<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_23_173229</id>
	<title>Has Google Broken JavaScript Spam Munging?</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1245781860000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Baxil writes <i>"For years now, <a href="http://www.projecthoneypot.org/how\_to\_avoid\_spambots\_3.php">Javascript munging</a> has been a useful tool to share email addresses on the Web without exposing them to spammers. However, Google is now apparently evaluating Javascript when assembling summary text for web pages' listings, and publishing the un-munged email addresses to the world; and spammers have <a href="http://baxil.livejournal.com/266909.html">started to take advantage</a> of this kind service."</i> Anyone else seen this affecting their carefully protected email addresses?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Baxil writes " For years now , Javascript munging has been a useful tool to share email addresses on the Web without exposing them to spammers .
However , Google is now apparently evaluating Javascript when assembling summary text for web pages ' listings , and publishing the un-munged email addresses to the world ; and spammers have started to take advantage of this kind service .
" Anyone else seen this affecting their carefully protected email addresses ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Baxil writes "For years now, Javascript munging has been a useful tool to share email addresses on the Web without exposing them to spammers.
However, Google is now apparently evaluating Javascript when assembling summary text for web pages' listings, and publishing the un-munged email addresses to the world; and spammers have started to take advantage of this kind service.
" Anyone else seen this affecting their carefully protected email addresses?</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447895</id>
	<title>Re:They should fix this right away</title>
	<author>complete loony</author>
	<datestamp>1245765540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google obscure email addresses in groups, why can't they obscure them in search results?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google obscure email addresses in groups , why ca n't they obscure them in search results ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google obscure email addresses in groups, why can't they obscure them in search results?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28445745</id>
	<title>Re:Mung</title>
	<author>collinstocks</author>
	<datestamp>1245753180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>From Jargon File (4.4.4, 14 Aug 2003) [jargon]:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; mung<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/muhng/, vt.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; [in 1960 at MIT, "Mash Until No Good"; sometime after that the<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; derivation from the {recursive acronym} "Mung Until No Good" became<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; standard; but see {munge}]</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1. To make changes to a file, esp. large-scale and irrevocable<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; changes. See {BLT}.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 2. To destroy, usually accidentally, occasionally maliciously. The<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; system only mungs things maliciously; this is a consequence of<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; {Finagle's Law}. See {scribble}, {mangle}, {trash}, {nuke}. Reports<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; from {Usenet} suggest that the pronunciation<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/muhnj/ is now usual in<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; speech, but the spelling `mung' is still common in program comments<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (compare the widespread confusion over the proper spelling of<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; {kluge}).</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 3. In the wake of the {spam} epidemics of the 1990s, mung is now<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; commonly used to describe the act of modifying an email address in a<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; sig block in a way that human beings can readily reverse but that will<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; fool an {address harvester}. Example: johnNOSPAMsmith@isp.net.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 4. The kind of beans the sprouts of which are used in Chinese food.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (That's their real name! Mung beans! Really!)</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Like many early hacker terms, this one seems to have originated at<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; {TMRC}; it was already in use there in 1958. Peter Samson (compiler of<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; the original TMRC lexicon) thinks it may originally have been<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; onomatopoeic for the sound of a relay spring (contact) being twanged.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; However, it is known that during the World Wars, `mung' was U.S.: army<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; slang for the ersatz creamed chipped beef better known as `SOS', and<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; it seems quite likely that the word in fact goes back to Scots-dialect<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; {munge}.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Charles Mackay's 1874 book Lost Beauties of the English Language<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; defined "mung" as follows: "Preterite of ming, to ming or mingle; when<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; the substantive meaning of mingled food of bread, potatoes, etc.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; thrown to poultry. In America, `mung news' is a common expression<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; applied to false news, but probably having its derivation from mingled<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (or mung) news, in which the true and the false are so mixed up<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; together that it is impossible to distinguish one from another."</p></div><p>See the third definition.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From Jargon File ( 4.4.4 , 14 Aug 2003 ) [ jargon ] :     mung /muhng/ , vt .           [ in 1960 at MIT , " Mash Until No Good " ; sometime after that the           derivation from the { recursive acronym } " Mung Until No Good " became           standard ; but see { munge } ]           1 .
To make changes to a file , esp .
large-scale and irrevocable           changes .
See { BLT } .
          2 .
To destroy , usually accidentally , occasionally maliciously .
The           system only mungs things maliciously ; this is a consequence of           { Finagle 's Law } .
See { scribble } , { mangle } , { trash } , { nuke } .
Reports           from { Usenet } suggest that the pronunciation /muhnj/ is now usual in           speech , but the spelling ` mung ' is still common in program comments           ( compare the widespread confusion over the proper spelling of           { kluge } ) .
          3 .
In the wake of the { spam } epidemics of the 1990s , mung is now           commonly used to describe the act of modifying an email address in a           sig block in a way that human beings can readily reverse but that will           fool an { address harvester } .
Example : johnNOSPAMsmith @ isp.net .
          4 .
The kind of beans the sprouts of which are used in Chinese food .
          ( That 's their real name !
Mung beans !
Really ! )           Like many early hacker terms , this one seems to have originated at           { TMRC } ; it was already in use there in 1958 .
Peter Samson ( compiler of           the original TMRC lexicon ) thinks it may originally have been           onomatopoeic for the sound of a relay spring ( contact ) being twanged .
          However , it is known that during the World Wars , ` mung ' was U.S. : army           slang for the ersatz creamed chipped beef better known as ` SOS ' , and           it seems quite likely that the word in fact goes back to Scots-dialect           { munge } .
          Charles Mackay 's 1874 book Lost Beauties of the English Language           defined " mung " as follows : " Preterite of ming , to ming or mingle ; when           the substantive meaning of mingled food of bread , potatoes , etc .
          thrown to poultry .
In America , ` mung news ' is a common expression           applied to false news , but probably having its derivation from mingled           ( or mung ) news , in which the true and the false are so mixed up           together that it is impossible to distinguish one from another .
" See the third definition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From Jargon File (4.4.4, 14 Aug 2003) [jargon]:
    mung /muhng/, vt.
          [in 1960 at MIT, "Mash Until No Good"; sometime after that the
          derivation from the {recursive acronym} "Mung Until No Good" became
          standard; but see {munge}]
          1.
To make changes to a file, esp.
large-scale and irrevocable
          changes.
See {BLT}.
          2.
To destroy, usually accidentally, occasionally maliciously.
The
          system only mungs things maliciously; this is a consequence of
          {Finagle's Law}.
See {scribble}, {mangle}, {trash}, {nuke}.
Reports
          from {Usenet} suggest that the pronunciation /muhnj/ is now usual in
          speech, but the spelling `mung' is still common in program comments
          (compare the widespread confusion over the proper spelling of
          {kluge}).
          3.
In the wake of the {spam} epidemics of the 1990s, mung is now
          commonly used to describe the act of modifying an email address in a
          sig block in a way that human beings can readily reverse but that will
          fool an {address harvester}.
Example: johnNOSPAMsmith@isp.net.
          4.
The kind of beans the sprouts of which are used in Chinese food.
          (That's their real name!
Mung beans!
Really!)
          Like many early hacker terms, this one seems to have originated at
          {TMRC}; it was already in use there in 1958.
Peter Samson (compiler of
          the original TMRC lexicon) thinks it may originally have been
          onomatopoeic for the sound of a relay spring (contact) being twanged.
          However, it is known that during the World Wars, `mung' was U.S.: army
          slang for the ersatz creamed chipped beef better known as `SOS', and
          it seems quite likely that the word in fact goes back to Scots-dialect
          {munge}.
          Charles Mackay's 1874 book Lost Beauties of the English Language
          defined "mung" as follows: "Preterite of ming, to ming or mingle; when
          the substantive meaning of mingled food of bread, potatoes, etc.
          thrown to poultry.
In America, `mung news' is a common expression
          applied to false news, but probably having its derivation from mingled
          (or mung) news, in which the true and the false are so mixed up
          together that it is impossible to distinguish one from another.
"See the third definition.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28450547</id>
	<title>Address-munging ceased being useful years ago</title>
	<author>Arrogant-Bastard</author>
	<datestamp>1245841200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Spammers have many methods of acquiring addresses, including but not
limited to:
<ul>
<li>
        subscribing to mailing lists</li>
       <li> acquiring Usenet news feeds</li>
      <li>  querying mail servers</li>
   <li>     acquiring corporate directories (sometimes from their web sites)</li>
 <li>       insecure LDAP servers</li>
<li>        insecure AD servers</li>
  <li>      use of backscatter/outscatter
        use of auto-responders</li>
      <li>  use of mailing list mechanisms</li>
    <li>    use of abusive "callback" mechanisms</li>
  <li>      dictionary attacks</li>
  <li>      purchase of addresses in bulk on the open market.</li>
  <li>      purchase of addresses from vendors, web sites, etc.</li>
 <li>       purchase of addresses from registrars, ISPs, web hosts, etc.</li>
 <li>       domain registration (some registrars are spammers</li>

      <li> AND harvesting of the mail, address books and any other files
        present on any of the hundreds of millions of compromised
        Windows systems.</li>
</ul><p>
There's thus no point whatsoever in any form of address obfuscation
or munging: it's a complete waste of time indulged in only by the
clueless, delusional few who haven't been paying attention to what's
gone in during the past decade.  What's truly ironic is how many of
these people are actually running Windows and thus stand a reasonably
good chance of having their own system be the point at which their
address(es) are harvested.
</p><p>
A far better point to critique Google on would be their pointless
munging of addresses in Usenet news articles -- spammers have had
their own Usenet feeds for MANY years and all Google's done is make
the archives less useful for everyone else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spammers have many methods of acquiring addresses , including but not limited to : subscribing to mailing lists acquiring Usenet news feeds querying mail servers acquiring corporate directories ( sometimes from their web sites ) insecure LDAP servers insecure AD servers use of backscatter/outscatter use of auto-responders use of mailing list mechanisms use of abusive " callback " mechanisms dictionary attacks purchase of addresses in bulk on the open market .
purchase of addresses from vendors , web sites , etc .
purchase of addresses from registrars , ISPs , web hosts , etc .
domain registration ( some registrars are spammers AND harvesting of the mail , address books and any other files present on any of the hundreds of millions of compromised Windows systems .
There 's thus no point whatsoever in any form of address obfuscation or munging : it 's a complete waste of time indulged in only by the clueless , delusional few who have n't been paying attention to what 's gone in during the past decade .
What 's truly ironic is how many of these people are actually running Windows and thus stand a reasonably good chance of having their own system be the point at which their address ( es ) are harvested .
A far better point to critique Google on would be their pointless munging of addresses in Usenet news articles -- spammers have had their own Usenet feeds for MANY years and all Google 's done is make the archives less useful for everyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spammers have many methods of acquiring addresses, including but not
limited to:


        subscribing to mailing lists
        acquiring Usenet news feeds
        querying mail servers
        acquiring corporate directories (sometimes from their web sites)
        insecure LDAP servers
        insecure AD servers
        use of backscatter/outscatter
        use of auto-responders
        use of mailing list mechanisms
        use of abusive "callback" mechanisms
        dictionary attacks
        purchase of addresses in bulk on the open market.
purchase of addresses from vendors, web sites, etc.
purchase of addresses from registrars, ISPs, web hosts, etc.
domain registration (some registrars are spammers

       AND harvesting of the mail, address books and any other files
        present on any of the hundreds of millions of compromised
        Windows systems.
There's thus no point whatsoever in any form of address obfuscation
or munging: it's a complete waste of time indulged in only by the
clueless, delusional few who haven't been paying attention to what's
gone in during the past decade.
What's truly ironic is how many of
these people are actually running Windows and thus stand a reasonably
good chance of having their own system be the point at which their
address(es) are harvested.
A far better point to critique Google on would be their pointless
munging of addresses in Usenet news articles -- spammers have had
their own Usenet feeds for MANY years and all Google's done is make
the archives less useful for everyone else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443287</id>
	<title>My method</title>
	<author>EkriirkE</author>
	<datestamp>1245787860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My simple method seems pretty well help up - I just randomly use the HTML control characters instead of the ASCII character in some spots.  e.g. instead of "e", use  or</htmltext>
<tokenext>My simple method seems pretty well help up - I just randomly use the HTML control characters instead of the ASCII character in some spots .
e.g. instead of " e " , use or</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My simple method seems pretty well help up - I just randomly use the HTML control characters instead of the ASCII character in some spots.
e.g. instead of "e", use  or</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443641</id>
	<title>Re:Pay to email</title>
	<author>PRMan</author>
	<datestamp>1245789120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I still think a new e-mail system that charged 1 cent per e-mail would work.  SPAM would instantly be too expensive, but the 10 messages I send friends per month wouldn't be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I still think a new e-mail system that charged 1 cent per e-mail would work .
SPAM would instantly be too expensive , but the 10 messages I send friends per month would n't be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still think a new e-mail system that charged 1 cent per e-mail would work.
SPAM would instantly be too expensive, but the 10 messages I send friends per month wouldn't be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442651</id>
	<title>Mung</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245785640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You keep using that word .
I do not think it means what you think it means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28452257</id>
	<title>Re:Some robots are more equal than others</title>
	<author>foniksonik</author>
	<datestamp>1245857640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually no... if you put the input inside a div with a class and set the class to display:none then there is no indication that the input element is special. The key thing about a honeypot is that the spam bot can not tell which input is the honeypot... they have to fill in every field. If your form has 5 fields, that means 5 factorial attempts are required to submit and they have no indication of success so they have to do it each time.</p><p>The only way to thwart the honeypot is to personally browse the page, view the source and then write a special script to handle that particular website. If you are this special then you'll need something else. For the vast majority of the web however it will work really well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually no... if you put the input inside a div with a class and set the class to display : none then there is no indication that the input element is special .
The key thing about a honeypot is that the spam bot can not tell which input is the honeypot... they have to fill in every field .
If your form has 5 fields , that means 5 factorial attempts are required to submit and they have no indication of success so they have to do it each time.The only way to thwart the honeypot is to personally browse the page , view the source and then write a special script to handle that particular website .
If you are this special then you 'll need something else .
For the vast majority of the web however it will work really well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually no... if you put the input inside a div with a class and set the class to display:none then there is no indication that the input element is special.
The key thing about a honeypot is that the spam bot can not tell which input is the honeypot... they have to fill in every field.
If your form has 5 fields, that means 5 factorial attempts are required to submit and they have no indication of success so they have to do it each time.The only way to thwart the honeypot is to personally browse the page, view the source and then write a special script to handle that particular website.
If you are this special then you'll need something else.
For the vast majority of the web however it will work really well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443959</id>
	<title>Re:*rolleyes*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245790140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Captcha's suck, the only ones that are at all effective are overly difficult for humans.  And even those aren't that effective.  Capcha's would have been a great idea ten years before they were first introduced.  ten years from now, the only ones that work at all will take humans 10 minutes to figure out.</p><p>http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2008/10/right-back-at-ya-captcha-bad-guys-crack-gmail-hotmail.ars<br>http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2008/04/gone-in-60-seconds-spambot-cracks-livehotmail-captcha.ars</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Captcha 's suck , the only ones that are at all effective are overly difficult for humans .
And even those are n't that effective .
Capcha 's would have been a great idea ten years before they were first introduced .
ten years from now , the only ones that work at all will take humans 10 minutes to figure out.http : //arstechnica.com/security/news/2008/10/right-back-at-ya-captcha-bad-guys-crack-gmail-hotmail.arshttp : //arstechnica.com/security/news/2008/04/gone-in-60-seconds-spambot-cracks-livehotmail-captcha.ars</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Captcha's suck, the only ones that are at all effective are overly difficult for humans.
And even those aren't that effective.
Capcha's would have been a great idea ten years before they were first introduced.
ten years from now, the only ones that work at all will take humans 10 minutes to figure out.http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2008/10/right-back-at-ya-captcha-bad-guys-crack-gmail-hotmail.arshttp://arstechnica.com/security/news/2008/04/gone-in-60-seconds-spambot-cracks-livehotmail-captcha.ars</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447951</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think they got the email from Google</title>
	<author>complete loony</author>
	<datestamp>1245765960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"contact me via email at *"
</p><p>I'm sure you could come up with other search terms...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" contact me via email at * " I 'm sure you could come up with other search terms.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"contact me via email at *"
I'm sure you could come up with other search terms...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444579</id>
	<title>Re:Pay to email</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245749040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you like it so much, why didn't you post your email address?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you like it so much , why did n't you post your email address ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you like it so much, why didn't you post your email address?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443683</id>
	<title>Google What Happened?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245789240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What happened to "Do No Harm"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happened to " Do No Harm " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happened to "Do No Harm"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28448029</id>
	<title>Re:Pay to email</title>
	<author>The Famous Brett Wat</author>
	<datestamp>1245766800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There have been many variations on the "pay to email" theme over the years. The oldest relevant citation of which I am aware is <a href="http://www.templetons.com/brad/spam/estamps.html" title="templetons.com">Brad Templeton, E-Stamps</a> [templetons.com]. His proposal does not involve the middle-man that takes a cut. Esther Dyson has also advocated this kind of solution for many years. The nearest equivalents to "pay to email" that we have in the actual marketplace are certification schemes like those from <a href="http://www.returnpath.net/commercialsender/certification/" title="returnpath.net">Return Path</a> [returnpath.net] and <a href="http://www.goodmailsystems.com/products/certified-email/" title="goodmailsystems.com">Goodmail</a> [goodmailsystems.com]. These involve paying to receive certification as a responsible practitioner of bulk email, and thereby receive a recommendation which will prevent your mail from being filtered in some cases. That's not much like an e-stamp, admittedly, but it's as near to the concept that the market actually bears. Nobody has yet figured out how to introduce an e-stamp system which any email <i>senders</i> have the slightest incentive to use.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There have been many variations on the " pay to email " theme over the years .
The oldest relevant citation of which I am aware is Brad Templeton , E-Stamps [ templetons.com ] .
His proposal does not involve the middle-man that takes a cut .
Esther Dyson has also advocated this kind of solution for many years .
The nearest equivalents to " pay to email " that we have in the actual marketplace are certification schemes like those from Return Path [ returnpath.net ] and Goodmail [ goodmailsystems.com ] .
These involve paying to receive certification as a responsible practitioner of bulk email , and thereby receive a recommendation which will prevent your mail from being filtered in some cases .
That 's not much like an e-stamp , admittedly , but it 's as near to the concept that the market actually bears .
Nobody has yet figured out how to introduce an e-stamp system which any email senders have the slightest incentive to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There have been many variations on the "pay to email" theme over the years.
The oldest relevant citation of which I am aware is Brad Templeton, E-Stamps [templetons.com].
His proposal does not involve the middle-man that takes a cut.
Esther Dyson has also advocated this kind of solution for many years.
The nearest equivalents to "pay to email" that we have in the actual marketplace are certification schemes like those from Return Path [returnpath.net] and Goodmail [goodmailsystems.com].
These involve paying to receive certification as a responsible practitioner of bulk email, and thereby receive a recommendation which will prevent your mail from being filtered in some cases.
That's not much like an e-stamp, admittedly, but it's as near to the concept that the market actually bears.
Nobody has yet figured out how to introduce an e-stamp system which any email senders have the slightest incentive to use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443715</id>
	<title>Re:What else can google do?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245789360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The web is now javascript.</p></div></blockquote><p>Those who make heavy use of javascript apps may think so.  Personally I browse with javascript disabled and get by fine.  Most problems I encounter are easily worked around via a quick view source.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The web is now javascript.Those who make heavy use of javascript apps may think so .
Personally I browse with javascript disabled and get by fine .
Most problems I encounter are easily worked around via a quick view source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The web is now javascript.Those who make heavy use of javascript apps may think so.
Personally I browse with javascript disabled and get by fine.
Most problems I encounter are easily worked around via a quick view source.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442773</id>
	<title>They should fix this right away</title>
	<author>Null Nihils</author>
	<datestamp>1245786060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This can easily be fixed, and should be right away. If Google is turning JavaScript into text output, they can easily parse that output (just like the spammers currently are) and see if the text contains an e-mail address. And if it does, they should omit it from search results (unless the address was originally plain text and not obfuscated, in which case they can assume the author wants it searchable).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This can easily be fixed , and should be right away .
If Google is turning JavaScript into text output , they can easily parse that output ( just like the spammers currently are ) and see if the text contains an e-mail address .
And if it does , they should omit it from search results ( unless the address was originally plain text and not obfuscated , in which case they can assume the author wants it searchable ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This can easily be fixed, and should be right away.
If Google is turning JavaScript into text output, they can easily parse that output (just like the spammers currently are) and see if the text contains an e-mail address.
And if it does, they should omit it from search results (unless the address was originally plain text and not obfuscated, in which case they can assume the author wants it searchable).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447753</id>
	<title>Re:Really....</title>
	<author>squidinkcalligraphy</author>
	<datestamp>1245764520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, you could do a recaptcha-style trick with this to help digitize (more) books - create an image with the first part the (undigitized) book-word, then a unique code for that word, then @recaptchadomain.com. The spambot's advanced OCR would decipher the word, and send spam to word.abd27e423de@recaptcha.com, which would match the unique code to the word, and wait till a few of them match up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , you could do a recaptcha-style trick with this to help digitize ( more ) books - create an image with the first part the ( undigitized ) book-word , then a unique code for that word , then @ recaptchadomain.com .
The spambot 's advanced OCR would decipher the word , and send spam to word.abd27e423de @ recaptcha.com , which would match the unique code to the word , and wait till a few of them match up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, you could do a recaptcha-style trick with this to help digitize (more) books - create an image with the first part the (undigitized) book-word, then a unique code for that word, then @recaptchadomain.com.
The spambot's advanced OCR would decipher the word, and send spam to word.abd27e423de@recaptcha.com, which would match the unique code to the word, and wait till a few of them match up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443259</id>
	<title>Re:*rolleyes*</title>
	<author>RJFerret</author>
	<datestamp>1245787740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://mailhide.recaptcha.net/" title="recaptcha.net">Recaptcha</a> [recaptcha.net] has a service specifically for email addresses, no obfuscation needed...  Which also has the added benefit of aiding book digitizing!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Recaptcha [ recaptcha.net ] has a service specifically for email addresses , no obfuscation needed... Which also has the added benefit of aiding book digitizing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recaptcha [recaptcha.net] has a service specifically for email addresses, no obfuscation needed...  Which also has the added benefit of aiding book digitizing!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442713</id>
	<title>Really....</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1245785820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really with the development of better OCR technologies and such comes the elimination of e-mail security by obscurity. If you don't want spam either A) have a decent spam filter (I don't think I've had a single piece of spam pass through G-mails filter and only one false positive) or B) don't share your e-mail address. Those are the only two ways to prevent spam that will continue to work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really with the development of better OCR technologies and such comes the elimination of e-mail security by obscurity .
If you do n't want spam either A ) have a decent spam filter ( I do n't think I 've had a single piece of spam pass through G-mails filter and only one false positive ) or B ) do n't share your e-mail address .
Those are the only two ways to prevent spam that will continue to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really with the development of better OCR technologies and such comes the elimination of e-mail security by obscurity.
If you don't want spam either A) have a decent spam filter (I don't think I've had a single piece of spam pass through G-mails filter and only one false positive) or B) don't share your e-mail address.
Those are the only two ways to prevent spam that will continue to work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442809</id>
	<title>Re:Really....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245786120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's TRIVIAL for a spambot to execute code like this sitting in script tags in the "js" binary and dumping the contents, and then grabbing emails with a regex.</p><p>I use the "js" binary to rip porn off sites all the time.</p><p>~$ js -v<br>JavaScript-C 1.7.0 2007-10-03<br>usage: js [-PswWxCi] [-b branchlimit] [-c stackchunksize] [-v version] [-f scriptfile] [-e script] [-S maxstacksize] [scriptfile] [scriptarg...]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's TRIVIAL for a spambot to execute code like this sitting in script tags in the " js " binary and dumping the contents , and then grabbing emails with a regex.I use the " js " binary to rip porn off sites all the time. ~ $ js -vJavaScript-C 1.7.0 2007-10-03usage : js [ -PswWxCi ] [ -b branchlimit ] [ -c stackchunksize ] [ -v version ] [ -f scriptfile ] [ -e script ] [ -S maxstacksize ] [ scriptfile ] [ scriptarg... ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's TRIVIAL for a spambot to execute code like this sitting in script tags in the "js" binary and dumping the contents, and then grabbing emails with a regex.I use the "js" binary to rip porn off sites all the time.~$ js -vJavaScript-C 1.7.0 2007-10-03usage: js [-PswWxCi] [-b branchlimit] [-c stackchunksize] [-v version] [-f scriptfile] [-e script] [-S maxstacksize] [scriptfile] [scriptarg...]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28452371</id>
	<title>Re:Really....</title>
	<author>lfaraone</author>
	<datestamp>1245858120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Really with the development of better OCR technologies and such comes the elimination of e-mail security by obscurity. If you don't want spam either A) have a decent spam filter (I don't think I've had a single piece of spam pass through G-mails filter and only one false positive) or B) don't share your e-mail address. Those are the only two ways to prevent spam that will continue to work.</p></div><p>Well, my email address is made up of my name, so I just tell people it's myfirstname@mylastname.cc. (use sensible replacements)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really with the development of better OCR technologies and such comes the elimination of e-mail security by obscurity .
If you do n't want spam either A ) have a decent spam filter ( I do n't think I 've had a single piece of spam pass through G-mails filter and only one false positive ) or B ) do n't share your e-mail address .
Those are the only two ways to prevent spam that will continue to work.Well , my email address is made up of my name , so I just tell people it 's myfirstname @ mylastname.cc .
( use sensible replacements )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really with the development of better OCR technologies and such comes the elimination of e-mail security by obscurity.
If you don't want spam either A) have a decent spam filter (I don't think I've had a single piece of spam pass through G-mails filter and only one false positive) or B) don't share your e-mail address.
Those are the only two ways to prevent spam that will continue to work.Well, my email address is made up of my name, so I just tell people it's myfirstname@mylastname.cc.
(use sensible replacements)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444899</id>
	<title>Google interprets javascript? Really?</title>
	<author>eugene2k</author>
	<datestamp>1245750120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>For everyone's information: the page the author links to as the one that has javascript munging also has a noscript tag with the email out in the open. Guess what Google and spammers' email-crawlers really do?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>For everyone 's information : the page the author links to as the one that has javascript munging also has a noscript tag with the email out in the open .
Guess what Google and spammers ' email-crawlers really do ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For everyone's information: the page the author links to as the one that has javascript munging also has a noscript tag with the email out in the open.
Guess what Google and spammers' email-crawlers really do?
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28455089</id>
	<title>The solution (for the moment)...</title>
	<author>chalsall</author>
	<datestamp>1245868020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I developed this technique independently some time ago.  So far none of the obscured addresses have been exposed.</p><p>Since the Googlebot doesn't appear to download referenced Javascript files, simple put the obscuring function into another file....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I developed this technique independently some time ago .
So far none of the obscured addresses have been exposed.Since the Googlebot does n't appear to download referenced Javascript files , simple put the obscuring function into another file... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I developed this technique independently some time ago.
So far none of the obscured addresses have been exposed.Since the Googlebot doesn't appear to download referenced Javascript files, simple put the obscuring function into another file....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443439</id>
	<title>Re:Pay to email</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245788460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How about "pay to email"?</p><p>I register with a pay-to-email site, and give it my actual email address.  It gives me my new publicly visible email address.  Anyone who wants to can send me an email through this service if they pay me an amount of money that I set.  After I receive the email, I can refund the sender.  The pay-to-email site takes a 10\% cut on all un-refunded emails.</p><p>Sound like a winner?</p></div><p>My... <b>GOD</b>... that's genius!  Your plan clearly has no flaws.  We should implement it right now.</p><p>

OK, honestly, I was just too lazy to fill out the ubiquitous rejection form.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about " pay to email " ? I register with a pay-to-email site , and give it my actual email address .
It gives me my new publicly visible email address .
Anyone who wants to can send me an email through this service if they pay me an amount of money that I set .
After I receive the email , I can refund the sender .
The pay-to-email site takes a 10 \ % cut on all un-refunded emails.Sound like a winner ? My... GOD... that 's genius !
Your plan clearly has no flaws .
We should implement it right now .
OK , honestly , I was just too lazy to fill out the ubiquitous rejection form .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about "pay to email"?I register with a pay-to-email site, and give it my actual email address.
It gives me my new publicly visible email address.
Anyone who wants to can send me an email through this service if they pay me an amount of money that I set.
After I receive the email, I can refund the sender.
The pay-to-email site takes a 10\% cut on all un-refunded emails.Sound like a winner?My... GOD... that's genius!
Your plan clearly has no flaws.
We should implement it right now.
OK, honestly, I was just too lazy to fill out the ubiquitous rejection form.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443771</id>
	<title>Re:*rolleyes*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245789540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CUE motherfucker, cue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CUE motherfucker , cue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CUE motherfucker, cue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28450607</id>
	<title>Simple Workaround</title>
	<author>Elixon</author>
	<datestamp>1245842220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Run the script on some event that the Google will not emulate.</p><p>For example: [Write me] where the link has something like href="javascript:decodeMail();"</p><p>(And at best program the web form that will submit it to you on the server side without revealing your address<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Run the script on some event that the Google will not emulate.For example : [ Write me ] where the link has something like href = " javascript : decodeMail ( ) ; " ( And at best program the web form that will submit it to you on the server side without revealing your address ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Run the script on some event that the Google will not emulate.For example: [Write me] where the link has something like href="javascript:decodeMail();"(And at best program the web form that will submit it to you on the server side without revealing your address ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443261</id>
	<title>Inevitability</title>
	<author>Captain Spam</author>
	<datestamp>1245787800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, the ability to process JavaScript outside of a browser is somehow Google-specific?</p><p>Frankly, this was inevitable.  If JavaScript is processed by a computer in one application, it can be processed by a computer in another application, and the latter may be more Evil(tm) than the former.  So what if Google stops parsing JavaScript in their summaries?  How hard is it for the spammers to get a parser of their own and not even touch Google's servers?</p><p>That's why I've never really trusted those munging hacks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , the ability to process JavaScript outside of a browser is somehow Google-specific ? Frankly , this was inevitable .
If JavaScript is processed by a computer in one application , it can be processed by a computer in another application , and the latter may be more Evil ( tm ) than the former .
So what if Google stops parsing JavaScript in their summaries ?
How hard is it for the spammers to get a parser of their own and not even touch Google 's servers ? That 's why I 've never really trusted those munging hacks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, the ability to process JavaScript outside of a browser is somehow Google-specific?Frankly, this was inevitable.
If JavaScript is processed by a computer in one application, it can be processed by a computer in another application, and the latter may be more Evil(tm) than the former.
So what if Google stops parsing JavaScript in their summaries?
How hard is it for the spammers to get a parser of their own and not even touch Google's servers?That's why I've never really trusted those munging hacks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28449989</id>
	<title>Re:*rolleyes*</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1245875400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><strong>Actually proper English indicates that you double consonant when adding 'ing' if it ends with one, or drop the 'e' if it ends with one:
     hop -&gt; hopping
    hope -&gt; hopingso:
    munge -&gt; munging
    mung -&gt; mungging</strong></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually proper English indicates that you double consonant when adding 'ing ' if it ends with one , or drop the 'e ' if it ends with one : hop - &gt; hopping hope - &gt; hopingso : munge - &gt; munging mung - &gt; mungging</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually proper English indicates that you double consonant when adding 'ing' if it ends with one, or drop the 'e' if it ends with one:
     hop -&gt; hopping
    hope -&gt; hopingso:
    munge -&gt; munging
    mung -&gt; mungging</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447805</id>
	<title>Seems quite simple to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245764880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very simple solution, prosecute Google under DMCA for running a circumvention device!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very simple solution , prosecute Google under DMCA for running a circumvention device !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very simple solution, prosecute Google under DMCA for running a circumvention device!
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442811</id>
	<title>Don't definitive, but spam volume has shot up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245786120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.. for two email addresses that have been posted (rendered through javascript) since early 2007. I am talking 100+ spams per day instead of 5-10.</p><p>Since the sites where the addresses are posted have not gone up in popularity, I was wondering what happened. This theory provides a plausible explanation.</p><p>JoeB<br>http://layoffsupportnetwork.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.. for two email addresses that have been posted ( rendered through javascript ) since early 2007 .
I am talking 100 + spams per day instead of 5-10.Since the sites where the addresses are posted have not gone up in popularity , I was wondering what happened .
This theory provides a plausible explanation.JoeBhttp : //layoffsupportnetwork.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. for two email addresses that have been posted (rendered through javascript) since early 2007.
I am talking 100+ spams per day instead of 5-10.Since the sites where the addresses are posted have not gone up in popularity, I was wondering what happened.
This theory provides a plausible explanation.JoeBhttp://layoffsupportnetwork.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28448167</id>
	<title>Re:Google interprets javascript? Really?</title>
	<author>The Famous Brett Wat</author>
	<datestamp>1245768180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For everyone's information: the page the author links to as the one that has javascript munging also has a noscript tag with the email out in the open. Guess what Google and spammers' email-crawlers really do?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div><p>I've checked your claim, and it's not true. The "noscript" tag contains warning text about Javascript being turned off and an instruction to use a web form instead of email. I've also checked my own Javascript obfuscation, which uses "blah at domain" type descriptive text in the noscript tag, and Google's search results do not de-obfuscate it. This may be due to the fact that my Javascript is loaded from a separate file -- a point raised in TFA.</p><p>Even if Google is rendering some amount of Javascript in this way, it's still a stretch to accuse Google of being the leak. If you correspond with a person who has malware installed on their computer, there's a high risk that your email address will be exposed to spammers via that route. Such malware is hardly uncommon, is it? The obfuscation technique was only ever going to buy a little extra spam-free time in any case.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For everyone 's information : the page the author links to as the one that has javascript munging also has a noscript tag with the email out in the open .
Guess what Google and spammers ' email-crawlers really do ?
; ) I 've checked your claim , and it 's not true .
The " noscript " tag contains warning text about Javascript being turned off and an instruction to use a web form instead of email .
I 've also checked my own Javascript obfuscation , which uses " blah at domain " type descriptive text in the noscript tag , and Google 's search results do not de-obfuscate it .
This may be due to the fact that my Javascript is loaded from a separate file -- a point raised in TFA.Even if Google is rendering some amount of Javascript in this way , it 's still a stretch to accuse Google of being the leak .
If you correspond with a person who has malware installed on their computer , there 's a high risk that your email address will be exposed to spammers via that route .
Such malware is hardly uncommon , is it ?
The obfuscation technique was only ever going to buy a little extra spam-free time in any case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For everyone's information: the page the author links to as the one that has javascript munging also has a noscript tag with the email out in the open.
Guess what Google and spammers' email-crawlers really do?
;)I've checked your claim, and it's not true.
The "noscript" tag contains warning text about Javascript being turned off and an instruction to use a web form instead of email.
I've also checked my own Javascript obfuscation, which uses "blah at domain" type descriptive text in the noscript tag, and Google's search results do not de-obfuscate it.
This may be due to the fact that my Javascript is loaded from a separate file -- a point raised in TFA.Even if Google is rendering some amount of Javascript in this way, it's still a stretch to accuse Google of being the leak.
If you correspond with a person who has malware installed on their computer, there's a high risk that your email address will be exposed to spammers via that route.
Such malware is hardly uncommon, is it?
The obfuscation technique was only ever going to buy a little extra spam-free time in any case.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28450905</id>
	<title>Spam</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1245846960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm more concerned that the sponsored links featured in gmail have recently been featuring generic soma and viagra substitutes. How do I report these ads as spam ?<br>And no, I wasn't reading a spam message at the time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm more concerned that the sponsored links featured in gmail have recently been featuring generic soma and viagra substitutes .
How do I report these ads as spam ? And no , I was n't reading a spam message at the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm more concerned that the sponsored links featured in gmail have recently been featuring generic soma and viagra substitutes.
How do I report these ads as spam ?And no, I wasn't reading a spam message at the time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442791</id>
	<title>gmail mea culpa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245786060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google's becoming a spammer's paradise. gmail is quickly moving up the ranks as the mail service of choice for comment spammers (for acct verification). You can see the top spam domains at StopForumSpam.com. I think gmail would be at the top except for others' longer history. Nearly all spammers nowadays use gmail on the forum I watch after.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google 's becoming a spammer 's paradise .
gmail is quickly moving up the ranks as the mail service of choice for comment spammers ( for acct verification ) .
You can see the top spam domains at StopForumSpam.com .
I think gmail would be at the top except for others ' longer history .
Nearly all spammers nowadays use gmail on the forum I watch after .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google's becoming a spammer's paradise.
gmail is quickly moving up the ranks as the mail service of choice for comment spammers (for acct verification).
You can see the top spam domains at StopForumSpam.com.
I think gmail would be at the top except for others' longer history.
Nearly all spammers nowadays use gmail on the forum I watch after.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444219</id>
	<title>Captcha</title>
	<author>nausea\_malvarma</author>
	<datestamp>1245747720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Has this ever been done before: Instead of posting your email on a website, post a link to another website which stores contact information and require users to fill out a captcha before they see your email address. (I realize this is obtrusive, and time consuming. Just curious)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has this ever been done before : Instead of posting your email on a website , post a link to another website which stores contact information and require users to fill out a captcha before they see your email address .
( I realize this is obtrusive , and time consuming .
Just curious )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has this ever been done before: Instead of posting your email on a website, post a link to another website which stores contact information and require users to fill out a captcha before they see your email address.
(I realize this is obtrusive, and time consuming.
Just curious)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28445275</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think they got the email from Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245751440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(Original article's author here.)</p><p>There's no way to prove or disprove how the spammers originally got the address, but you demonstrably can crawl Google for addresses in this way without knowing them first.  All you have to do is search for things that *look like* e-mail addresses.  Try a google search for:</p><p>"* tomorrowlands org" site:tomorrowlands.org chibi</p><p>And the "protected"* address shows up at the top of the list.</p><p>* (Yes, those are scare quotes, I'm a bad person for munging in the first place, etc.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( Original article 's author here .
) There 's no way to prove or disprove how the spammers originally got the address , but you demonstrably can crawl Google for addresses in this way without knowing them first .
All you have to do is search for things that * look like * e-mail addresses .
Try a google search for : " * tomorrowlands org " site : tomorrowlands.org chibiAnd the " protected " * address shows up at the top of the list .
* ( Yes , those are scare quotes , I 'm a bad person for munging in the first place , etc .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Original article's author here.
)There's no way to prove or disprove how the spammers originally got the address, but you demonstrably can crawl Google for addresses in this way without knowing them first.
All you have to do is search for things that *look like* e-mail addresses.
Try a google search for:"* tomorrowlands org" site:tomorrowlands.org chibiAnd the "protected"* address shows up at the top of the list.
* (Yes, those are scare quotes, I'm a bad person for munging in the first place, etc.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443163</id>
	<title>Re:Mung</title>
	<author>TheRealMindChild</author>
	<datestamp>1245787380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, no kidding. I was wondering where Chowder and Schnitzel were</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , no kidding .
I was wondering where Chowder and Schnitzel were</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, no kidding.
I was wondering where Chowder and Schnitzel were</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28446333</id>
	<title>Easy fix:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245755820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Place the javascript which deobfuscates the email address in a separate file and put that or the folder it's in in the robots.txt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Place the javascript which deobfuscates the email address in a separate file and put that or the folder it 's in in the robots.txt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Place the javascript which deobfuscates the email address in a separate file and put that or the folder it's in in the robots.txt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442749</id>
	<title>"Google indexes correctly rendered page"</title>
	<author>RichardDeVries</author>
	<datestamp>1245786000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>That should be the title. That is, if it were newsworthy. Which it isn't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That should be the title .
That is , if it were newsworthy .
Which it is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That should be the title.
That is, if it were newsworthy.
Which it isn't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447281</id>
	<title>Re:*rolleyes*</title>
	<author>david.given</author>
	<datestamp>1245760860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously, queue the obfuscation != security thing.</p></div><p>&lt;pedent&gt;

</p><p>'Cue', actually. A queue is a data structure and something you stand in in the post office. A cue is a tool for playing snooker with and a signal indicating that it's time for an actor to go on stage and perform. Hence, 'it's your cue', which is the sense in which you're using it here.

</p><p>Don't get me started on hear vs. here and less vs. fewer...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , queue the obfuscation ! = security thing .
'Cue ' , actually .
A queue is a data structure and something you stand in in the post office .
A cue is a tool for playing snooker with and a signal indicating that it 's time for an actor to go on stage and perform .
Hence , 'it 's your cue ' , which is the sense in which you 're using it here .
Do n't get me started on hear vs. here and less vs. fewer.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, queue the obfuscation != security thing.
'Cue', actually.
A queue is a data structure and something you stand in in the post office.
A cue is a tool for playing snooker with and a signal indicating that it's time for an actor to go on stage and perform.
Hence, 'it's your cue', which is the sense in which you're using it here.
Don't get me started on hear vs. here and less vs. fewer...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28446105</id>
	<title>Re:Much ado about nothing</title>
	<author>Lulu of the Lotus-Ea</author>
	<datestamp>1245754800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am in general agreement with a number of posters about the effectiveness of Gmail's spam filtering.  However, the claims of only getting uncaught spam once on the order of weeks or months baffles me.  I get at least several spams a day that make it through Gmail's filter.  Of course, next to that, I also get hundreds of spams that are caught correctly (and once in a while false positives too though, so I really need to review the spam folder manually, which is a fairly quick visual scan).  It's manageable, but not completely negligible, work.</p><p>It's possible (quite likely) that I have a more public identity than many posters (I'm widely known, and never hide or disguise my email address).  But I still have to wonder if their accuracy claims about Gmail filtering are a bit exaggerated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am in general agreement with a number of posters about the effectiveness of Gmail 's spam filtering .
However , the claims of only getting uncaught spam once on the order of weeks or months baffles me .
I get at least several spams a day that make it through Gmail 's filter .
Of course , next to that , I also get hundreds of spams that are caught correctly ( and once in a while false positives too though , so I really need to review the spam folder manually , which is a fairly quick visual scan ) .
It 's manageable , but not completely negligible , work.It 's possible ( quite likely ) that I have a more public identity than many posters ( I 'm widely known , and never hide or disguise my email address ) .
But I still have to wonder if their accuracy claims about Gmail filtering are a bit exaggerated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am in general agreement with a number of posters about the effectiveness of Gmail's spam filtering.
However, the claims of only getting uncaught spam once on the order of weeks or months baffles me.
I get at least several spams a day that make it through Gmail's filter.
Of course, next to that, I also get hundreds of spams that are caught correctly (and once in a while false positives too though, so I really need to review the spam folder manually, which is a fairly quick visual scan).
It's manageable, but not completely negligible, work.It's possible (quite likely) that I have a more public identity than many posters (I'm widely known, and never hide or disguise my email address).
But I still have to wonder if their accuracy claims about Gmail filtering are a bit exaggerated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443209</id>
	<title>I have a new solution:</title>
	<author>Facegarden</author>
	<datestamp>1245787560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In order to prevent SPAMbots once and for all, you should require that everyone interested in contacting you first drive to the next geohash <a href="http://www.wiki.xkcd.com/geohashing/Main\_Page" title="xkcd.com">http://www.wiki.xkcd.com/geohashing/Main\_Page</a> [xkcd.com] in the region of your choosing, wearing a lumberjack outfit and carrying a case of jolt cola.</p><p>Then, and only then, does the read quest begin...<br>-Taylor</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In order to prevent SPAMbots once and for all , you should require that everyone interested in contacting you first drive to the next geohash http : //www.wiki.xkcd.com/geohashing/Main \ _Page [ xkcd.com ] in the region of your choosing , wearing a lumberjack outfit and carrying a case of jolt cola.Then , and only then , does the read quest begin...-Taylor</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order to prevent SPAMbots once and for all, you should require that everyone interested in contacting you first drive to the next geohash http://www.wiki.xkcd.com/geohashing/Main\_Page [xkcd.com] in the region of your choosing, wearing a lumberjack outfit and carrying a case of jolt cola.Then, and only then, does the read quest begin...-Taylor</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28451985</id>
	<title>Re:*rolleyes*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245856200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, could you get started on less vs fewer?</p><p>Don't they mean the same thing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , could you get started on less vs fewer ? Do n't they mean the same thing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, could you get started on less vs fewer?Don't they mean the same thing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28448017</id>
	<title>Simple solution</title>
	<author>dmuir</author>
	<datestamp>1245766680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just un-munge on a mouseover.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just un-munge on a mouseover .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just un-munge on a mouseover.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28445655</id>
	<title>agreed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245752880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have had my email address on every single page of 4 medium-traffic sites (about 1,500 visits a day) in both plain text and in a mailto: link. I use google apps for domains for my email and I get a spam mail about once a month.
<br> <br>The issue here is overblown.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have had my email address on every single page of 4 medium-traffic sites ( about 1,500 visits a day ) in both plain text and in a mailto : link .
I use google apps for domains for my email and I get a spam mail about once a month .
The issue here is overblown .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have had my email address on every single page of 4 medium-traffic sites (about 1,500 visits a day) in both plain text and in a mailto: link.
I use google apps for domains for my email and I get a spam mail about once a month.
The issue here is overblown.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442761</id>
	<title>Hex/decimal armoured e-mail also visible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245786000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're also parsing hex/decimal character entity armoured e-mails in exactly the same way. While not as safe as JavaScript, these have been mostly-invulnerable to spambots as well and are used by default in some web-based applications, like the Mercurial hgweb.cgi/hgwebdir.cgi scripts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're also parsing hex/decimal character entity armoured e-mails in exactly the same way .
While not as safe as JavaScript , these have been mostly-invulnerable to spambots as well and are used by default in some web-based applications , like the Mercurial hgweb.cgi/hgwebdir.cgi scripts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're also parsing hex/decimal character entity armoured e-mails in exactly the same way.
While not as safe as JavaScript, these have been mostly-invulnerable to spambots as well and are used by default in some web-based applications, like the Mercurial hgweb.cgi/hgwebdir.cgi scripts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28448007</id>
	<title>Re:*rolleyes*</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1245766620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Keeping email addresses protected is often about anti-spam, not security. Security breaches are rare, but severe, so you want no breaches, but anti-spam is about volume reduction.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Keeping email addresses protected is often about anti-spam , not security .
Security breaches are rare , but severe , so you want no breaches , but anti-spam is about volume reduction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keeping email addresses protected is often about anti-spam, not security.
Security breaches are rare, but severe, so you want no breaches, but anti-spam is about volume reduction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443793</id>
	<title>Re:My method</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245789600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dude, you might want to consider changing your signature. That key hasn't been useful for a couple of years now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , you might want to consider changing your signature .
That key has n't been useful for a couple of years now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, you might want to consider changing your signature.
That key hasn't been useful for a couple of years now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442919</id>
	<title>Re:*rolleyes*</title>
	<author>PMBjornerud</author>
	<datestamp>1245786540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously, queue the obfuscation != security thing.  If your email address is carefully protected, it is not displayed on a web page, obfuscated or not.</p></div><p>The issue here is not personal email, which obviously nobody puts on a web page.</p><p>Many people prefer it when companies have a simple "contact us" email instead of having to go through a web form for sending them emails.</p><p>Thus, some people &amp; companies want to display an email address. They just want to make it harder for spammers to discover it. Javascript did a pretty good job at this, and Google seems to have provided a simple workaround.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , queue the obfuscation ! = security thing .
If your email address is carefully protected , it is not displayed on a web page , obfuscated or not.The issue here is not personal email , which obviously nobody puts on a web page.Many people prefer it when companies have a simple " contact us " email instead of having to go through a web form for sending them emails.Thus , some people &amp; companies want to display an email address .
They just want to make it harder for spammers to discover it .
Javascript did a pretty good job at this , and Google seems to have provided a simple workaround .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, queue the obfuscation != security thing.
If your email address is carefully protected, it is not displayed on a web page, obfuscated or not.The issue here is not personal email, which obviously nobody puts on a web page.Many people prefer it when companies have a simple "contact us" email instead of having to go through a web form for sending them emails.Thus, some people &amp; companies want to display an email address.
They just want to make it harder for spammers to discover it.
Javascript did a pretty good job at this, and Google seems to have provided a simple workaround.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444605</id>
	<title>Some robots are more equal than others</title>
	<author>Cajun Hell</author>
	<datestamp>1245749160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>For example, make a "Phone Number" field and set the CSS display attribute to none. Normal users won't see this field and won't fill it out. Spam-bots will see it and attempt to fill it out.</p></div></blockquote><p>
This only works for as long as spammers don't care about it.  I think anyone who can figure out the HTML resulting from javascript, can also figure out the style of an element.
</p><p>
What's really funny about this problem is that we used to talk about using captchas to tell the robots apart from the meatbags, so that you could discriminate against robots.  But now people want the robots to make sense of their page (so that they get referrals from Google) but they don't want the robots to make sense of their page (so that their email box doesn't get referrals from spambot).  You're on the web or you're not. Choose.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , make a " Phone Number " field and set the CSS display attribute to none .
Normal users wo n't see this field and wo n't fill it out .
Spam-bots will see it and attempt to fill it out .
This only works for as long as spammers do n't care about it .
I think anyone who can figure out the HTML resulting from javascript , can also figure out the style of an element .
What 's really funny about this problem is that we used to talk about using captchas to tell the robots apart from the meatbags , so that you could discriminate against robots .
But now people want the robots to make sense of their page ( so that they get referrals from Google ) but they do n't want the robots to make sense of their page ( so that their email box does n't get referrals from spambot ) .
You 're on the web or you 're not .
Choose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, make a "Phone Number" field and set the CSS display attribute to none.
Normal users won't see this field and won't fill it out.
Spam-bots will see it and attempt to fill it out.
This only works for as long as spammers don't care about it.
I think anyone who can figure out the HTML resulting from javascript, can also figure out the style of an element.
What's really funny about this problem is that we used to talk about using captchas to tell the robots apart from the meatbags, so that you could discriminate against robots.
But now people want the robots to make sense of their page (so that they get referrals from Google) but they don't want the robots to make sense of their page (so that their email box doesn't get referrals from spambot).
You're on the web or you're not.
Choose.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442833</id>
	<title>What else can google do?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245786300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So much content on the web these days is spat out by document.write(), I'm not surprised at all that google evaluates certain javascripts in order to get any content to index.</p><p>Even done a "View Source" on a google mail or google maps page? The web is now javascript.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So much content on the web these days is spat out by document.write ( ) , I 'm not surprised at all that google evaluates certain javascripts in order to get any content to index.Even done a " View Source " on a google mail or google maps page ?
The web is now javascript .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So much content on the web these days is spat out by document.write(), I'm not surprised at all that google evaluates certain javascripts in order to get any content to index.Even done a "View Source" on a google mail or google maps page?
The web is now javascript.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447027</id>
	<title>Re:Mung</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245759300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll remove my pants so you can see how well mung I am.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll remove my pants so you can see how well mung I am .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll remove my pants so you can see how well mung I am.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28449573</id>
	<title>Re:Really....</title>
	<author>omnichad</author>
	<datestamp>1245784260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But Russia's too big to fail!  The US Government would be there ready to hand them one of those oversized checks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But Russia 's too big to fail !
The US Government would be there ready to hand them one of those oversized checks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Russia's too big to fail!
The US Government would be there ready to hand them one of those oversized checks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447701</id>
	<title>Re:Pay to email</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1245763980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SPAM might be expensive under such a system. But it would put any of the 1000s of open source mailing lists (many of which have a LOT of traffic) out of action.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SPAM might be expensive under such a system .
But it would put any of the 1000s of open source mailing lists ( many of which have a LOT of traffic ) out of action .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SPAM might be expensive under such a system.
But it would put any of the 1000s of open source mailing lists (many of which have a LOT of traffic) out of action.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28455381</id>
	<title>Re:Contact Me Form</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245868920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about the form auto-fill implementation on certain browsers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the form auto-fill implementation on certain browsers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the form auto-fill implementation on certain browsers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447527</id>
	<title>Re:I have a new solution:</title>
	<author>Facegarden</author>
	<datestamp>1245762540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In order to prevent SPAMbots once and for all, you should require that everyone interested in contacting you first drive to the next geohash <a href="http://www.wiki.xkcd.com/geohashing/Main\_Page" title="xkcd.com">http://www.wiki.xkcd.com/geohashing/Main\_Page</a> [xkcd.com] in the region of your choosing, wearing a lumberjack outfit and carrying a case of jolt cola.</p><p>Then, and only then, does the read quest begin...<br>-Taylor</p></div><p>Dammit, I misspelled "real"! Grr.<br>-Taylor</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In order to prevent SPAMbots once and for all , you should require that everyone interested in contacting you first drive to the next geohash http : //www.wiki.xkcd.com/geohashing/Main \ _Page [ xkcd.com ] in the region of your choosing , wearing a lumberjack outfit and carrying a case of jolt cola.Then , and only then , does the read quest begin...-TaylorDammit , I misspelled " real " !
Grr.-Taylor</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order to prevent SPAMbots once and for all, you should require that everyone interested in contacting you first drive to the next geohash http://www.wiki.xkcd.com/geohashing/Main\_Page [xkcd.com] in the region of your choosing, wearing a lumberjack outfit and carrying a case of jolt cola.Then, and only then, does the read quest begin...-TaylorDammit, I misspelled "real"!
Grr.-Taylor
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443721</id>
	<title>Re:*rolleyes*</title>
	<author>repetty</author>
	<datestamp>1245789360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously, queue the obfuscation != security thing.  If your email address is carefully protected, it is not displayed on a web page, obfuscated or not.</p></div><p>Well, I'm glad you got that tiresome drivel out of the way. Hopefully no one else will post this type of statement.</p><p>Of course you are right -- everyone knows that you are right. The most effective way to secure anything is to hide it away and never use it.</p><p>That fact now out of the way, we can now proceed with productive discussions.</p><p>


--Richard</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , queue the obfuscation ! = security thing .
If your email address is carefully protected , it is not displayed on a web page , obfuscated or not.Well , I 'm glad you got that tiresome drivel out of the way .
Hopefully no one else will post this type of statement.Of course you are right -- everyone knows that you are right .
The most effective way to secure anything is to hide it away and never use it.That fact now out of the way , we can now proceed with productive discussions .
--Richard</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, queue the obfuscation != security thing.
If your email address is carefully protected, it is not displayed on a web page, obfuscated or not.Well, I'm glad you got that tiresome drivel out of the way.
Hopefully no one else will post this type of statement.Of course you are right -- everyone knows that you are right.
The most effective way to secure anything is to hide it away and never use it.That fact now out of the way, we can now proceed with productive discussions.
--Richard
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444093</id>
	<title>Much ado about nothing</title>
	<author>Asmor</author>
	<datestamp>1245790560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I publically list my email whenever I need to. If I want someone to email me something, I say, "Send it to itoltz@gmail.com". In fact, if HTML is allowed where ever I'm writing that, I'll even be so kind as make it a mailto link (i.e. &lt;a href='mailto:itoltz@gmail.com'&gt;itoltz@gmail.com&lt;/a&gt;).</p><p>And you know what? I almost never get spam in my inbox. I'd say a piece squeaks through Gmail's filters every few months (though when it does, I usually seem to get 2-3 similar spams over the course of a day or two).</p><p>Granted, not everyone has the option of using gmail, and for those who do not everyone is comfortable with the idea of using it. That's fine. But the point is, if gmail is that good at filtering out spam, anyone else can be too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I publically list my email whenever I need to .
If I want someone to email me something , I say , " Send it to itoltz @ gmail.com " .
In fact , if HTML is allowed where ever I 'm writing that , I 'll even be so kind as make it a mailto link ( i.e .
itoltz @ gmail.com ) .And you know what ?
I almost never get spam in my inbox .
I 'd say a piece squeaks through Gmail 's filters every few months ( though when it does , I usually seem to get 2-3 similar spams over the course of a day or two ) .Granted , not everyone has the option of using gmail , and for those who do not everyone is comfortable with the idea of using it .
That 's fine .
But the point is , if gmail is that good at filtering out spam , anyone else can be too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I publically list my email whenever I need to.
If I want someone to email me something, I say, "Send it to itoltz@gmail.com".
In fact, if HTML is allowed where ever I'm writing that, I'll even be so kind as make it a mailto link (i.e.
itoltz@gmail.com).And you know what?
I almost never get spam in my inbox.
I'd say a piece squeaks through Gmail's filters every few months (though when it does, I usually seem to get 2-3 similar spams over the course of a day or two).Granted, not everyone has the option of using gmail, and for those who do not everyone is comfortable with the idea of using it.
That's fine.
But the point is, if gmail is that good at filtering out spam, anyone else can be too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28446787</id>
	<title>Re:Really....</title>
	<author>xaxa</author>
	<datestamp>1245757980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My personal email address is behind some javascript on my website.<br>It's also in plaintext about four links deep on the website of a large and famous university (given as the contact address for a student society).</p><p>I get about 150-200 spams a day. I get about 1 a day in my Inbox. About one false-positive a month goes into my Spam folder, typically a mailing list post.</p><p>The address is hosted with Google Apps -- i.e. the same as a Gmail address.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My personal email address is behind some javascript on my website.It 's also in plaintext about four links deep on the website of a large and famous university ( given as the contact address for a student society ) .I get about 150-200 spams a day .
I get about 1 a day in my Inbox .
About one false-positive a month goes into my Spam folder , typically a mailing list post.The address is hosted with Google Apps -- i.e .
the same as a Gmail address .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My personal email address is behind some javascript on my website.It's also in plaintext about four links deep on the website of a large and famous university (given as the contact address for a student society).I get about 150-200 spams a day.
I get about 1 a day in my Inbox.
About one false-positive a month goes into my Spam folder, typically a mailing list post.The address is hosted with Google Apps -- i.e.
the same as a Gmail address.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28448535</id>
	<title>Re:Pay to email</title>
	<author>Viking Coder</author>
	<datestamp>1245772620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(Weird, I thought your post said "Sounds like you'd never get any email from me.")</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( Weird , I thought your post said " Sounds like you 'd never get any email from me .
" )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Weird, I thought your post said "Sounds like you'd never get any email from me.
")</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447773</id>
	<title>Re:Google interprets javascript? Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245764580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is this scored 4? It's not true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this scored 4 ?
It 's not true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this scored 4?
It's not true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28457733</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome to the club</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245834540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No no no, those three are in the "Don't want to do anything right" club.  The "Impossible to do anything right" club has as its members Dixie Cup Manufacturing Corp, NASA, and a little old lady in Kansas City, Missouri.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No no no , those three are in the " Do n't want to do anything right " club .
The " Impossible to do anything right " club has as its members Dixie Cup Manufacturing Corp , NASA , and a little old lady in Kansas City , Missouri .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No no no, those three are in the "Don't want to do anything right" club.
The "Impossible to do anything right" club has as its members Dixie Cup Manufacturing Corp, NASA, and a little old lady in Kansas City, Missouri.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443867</id>
	<title>Re:Really....</title>
	<author>mshieh</author>
	<datestamp>1245789840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't think I've had a single piece of spam pass through G-mails filter and only one false positive</p></div><p>You mean you've only noticed one false positive.

I'm sure it's been mentioned in half of the comments in this thread, but security by obscurity is effective because there is value in stopping half of the spam, unlike traditional security where having your data stolen and sold once is not a big gain over having it done many times.  There are many reasons why obscurity works towards this goal of reduction rather than elimination.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think I 've had a single piece of spam pass through G-mails filter and only one false positiveYou mean you 've only noticed one false positive .
I 'm sure it 's been mentioned in half of the comments in this thread , but security by obscurity is effective because there is value in stopping half of the spam , unlike traditional security where having your data stolen and sold once is not a big gain over having it done many times .
There are many reasons why obscurity works towards this goal of reduction rather than elimination .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think I've had a single piece of spam pass through G-mails filter and only one false positiveYou mean you've only noticed one false positive.
I'm sure it's been mentioned in half of the comments in this thread, but security by obscurity is effective because there is value in stopping half of the spam, unlike traditional security where having your data stolen and sold once is not a big gain over having it done many times.
There are many reasons why obscurity works towards this goal of reduction rather than elimination.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443139</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome to the club</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245787320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot,</p><p>Barrack Obama<br>Clinton(s)</p><p>The right was on Obama's "ineffectiveness" even before he was sworn in! At least Bush had a year or so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot,Barrack ObamaClinton ( s ) The right was on Obama 's " ineffectiveness " even before he was sworn in !
At least Bush had a year or so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot,Barrack ObamaClinton(s)The right was on Obama's "ineffectiveness" even before he was sworn in!
At least Bush had a year or so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443491</id>
	<title>One might say Google "Fixed" it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245788640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a hack.  When moving technology forward, you need to pick your battles when asking "should we not improve this service? It will break the hacks"?</p><p>All in all, you are displaying text on a page.  Google's job is to take text that humans can read and make it text that humans can find.</p><p>I agree, spam is a problem, but this kind of obfuscation will only get you so far.  It's the same argument that can be said about MP3s.  If you can hear it, we can steal it.  Same as "if you can see it."</p><p>Spam stinks, but in the end, even with these tricks, you are making your address public.  Public information will be harvested by mortals and robots alike.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a hack .
When moving technology forward , you need to pick your battles when asking " should we not improve this service ?
It will break the hacks " ? All in all , you are displaying text on a page .
Google 's job is to take text that humans can read and make it text that humans can find.I agree , spam is a problem , but this kind of obfuscation will only get you so far .
It 's the same argument that can be said about MP3s .
If you can hear it , we can steal it .
Same as " if you can see it .
" Spam stinks , but in the end , even with these tricks , you are making your address public .
Public information will be harvested by mortals and robots alike .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a hack.
When moving technology forward, you need to pick your battles when asking "should we not improve this service?
It will break the hacks"?All in all, you are displaying text on a page.
Google's job is to take text that humans can read and make it text that humans can find.I agree, spam is a problem, but this kind of obfuscation will only get you so far.
It's the same argument that can be said about MP3s.
If you can hear it, we can steal it.
Same as "if you can see it.
"Spam stinks, but in the end, even with these tricks, you are making your address public.
Public information will be harvested by mortals and robots alike.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28450365</id>
	<title>It is actually really easy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245837840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is actually really easy: http://spidering-lessons.blogspot.com/2009/06/spidering-102-how-to-write-basic-script.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is actually really easy : http : //spidering-lessons.blogspot.com/2009/06/spidering-102-how-to-write-basic-script.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is actually really easy: http://spidering-lessons.blogspot.com/2009/06/spidering-102-how-to-write-basic-script.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443105</id>
	<title>Re:Mung</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245787200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This has to be the most overused meme on Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This has to be the most overused meme on Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has to be the most overused meme on Slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443459</id>
	<title>Why would you assume obfuscation would work?</title>
	<author>Todd Knarr</author>
	<datestamp>1245788520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I assume that, if a human can figure out the e-mail address, a spammer can too. After all, if nothing else they'll simply hire an IT sweatshop over in Asia or Africa to scan the pages for addresses at a dollar an hour or a nickel an address. JS obfuscation doesn't even take that, if your browser can evaluate the Javascript then the spammer's page-scraping software can too. So I assume that the only obfuscation that'll work is one that renders a human unable to read the address, at which point why bother putting the address there at all. And if all else fails, the well-known spammer tactic of just shotgunning every possible e-mail address in a domain will find anything their other tricks didn't (just like the auto-dialers that dial every number in a given exchange will find even unlisted, unpublished, known-only-to-the-owner phone numbers).</p><p>The only viable defense is at the mail-server level. The spammers <i>will</i> get your address, so prepare your mail server to deal with them. Reject connections from known residential/dial-up netblocks that shouldn't be contacting your mail server directly. Apply SpamAssassin and other filtering to incoming mail. Use reliable blacklists (evaluate their policies yourself against your own tolerance for false positives, and remember that the spammers don't want you to use <i>any</i> blacklists because using them stops them from spamming). Use what your filters learn by blocking netblocks that generate too many filter-rejected messages. You can't stop them from sending that first SYN, but you can decide whether to SYN-ACK or NAK them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I assume that , if a human can figure out the e-mail address , a spammer can too .
After all , if nothing else they 'll simply hire an IT sweatshop over in Asia or Africa to scan the pages for addresses at a dollar an hour or a nickel an address .
JS obfuscation does n't even take that , if your browser can evaluate the Javascript then the spammer 's page-scraping software can too .
So I assume that the only obfuscation that 'll work is one that renders a human unable to read the address , at which point why bother putting the address there at all .
And if all else fails , the well-known spammer tactic of just shotgunning every possible e-mail address in a domain will find anything their other tricks did n't ( just like the auto-dialers that dial every number in a given exchange will find even unlisted , unpublished , known-only-to-the-owner phone numbers ) .The only viable defense is at the mail-server level .
The spammers will get your address , so prepare your mail server to deal with them .
Reject connections from known residential/dial-up netblocks that should n't be contacting your mail server directly .
Apply SpamAssassin and other filtering to incoming mail .
Use reliable blacklists ( evaluate their policies yourself against your own tolerance for false positives , and remember that the spammers do n't want you to use any blacklists because using them stops them from spamming ) .
Use what your filters learn by blocking netblocks that generate too many filter-rejected messages .
You ca n't stop them from sending that first SYN , but you can decide whether to SYN-ACK or NAK them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I assume that, if a human can figure out the e-mail address, a spammer can too.
After all, if nothing else they'll simply hire an IT sweatshop over in Asia or Africa to scan the pages for addresses at a dollar an hour or a nickel an address.
JS obfuscation doesn't even take that, if your browser can evaluate the Javascript then the spammer's page-scraping software can too.
So I assume that the only obfuscation that'll work is one that renders a human unable to read the address, at which point why bother putting the address there at all.
And if all else fails, the well-known spammer tactic of just shotgunning every possible e-mail address in a domain will find anything their other tricks didn't (just like the auto-dialers that dial every number in a given exchange will find even unlisted, unpublished, known-only-to-the-owner phone numbers).The only viable defense is at the mail-server level.
The spammers will get your address, so prepare your mail server to deal with them.
Reject connections from known residential/dial-up netblocks that shouldn't be contacting your mail server directly.
Apply SpamAssassin and other filtering to incoming mail.
Use reliable blacklists (evaluate their policies yourself against your own tolerance for false positives, and remember that the spammers don't want you to use any blacklists because using them stops them from spamming).
Use what your filters learn by blocking netblocks that generate too many filter-rejected messages.
You can't stop them from sending that first SYN, but you can decide whether to SYN-ACK or NAK them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442863</id>
	<title>Re:*rolleyes*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245786360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cue.  Fucktard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cue .
Fucktard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cue.
Fucktard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28451429</id>
	<title>Re:*rolleyes*</title>
	<author>solcott</author>
	<datestamp>1245852540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OP here (I guess I forgot to log in before)

Actually, when I posted I was fully aware of the difference between cue and queue, but as referenced in #28442905 I was in fact referring to expecting a line of obfuscation != security posts to form, because<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers really have some great arguments against it and I was hoping to get to read a lot of them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>OP here ( I guess I forgot to log in before ) Actually , when I posted I was fully aware of the difference between cue and queue , but as referenced in # 28442905 I was in fact referring to expecting a line of obfuscation ! = security posts to form , because /.ers really have some great arguments against it and I was hoping to get to read a lot of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OP here (I guess I forgot to log in before)

Actually, when I posted I was fully aware of the difference between cue and queue, but as referenced in #28442905 I was in fact referring to expecting a line of obfuscation != security posts to form, because /.ers really have some great arguments against it and I was hoping to get to read a lot of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443235</id>
	<title>The harvesting bots are definitely getting smarter</title>
	<author>Fast Thick Pants</author>
	<datestamp>1245787620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When they learn to subtract pi, we're all hosed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When they learn to subtract pi , we 're all hosed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When they learn to subtract pi, we're all hosed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444239</id>
	<title>Re:*rolleyes*</title>
	<author>Chabil Ha'</author>
	<datestamp>1245747780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To add:</p><p>Relying on the expected behavior (Google not processing JS) of something over which you have no control for your security is pretty silly as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To add : Relying on the expected behavior ( Google not processing JS ) of something over which you have no control for your security is pretty silly as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To add:Relying on the expected behavior (Google not processing JS) of something over which you have no control for your security is pretty silly as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443539</id>
	<title>I don't think they got the email from Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245788760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think the spammers got his email address from Google. I mean, to do that they'd have to send a fairly narrow query to Google -- something like 'chibi jesus' -- and then scrape the results<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... just scraping the cached page wouldn't help -- that contains JS, not the email address. Plus, I imagine Google would notice if a bot started sending lots of search queries its way.</p><p>It's far more likely that spammer bots are now actively processing JS. As others on this thread have pointed out, it ain't hard to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think the spammers got his email address from Google .
I mean , to do that they 'd have to send a fairly narrow query to Google -- something like 'chibi jesus ' -- and then scrape the results ... just scraping the cached page would n't help -- that contains JS , not the email address .
Plus , I imagine Google would notice if a bot started sending lots of search queries its way.It 's far more likely that spammer bots are now actively processing JS .
As others on this thread have pointed out , it ai n't hard to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think the spammers got his email address from Google.
I mean, to do that they'd have to send a fairly narrow query to Google -- something like 'chibi jesus' -- and then scrape the results ... just scraping the cached page wouldn't help -- that contains JS, not the email address.
Plus, I imagine Google would notice if a bot started sending lots of search queries its way.It's far more likely that spammer bots are now actively processing JS.
As others on this thread have pointed out, it ain't hard to do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28450865</id>
	<title>Re:Contact Me Form</title>
	<author>LordKronos</author>
	<datestamp>1245846480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Then, have your submission script silently fail to send to e-mail if the "Phone Number" is filled out.</p></div></blockquote><p>Although I've never tried it to verify, won't this also fail for anybody who has their web browser set to remember and autofill form fields?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then , have your submission script silently fail to send to e-mail if the " Phone Number " is filled out.Although I 've never tried it to verify , wo n't this also fail for anybody who has their web browser set to remember and autofill form fields ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then, have your submission script silently fail to send to e-mail if the "Phone Number" is filled out.Although I've never tried it to verify, won't this also fail for anybody who has their web browser set to remember and autofill form fields?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444251</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome to the club</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245747840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wal-Mart #1 fortune 500<br>Microsoft - 90\% market share for productivity software<br>G. W. Bush - President of the USA</p><p>Man you have a strange sense of what "doing right" is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wal-Mart # 1 fortune 500Microsoft - 90 \ % market share for productivity softwareG .
W. Bush - President of the USAMan you have a strange sense of what " doing right " is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wal-Mart #1 fortune 500Microsoft - 90\% market share for productivity softwareG.
W. Bush - President of the USAMan you have a strange sense of what "doing right" is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443093</id>
	<title>Carefully protected..</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1245787200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Considering how much machines belong to one or another botnet, encripting it somehow in a web page dont protect your email from a contact that belongs directly or indirectly to one. As soon you start to try to use your email, the risks of getting in some spammers list start to raise. And that includes posting it in a web page under any encryption and get a mail from a visitor (probably the main reason of posting there the email) which machine is already owned.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering how much machines belong to one or another botnet , encripting it somehow in a web page dont protect your email from a contact that belongs directly or indirectly to one .
As soon you start to try to use your email , the risks of getting in some spammers list start to raise .
And that includes posting it in a web page under any encryption and get a mail from a visitor ( probably the main reason of posting there the email ) which machine is already owned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering how much machines belong to one or another botnet, encripting it somehow in a web page dont protect your email from a contact that belongs directly or indirectly to one.
As soon you start to try to use your email, the risks of getting in some spammers list start to raise.
And that includes posting it in a web page under any encryption and get a mail from a visitor (probably the main reason of posting there the email) which machine is already owned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443025</id>
	<title>And that's not all...</title>
	<author>DanCentury</author>
	<datestamp>1245786900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're probably spidering the "generated source" of a page, which means any content rendered with JavaScript is now spiderable and indexible [sic, I'm sure] -- what your eyes can see, Google will index.</p><p>Google is doing a lot of new things now, like listening to audio files and changing speech to text. Complete parsing of SWF files, including media and XML files called by the SWF. They can pull text off of images as well.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're probably spidering the " generated source " of a page , which means any content rendered with JavaScript is now spiderable and indexible [ sic , I 'm sure ] -- what your eyes can see , Google will index.Google is doing a lot of new things now , like listening to audio files and changing speech to text .
Complete parsing of SWF files , including media and XML files called by the SWF .
They can pull text off of images as well .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're probably spidering the "generated source" of a page, which means any content rendered with JavaScript is now spiderable and indexible [sic, I'm sure] -- what your eyes can see, Google will index.Google is doing a lot of new things now, like listening to audio files and changing speech to text.
Complete parsing of SWF files, including media and XML files called by the SWF.
They can pull text off of images as well.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443197</id>
	<title>Google Wave</title>
	<author>paulthomas</author>
	<datestamp>1245787500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google Wave may mean that web sites and blogs will be implemented as embedded Waves. The wave demo at <a href="http://wave.google.com/" title="google.com">http://wave.google.com/</a> [google.com] shows how this would work for blog comments &amp; galleries.</p><p>In this demo, they basically hint that because of this, Google is rethinking what embedding &amp; javascript mean on a page because they envision a future where the content can and will live anywhere and won't be represented by static HTML.</p><p>As you point out, this is already happening, albeit to a lesser degree than I think Google anticipates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google Wave may mean that web sites and blogs will be implemented as embedded Waves .
The wave demo at http : //wave.google.com/ [ google.com ] shows how this would work for blog comments &amp; galleries.In this demo , they basically hint that because of this , Google is rethinking what embedding &amp; javascript mean on a page because they envision a future where the content can and will live anywhere and wo n't be represented by static HTML.As you point out , this is already happening , albeit to a lesser degree than I think Google anticipates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google Wave may mean that web sites and blogs will be implemented as embedded Waves.
The wave demo at http://wave.google.com/ [google.com] shows how this would work for blog comments &amp; galleries.In this demo, they basically hint that because of this, Google is rethinking what embedding &amp; javascript mean on a page because they envision a future where the content can and will live anywhere and won't be represented by static HTML.As you point out, this is already happening, albeit to a lesser degree than I think Google anticipates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443631</id>
	<title>Re:Pay to email</title>
	<author>amRadioHed</author>
	<datestamp>1245789060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like you'd never get any email.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like you 'd never get any email .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like you'd never get any email.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442781</id>
	<title>It was pointless to begin with..</title>
	<author>poptix@work</author>
	<datestamp>1245786060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spammers know how to process javascript too. The benefits of having Google index the page as a client would see it far outweighs someones belief that they were 'safe' from spammers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spammers know how to process javascript too .
The benefits of having Google index the page as a client would see it far outweighs someones belief that they were 'safe ' from spammers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spammers know how to process javascript too.
The benefits of having Google index the page as a client would see it far outweighs someones belief that they were 'safe' from spammers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444643</id>
	<title>Solution: PHP or Perl Script</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245749340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've found it rather effective so far to obfuscate my email address via an intermediate PHP or Perl script. You just have the script redirect to a "Mailto" location and the browser handles it normally.  Unfortunately, the visitor will get a blank page, but bots seem confused by it.  I guess it's only a matter of time until they figure this trick out, too; but so far I haven't gotten any spam in several years and have no spam blocking software.

(Posting anonymously so no jerk-offs think it's funny to submit my address to spammers.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've found it rather effective so far to obfuscate my email address via an intermediate PHP or Perl script .
You just have the script redirect to a " Mailto " location and the browser handles it normally .
Unfortunately , the visitor will get a blank page , but bots seem confused by it .
I guess it 's only a matter of time until they figure this trick out , too ; but so far I have n't gotten any spam in several years and have no spam blocking software .
( Posting anonymously so no jerk-offs think it 's funny to submit my address to spammers .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've found it rather effective so far to obfuscate my email address via an intermediate PHP or Perl script.
You just have the script redirect to a "Mailto" location and the browser handles it normally.
Unfortunately, the visitor will get a blank page, but bots seem confused by it.
I guess it's only a matter of time until they figure this trick out, too; but so far I haven't gotten any spam in several years and have no spam blocking software.
(Posting anonymously so no jerk-offs think it's funny to submit my address to spammers.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444919</id>
	<title>Let's Geto to Work</title>
	<author>tomsomething</author>
	<datestamp>1245750180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yay, Google. Judging by the responses I've seen so far, it seems most of us think this is a step forward for the search engine.

That said, why don't we use this story as an opportunity to have a productive conversation about e-mail address security in a world where JavaScript's effectiveness is dwindling?

Here's one from A List Apart that uses some fancy mod\_rewrite stuff.

<a href="http://www.alistapart.com/articles/gracefulemailobfuscation/" title="alistapart.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.alistapart.com/articles/gracefulemailobfuscation/</a> [alistapart.com]

I know we've got a lot of geniuses and experts in here. Don't be modest! Show off how smart you are!

And yes, the next brilliant security measure will someday be pummeled by a robot that some spammer puts together, but hell if that ain't just exciting! We're helping people build better, "smarter" robots, and criminals are some of society's greatest innovators.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yay , Google .
Judging by the responses I 've seen so far , it seems most of us think this is a step forward for the search engine .
That said , why do n't we use this story as an opportunity to have a productive conversation about e-mail address security in a world where JavaScript 's effectiveness is dwindling ?
Here 's one from A List Apart that uses some fancy mod \ _rewrite stuff .
http : //www.alistapart.com/articles/gracefulemailobfuscation/ [ alistapart.com ] I know we 've got a lot of geniuses and experts in here .
Do n't be modest !
Show off how smart you are !
And yes , the next brilliant security measure will someday be pummeled by a robot that some spammer puts together , but hell if that ai n't just exciting !
We 're helping people build better , " smarter " robots , and criminals are some of society 's greatest innovators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yay, Google.
Judging by the responses I've seen so far, it seems most of us think this is a step forward for the search engine.
That said, why don't we use this story as an opportunity to have a productive conversation about e-mail address security in a world where JavaScript's effectiveness is dwindling?
Here's one from A List Apart that uses some fancy mod\_rewrite stuff.
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/gracefulemailobfuscation/ [alistapart.com]

I know we've got a lot of geniuses and experts in here.
Don't be modest!
Show off how smart you are!
And yes, the next brilliant security measure will someday be pummeled by a robot that some spammer puts together, but hell if that ain't just exciting!
We're helping people build better, "smarter" robots, and criminals are some of society's greatest innovators.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28449543</id>
	<title>Re:*rolleyes*</title>
	<author>omnichad</author>
	<datestamp>1245783960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except that this cue would attract several people at once, which necessitates some kind of order.  Hence, they should queue up and be ready for their chance to speak.

Don't get me started on pedant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that this cue would attract several people at once , which necessitates some kind of order .
Hence , they should queue up and be ready for their chance to speak .
Do n't get me started on pedant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that this cue would attract several people at once, which necessitates some kind of order.
Hence, they should queue up and be ready for their chance to speak.
Don't get me started on pedant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28446595</id>
	<title>Give Google a summary.</title>
	<author>dov\_0</author>
	<datestamp>1245757080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems to me that Google only produces that nice little page summary (which here included the guys obfuscated email address) when you haven't put a page description META tag in the header. For some reason google will use the FOOTER of the page if there is no header. MS Bing however does not use the META description, but seems to take anything similar to it in the body of the page.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me that Google only produces that nice little page summary ( which here included the guys obfuscated email address ) when you have n't put a page description META tag in the header .
For some reason google will use the FOOTER of the page if there is no header .
MS Bing however does not use the META description , but seems to take anything similar to it in the body of the page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me that Google only produces that nice little page summary (which here included the guys obfuscated email address) when you haven't put a page description META tag in the header.
For some reason google will use the FOOTER of the page if there is no header.
MS Bing however does not use the META description, but seems to take anything similar to it in the body of the page.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28466145</id>
	<title>Almost!</title>
	<author>VeNoM0619</author>
	<datestamp>1245943620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The text field below is a tool to create your own Javascript email address obscuring script. Enter your email address in the box and press the "OBSCURE!" button. You can then copy the resulting script and place it anywhere on your webpages where you want your email address to appear.</p></div><p>Wont fool me twice, better safe than sorry, better safe than sorry.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The text field below is a tool to create your own Javascript email address obscuring script .
Enter your email address in the box and press the " OBSCURE !
" button .
You can then copy the resulting script and place it anywhere on your webpages where you want your email address to appear.Wont fool me twice , better safe than sorry , better safe than sorry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The text field below is a tool to create your own Javascript email address obscuring script.
Enter your email address in the box and press the "OBSCURE!
" button.
You can then copy the resulting script and place it anywhere on your webpages where you want your email address to appear.Wont fool me twice, better safe than sorry, better safe than sorry.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443951</id>
	<title>Re:Mung</title>
	<author>Megane</author>
	<datestamp>1245790140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/M/mung.html" title="catb.org">Mung</a> [catb.org] <br>
<a href="http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/M/munge.html" title="catb.org">Munge</a> [catb.org] <br>
<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=munge" title="google.com">Munge</a> [google.com]
</p><p>Please turn in your card at the door on your way out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mung [ catb.org ] Munge [ catb.org ] Munge [ google.com ] Please turn in your card at the door on your way out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Mung [catb.org] 
Munge [catb.org] 
Munge [google.com]
Please turn in your card at the door on your way out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443423</id>
	<title>Re:Really....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245788400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always liked the idea of blacklisting ISPs that blatantly support spammers.</p><p>I'm not sure how well Russia would do being disconnected from the internet though. They might end up actually going bankrupt finally...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always liked the idea of blacklisting ISPs that blatantly support spammers.I 'm not sure how well Russia would do being disconnected from the internet though .
They might end up actually going bankrupt finally.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always liked the idea of blacklisting ISPs that blatantly support spammers.I'm not sure how well Russia would do being disconnected from the internet though.
They might end up actually going bankrupt finally...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28448105</id>
	<title>Re:Google interprets javascript? Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245767520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your right, they have completely munged the javascript obfuscation of their email address.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your right , they have completely munged the javascript obfuscation of their email address .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your right, they have completely munged the javascript obfuscation of their email address.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443145</id>
	<title>Contact Me Form</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1245787320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A better method is to have a Contact Me form that doesn't display your e-mail address anywhere on it.  Yes, you'll get spammers filling it out, but you can cut down on those with some simple techniques.  For example, make a "Phone Number" field and set the CSS display attribute to none.  Normal users won't see this field and won't fill it out.  Spam-bots will see it and attempt to fill it out.  Then, have your submission script silently fail to send to e-mail if the "Phone Number" is filled out.  (If you toss an error, the spammer might figure out the trick.)  No method is fool-proof, of course, but this is much better than putting your e-mail address on your webpage and hoping that someone doesn't de-mung it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A better method is to have a Contact Me form that does n't display your e-mail address anywhere on it .
Yes , you 'll get spammers filling it out , but you can cut down on those with some simple techniques .
For example , make a " Phone Number " field and set the CSS display attribute to none .
Normal users wo n't see this field and wo n't fill it out .
Spam-bots will see it and attempt to fill it out .
Then , have your submission script silently fail to send to e-mail if the " Phone Number " is filled out .
( If you toss an error , the spammer might figure out the trick .
) No method is fool-proof , of course , but this is much better than putting your e-mail address on your webpage and hoping that someone does n't de-mung it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A better method is to have a Contact Me form that doesn't display your e-mail address anywhere on it.
Yes, you'll get spammers filling it out, but you can cut down on those with some simple techniques.
For example, make a "Phone Number" field and set the CSS display attribute to none.
Normal users won't see this field and won't fill it out.
Spam-bots will see it and attempt to fill it out.
Then, have your submission script silently fail to send to e-mail if the "Phone Number" is filled out.
(If you toss an error, the spammer might figure out the trick.
)  No method is fool-proof, of course, but this is much better than putting your e-mail address on your webpage and hoping that someone doesn't de-mung it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28449727</id>
	<title>Re:Much ado about nothing</title>
	<author>dynchaw</author>
	<datestamp>1245785820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My gmail account has had 2 spams make it to my inbox in the last 6 months (probably longer) of the 20-50 spams a day the account receives. I have never published the address and have only even given it out to friends and family but it has received spam since the day I opened it. I also don't have any other email addresses forward to it. Very effective for me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My gmail account has had 2 spams make it to my inbox in the last 6 months ( probably longer ) of the 20-50 spams a day the account receives .
I have never published the address and have only even given it out to friends and family but it has received spam since the day I opened it .
I also do n't have any other email addresses forward to it .
Very effective for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My gmail account has had 2 spams make it to my inbox in the last 6 months (probably longer) of the 20-50 spams a day the account receives.
I have never published the address and have only even given it out to friends and family but it has received spam since the day I opened it.
I also don't have any other email addresses forward to it.
Very effective for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28446105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447379</id>
	<title>Re:Pay to email</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245761580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443887</id>
	<title>Mangle better</title>
	<author>jlcooke</author>
	<datestamp>1245789960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like this:</p><p><a href="http://www.certainkey.com/dm/" title="certainkey.com">www.certainkey.com/dm</a> [certainkey.com].</p><p>Needs some crypto computation to decrypt.  User needs to click on a "Get my Email" button. Works on iphone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like this : www.certainkey.com/dm [ certainkey.com ] .Needs some crypto computation to decrypt .
User needs to click on a " Get my Email " button .
Works on iphone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like this:www.certainkey.com/dm [certainkey.com].Needs some crypto computation to decrypt.
User needs to click on a "Get my Email" button.
Works on iphone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442627</id>
	<title>it's simple apha/beta reduction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245785580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>also, first post.</htmltext>
<tokenext>also , first post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>also, first post.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28455457</id>
	<title>Re:Pay to email</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1245869160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; How about "pay to email"?</p><p>s/this comment/standard response to spam fighting suggestions that recommend a pay-to-email approach/</p><p>(can I really do that? I just did!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; How about " pay to email " ? s/this comment/standard response to spam fighting suggestions that recommend a pay-to-email approach/ ( can I really do that ?
I just did !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; How about "pay to email"?s/this comment/standard response to spam fighting suggestions that recommend a pay-to-email approach/(can I really do that?
I just did!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443289</id>
	<title>Pay to email</title>
	<author>Viking Coder</author>
	<datestamp>1245787860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about "pay to email"?</p><p>I register with a pay-to-email site, and give it my actual email address.  It gives me my new publicly visible email address.  Anyone who wants to can send me an email through this service if they pay me an amount of money that I set.  After I receive the email, I can refund the sender.  The pay-to-email site takes a 10\% cut on all un-refunded emails.</p><p>Sound like a winner?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about " pay to email " ? I register with a pay-to-email site , and give it my actual email address .
It gives me my new publicly visible email address .
Anyone who wants to can send me an email through this service if they pay me an amount of money that I set .
After I receive the email , I can refund the sender .
The pay-to-email site takes a 10 \ % cut on all un-refunded emails.Sound like a winner ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about "pay to email"?I register with a pay-to-email site, and give it my actual email address.
It gives me my new publicly visible email address.
Anyone who wants to can send me an email through this service if they pay me an amount of money that I set.
After I receive the email, I can refund the sender.
The pay-to-email site takes a 10\% cut on all un-refunded emails.Sound like a winner?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444163</id>
	<title>No-Archive META Tag</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245747600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't there a META tag which tells Google's bot not to archive your site (Google Cache) in the first place? I believe it's the No-Archive tag.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't there a META tag which tells Google 's bot not to archive your site ( Google Cache ) in the first place ?
I believe it 's the No-Archive tag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't there a META tag which tells Google's bot not to archive your site (Google Cache) in the first place?
I believe it's the No-Archive tag.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28449833</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome to the club</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245786960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The parent comment to which I am responding is in no way a flamebait post.</p><p>Does slashdot need to start offering moderation exams before allowing people access to moderation points?  Maybe requiring a recert every 3/6 months?</p><p>Almost time to do a parody 'Ask Slashdot' about how to properly overhaul a website that offers 'news' to a target group of individuals interested in technology.</p><p>Posting as Anonymous Cowardon since I can't log in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The parent comment to which I am responding is in no way a flamebait post.Does slashdot need to start offering moderation exams before allowing people access to moderation points ?
Maybe requiring a recert every 3/6 months ? Almost time to do a parody 'Ask Slashdot ' about how to properly overhaul a website that offers 'news ' to a target group of individuals interested in technology.Posting as Anonymous Cowardon since I ca n't log in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The parent comment to which I am responding is in no way a flamebait post.Does slashdot need to start offering moderation exams before allowing people access to moderation points?
Maybe requiring a recert every 3/6 months?Almost time to do a parody 'Ask Slashdot' about how to properly overhaul a website that offers 'news' to a target group of individuals interested in technology.Posting as Anonymous Cowardon since I can't log in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444735</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think they got the email from Google</title>
	<author>larry bagina</author>
	<datestamp>1245749580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They don't even need to process javascript.  There's a handful of common mungeing techniques and a few lines of perl would detect and decode them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't even need to process javascript .
There 's a handful of common mungeing techniques and a few lines of perl would detect and decode them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't even need to process javascript.
There's a handful of common mungeing techniques and a few lines of perl would detect and decode them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28445371</id>
	<title>CSS saves the day!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245751740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can still post your email address in a monospace font with the CSS line-height attribute set to zero pixles... This has the effect of displaying your email address on screen, but making it difficult for harvesters to grab.</p><p>something like:</p><p>&lt;div style="font-family: 'courier new', courier, monospace; line-height: 0px;"&gt;<br>c a f s z c @ e s a e c m &lt;br&gt;<br>
&nbsp; r y i h a h n t c p . o<br>&lt;/div&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can still post your email address in a monospace font with the CSS line-height attribute set to zero pixles... This has the effect of displaying your email address on screen , but making it difficult for harvesters to grab.something like : c a f s z c @ e s a e c m   r y i h a h n t c p .
o</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can still post your email address in a monospace font with the CSS line-height attribute set to zero pixles... This has the effect of displaying your email address on screen, but making it difficult for harvesters to grab.something like:c a f s z c @ e s a e c m 
  r y i h a h n t c p .
o</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444245</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome to the club</title>
	<author>Ifni</author>
	<datestamp>1245747840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone has their supporters.  The "Impossible to do anything right" club is for those that are lambasted by the popular mainstream media, regardless of which action they take.  "Mainstream" media excludes overtly biased sources such as Fox and what not.</p><p>Clinton was in the "Impossible to do anything wrong" club, hence his general association with Teflon.  Even during the sex scandal, the general consensus was "who cares, there are more important issues."</p><p>Obama was in the ITDAW for a bit, but the financial crisis has made him everybody's enemy it seems.  If this keeps up, he may be accepted into the ITDAR, but I think it's unlikely that the media can stay mad at him for that long.</p><p>Alternately, it could be the general perception of Slashdot (and not the mainstream media) that determines it, which means that, due to Slashdot's strong lean to the left, ITDAR is perpetually reserved for big corporations/conservative pundits.  Even Slashdot darlings like Google eventually end up there.  Sun and Apple will join soon, I suspect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone has their supporters .
The " Impossible to do anything right " club is for those that are lambasted by the popular mainstream media , regardless of which action they take .
" Mainstream " media excludes overtly biased sources such as Fox and what not.Clinton was in the " Impossible to do anything wrong " club , hence his general association with Teflon .
Even during the sex scandal , the general consensus was " who cares , there are more important issues .
" Obama was in the ITDAW for a bit , but the financial crisis has made him everybody 's enemy it seems .
If this keeps up , he may be accepted into the ITDAR , but I think it 's unlikely that the media can stay mad at him for that long.Alternately , it could be the general perception of Slashdot ( and not the mainstream media ) that determines it , which means that , due to Slashdot 's strong lean to the left , ITDAR is perpetually reserved for big corporations/conservative pundits .
Even Slashdot darlings like Google eventually end up there .
Sun and Apple will join soon , I suspect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone has their supporters.
The "Impossible to do anything right" club is for those that are lambasted by the popular mainstream media, regardless of which action they take.
"Mainstream" media excludes overtly biased sources such as Fox and what not.Clinton was in the "Impossible to do anything wrong" club, hence his general association with Teflon.
Even during the sex scandal, the general consensus was "who cares, there are more important issues.
"Obama was in the ITDAW for a bit, but the financial crisis has made him everybody's enemy it seems.
If this keeps up, he may be accepted into the ITDAR, but I think it's unlikely that the media can stay mad at him for that long.Alternately, it could be the general perception of Slashdot (and not the mainstream media) that determines it, which means that, due to Slashdot's strong lean to the left, ITDAR is perpetually reserved for big corporations/conservative pundits.
Even Slashdot darlings like Google eventually end up there.
Sun and Apple will join soon, I suspect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28446779</id>
	<title>SpamGourmet</title>
	<author>meehawl</author>
	<datestamp>1245757920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.spamgourmet.com/" title="spamgourmet.com">SpamGourmet</a> [spamgourmet.com] - I can't begin to say how awesome this is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>SpamGourmet [ spamgourmet.com ] - I ca n't begin to say how awesome this is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SpamGourmet [spamgourmet.com] - I can't begin to say how awesome this is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444907</id>
	<title>Re:Pay to email</title>
	<author>jfengel</author>
	<datestamp>1245750120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is the micro-transactions.  You'd want to charge very little, a penny or less.  But the overhead of transaction processing is enormous; no credit card company will deal with it.</p><p>You could try to hold the money yourself and just shuffle it around, but that requires everybody to be on your system, and email users don't care for that.</p><p>It also represents a pain to users: protecting the authorization and authentication info that lets them charge either requires frequent human intervention, OR a spam-bot could just use the account.</p><p>So, nice idea, and I think something like it may happen some day, but not soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is the micro-transactions .
You 'd want to charge very little , a penny or less .
But the overhead of transaction processing is enormous ; no credit card company will deal with it.You could try to hold the money yourself and just shuffle it around , but that requires everybody to be on your system , and email users do n't care for that.It also represents a pain to users : protecting the authorization and authentication info that lets them charge either requires frequent human intervention , OR a spam-bot could just use the account.So , nice idea , and I think something like it may happen some day , but not soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is the micro-transactions.
You'd want to charge very little, a penny or less.
But the overhead of transaction processing is enormous; no credit card company will deal with it.You could try to hold the money yourself and just shuffle it around, but that requires everybody to be on your system, and email users don't care for that.It also represents a pain to users: protecting the authorization and authentication info that lets them charge either requires frequent human intervention, OR a spam-bot could just use the account.So, nice idea, and I think something like it may happen some day, but not soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444421</id>
	<title>And... your point...?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245748500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://mailhide.recaptcha.net/</p><p>Problem solved, with the <i>only</i> remaining CAPTCHA that hasn't been automatically broken.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //mailhide.recaptcha.net/Problem solved , with the only remaining CAPTCHA that has n't been automatically broken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://mailhide.recaptcha.net/Problem solved, with the only remaining CAPTCHA that hasn't been automatically broken.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447157</id>
	<title>Re:*rolleyes*</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1245760080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know what pool has to do with this...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what pool has to do with this.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what pool has to do with this...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443031</id>
	<title>grapcha - new puzzle</title>
	<author>alxtoth</author>
	<datestamp>1245786960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If everything else seems to fail, try these convoluted, big captchas generated based on Graphviz graphs. Link : <a href="http://snowflakejoins.com/grapcha/index?text=slashdot" title="snowflakejoins.com" rel="nofollow">http://snowflakejoins.com/grapcha/index?text=slashdot</a> [snowflakejoins.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>If everything else seems to fail , try these convoluted , big captchas generated based on Graphviz graphs .
Link : http : //snowflakejoins.com/grapcha/index ? text = slashdot [ snowflakejoins.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If everything else seems to fail, try these convoluted, big captchas generated based on Graphviz graphs.
Link : http://snowflakejoins.com/grapcha/index?text=slashdot [snowflakejoins.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28448077</id>
	<title>Re:Much ado about nothing</title>
	<author>LihTox</author>
	<datestamp>1245767280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree; I generally get 1 or 2 messages per day (on average) that escape the Gmail filter.  However, one of the email addresses I have forwarded there is roughly 14 years old, and was used on Usenet, so everybody's got it by now.<br>To fix this, I've created a label called "!Spam", and as spam leaks through the filter I try to come up with a filter to send messages of that kind to !Spam, bypassing the inbox.  I go through those messages to check for false positives regularly, but at least the spam doesn't show up in my email alerts, which makes me happy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree ; I generally get 1 or 2 messages per day ( on average ) that escape the Gmail filter .
However , one of the email addresses I have forwarded there is roughly 14 years old , and was used on Usenet , so everybody 's got it by now.To fix this , I 've created a label called " ! Spam " , and as spam leaks through the filter I try to come up with a filter to send messages of that kind to ! Spam , bypassing the inbox .
I go through those messages to check for false positives regularly , but at least the spam does n't show up in my email alerts , which makes me happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree; I generally get 1 or 2 messages per day (on average) that escape the Gmail filter.
However, one of the email addresses I have forwarded there is roughly 14 years old, and was used on Usenet, so everybody's got it by now.To fix this, I've created a label called "!Spam", and as spam leaks through the filter I try to come up with a filter to send messages of that kind to !Spam, bypassing the inbox.
I go through those messages to check for false positives regularly, but at least the spam doesn't show up in my email alerts, which makes me happy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28446105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443167</id>
	<title>Like this is the only way...</title>
	<author>almightyon11</author>
	<datestamp>1245787380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like this is the only way to protect emails published on the web from spambots...

I could list a few, but my favourite is to publish a well done (not easily broken) captcha img in some host I have easy acess to.
If I want I can just delete that image, or add an expiration timers so that after a few days that image won't show up anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like this is the only way to protect emails published on the web from spambots.. . I could list a few , but my favourite is to publish a well done ( not easily broken ) captcha img in some host I have easy acess to .
If I want I can just delete that image , or add an expiration timers so that after a few days that image wo n't show up anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like this is the only way to protect emails published on the web from spambots...

I could list a few, but my favourite is to publish a well done (not easily broken) captcha img in some host I have easy acess to.
If I want I can just delete that image, or add an expiration timers so that after a few days that image won't show up anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442663</id>
	<title>*rolleyes*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245785700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, queue the obfuscation != security thing.  If your email address is carefully protected, it is not displayed on a web page, obfuscated or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , queue the obfuscation ! = security thing .
If your email address is carefully protected , it is not displayed on a web page , obfuscated or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, queue the obfuscation != security thing.
If your email address is carefully protected, it is not displayed on a web page, obfuscated or not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443357</id>
	<title>For YEARS we've had transparent CSS methods</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245788100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address\_munging#Alternatives" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Do they mention these ever?</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do they mention these ever ?
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do they mention these ever?
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442775</id>
	<title>Welcome to the club</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245786060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear Google:</p><p>Welcome to the "Impossible to do anything right" club.</p><p>Regards,</p><p>Wal-Mart,<br>Microsoft,<br>G. W. Bush</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Google : Welcome to the " Impossible to do anything right " club.Regards,Wal-Mart,Microsoft,G .
W. Bush</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Google:Welcome to the "Impossible to do anything right" club.Regards,Wal-Mart,Microsoft,G.
W. Bush</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447755</id>
	<title>Re:Much ado about nothing</title>
	<author>Phroggy</author>
	<datestamp>1245764520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something that most people don't understand is that spam is NOT universal.  Every e-mail address is unique, and will get a different assortment of spam.  Some of the users on my mail server get spam that I don't get, and I get spam that they don't get.</p><p>In particular, a new e-mail address will never get spam, unless:</p><ol> <li>A spammer randomly guesses the address, using a dictionary attack</li><li>The address is posted on a web site, and scraped by a spammer</li><li>The address is submitted to a company or organization which posts it on their site</li><li>Malware extracts the address from somebody's address book</li><li>Somebody hacks into a company or organization that the address and takes it from their database</li><li>Some sleazy company sells it</li></ol><p>That's pretty much it.  #1 is only likely if your username is common (like just your first name).  #3 isn't a common problem anymore, since most sites either don't post their users' e-mail addresses, or they obfuscate them (like Slashdot does).  #5 isn't a common problem either.  I've only gotten burned by #6 a few times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something that most people do n't understand is that spam is NOT universal .
Every e-mail address is unique , and will get a different assortment of spam .
Some of the users on my mail server get spam that I do n't get , and I get spam that they do n't get.In particular , a new e-mail address will never get spam , unless : A spammer randomly guesses the address , using a dictionary attackThe address is posted on a web site , and scraped by a spammerThe address is submitted to a company or organization which posts it on their siteMalware extracts the address from somebody 's address bookSomebody hacks into a company or organization that the address and takes it from their databaseSome sleazy company sells itThat 's pretty much it .
# 1 is only likely if your username is common ( like just your first name ) .
# 3 is n't a common problem anymore , since most sites either do n't post their users ' e-mail addresses , or they obfuscate them ( like Slashdot does ) .
# 5 is n't a common problem either .
I 've only gotten burned by # 6 a few times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something that most people don't understand is that spam is NOT universal.
Every e-mail address is unique, and will get a different assortment of spam.
Some of the users on my mail server get spam that I don't get, and I get spam that they don't get.In particular, a new e-mail address will never get spam, unless: A spammer randomly guesses the address, using a dictionary attackThe address is posted on a web site, and scraped by a spammerThe address is submitted to a company or organization which posts it on their siteMalware extracts the address from somebody's address bookSomebody hacks into a company or organization that the address and takes it from their databaseSome sleazy company sells itThat's pretty much it.
#1 is only likely if your username is common (like just your first name).
#3 isn't a common problem anymore, since most sites either don't post their users' e-mail addresses, or they obfuscate them (like Slashdot does).
#5 isn't a common problem either.
I've only gotten burned by #6 a few times.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28446105</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442919
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28452371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28448029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28449573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28448007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28446595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28448535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28448105
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28445655
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28452257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28451985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447027
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28457733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28449833
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28446105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28446105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28449727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28446105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28448077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447157
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28455381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28445745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28445275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28450865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28451429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28449543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443105
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28450607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28448167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28455457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28446787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_173229_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447895
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_173229.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28450547
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_173229.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447895
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_173229.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28445371
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_173229.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442749
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_173229.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443145
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444605
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28452257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28455381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28450865
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_173229.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444919
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_173229.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443289
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443631
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28448535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443641
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28448029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28455457
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447379
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_173229.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443209
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447527
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_173229.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28446105
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28448077
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28449727
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447755
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_173229.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28448167
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28448105
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447773
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_173229.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442651
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443105
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28445745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447027
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_173229.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442781
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_173229.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442811
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_173229.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443423
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28449573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28445655
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28446787
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28452371
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_173229.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442775
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444251
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28457733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443139
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444245
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28449833
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_173229.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443491
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_173229.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443793
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_173229.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28445275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444735
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_173229.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443259
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28448007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447281
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28449543
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28451429
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28451985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442863
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28450607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28444239
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28446595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443771
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28447157
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442919
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_173229.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443031
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_173229.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443235
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_173229.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442833
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443197
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28443715
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_173229.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_173229.28442761
</commentlist>
</conversation>
