224.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2049224.30687856
</commentlist>
</conversation>
