<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_23_0349236</id>
	<title>By Latest Count, 95\% of Email Is Spam</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1264251120000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"The European Network and Information Security Agency released its new spam report, which looks at spam budgets, the impact of spam and spam management. <a href="http://www.net-security.org/secworld.php?id=8755">Less than 5\% of all email traffic is delivered to mailboxes</a>. This means the main bulk of mails, 95\%, is spam. This is a very minor change, from 6\%, in earlier ENISA reports. Over 25\% of respondents had spam accounting for more than 10\% of help desk calls. The survey targeted email service providers of different types and sizes, and received replies from 100 respondents from 30 different countries."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " The European Network and Information Security Agency released its new spam report , which looks at spam budgets , the impact of spam and spam management .
Less than 5 \ % of all email traffic is delivered to mailboxes .
This means the main bulk of mails , 95 \ % , is spam .
This is a very minor change , from 6 \ % , in earlier ENISA reports .
Over 25 \ % of respondents had spam accounting for more than 10 \ % of help desk calls .
The survey targeted email service providers of different types and sizes , and received replies from 100 respondents from 30 different countries .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "The European Network and Information Security Agency released its new spam report, which looks at spam budgets, the impact of spam and spam management.
Less than 5\% of all email traffic is delivered to mailboxes.
This means the main bulk of mails, 95\%, is spam.
This is a very minor change, from 6\%, in earlier ENISA reports.
Over 25\% of respondents had spam accounting for more than 10\% of help desk calls.
The survey targeted email service providers of different types and sizes, and received replies from 100 respondents from 30 different countries.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30870162</id>
	<title>Re:Accounting for help desk calls?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264267260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've had "my daugter is getting a load of inappropriate adverts that she finds disturbing, how do I stop it" several times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've had " my daugter is getting a load of inappropriate adverts that she finds disturbing , how do I stop it " several times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've had "my daugter is getting a load of inappropriate adverts that she finds disturbing, how do I stop it" several times.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869062</id>
	<title>I'm surprised it's that low</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264256040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was seeing more like 97\% (once you excluded system generated internal emails - CVS and Bugzilla between them can generate a fair bit of mail).</p><p>The killer for running our own mail system in its entirety was when I did the arithmetic and our co-hosted secondary mail server was costing more than buying Google for Domains.   That's before you even consider the document management Google for domains offers, which was just icing on the cake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was seeing more like 97 \ % ( once you excluded system generated internal emails - CVS and Bugzilla between them can generate a fair bit of mail ) .The killer for running our own mail system in its entirety was when I did the arithmetic and our co-hosted secondary mail server was costing more than buying Google for Domains .
That 's before you even consider the document management Google for domains offers , which was just icing on the cake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was seeing more like 97\% (once you excluded system generated internal emails - CVS and Bugzilla between them can generate a fair bit of mail).The killer for running our own mail system in its entirety was when I did the arithmetic and our co-hosted secondary mail server was costing more than buying Google for Domains.
That's before you even consider the document management Google for domains offers, which was just icing on the cake.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869346</id>
	<title>What? But Bill Gates predicted end to spam by 2006</title>
	<author>jarocho</author>
	<datestamp>1264259220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3426367.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Bill Gates called it, way back in 2004.</a> [bbc.co.uk] And Bill Gates is never wrong about ANYTHING. So it's pretty obvious that whatever we've all been receiving in our inboxes since 2006 that looks like spam isn't. Probably, we're all just overwhelmed by all of the legitimate emails we're getting from our many, many friends nowadays, who really are just trying to tell us about some aweS0me dea1z on r0lexxes, and we just can't decide which of the incredible bargains to choose from. And it's actually Google and Yahoo's fault for not having deprecated their spam filters, even though spam now is a thing of the past (trying to make MS look bad, of course). So they keep catching your friends' emails as spam. But it can't be spam, because it's 2010 already. And Bill Gates said.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bill Gates called it , way back in 2004 .
[ bbc.co.uk ] And Bill Gates is never wrong about ANYTHING .
So it 's pretty obvious that whatever we 've all been receiving in our inboxes since 2006 that looks like spam is n't .
Probably , we 're all just overwhelmed by all of the legitimate emails we 're getting from our many , many friends nowadays , who really are just trying to tell us about some aweS0me dea1z on r0lexxes , and we just ca n't decide which of the incredible bargains to choose from .
And it 's actually Google and Yahoo 's fault for not having deprecated their spam filters , even though spam now is a thing of the past ( trying to make MS look bad , of course ) .
So they keep catching your friends ' emails as spam .
But it ca n't be spam , because it 's 2010 already .
And Bill Gates said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bill Gates called it, way back in 2004.
[bbc.co.uk] And Bill Gates is never wrong about ANYTHING.
So it's pretty obvious that whatever we've all been receiving in our inboxes since 2006 that looks like spam isn't.
Probably, we're all just overwhelmed by all of the legitimate emails we're getting from our many, many friends nowadays, who really are just trying to tell us about some aweS0me dea1z on r0lexxes, and we just can't decide which of the incredible bargains to choose from.
And it's actually Google and Yahoo's fault for not having deprecated their spam filters, even though spam now is a thing of the past (trying to make MS look bad, of course).
So they keep catching your friends' emails as spam.
But it can't be spam, because it's 2010 already.
And Bill Gates said.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30872276</id>
	<title>Re:Bill Gates</title>
	<author>Nightspirit</author>
	<datestamp>1264239180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use outlook and I never see spam and I don't get false positives. That doesn't mean the spam problem is solved but at least my time isn't wasted (just bandwidth).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use outlook and I never see spam and I do n't get false positives .
That does n't mean the spam problem is solved but at least my time is n't wasted ( just bandwidth ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use outlook and I never see spam and I don't get false positives.
That doesn't mean the spam problem is solved but at least my time isn't wasted (just bandwidth).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30870274</id>
	<title>Re:Logic?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264268340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This morning, over 6000 messages came through my domain of which 6 were legitimate.  I spend more time waiting for the deletes to complete than reading my messages.<br>I think the 95\% may be too low.<br>And if you account for the bits, the ratio is even worse, since my legitimate messages are usually a bit of text, whereas almost all the spam includes an attachment or image.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This morning , over 6000 messages came through my domain of which 6 were legitimate .
I spend more time waiting for the deletes to complete than reading my messages.I think the 95 \ % may be too low.And if you account for the bits , the ratio is even worse , since my legitimate messages are usually a bit of text , whereas almost all the spam includes an attachment or image .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This morning, over 6000 messages came through my domain of which 6 were legitimate.
I spend more time waiting for the deletes to complete than reading my messages.I think the 95\% may be too low.And if you account for the bits, the ratio is even worse, since my legitimate messages are usually a bit of text, whereas almost all the spam includes an attachment or image.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30868966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869084</id>
	<title>95\% of slashdoters don't RTFA</title>
	<author>daveb1</author>
	<datestamp>1264256220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>95\% of slashdoters don't RTFA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>95 \ % of slashdoters do n't RTFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>95\% of slashdoters don't RTFA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30870618</id>
	<title>Re:Micropayments again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264270860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right now the vast majority of spam is sent by compromised computers. What would stop those computers from paying the micropayments? Sure, it'd be nice to collect a few dollars from the incoming spam, but I'd feel a bit evil taking money from random people around the world. Even if they should have been smarter.</p><p>You can say that fraudulent transactions are only a few percent of total transactions today, but it will difficult to build a micropayment system which has as many abuse checks as the current transaction systems -- and the current systems would kill your idea with transaction fees often in the range of $0.50.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now the vast majority of spam is sent by compromised computers .
What would stop those computers from paying the micropayments ?
Sure , it 'd be nice to collect a few dollars from the incoming spam , but I 'd feel a bit evil taking money from random people around the world .
Even if they should have been smarter.You can say that fraudulent transactions are only a few percent of total transactions today , but it will difficult to build a micropayment system which has as many abuse checks as the current transaction systems -- and the current systems would kill your idea with transaction fees often in the range of $ 0.50 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now the vast majority of spam is sent by compromised computers.
What would stop those computers from paying the micropayments?
Sure, it'd be nice to collect a few dollars from the incoming spam, but I'd feel a bit evil taking money from random people around the world.
Even if they should have been smarter.You can say that fraudulent transactions are only a few percent of total transactions today, but it will difficult to build a micropayment system which has as many abuse checks as the current transaction systems -- and the current systems would kill your idea with transaction fees often in the range of $0.50.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30872528</id>
	<title>Re:More than 90\% for me too</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1264241220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone seems to have signed me up to every spam newsletter imaginable. Google filters about 3000 emails out per month. It misses one every couple weeks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone seems to have signed me up to every spam newsletter imaginable .
Google filters about 3000 emails out per month .
It misses one every couple weeks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone seems to have signed me up to every spam newsletter imaginable.
Google filters about 3000 emails out per month.
It misses one every couple weeks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30868996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869258</id>
	<title>Re:Micropayments again</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1264258380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Micropayments. Yes I know it's been mentioned before, but one rarely hears of paying *each other* (rather than the host or government). It would be a good idea anyway even if spam didn't exist.</p></div></blockquote><p>Because, as one of those irritating but often accurate form rejections points out, transaction costs make this impractical.  You'd spend far more administering the payments than you would actually making them, so if you had a system where you paid someone $0.05 to receive your email, and they paid you $0.05 to receive theirs, you'd also each end up paying $0.50 in transaction costs to whoever handled the payments.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Micropayments .
Yes I know it 's been mentioned before , but one rarely hears of paying * each other * ( rather than the host or government ) .
It would be a good idea anyway even if spam did n't exist.Because , as one of those irritating but often accurate form rejections points out , transaction costs make this impractical .
You 'd spend far more administering the payments than you would actually making them , so if you had a system where you paid someone $ 0.05 to receive your email , and they paid you $ 0.05 to receive theirs , you 'd also each end up paying $ 0.50 in transaction costs to whoever handled the payments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Micropayments.
Yes I know it's been mentioned before, but one rarely hears of paying *each other* (rather than the host or government).
It would be a good idea anyway even if spam didn't exist.Because, as one of those irritating but often accurate form rejections points out, transaction costs make this impractical.
You'd spend far more administering the payments than you would actually making them, so if you had a system where you paid someone $0.05 to receive your email, and they paid you $0.05 to receive theirs, you'd also each end up paying $0.50 in transaction costs to whoever handled the payments.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30870808</id>
	<title>Re:Logic?</title>
	<author>Idaho</author>
	<datestamp>1264272480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Worse, a change from 6\% to 5\% "real mail", if that is indeed the case, isn't a "very minor change", it's a 20\% difference!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Worse , a change from 6 \ % to 5 \ % " real mail " , if that is indeed the case , is n't a " very minor change " , it 's a 20 \ % difference !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Worse, a change from 6\% to 5\% "real mail", if that is indeed the case, isn't a "very minor change", it's a 20\% difference!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30868966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30868966</id>
	<title>Logic?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264254960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Less than 5\% of all email traffic is delivered to mailboxes. This means the main bulk of mails, 95\%, is spam.</p></div></blockquote><p> I don't doubt that it's around 95\%, but the logic of the above-quoted statement is certainly flawed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Less than 5 \ % of all email traffic is delivered to mailboxes .
This means the main bulk of mails , 95 \ % , is spam .
I do n't doubt that it 's around 95 \ % , but the logic of the above-quoted statement is certainly flawed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Less than 5\% of all email traffic is delivered to mailboxes.
This means the main bulk of mails, 95\%, is spam.
I don't doubt that it's around 95\%, but the logic of the above-quoted statement is certainly flawed.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30873734</id>
	<title>Re:Micropayments again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264250340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An alternative, which requires less infrastructure to set it up, is to require us to effectively 'burn' 1/10th of a penny for each email we send.  You require that each email have appended to it a cryptographic hash, which requires (say) 1 second of computing time to generate.  A spamming system then has to work flat out to send a mere 1 spam/second.  Normal use would be mostly unaffected, except for legitimate mailing lists, which would need to be dealt with with a whitelist system.</p><p>Major problem: Before you can start discarding spam (which doesn't have the appended hash), you need to know that any legitimate email you receive *will* have the hash, so it needs to have been adopted by everyone.  (On the standard form letter, it falls foul of the check-mark "Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once", although the 'immediate' part isn't strictly accurate.)</p><p>Minor problem: as computers improve, you need to have some system in place for increasing the complexity of the required hashes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An alternative , which requires less infrastructure to set it up , is to require us to effectively 'burn ' 1/10th of a penny for each email we send .
You require that each email have appended to it a cryptographic hash , which requires ( say ) 1 second of computing time to generate .
A spamming system then has to work flat out to send a mere 1 spam/second .
Normal use would be mostly unaffected , except for legitimate mailing lists , which would need to be dealt with with a whitelist system.Major problem : Before you can start discarding spam ( which does n't have the appended hash ) , you need to know that any legitimate email you receive * will * have the hash , so it needs to have been adopted by everyone .
( On the standard form letter , it falls foul of the check-mark " Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once " , although the 'immediate ' part is n't strictly accurate .
) Minor problem : as computers improve , you need to have some system in place for increasing the complexity of the required hashes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An alternative, which requires less infrastructure to set it up, is to require us to effectively 'burn' 1/10th of a penny for each email we send.
You require that each email have appended to it a cryptographic hash, which requires (say) 1 second of computing time to generate.
A spamming system then has to work flat out to send a mere 1 spam/second.
Normal use would be mostly unaffected, except for legitimate mailing lists, which would need to be dealt with with a whitelist system.Major problem: Before you can start discarding spam (which doesn't have the appended hash), you need to know that any legitimate email you receive *will* have the hash, so it needs to have been adopted by everyone.
(On the standard form letter, it falls foul of the check-mark "Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once", although the 'immediate' part isn't strictly accurate.
)Minor problem: as computers improve, you need to have some system in place for increasing the complexity of the required hashes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30871724</id>
	<title>Re:Logic?</title>
	<author>MROD</author>
	<datestamp>1264278780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you check out the statistics I've been collecting at work then you'll see the figure is quite correct.</p><p>You should be able to see the stats here:</p><p>http://www.earth.ox.ac.uk/~steve/spamstats/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you check out the statistics I 've been collecting at work then you 'll see the figure is quite correct.You should be able to see the stats here : http : //www.earth.ox.ac.uk/ ~ steve/spamstats/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you check out the statistics I've been collecting at work then you'll see the figure is quite correct.You should be able to see the stats here:http://www.earth.ox.ac.uk/~steve/spamstats/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30868966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30870150</id>
	<title>Re:Accounting for help desk calls?!</title>
	<author>clarkie.mg</author>
	<datestamp>1264267200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you sure ? I know a lot of inexperienced people who are overwhelmed by the number of messages in their mailbox. One 70 year old just told me she gave up on her mailbox because there were 750 messages in it. Another one, 50 years old,  is drowning in advertisement messages - not even spam, she gave her email on legitimate shopping sites.</p><p>A third one, 50 years old, lost an email confirming her plane travel and ended up rebooking it ! When she called me, i found the email in 1 second by using the search function.</p><p>For an experienced user, it might seem easy to use some basic techniques like filtering, searching, sorting but most people just pile up the messages and only use "reply" and "forward" without editing.</p><p>I offer a one hour basic course for email management with an optional one hour for setting up filters and other tools but email is rarely considered a serious issue rather a tool to send jokes, porn or "how are you" messages, unfortunately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you sure ?
I know a lot of inexperienced people who are overwhelmed by the number of messages in their mailbox .
One 70 year old just told me she gave up on her mailbox because there were 750 messages in it .
Another one , 50 years old , is drowning in advertisement messages - not even spam , she gave her email on legitimate shopping sites.A third one , 50 years old , lost an email confirming her plane travel and ended up rebooking it !
When she called me , i found the email in 1 second by using the search function.For an experienced user , it might seem easy to use some basic techniques like filtering , searching , sorting but most people just pile up the messages and only use " reply " and " forward " without editing.I offer a one hour basic course for email management with an optional one hour for setting up filters and other tools but email is rarely considered a serious issue rather a tool to send jokes , porn or " how are you " messages , unfortunately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you sure ?
I know a lot of inexperienced people who are overwhelmed by the number of messages in their mailbox.
One 70 year old just told me she gave up on her mailbox because there were 750 messages in it.
Another one, 50 years old,  is drowning in advertisement messages - not even spam, she gave her email on legitimate shopping sites.A third one, 50 years old, lost an email confirming her plane travel and ended up rebooking it !
When she called me, i found the email in 1 second by using the search function.For an experienced user, it might seem easy to use some basic techniques like filtering, searching, sorting but most people just pile up the messages and only use "reply" and "forward" without editing.I offer a one hour basic course for email management with an optional one hour for setting up filters and other tools but email is rarely considered a serious issue rather a tool to send jokes, porn or "how are you" messages, unfortunately.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869684</id>
	<title>Accountability</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264262520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's no single solution to spam, obviously at times I want people that have never sent me an email before to be able to reach me. Trying to derive whether it's spam from the content will always be an approximate process. But what is not so great is that currently, all the eggs are in one basket. If you get your hands on my email address, then it's valid for years and years, and I have no practical means of switching.</p><p>What would help a great deal, is if there was a standard way to generate and revoke an email address for a specific purpose, auto-alias any reply and in the reply include a forward to a different alias. Yes, occasionally I spell it out over the phone or someone has to type it in from paper and shortness and readability is important, but many times it is not. For example, I don't publish my email address here but if I could easily generate an alias ad453785cd76786da76b7678654aa@gmail.com and have it delivered to my real address with the possibility of nuking it I'd consider it.</p><p>The rest are really continuations of the same idea, because you'd get a lot of "harmless" mail saying like "Hello, I saw your post at [slashdot comment you made] and think your posts show just the kind of employees we are looking for. We at [bullshit company w/fake web page] would like to increase our technical staff and if you are interested, please send us your resume." which serve no other purpose than to reveal your unaliased address. For that reason, all mail sent to an alias should be replied to using the same alias.</p><p>The other issue is that for revocation to practically work, I can't have people who did get in contact with me over the slashdot alias that I'd like to stay in contact with keep using that alias. I have to either give them my real address or point them to a new alias. There's "Reply-To:" and just telling them in the email, but it's a bit weak. Finally a revoked address should optionally give a customer-chosen rejection reason, so that it could be things like "Switched alias, try [new address]" "This alias is expired, find my current address on slashdot.org", "If important, you can still reach me on phone 555-1234" instead of the default "No account with that name".</p><p>The best part of someone actually doing is, is that the whole system doesn't need to change. One web mail provider could create this exact setup with the controls to generate and revoke addresses, make sure your replies to an alias are aliased, update and control the Reply-To so you can't redirect it anywhere else and create the custom rejection messages. The only thing it can't do is make sure the recipient updates their address book or whatever, but if the ball gets rolling that will be fixed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no single solution to spam , obviously at times I want people that have never sent me an email before to be able to reach me .
Trying to derive whether it 's spam from the content will always be an approximate process .
But what is not so great is that currently , all the eggs are in one basket .
If you get your hands on my email address , then it 's valid for years and years , and I have no practical means of switching.What would help a great deal , is if there was a standard way to generate and revoke an email address for a specific purpose , auto-alias any reply and in the reply include a forward to a different alias .
Yes , occasionally I spell it out over the phone or someone has to type it in from paper and shortness and readability is important , but many times it is not .
For example , I do n't publish my email address here but if I could easily generate an alias ad453785cd76786da76b7678654aa @ gmail.com and have it delivered to my real address with the possibility of nuking it I 'd consider it.The rest are really continuations of the same idea , because you 'd get a lot of " harmless " mail saying like " Hello , I saw your post at [ slashdot comment you made ] and think your posts show just the kind of employees we are looking for .
We at [ bullshit company w/fake web page ] would like to increase our technical staff and if you are interested , please send us your resume .
" which serve no other purpose than to reveal your unaliased address .
For that reason , all mail sent to an alias should be replied to using the same alias.The other issue is that for revocation to practically work , I ca n't have people who did get in contact with me over the slashdot alias that I 'd like to stay in contact with keep using that alias .
I have to either give them my real address or point them to a new alias .
There 's " Reply-To : " and just telling them in the email , but it 's a bit weak .
Finally a revoked address should optionally give a customer-chosen rejection reason , so that it could be things like " Switched alias , try [ new address ] " " This alias is expired , find my current address on slashdot.org " , " If important , you can still reach me on phone 555-1234 " instead of the default " No account with that name " .The best part of someone actually doing is , is that the whole system does n't need to change .
One web mail provider could create this exact setup with the controls to generate and revoke addresses , make sure your replies to an alias are aliased , update and control the Reply-To so you ca n't redirect it anywhere else and create the custom rejection messages .
The only thing it ca n't do is make sure the recipient updates their address book or whatever , but if the ball gets rolling that will be fixed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no single solution to spam, obviously at times I want people that have never sent me an email before to be able to reach me.
Trying to derive whether it's spam from the content will always be an approximate process.
But what is not so great is that currently, all the eggs are in one basket.
If you get your hands on my email address, then it's valid for years and years, and I have no practical means of switching.What would help a great deal, is if there was a standard way to generate and revoke an email address for a specific purpose, auto-alias any reply and in the reply include a forward to a different alias.
Yes, occasionally I spell it out over the phone or someone has to type it in from paper and shortness and readability is important, but many times it is not.
For example, I don't publish my email address here but if I could easily generate an alias ad453785cd76786da76b7678654aa@gmail.com and have it delivered to my real address with the possibility of nuking it I'd consider it.The rest are really continuations of the same idea, because you'd get a lot of "harmless" mail saying like "Hello, I saw your post at [slashdot comment you made] and think your posts show just the kind of employees we are looking for.
We at [bullshit company w/fake web page] would like to increase our technical staff and if you are interested, please send us your resume.
" which serve no other purpose than to reveal your unaliased address.
For that reason, all mail sent to an alias should be replied to using the same alias.The other issue is that for revocation to practically work, I can't have people who did get in contact with me over the slashdot alias that I'd like to stay in contact with keep using that alias.
I have to either give them my real address or point them to a new alias.
There's "Reply-To:" and just telling them in the email, but it's a bit weak.
Finally a revoked address should optionally give a customer-chosen rejection reason, so that it could be things like "Switched alias, try [new address]" "This alias is expired, find my current address on slashdot.org", "If important, you can still reach me on phone 555-1234" instead of the default "No account with that name".The best part of someone actually doing is, is that the whole system doesn't need to change.
One web mail provider could create this exact setup with the controls to generate and revoke addresses, make sure your replies to an alias are aliased, update and control the Reply-To so you can't redirect it anywhere else and create the custom rejection messages.
The only thing it can't do is make sure the recipient updates their address book or whatever, but if the ball gets rolling that will be fixed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30868996</id>
	<title>More than 90\% for me too</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1264255260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I also get about 10 times as much spam as actual email. Fortunately, Google is pretty good at filtering that - the number of false negatives in my inbox has been less than ten this month, while I got over a thousand to my spam folder.</p><p>It's hard to comprehend how people deal without that level of spam filtering - I have relatives who regularly register new accounts in order to escape their spam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I also get about 10 times as much spam as actual email .
Fortunately , Google is pretty good at filtering that - the number of false negatives in my inbox has been less than ten this month , while I got over a thousand to my spam folder.It 's hard to comprehend how people deal without that level of spam filtering - I have relatives who regularly register new accounts in order to escape their spam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also get about 10 times as much spam as actual email.
Fortunately, Google is pretty good at filtering that - the number of false negatives in my inbox has been less than ten this month, while I got over a thousand to my spam folder.It's hard to comprehend how people deal without that level of spam filtering - I have relatives who regularly register new accounts in order to escape their spam.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30870256</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised it's that low</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1264268100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If there is downtime on your main mailserver, or the telephone line connecting it to the outside world, you need a secondary server to pick up mail until it comes back online again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If there is downtime on your main mailserver , or the telephone line connecting it to the outside world , you need a secondary server to pick up mail until it comes back online again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there is downtime on your main mailserver, or the telephone line connecting it to the outside world, you need a secondary server to pick up mail until it comes back online again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30870406</id>
	<title>Re:Logic?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264269300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Survey was paid for by the EU to inquire about local spam measures. The only mistake was including the single form returned by a US based provider who didn't know that Europe wasn't a state.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Survey was paid for by the EU to inquire about local spam measures .
The only mistake was including the single form returned by a US based provider who did n't know that Europe was n't a state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Survey was paid for by the EU to inquire about local spam measures.
The only mistake was including the single form returned by a US based provider who didn't know that Europe wasn't a state.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30870718</id>
	<title>Re:Bill Gates</title>
	<author>StormReaver</author>
	<datestamp>1264271580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Bill Gates promised in 2004 that spam would be completely solved within 2 years.</p></div><p>And in 20 years, he'll claim to have no memory of having ever said that.  And his apologists will claim that he's too smart to have said something so stupid.  And history will have repeated itself yet again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bill Gates promised in 2004 that spam would be completely solved within 2 years.And in 20 years , he 'll claim to have no memory of having ever said that .
And his apologists will claim that he 's too smart to have said something so stupid .
And history will have repeated itself yet again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bill Gates promised in 2004 that spam would be completely solved within 2 years.And in 20 years, he'll claim to have no memory of having ever said that.
And his apologists will claim that he's too smart to have said something so stupid.
And history will have repeated itself yet again.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869504</id>
	<title>Flawed logic</title>
	<author>KitsuneSoftware</author>
	<datestamp>1264260720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately, 95\% delivery failure does not mean 95\% spam. Some spam gets delivered to my inbox, and I'm certain that some legitimate email gets blocked. Unfortunately, the businesmen who like to use "email marketing" have no idea how much of a problem it is, and the technical people doing the filtering refuse to bounce (instead of black hole) suspected spam as doing so would work as a DoS amplifier.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , 95 \ % delivery failure does not mean 95 \ % spam .
Some spam gets delivered to my inbox , and I 'm certain that some legitimate email gets blocked .
Unfortunately , the businesmen who like to use " email marketing " have no idea how much of a problem it is , and the technical people doing the filtering refuse to bounce ( instead of black hole ) suspected spam as doing so would work as a DoS amplifier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, 95\% delivery failure does not mean 95\% spam.
Some spam gets delivered to my inbox, and I'm certain that some legitimate email gets blocked.
Unfortunately, the businesmen who like to use "email marketing" have no idea how much of a problem it is, and the technical people doing the filtering refuse to bounce (instead of black hole) suspected spam as doing so would work as a DoS amplifier.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30872170</id>
	<title>Re:Bill Gates</title>
	<author>sootman</author>
	<datestamp>1264238580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And what kills me is that he COULD HAVE, the bastard. Or at least, made a very large dent in it. All he had to do was have MS release some patches for Windows and give them for free to EVERYONE, "pirates" included. According to a quick search, <a href="http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=percent+of+spam+comes+from+zombies" title="google.com">80 percent of spam comes from zombies.</a> [google.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And what kills me is that he COULD HAVE , the bastard .
Or at least , made a very large dent in it .
All he had to do was have MS release some patches for Windows and give them for free to EVERYONE , " pirates " included .
According to a quick search , 80 percent of spam comes from zombies .
[ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what kills me is that he COULD HAVE, the bastard.
Or at least, made a very large dent in it.
All he had to do was have MS release some patches for Windows and give them for free to EVERYONE, "pirates" included.
According to a quick search, 80 percent of spam comes from zombies.
[google.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30876840</id>
	<title>Re:Accounting for help desk calls?!</title>
	<author>BagOBones</author>
	<datestamp>1264326540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The calls come down to the following three reasons:<br>- You have a great filter so when any spam gets through people complain because it is not the norm.<br>- You have an overly aggressive filter or the occasional false positive. People really hate it when they don't get important messages<br>- You have no filter or one that sucks, the users inbox is full of spam and they can't get through it all to find the real email</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The calls come down to the following three reasons : - You have a great filter so when any spam gets through people complain because it is not the norm.- You have an overly aggressive filter or the occasional false positive .
People really hate it when they do n't get important messages- You have no filter or one that sucks , the users inbox is full of spam and they ca n't get through it all to find the real email</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The calls come down to the following three reasons:- You have a great filter so when any spam gets through people complain because it is not the norm.- You have an overly aggressive filter or the occasional false positive.
People really hate it when they don't get important messages- You have no filter or one that sucks, the users inbox is full of spam and they can't get through it all to find the real email</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869890</id>
	<title>Re:My spam count has gone down lately</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264264620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Got a letter from my ISP recently (the most important ISP in the country) telling something like: "All outgoing connection to ports other than 80 and 443 and xxx and yyy are now blocked by default, if you have a legitimate need to access these ports please log on to:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... and change your settings".</p><p>This is insta-death for a great many spam bot/relays.</p><p>Boom.  Game over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Got a letter from my ISP recently ( the most important ISP in the country ) telling something like : " All outgoing connection to ports other than 80 and 443 and xxx and yyy are now blocked by default , if you have a legitimate need to access these ports please log on to : .... and change your settings " .This is insta-death for a great many spam bot/relays.Boom .
Game over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Got a letter from my ISP recently (the most important ISP in the country) telling something like: "All outgoing connection to ports other than 80 and 443 and xxx and yyy are now blocked by default, if you have a legitimate need to access these ports please log on to: .... and change your settings".This is insta-death for a great many spam bot/relays.Boom.
Game over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869090</id>
	<title>Simple solution to the problem.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264256280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have the pharamcutical companies pay each user $1 for every spam they got for Cialis or other Dick enhancing drug they are pushing. If they can find a way to to do that I would welcome my Dick Enhancing SPAM overlords.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have the pharamcutical companies pay each user $ 1 for every spam they got for Cialis or other Dick enhancing drug they are pushing .
If they can find a way to to do that I would welcome my Dick Enhancing SPAM overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have the pharamcutical companies pay each user $1 for every spam they got for Cialis or other Dick enhancing drug they are pushing.
If they can find a way to to do that I would welcome my Dick Enhancing SPAM overlords.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869148</id>
	<title>My spam count has gone down lately</title>
	<author>PetoskeyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1264257060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have no idea why, but my spam count has gone down. I have my own domain name and I used to receive about 100 spam per day. Lately that's gone down to 2 or 3.</p><p>I'm not doing anything different so I assume I fell off a list or someone upstream is fixing things.</p><p>Sometimes I run a filter that let's all plaintext through but whitelists mime and messages with http or www in the message.  They get rejected at the server level.</p><p>I just turn it off when I register for new web sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no idea why , but my spam count has gone down .
I have my own domain name and I used to receive about 100 spam per day .
Lately that 's gone down to 2 or 3.I 'm not doing anything different so I assume I fell off a list or someone upstream is fixing things.Sometimes I run a filter that let 's all plaintext through but whitelists mime and messages with http or www in the message .
They get rejected at the server level.I just turn it off when I register for new web sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no idea why, but my spam count has gone down.
I have my own domain name and I used to receive about 100 spam per day.
Lately that's gone down to 2 or 3.I'm not doing anything different so I assume I fell off a list or someone upstream is fixing things.Sometimes I run a filter that let's all plaintext through but whitelists mime and messages with http or www in the message.
They get rejected at the server level.I just turn it off when I register for new web sites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869298</id>
	<title>Better ratio than snail mail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264258740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since I've moved all my paper bills to email delivery, the crap in my USPS mailbox is 100\% spam.  Oh, and companies DO pay to have that trash shoved in there so clearly attaching a value to delivery doesn't deter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since I 've moved all my paper bills to email delivery , the crap in my USPS mailbox is 100 \ % spam .
Oh , and companies DO pay to have that trash shoved in there so clearly attaching a value to delivery does n't deter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since I've moved all my paper bills to email delivery, the crap in my USPS mailbox is 100\% spam.
Oh, and companies DO pay to have that trash shoved in there so clearly attaching a value to delivery doesn't deter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869170</id>
	<title>Bill Gates</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264257300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/24/tech/main595595.shtml" title="cbsnews.com">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/24/tech/main595595.shtml</a> [cbsnews.com]</p><p>Bill Gates promised in 2004 that spam would be completely solved within 2 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/24/tech/main595595.shtml [ cbsnews.com ] Bill Gates promised in 2004 that spam would be completely solved within 2 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/24/tech/main595595.shtml [cbsnews.com]Bill Gates promised in 2004 that spam would be completely solved within 2 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869342</id>
	<title>Re:Logic?</title>
	<author>characterZer0</author>
	<datestamp>1264259220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right. They are ignoring the huge volume of legitimate mail that hotmail/msn silently deletes in violation of the RFCs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right .
They are ignoring the huge volume of legitimate mail that hotmail/msn silently deletes in violation of the RFCs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right.
They are ignoring the huge volume of legitimate mail that hotmail/msn silently deletes in violation of the RFCs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30868966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869124</id>
	<title>Spam not equally distributed among message media</title>
	<author>Dilligent</author>
	<datestamp>1264256820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>One thing to keep in mind is that even though it looks bad (and for email it certainly is..), most other mediums aren't quite as affected by it. I do get quite a bit of Spam on ICQ these days, but the ratio between spam messages and real messages is waaaaaaaay better than 20:1.

I would expect the same to hold true for most other mediums as well, so that it might in fact be a good idea to use those as a separate alternative communication channel should your inbox become overwhelmed.

Something i have noticed over the years is the reduction in Trojans and worms being sent (at least to my inbox). There was a time when i received around 50 trojan-emails a day, whereas now it has been quite a while that a spam mail did actually contain any attachment whatsoever.

To summarize, yeah.. email looks bad, but there's a whole set of alternative or additional channels that can be used which aren't quite as saturated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing to keep in mind is that even though it looks bad ( and for email it certainly is.. ) , most other mediums are n't quite as affected by it .
I do get quite a bit of Spam on ICQ these days , but the ratio between spam messages and real messages is waaaaaaaay better than 20 : 1 .
I would expect the same to hold true for most other mediums as well , so that it might in fact be a good idea to use those as a separate alternative communication channel should your inbox become overwhelmed .
Something i have noticed over the years is the reduction in Trojans and worms being sent ( at least to my inbox ) .
There was a time when i received around 50 trojan-emails a day , whereas now it has been quite a while that a spam mail did actually contain any attachment whatsoever .
To summarize , yeah.. email looks bad , but there 's a whole set of alternative or additional channels that can be used which are n't quite as saturated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing to keep in mind is that even though it looks bad (and for email it certainly is..), most other mediums aren't quite as affected by it.
I do get quite a bit of Spam on ICQ these days, but the ratio between spam messages and real messages is waaaaaaaay better than 20:1.
I would expect the same to hold true for most other mediums as well, so that it might in fact be a good idea to use those as a separate alternative communication channel should your inbox become overwhelmed.
Something i have noticed over the years is the reduction in Trojans and worms being sent (at least to my inbox).
There was a time when i received around 50 trojan-emails a day, whereas now it has been quite a while that a spam mail did actually contain any attachment whatsoever.
To summarize, yeah.. email looks bad, but there's a whole set of alternative or additional channels that can be used which aren't quite as saturated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869274</id>
	<title>Where they got there numbers?</title>
	<author>Blowit</author>
	<datestamp>1264258560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look at my mail server's spam status.<br>the RBL has blocked 95\% of the spam out there.<br>57.5\% had no SPF records.  Looks like SPF has gained a lot of ground now... almost half of the Internet is now using it.<br>Using Surgemail, I do not need to use 3rd party anti-spam systems as the anti-spam is handled by the mail server itself.  It handled 4 million messages in a month and does not break a sweat.  I love this mail server and no other system can persuade me to switch... Support is incredible, service top notch... can not praise it enough.</p><p>Spam status:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; RBL   Denied 95.3\% (1882484), Stamped 4.7\% (93193), Checked 1975678<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Total score 3 or above   75.5\% 123278/163348<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Aspam Score 1 or above   15.4\%,  ngood=987 nbad=2965 ncatcher=2521<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; URL Database             13.6\%,  In database bad=12997 neutral=2168 fromnet=15138<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; SPF hits (msgs)          68.8\% 2753806/4002538, (no spf=2302652 57.5\% pass=361145 of 4002493)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; SPF rcpts blocked        0.0\% (0/698887) allow=0 dkf=5393<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Badfrom hits             0.0\% bad=0 good=384559 mx=0<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Spam Bounce (0)          2.5\%<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Helo failures            235981 5.7\%<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; SURBL                    38.0\% 94570/248869 0/0<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; User spam actions        Vanished:8 Bounced:21793 Stored:46<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Friends                  Allow:23059 Block:0 Confirmation:14944 (Bounced:2787 Replies:128 Spam-ratio:0.96)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DomainKeys               goodsigs=15730, badsigs=458, nosig=0, badformat=408<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; SPFShare                 isspam=814 notspam=0 allow=0 web=2630 tell=0 (knowndb=270297)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; SpamC                    104.09\% (db 443774/34284) spam=108206 ok=36709 zero=103954<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; From Blacklist           0 records, 0 hits<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; False Pos                128/14944 0.86\% (based on friend confirmations)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; False Pos                7732/41670  19\% (based on msgs from friends)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; aspam\_content.txt        7788 3.1\%</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at my mail server 's spam status.the RBL has blocked 95 \ % of the spam out there.57.5 \ % had no SPF records .
Looks like SPF has gained a lot of ground now... almost half of the Internet is now using it.Using Surgemail , I do not need to use 3rd party anti-spam systems as the anti-spam is handled by the mail server itself .
It handled 4 million messages in a month and does not break a sweat .
I love this mail server and no other system can persuade me to switch... Support is incredible , service top notch... can not praise it enough.Spam status :         RBL Denied 95.3 \ % ( 1882484 ) , Stamped 4.7 \ % ( 93193 ) , Checked 1975678         Total score 3 or above 75.5 \ % 123278/163348         Aspam Score 1 or above 15.4 \ % , ngood = 987 nbad = 2965 ncatcher = 2521         URL Database 13.6 \ % , In database bad = 12997 neutral = 2168 fromnet = 15138         SPF hits ( msgs ) 68.8 \ % 2753806/4002538 , ( no spf = 2302652 57.5 \ % pass = 361145 of 4002493 )         SPF rcpts blocked 0.0 \ % ( 0/698887 ) allow = 0 dkf = 5393         Badfrom hits 0.0 \ % bad = 0 good = 384559 mx = 0         Spam Bounce ( 0 ) 2.5 \ %         Helo failures 235981 5.7 \ %         SURBL 38.0 \ % 94570/248869 0/0         User spam actions Vanished : 8 Bounced : 21793 Stored : 46         Friends Allow : 23059 Block : 0 Confirmation : 14944 ( Bounced : 2787 Replies : 128 Spam-ratio : 0.96 )         DomainKeys goodsigs = 15730 , badsigs = 458 , nosig = 0 , badformat = 408         SPFShare isspam = 814 notspam = 0 allow = 0 web = 2630 tell = 0 ( knowndb = 270297 )         SpamC 104.09 \ % ( db 443774/34284 ) spam = 108206 ok = 36709 zero = 103954         From Blacklist 0 records , 0 hits         False Pos 128/14944 0.86 \ % ( based on friend confirmations )         False Pos 7732/41670 19 \ % ( based on msgs from friends )         aspam \ _content.txt 7788 3.1 \ %</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at my mail server's spam status.the RBL has blocked 95\% of the spam out there.57.5\% had no SPF records.
Looks like SPF has gained a lot of ground now... almost half of the Internet is now using it.Using Surgemail, I do not need to use 3rd party anti-spam systems as the anti-spam is handled by the mail server itself.
It handled 4 million messages in a month and does not break a sweat.
I love this mail server and no other system can persuade me to switch... Support is incredible, service top notch... can not praise it enough.Spam status:
        RBL   Denied 95.3\% (1882484), Stamped 4.7\% (93193), Checked 1975678
        Total score 3 or above   75.5\% 123278/163348
        Aspam Score 1 or above   15.4\%,  ngood=987 nbad=2965 ncatcher=2521
        URL Database             13.6\%,  In database bad=12997 neutral=2168 fromnet=15138
        SPF hits (msgs)          68.8\% 2753806/4002538, (no spf=2302652 57.5\% pass=361145 of 4002493)
        SPF rcpts blocked        0.0\% (0/698887) allow=0 dkf=5393
        Badfrom hits             0.0\% bad=0 good=384559 mx=0
        Spam Bounce (0)          2.5\%
        Helo failures            235981 5.7\%
        SURBL                    38.0\% 94570/248869 0/0
        User spam actions        Vanished:8 Bounced:21793 Stored:46
        Friends                  Allow:23059 Block:0 Confirmation:14944 (Bounced:2787 Replies:128 Spam-ratio:0.96)
        DomainKeys               goodsigs=15730, badsigs=458, nosig=0, badformat=408
        SPFShare                 isspam=814 notspam=0 allow=0 web=2630 tell=0 (knowndb=270297)
        SpamC                    104.09\% (db 443774/34284) spam=108206 ok=36709 zero=103954
        From Blacklist           0 records, 0 hits
        False Pos                128/14944 0.86\% (based on friend confirmations)
        False Pos                7732/41670  19\% (based on msgs from friends)
        aspam\_content.txt        7788 3.1\%</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869332</id>
	<title>Re:Micropayments again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264259160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If we paid each other (say a penny or 1/10th of a penny), obviously the spam problem would be solved. (though some can charge nothing if they want)</p></div><p>Your post advocates a</p><p>( ) technical ( ) legislative (x) 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>(x) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected<br>( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money<br>( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks<br>(x) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it<br>(x) Users of email will not put up with it<br>( ) Microsoft will not put up with it<br>( ) The police will not put up with it<br>( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers<br>(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once<br>(x) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers<br>( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists<br>( ) 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>(x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email<br>(x) Open relays in foreign countries<br>( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses<br>( ) Asshats<br>(x) Jurisdictional problems<br>(x) Unpopularity of weird new taxes<br>( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money<br>(x) Huge existing software investment in SMTP<br>(x) 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>(x) Extreme profitability of spam<br>(x) 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>(x) 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<br>( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud<br>( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks<br>(x) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually<br>(x) Sending email should be free<br>( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?<br>( ) Incompatiblity 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<br>( ) I don't want the government reading my email<br>( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough</p><p>Furthermore, this is what I think about you:</p><p>(x) 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>If we paid each other ( say a penny or 1/10th of a penny ) , obviously the spam problem would be solved .
( though some can charge nothing if they want ) Your post advocates a ( ) technical ( ) legislative ( x ) 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 ( x ) 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 ( x ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we 'll be stuck with it ( x ) 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 ( x ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( x ) 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 ( x ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( x ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats ( x ) Jurisdictional problems ( x ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( x ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( x ) 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 ( x ) Extreme profitability of spam ( x ) 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 : ( x ) 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 ( x ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( x ) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers ?
( ) Incompatiblity 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 enoughFurthermore , this is what I think about you : ( x ) 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>If we paid each other (say a penny or 1/10th of a penny), obviously the spam problem would be solved.
(though some can charge nothing if they want)Your post advocates a( ) technical ( ) legislative (x) 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(x) 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(x) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it(x) 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(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once(x) 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(x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email(x) Open relays in foreign countries( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses( ) Asshats(x) Jurisdictional problems(x) Unpopularity of weird new taxes( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money(x) Huge existing software investment in SMTP(x) 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(x) Extreme profitability of spam(x) 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:(x) 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(x) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually(x) Sending email should be free( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity 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 enoughFurthermore, this is what I think about you:(x) 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>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869278</id>
	<title>Only 95\%?</title>
	<author>Doc Ri</author>
	<datestamp>1264258620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am surprised they conclude the fraction of good mails is as high as 5\%.</p><p>From the CERN mail server report:</p><p>Incoming mails: 1992789<br>Rejected: 1952787 (98\%)<br>Moved to Spam Folder: 14520 (1\%)<br>Good mails: 25482 (1\%)</p><p>Spam in Total 99\%</p><p>And this is a good day. Often good mails are less than 1\%.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am surprised they conclude the fraction of good mails is as high as 5 \ % .From the CERN mail server report : Incoming mails : 1992789Rejected : 1952787 ( 98 \ % ) Moved to Spam Folder : 14520 ( 1 \ % ) Good mails : 25482 ( 1 \ % ) Spam in Total 99 \ % And this is a good day .
Often good mails are less than 1 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am surprised they conclude the fraction of good mails is as high as 5\%.From the CERN mail server report:Incoming mails: 1992789Rejected: 1952787 (98\%)Moved to Spam Folder: 14520 (1\%)Good mails: 25482 (1\%)Spam in Total 99\%And this is a good day.
Often good mails are less than 1\%.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30871988</id>
	<title>Re:My spam count has gone down lately</title>
	<author>FreeBSD evangelist</author>
	<datestamp>1264237260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I also have my own domain and run my own mail server.  I seem to be running around 200 per day.  Spamprobe does a pretty good job for me.  It misses two or three per day, but more importantly almost never gets a false positive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I also have my own domain and run my own mail server .
I seem to be running around 200 per day .
Spamprobe does a pretty good job for me .
It misses two or three per day , but more importantly almost never gets a false positive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also have my own domain and run my own mail server.
I seem to be running around 200 per day.
Spamprobe does a pretty good job for me.
It misses two or three per day, but more importantly almost never gets a false positive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869726</id>
	<title>spam?  like they used to have in the 90's?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264262880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't filter my email in any way, and I don't think I've received a single spam in the past 10 years.  Very few people *have* to receive spam.  I know there are a few who do, and somebody will gleefully point that out, but my point remains: most people do not.</p><p>What on earth are people doing if 95 of their mail is spam?  Seriously: receiving spam is optional, not required.  Pick a non-guessable email address, don't publish it online, use a scratch gmail or yahoo address if you absolutely must sign up for some web forum that requires an email to sign up, and that's all you need.  I've been doing that and, as I said, never - and I mean never - get spam at my real email.  They don't have and cannot reasonably guess (no dictionary or short words) my address.  I first got email spam in the 80's, took the obvious steps, and haven't had a problem since.</p><p>I fail to understand why, in 2010, people are still getting viruses, still running malware, still getting spam emails... it isn't like we haven't had *25 years* of spam and malware to learn how to avoid these problems.  Is this like some form of abused wife syndrome, where people keep letting spammers get their email addresses because "he promised to change!!"?  "Maybe *next* time that dancing monkey will be safe!!"  "Billy Bob told me it's safe to give my real email to *this* site!!"</p><p>Somehow these things give me a very dim view of humanity.  It's a totally solvable problem, yet we will carefully ignore the obvious solutions and then complain about the problem.  But spam and malware are problems because we are allowing them to be problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't filter my email in any way , and I do n't think I 've received a single spam in the past 10 years .
Very few people * have * to receive spam .
I know there are a few who do , and somebody will gleefully point that out , but my point remains : most people do not.What on earth are people doing if 95 of their mail is spam ?
Seriously : receiving spam is optional , not required .
Pick a non-guessable email address , do n't publish it online , use a scratch gmail or yahoo address if you absolutely must sign up for some web forum that requires an email to sign up , and that 's all you need .
I 've been doing that and , as I said , never - and I mean never - get spam at my real email .
They do n't have and can not reasonably guess ( no dictionary or short words ) my address .
I first got email spam in the 80 's , took the obvious steps , and have n't had a problem since.I fail to understand why , in 2010 , people are still getting viruses , still running malware , still getting spam emails... it is n't like we have n't had * 25 years * of spam and malware to learn how to avoid these problems .
Is this like some form of abused wife syndrome , where people keep letting spammers get their email addresses because " he promised to change ! ! " ?
" Maybe * next * time that dancing monkey will be safe ! !
" " Billy Bob told me it 's safe to give my real email to * this * site ! !
" Somehow these things give me a very dim view of humanity .
It 's a totally solvable problem , yet we will carefully ignore the obvious solutions and then complain about the problem .
But spam and malware are problems because we are allowing them to be problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't filter my email in any way, and I don't think I've received a single spam in the past 10 years.
Very few people *have* to receive spam.
I know there are a few who do, and somebody will gleefully point that out, but my point remains: most people do not.What on earth are people doing if 95 of their mail is spam?
Seriously: receiving spam is optional, not required.
Pick a non-guessable email address, don't publish it online, use a scratch gmail or yahoo address if you absolutely must sign up for some web forum that requires an email to sign up, and that's all you need.
I've been doing that and, as I said, never - and I mean never - get spam at my real email.
They don't have and cannot reasonably guess (no dictionary or short words) my address.
I first got email spam in the 80's, took the obvious steps, and haven't had a problem since.I fail to understand why, in 2010, people are still getting viruses, still running malware, still getting spam emails... it isn't like we haven't had *25 years* of spam and malware to learn how to avoid these problems.
Is this like some form of abused wife syndrome, where people keep letting spammers get their email addresses because "he promised to change!!"?
"Maybe *next* time that dancing monkey will be safe!!
"  "Billy Bob told me it's safe to give my real email to *this* site!!
"Somehow these things give me a very dim view of humanity.
It's a totally solvable problem, yet we will carefully ignore the obvious solutions and then complain about the problem.
But spam and malware are problems because we are allowing them to be problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869426</id>
	<title>Stop the floodgates</title>
	<author>Bourdain</author>
	<datestamp>1264260120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've introduced a number of people to a multitiered system which, for me, has almost completely solved my spam problem.<br>
<br>
1) Do the unthinkable, actually pay for email service at a place, ideally, like www.fastmail.fm which uses spamassassin unlike the simpler less forgiving systems at yahoo/gmail/etc.<br>
<br>
2) Use a handful of aliases (yielding unlimited email addresses) in order to sort mail to its relevant level of "attention"<br>
<br>
e.g.<br>
2a) john.smith@fastmail.fm would go to friends to use<br>
2b) wellsFargo@level01.fastmail.fm would go to a site you trust like your bank and be filed in you level01 folder<br>
2c) chineseCommerceSite@level05.fastmail.fm would go to your level05 folder and so on...<br>
<br>
3) Beauty of the above systems is that when an address gets spammed (or the site sends too much garbage), you can easily disable it via a filter since each site should have its own email address<br>
<br>
4) Further, you are less likely to receive obvious spam via setting a high spamassassin threshold and the fact that a site like fastmail subscribes to various RTBL's<br>
<br>
Using this system, I've received barely anything more than 1 spam per month to any "un-aliased" address.  The overwhelming majority of the time, said spams are properly flagged by spamassassin.<br>
<br>
I hope this helps</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've introduced a number of people to a multitiered system which , for me , has almost completely solved my spam problem .
1 ) Do the unthinkable , actually pay for email service at a place , ideally , like www.fastmail.fm which uses spamassassin unlike the simpler less forgiving systems at yahoo/gmail/etc .
2 ) Use a handful of aliases ( yielding unlimited email addresses ) in order to sort mail to its relevant level of " attention " e.g .
2a ) john.smith @ fastmail.fm would go to friends to use 2b ) wellsFargo @ level01.fastmail.fm would go to a site you trust like your bank and be filed in you level01 folder 2c ) chineseCommerceSite @ level05.fastmail.fm would go to your level05 folder and so on.. . 3 ) Beauty of the above systems is that when an address gets spammed ( or the site sends too much garbage ) , you can easily disable it via a filter since each site should have its own email address 4 ) Further , you are less likely to receive obvious spam via setting a high spamassassin threshold and the fact that a site like fastmail subscribes to various RTBL 's Using this system , I 've received barely anything more than 1 spam per month to any " un-aliased " address .
The overwhelming majority of the time , said spams are properly flagged by spamassassin .
I hope this helps</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've introduced a number of people to a multitiered system which, for me, has almost completely solved my spam problem.
1) Do the unthinkable, actually pay for email service at a place, ideally, like www.fastmail.fm which uses spamassassin unlike the simpler less forgiving systems at yahoo/gmail/etc.
2) Use a handful of aliases (yielding unlimited email addresses) in order to sort mail to its relevant level of "attention"

e.g.
2a) john.smith@fastmail.fm would go to friends to use
2b) wellsFargo@level01.fastmail.fm would go to a site you trust like your bank and be filed in you level01 folder
2c) chineseCommerceSite@level05.fastmail.fm would go to your level05 folder and so on...

3) Beauty of the above systems is that when an address gets spammed (or the site sends too much garbage), you can easily disable it via a filter since each site should have its own email address

4) Further, you are less likely to receive obvious spam via setting a high spamassassin threshold and the fact that a site like fastmail subscribes to various RTBL's

Using this system, I've received barely anything more than 1 spam per month to any "un-aliased" address.
The overwhelming majority of the time, said spams are properly flagged by spamassassin.
I hope this helps</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869244</id>
	<title>Re:Logic?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264258200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Less than 5\% of all email traffic is delivered to mailboxes. This means the main bulk of mails, 95\%, is spam.</p></div></blockquote><p> I don't doubt that it's around 95\%, but the logic of the above-quoted statement is certainly flawed.</p></div><p>Link to full report:<br>http://www.enisa.europa.eu/act/res/other-areas/anti-spam-measures/studies/spam-survey/at\_download/fullReport</p><p>There also appears to be selection bias in the sample.  The confidence interval is also missing.  Survey only took place in Europe and apparently one company in the US.</p><p>In short, this is a waste of someone's money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Less than 5 \ % of all email traffic is delivered to mailboxes .
This means the main bulk of mails , 95 \ % , is spam .
I do n't doubt that it 's around 95 \ % , but the logic of the above-quoted statement is certainly flawed.Link to full report : http : //www.enisa.europa.eu/act/res/other-areas/anti-spam-measures/studies/spam-survey/at \ _download/fullReportThere also appears to be selection bias in the sample .
The confidence interval is also missing .
Survey only took place in Europe and apparently one company in the US.In short , this is a waste of someone 's money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Less than 5\% of all email traffic is delivered to mailboxes.
This means the main bulk of mails, 95\%, is spam.
I don't doubt that it's around 95\%, but the logic of the above-quoted statement is certainly flawed.Link to full report:http://www.enisa.europa.eu/act/res/other-areas/anti-spam-measures/studies/spam-survey/at\_download/fullReportThere also appears to be selection bias in the sample.
The confidence interval is also missing.
Survey only took place in Europe and apparently one company in the US.In short, this is a waste of someone's money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30868966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30876856</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised it's that low</title>
	<author>BagOBones</author>
	<datestamp>1264326780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In real enterprise systems where email delivery has an SLA 24x7 you need redundancy so you can take parts of the system offline for maintenance or in the event of hardware failure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In real enterprise systems where email delivery has an SLA 24x7 you need redundancy so you can take parts of the system offline for maintenance or in the event of hardware failure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In real enterprise systems where email delivery has an SLA 24x7 you need redundancy so you can take parts of the system offline for maintenance or in the event of hardware failure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869024</id>
	<title>Accounting for help desk calls?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264255500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now I am not a corporate email guru, but why would spam be the reason to call for help?  In this day and age it boggles the mind. Even my grandmother can deal with spam without needing tech support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I am not a corporate email guru , but why would spam be the reason to call for help ?
In this day and age it boggles the mind .
Even my grandmother can deal with spam without needing tech support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I am not a corporate email guru, but why would spam be the reason to call for help?
In this day and age it boggles the mind.
Even my grandmother can deal with spam without needing tech support.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869136</id>
	<title>Re:Micropayments again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264256940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Micropayments make no sense.
Enforcing the use of valid domain keys is a start. However it isn't a complete solution. We need something stronger than domain keys that prevents abuse *that* everyone *has* to use.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Micropayments make no sense .
Enforcing the use of valid domain keys is a start .
However it is n't a complete solution .
We need something stronger than domain keys that prevents abuse * that * everyone * has * to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Micropayments make no sense.
Enforcing the use of valid domain keys is a start.
However it isn't a complete solution.
We need something stronger than domain keys that prevents abuse *that* everyone *has* to use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30870692</id>
	<title>Re:Bill Gates</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1264271400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's not lying, you know. He's just waiting for the perfect year to <b>start</b> his two-year-plan...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's not lying , you know .
He 's just waiting for the perfect year to start his two-year-plan.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's not lying, you know.
He's just waiting for the perfect year to start his two-year-plan...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30871604</id>
	<title>Re:More than 90\% for me too</title>
	<author>mcubed</author>
	<datestamp>1264278120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the past few months, I've been volunteering at a transitional housing shelter, providing basic computer assistance to anyone who needs it.  The guys at the shelter range in education level and in their experience with computers and the internet.  Most have some basics down, many are perfectly competent or better, some have almost no experience.  I have, just-in-time, stopped several people from giving out their social security numbers to spammers.  I've had guys ask how come they can't get the free credit report the email said they could get without a credit card number.  Just about all of them seem to understand, almost instinctively, that the sex-related spam is probably a scam.  But I think you'd be surprised at how easily unsophisticated users can be taken in by what would strike many others as an obvious scam.  And the more sophisticated the spam, the more people can get roped in.</p><p>When I'm helping someone set up an email account (sometimes, their first email account ever), I try to direct them to GMail because it seems to me to do the best filtering out-of-the-box.  Many of them use Yahoo, and those are the ones I usually find trying to respond to a spam solicitation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the past few months , I 've been volunteering at a transitional housing shelter , providing basic computer assistance to anyone who needs it .
The guys at the shelter range in education level and in their experience with computers and the internet .
Most have some basics down , many are perfectly competent or better , some have almost no experience .
I have , just-in-time , stopped several people from giving out their social security numbers to spammers .
I 've had guys ask how come they ca n't get the free credit report the email said they could get without a credit card number .
Just about all of them seem to understand , almost instinctively , that the sex-related spam is probably a scam .
But I think you 'd be surprised at how easily unsophisticated users can be taken in by what would strike many others as an obvious scam .
And the more sophisticated the spam , the more people can get roped in.When I 'm helping someone set up an email account ( sometimes , their first email account ever ) , I try to direct them to GMail because it seems to me to do the best filtering out-of-the-box .
Many of them use Yahoo , and those are the ones I usually find trying to respond to a spam solicitation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the past few months, I've been volunteering at a transitional housing shelter, providing basic computer assistance to anyone who needs it.
The guys at the shelter range in education level and in their experience with computers and the internet.
Most have some basics down, many are perfectly competent or better, some have almost no experience.
I have, just-in-time, stopped several people from giving out their social security numbers to spammers.
I've had guys ask how come they can't get the free credit report the email said they could get without a credit card number.
Just about all of them seem to understand, almost instinctively, that the sex-related spam is probably a scam.
But I think you'd be surprised at how easily unsophisticated users can be taken in by what would strike many others as an obvious scam.
And the more sophisticated the spam, the more people can get roped in.When I'm helping someone set up an email account (sometimes, their first email account ever), I try to direct them to GMail because it seems to me to do the best filtering out-of-the-box.
Many of them use Yahoo, and those are the ones I usually find trying to respond to a spam solicitation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30868996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869680</id>
	<title>Re:Micropayments again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264262400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>gee... I expect you to pay me for reading your post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>gee... I expect you to pay me for reading your post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gee... I expect you to pay me for reading your post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30868992</id>
	<title>might be a good thing</title>
	<author>symes</author>
	<datestamp>1264255260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If volume is increasing then this might mean returns are getting scarce for these parasites. and perhaps it will come to a point where no matter how much spam they deliver they still don't make enough. but then maybe i am dreaming.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If volume is increasing then this might mean returns are getting scarce for these parasites .
and perhaps it will come to a point where no matter how much spam they deliver they still do n't make enough .
but then maybe i am dreaming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If volume is increasing then this might mean returns are getting scarce for these parasites.
and perhaps it will come to a point where no matter how much spam they deliver they still don't make enough.
but then maybe i am dreaming.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869066</id>
	<title>Micropayments again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264256040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Micropayments. Yes I know it's been mentioned before, but one rarely hears of paying *each other* (rather than the host or government). It would be a good idea anyway even if spam didn't exist.</p><p>If we paid each other (say a penny or 1/10th of a penny), obviously the spam problem would be solved. (though some can charge nothing if they want) It also means that someone who gets a ton of email and hasn't got the time to read all of them will receive only the 'cream' of email. Only those who are willing to sacrifice say, a pound (or &pound;10/&pound;100 for super busy/famous people) would be able to email them.</p><p>As we know, Youtube has/is developing methods of payment to watch videos, and online papers are experimenting, so micropayments may be common sooner than we think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Micropayments .
Yes I know it 's been mentioned before , but one rarely hears of paying * each other * ( rather than the host or government ) .
It would be a good idea anyway even if spam did n't exist.If we paid each other ( say a penny or 1/10th of a penny ) , obviously the spam problem would be solved .
( though some can charge nothing if they want ) It also means that someone who gets a ton of email and has n't got the time to read all of them will receive only the 'cream ' of email .
Only those who are willing to sacrifice say , a pound ( or   10/   100 for super busy/famous people ) would be able to email them.As we know , Youtube has/is developing methods of payment to watch videos , and online papers are experimenting , so micropayments may be common sooner than we think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Micropayments.
Yes I know it's been mentioned before, but one rarely hears of paying *each other* (rather than the host or government).
It would be a good idea anyway even if spam didn't exist.If we paid each other (say a penny or 1/10th of a penny), obviously the spam problem would be solved.
(though some can charge nothing if they want) It also means that someone who gets a ton of email and hasn't got the time to read all of them will receive only the 'cream' of email.
Only those who are willing to sacrifice say, a pound (or £10/£100 for super busy/famous people) would be able to email them.As we know, Youtube has/is developing methods of payment to watch videos, and online papers are experimenting, so micropayments may be common sooner than we think.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869378</id>
	<title>Re:Micropayments again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264259580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hashcash.org</p><p>donate a minute of wasted cpu-power, and prove you are not a spammer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hashcash.orgdonate a minute of wasted cpu-power , and prove you are not a spammer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hashcash.orgdonate a minute of wasted cpu-power, and prove you are not a spammer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869228</id>
	<title>Much like smallpox and influenza</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264258080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spam is driving the evolution of email.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spam is driving the evolution of email .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spam is driving the evolution of email.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30871310</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised it's that low</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264276320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your 97\% and the article's 95\% are not necessarily incompatible. My mail gets prefiltered, but I still get way more spam than legit mail. Maybe you're simply better at detecting spam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your 97 \ % and the article 's 95 \ % are not necessarily incompatible .
My mail gets prefiltered , but I still get way more spam than legit mail .
Maybe you 're simply better at detecting spam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your 97\% and the article's 95\% are not necessarily incompatible.
My mail gets prefiltered, but I still get way more spam than legit mail.
Maybe you're simply better at detecting spam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869514</id>
	<title>Re:More than 90\% for me too</title>
	<author>Antiocheian</author>
	<datestamp>1264260900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you ever heard of SpamAssassin, statistical probability or heuristics ?</p><p>You really think that you'd have to surrender your email to Google to fight spam ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you ever heard of SpamAssassin , statistical probability or heuristics ? You really think that you 'd have to surrender your email to Google to fight spam ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you ever heard of SpamAssassin, statistical probability or heuristics ?You really think that you'd have to surrender your email to Google to fight spam ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30868996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869352</id>
	<title>Re:Micropayments again</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1264259280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We'll see micropayments work when we see fusion power. The overhead of authentication and actually processing money are so large that they are simply not practical for normal email, and the kind of idiot who does spamming now would simply steal funds from your mail servers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 'll see micropayments work when we see fusion power .
The overhead of authentication and actually processing money are so large that they are simply not practical for normal email , and the kind of idiot who does spamming now would simply steal funds from your mail servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We'll see micropayments work when we see fusion power.
The overhead of authentication and actually processing money are so large that they are simply not practical for normal email, and the kind of idiot who does spamming now would simply steal funds from your mail servers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869106</id>
	<title>Re:Micropayments again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264256520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but one rarely hears of paying *each other* (rather than the host or government)</p></div><p>Only if you don't read the discussions. A scheme like that is proposed every time the topic comes to "how I would end spam once and for all". Go ahead and try it. Oh, you want everybody to switch? See, that is a fundamental problem: If your scheme requires a critical mass of people to adopt the scheme at the same time, then it won't work. (There are more problems with pay-for-email and email-bond schemes, but that is the most obvious one.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but one rarely hears of paying * each other * ( rather than the host or government ) Only if you do n't read the discussions .
A scheme like that is proposed every time the topic comes to " how I would end spam once and for all " .
Go ahead and try it .
Oh , you want everybody to switch ?
See , that is a fundamental problem : If your scheme requires a critical mass of people to adopt the scheme at the same time , then it wo n't work .
( There are more problems with pay-for-email and email-bond schemes , but that is the most obvious one .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but one rarely hears of paying *each other* (rather than the host or government)Only if you don't read the discussions.
A scheme like that is proposed every time the topic comes to "how I would end spam once and for all".
Go ahead and try it.
Oh, you want everybody to switch?
See, that is a fundamental problem: If your scheme requires a critical mass of people to adopt the scheme at the same time, then it won't work.
(There are more problems with pay-for-email and email-bond schemes, but that is the most obvious one.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30870280</id>
	<title>Re:Micropayments again</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1264268340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People have been talking about micropayments for at least 10 years now.  The problem isn't a technical one, see paypal.com for an example of how it is done.  The problem is that as soon as people are asked for payment details, even for a very small amount that they wouldn't notice, they stop to think about whether or not they really need it, and generally decide they don't.</p><p>The problem is it takes a bit of effort to spend money.  If you make it less of an effort, people don't like it because it makes them feel less in control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People have been talking about micropayments for at least 10 years now .
The problem is n't a technical one , see paypal.com for an example of how it is done .
The problem is that as soon as people are asked for payment details , even for a very small amount that they would n't notice , they stop to think about whether or not they really need it , and generally decide they do n't.The problem is it takes a bit of effort to spend money .
If you make it less of an effort , people do n't like it because it makes them feel less in control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People have been talking about micropayments for at least 10 years now.
The problem isn't a technical one, see paypal.com for an example of how it is done.
The problem is that as soon as people are asked for payment details, even for a very small amount that they wouldn't notice, they stop to think about whether or not they really need it, and generally decide they don't.The problem is it takes a bit of effort to spend money.
If you make it less of an effort, people don't like it because it makes them feel less in control.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30872698</id>
	<title>Re:Logic?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264242660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Survey only took place in Europe</p><p>ENISA... That European agency...</p><p>Funny, huh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Survey only took place in EuropeENISA... That European agency...Funny , huh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Survey only took place in EuropeENISA... That European agency...Funny, huh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869064</id>
	<title>No wonder !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264256040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No wonder I am having difficulties receiving and sending emails !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No wonder I am having difficulties receiving and sending emails !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No wonder I am having difficulties receiving and sending emails !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869072</id>
	<title>What do they mean by 'all'?</title>
	<author>Nyxeh</author>
	<datestamp>1264256100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is that 5\% sent is spam, or 5\% that is delivered is spam?

There are layers of spam blockers before any mail even gets remotely near anyones inbox.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that 5 \ % sent is spam , or 5 \ % that is delivered is spam ?
There are layers of spam blockers before any mail even gets remotely near anyones inbox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that 5\% sent is spam, or 5\% that is delivered is spam?
There are layers of spam blockers before any mail even gets remotely near anyones inbox.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869370</id>
	<title>Re:Micropayments again</title>
	<author>Blowit</author>
	<datestamp>1264259580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surgemail already is micropayment ready...  Just plug in your bank settings and you are ready to go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surgemail already is micropayment ready... Just plug in your bank settings and you are ready to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surgemail already is micropayment ready...  Just plug in your bank settings and you are ready to go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869324</id>
	<title>Re:I'm surprised it's that low</title>
	<author>Blowit</author>
	<datestamp>1264259160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Curious as to why you would need a secondary mail server for a small company when *IF* you purchase the right product, it can all be handled by one mail server.  We use Surgemail and the load it can handle puts other commercial mail server software to shame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Curious as to why you would need a secondary mail server for a small company when * IF * you purchase the right product , it can all be handled by one mail server .
We use Surgemail and the load it can handle puts other commercial mail server software to shame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Curious as to why you would need a secondary mail server for a small company when *IF* you purchase the right product, it can all be handled by one mail server.
We use Surgemail and the load it can handle puts other commercial mail server software to shame.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30871718</id>
	<title>Re:Bill Gates</title>
	<author>feepness</author>
	<datestamp>1264278780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>640 days ought to be enough for anyone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>640 days ought to be enough for anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>640 days ought to be enough for anyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869338</id>
	<title>Obligatory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264259160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your post advocates a</p><p>( ) technical ( ) legislative (X) market-based ( ) vigilante</p><p>approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won&rsquo;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>(X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected<br>(X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money<br>( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks<br>( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we&rsquo;ll be stuck with it<br>(X) Users of email will not put up with it<br>(X) Microsoft will not put up with it<br>( ) The police will not put up with it<br>( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers<br>(X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once<br>( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers<br>( ) Spammers don&rsquo;t care about invalid addresses in their lists<br>(X) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else&rsquo;s career or business</p><p>Specifically, your plan fails to account for</p><p>( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it<br>(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email<br>(X) 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>(X) 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>(X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes<br>( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches<br>(X) Extreme profitability of spam<br>(X) Joe jobs and/or identity theft<br>(X) Technically illiterate politicians<br>(X) 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>(X) Outlook</p><p>and the following philosophical objections may also apply:</p><p>(X) 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<br>(X) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud<br>( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks<br>(X) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually<br>(X) Sending email should be free<br>( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?<br>( ) Incompatiblity 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<br>( ) I don&rsquo;t want the government reading my email<br>( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough</p><p>Furthermore, this is what I think about you:</p><p>(X) Sorry dude, but I don&rsquo;t think it would work.<br>( ) This is a stupid idea, and you&rsquo;re a stupid person for suggesting it.<br>( ) Nice try, assh0le! I&rsquo;m going to find out where you live and burn your house down!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your post advocates a ( ) technical ( ) legislative ( X ) 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 ( X ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( X ) 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 ( X ) Users of email will not put up with it ( X ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( X ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users can not afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don    t care about invalid addresses in their lists ( X ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else    s career or businessSpecifically , your plan fails to account for ( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( X ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( X ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( X ) 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 ( X ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( X ) Extreme profitability of spam ( X ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( X ) Technically illiterate politicians ( X ) 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 ( X ) Outlookand the following philosophical objections may also apply : ( X ) 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 ( X ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( X ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( X ) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers ?
( ) Incompatiblity 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 enoughFurthermore , this is what I think about you : ( X ) 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 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your post advocates a( ) technical ( ) legislative (X) 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(X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected(X) 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(X) Users of email will not put up with it(X) Microsoft will not put up with it( ) The police will not put up with it( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers(X) 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(X) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else’s career or businessSpecifically, your plan fails to account for( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email(X) Open relays in foreign countries( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses( ) Asshats( ) Jurisdictional problems( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes(X) 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(X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches(X) Extreme profitability of spam(X) Joe jobs and/or identity theft(X) Technically illiterate politicians(X) 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(X) Outlookand the following philosophical objections may also apply:(X) 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(X) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks(X) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually(X) Sending email should be free( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity 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 enoughFurthermore, this is what I think about you:(X) 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>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869314</id>
	<title>Re:Accounting for help desk calls?!</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1264258980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>\_Reporting\_ spam is often routed to the help desk. And the intricacies of reporting the entire, unedited message with all the headers intact is often beyond a casual email user. Particularly irritating email also climbs up the reporting priority list and wastes helpdesk time, such as email being forged from one domain to pretend that it is from another domain and getting other people's email being blocked or taking advantage of their whitelisted domains (known as "joe jobs").</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>\ _Reporting \ _ spam is often routed to the help desk .
And the intricacies of reporting the entire , unedited message with all the headers intact is often beyond a casual email user .
Particularly irritating email also climbs up the reporting priority list and wastes helpdesk time , such as email being forged from one domain to pretend that it is from another domain and getting other people 's email being blocked or taking advantage of their whitelisted domains ( known as " joe jobs " ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>\_Reporting\_ spam is often routed to the help desk.
And the intricacies of reporting the entire, unedited message with all the headers intact is often beyond a casual email user.
Particularly irritating email also climbs up the reporting priority list and wastes helpdesk time, such as email being forged from one domain to pretend that it is from another domain and getting other people's email being blocked or taking advantage of their whitelisted domains (known as "joe jobs").</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869764</id>
	<title>Re:Logic?</title>
	<author>drissel</author>
	<datestamp>1264263360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Daniel J Bernstein has a fix for spam - his Internet Mail 2000.  You can see it at:</p><p><a href="http://cr.yp.to/im2000.html" title="cr.yp.to" rel="nofollow">http://cr.yp.to/im2000.html</a> [cr.yp.to]</p><p>Regards,<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Bill Drissel</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Daniel J Bernstein has a fix for spam - his Internet Mail 2000 .
You can see it at : http : //cr.yp.to/im2000.html [ cr.yp.to ] Regards ,     Bill Drissel</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Daniel J Bernstein has a fix for spam - his Internet Mail 2000.
You can see it at:http://cr.yp.to/im2000.html [cr.yp.to]Regards,
    Bill Drissel</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30868966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30878450</id>
	<title>Re:More than 90\% for me too</title>
	<author>jez9999</author>
	<datestamp>1264350540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any newsletter that sends you regular e-mail without you first confirming your e-mail address should be treated as spam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any newsletter that sends you regular e-mail without you first confirming your e-mail address should be treated as spam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any newsletter that sends you regular e-mail without you first confirming your e-mail address should be treated as spam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30872528</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30872276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30876856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30871724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30868966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30870280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30871988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30876840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30870692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30870150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30868966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30873734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30871604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30868996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30870406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30868966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30872170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30868966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30871718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30871310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30870274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30868966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30870718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30870256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30870618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30868996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30872698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30868966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30870808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30868966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30870162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30878450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30872528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30868996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0349236_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0349236.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0349236.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30868996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30871604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30872528
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30878450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869514
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0349236.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30870618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30873734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30870280
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0349236.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30868992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0349236.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869084
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0349236.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869072
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0349236.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0349236.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0349236.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869504
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0349236.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30870162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30876840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30870150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869314
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0349236.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0349236.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30871718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30872276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30872170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30870718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30870692
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0349236.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30868966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869244
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30872698
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30870406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30871724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30870808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30870274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869764
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0349236.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869324
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30870256
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30876856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30871310
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0349236.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869684
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0349236.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0349236.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30871988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0349236.30869890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
