<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_28_1419230</id>
	<title>jQuery Dev Bemoans Overwhelming Spam On Google Groups</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1256741700000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>angryrice tips a blog post by John Resig, lead developer for jQuery, about  <a href="http://ejohn.org/blog/google-groups-is-dead/">the failure of Google Groups to manage spam</a>, declaring attempts to use it as a public discussion system "completely futile." Quoting:
<i>"The final straw was placed upon my patience with the Google Groups system a few weeks ago. Spammers are now spoofing the email addresses of existing group participants to sneak their messages through. Previously you would've seen a delightful 'FREE MOVIE DOWNLOADS' spam from 'freemovies123@gmail.com' &mdash; but now you'll see it coming from existing group users &mdash; or even the group moderators themselves. This cheat <em>completely bypasses the moderation system</em> since the spammers are pretending to be pre-moderated users. The Google Groups system is completely fooled. The spam message comes in claiming to be from an existing group participant &mdash; and according to the Google Groups interface there is no difference. If you click the user's name you'll be taken to a full listing of that user's posts (with the spam messages delightfully interspersed)."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>angryrice tips a blog post by John Resig , lead developer for jQuery , about the failure of Google Groups to manage spam , declaring attempts to use it as a public discussion system " completely futile .
" Quoting : " The final straw was placed upon my patience with the Google Groups system a few weeks ago .
Spammers are now spoofing the email addresses of existing group participants to sneak their messages through .
Previously you would 've seen a delightful 'FREE MOVIE DOWNLOADS ' spam from 'freemovies123 @ gmail.com '    but now you 'll see it coming from existing group users    or even the group moderators themselves .
This cheat completely bypasses the moderation system since the spammers are pretending to be pre-moderated users .
The Google Groups system is completely fooled .
The spam message comes in claiming to be from an existing group participant    and according to the Google Groups interface there is no difference .
If you click the user 's name you 'll be taken to a full listing of that user 's posts ( with the spam messages delightfully interspersed ) .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>angryrice tips a blog post by John Resig, lead developer for jQuery, about  the failure of Google Groups to manage spam, declaring attempts to use it as a public discussion system "completely futile.
" Quoting:
"The final straw was placed upon my patience with the Google Groups system a few weeks ago.
Spammers are now spoofing the email addresses of existing group participants to sneak their messages through.
Previously you would've seen a delightful 'FREE MOVIE DOWNLOADS' spam from 'freemovies123@gmail.com' — but now you'll see it coming from existing group users — or even the group moderators themselves.
This cheat completely bypasses the moderation system since the spammers are pretending to be pre-moderated users.
The Google Groups system is completely fooled.
The spam message comes in claiming to be from an existing group participant — and according to the Google Groups interface there is no difference.
If you click the user's name you'll be taken to a full listing of that user's posts (with the spam messages delightfully interspersed).
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897579</id>
	<title>Do more about spam</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256745840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The spammers Behavior are really destructive in many ways, this is just one of them. It really should be seen as sabourtage against infrastructure and a bigger efford should be made to follow the trail of money and take down those people who makes the money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The spammers Behavior are really destructive in many ways , this is just one of them .
It really should be seen as sabourtage against infrastructure and a bigger efford should be made to follow the trail of money and take down those people who makes the money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The spammers Behavior are really destructive in many ways, this is just one of them.
It really should be seen as sabourtage against infrastructure and a bigger efford should be made to follow the trail of money and take down those people who makes the money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898297</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps a new mail header?</title>
	<author>\_Shad0w\_</author>
	<datestamp>1256748780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a spammer can easily spoof a legitimate user's cryptographic signature on a given block of text I would be very surprised.  The only practical way that could happen would be if the user's private key was compromised - if that's the case you just issue a revocation certificate for the compromised key.</p><p>Requiring users to sign up using their public key and then requiring all posts to be signed isn't completely ridiculous.  It may be a OTT for most groups and possibly beyond the ken of a lot of users, but it could be done.  You would just have to parse the all incoming mail to make sure they had a valid signature and that the signature was made using a key that matched a register group member.  Although I couldn't comment on how much processing overhead that would create.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a spammer can easily spoof a legitimate user 's cryptographic signature on a given block of text I would be very surprised .
The only practical way that could happen would be if the user 's private key was compromised - if that 's the case you just issue a revocation certificate for the compromised key.Requiring users to sign up using their public key and then requiring all posts to be signed is n't completely ridiculous .
It may be a OTT for most groups and possibly beyond the ken of a lot of users , but it could be done .
You would just have to parse the all incoming mail to make sure they had a valid signature and that the signature was made using a key that matched a register group member .
Although I could n't comment on how much processing overhead that would create .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a spammer can easily spoof a legitimate user's cryptographic signature on a given block of text I would be very surprised.
The only practical way that could happen would be if the user's private key was compromised - if that's the case you just issue a revocation certificate for the compromised key.Requiring users to sign up using their public key and then requiring all posts to be signed isn't completely ridiculous.
It may be a OTT for most groups and possibly beyond the ken of a lot of users, but it could be done.
You would just have to parse the all incoming mail to make sure they had a valid signature and that the signature was made using a key that matched a register group member.
Although I couldn't comment on how much processing overhead that would create.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29908769</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps a new mail header?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256823540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And it would be trivial for a spammer to spoof a legitimate user's signature.</p></div><p>Wow, a complete misunderstanding of how PGP works.  What a surprise!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And it would be trivial for a spammer to spoof a legitimate user 's signature.Wow , a complete misunderstanding of how PGP works .
What a surprise !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it would be trivial for a spammer to spoof a legitimate user's signature.Wow, a complete misunderstanding of how PGP works.
What a surprise!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897851</id>
	<title>Re:Join the 21st Century</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256746920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except forums are locked into the crappy UI of whatever forum package the admin happened to pick, whereas mailing lists let you use any email client you want.</p><p>Oh, and forums still get spam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except forums are locked into the crappy UI of whatever forum package the admin happened to pick , whereas mailing lists let you use any email client you want.Oh , and forums still get spam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except forums are locked into the crappy UI of whatever forum package the admin happened to pick, whereas mailing lists let you use any email client you want.Oh, and forums still get spam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897641</id>
	<title>Time to bring back the cancelbots?</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1256746080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this is a Usenet group that Google Groups is just providing an interface to, I guess it's time to bring back the cancelbots. UDP against Google. It's come close before.</p><p>If this is one of the Google Groups that's a web forum, then they need to require that you actually log in before posting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this is a Usenet group that Google Groups is just providing an interface to , I guess it 's time to bring back the cancelbots .
UDP against Google .
It 's come close before.If this is one of the Google Groups that 's a web forum , then they need to require that you actually log in before posting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this is a Usenet group that Google Groups is just providing an interface to, I guess it's time to bring back the cancelbots.
UDP against Google.
It's come close before.If this is one of the Google Groups that's a web forum, then they need to require that you actually log in before posting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897965</id>
	<title>Report spam</title>
	<author>nkh</author>
	<datestamp>1256747280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google Groups was a good idea with a bad implementation. Last time I checked, there was no fast way to report a spammer, you have to click 3 or 4 times and be redirected to different pages before having just one message successfully reported.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google Groups was a good idea with a bad implementation .
Last time I checked , there was no fast way to report a spammer , you have to click 3 or 4 times and be redirected to different pages before having just one message successfully reported .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google Groups was a good idea with a bad implementation.
Last time I checked, there was no fast way to report a spammer, you have to click 3 or 4 times and be redirected to different pages before having just one message successfully reported.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29902949</id>
	<title>Re:Block posts to Usenet via Google</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1256726160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Maybe the answer is to block posts to USENET that come in via Google.</p><p>I'm getting close to doing that.  Unfortunately, there are many interesting and legitimate articles posted via Google Groups on many of the newsgroups I read, and many users cannot be convinced to use a real news server (in fact, many cannot be convinced that Usenet and Google Groups are not one and the same).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Maybe the answer is to block posts to USENET that come in via Google.I 'm getting close to doing that .
Unfortunately , there are many interesting and legitimate articles posted via Google Groups on many of the newsgroups I read , and many users can not be convinced to use a real news server ( in fact , many can not be convinced that Usenet and Google Groups are not one and the same ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Maybe the answer is to block posts to USENET that come in via Google.I'm getting close to doing that.
Unfortunately, there are many interesting and legitimate articles posted via Google Groups on many of the newsgroups I read, and many users cannot be convinced to use a real news server (in fact, many cannot be convinced that Usenet and Google Groups are not one and the same).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29902389</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps a new mail header?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256723100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>PGP/GPG is overkill. Just drop messages that fail an SPF check. Spoofing is part of the problem here, and SPF was tailor-made to address spoofing.</p></div><p>SPF won't help you if the senders domain doesn't have any SPF records (unless Google decide to block any mail coming from domains missing the recods). It will help for those that do but if I was a spammer I'd just modify my scanning toolkit to test for the absense of SPF records before I spoofed an address.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>PGP/GPG is overkill .
Just drop messages that fail an SPF check .
Spoofing is part of the problem here , and SPF was tailor-made to address spoofing.SPF wo n't help you if the senders domain does n't have any SPF records ( unless Google decide to block any mail coming from domains missing the recods ) .
It will help for those that do but if I was a spammer I 'd just modify my scanning toolkit to test for the absense of SPF records before I spoofed an address .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PGP/GPG is overkill.
Just drop messages that fail an SPF check.
Spoofing is part of the problem here, and SPF was tailor-made to address spoofing.SPF won't help you if the senders domain doesn't have any SPF records (unless Google decide to block any mail coming from domains missing the recods).
It will help for those that do but if I was a spammer I'd just modify my scanning toolkit to test for the absense of SPF records before I spoofed an address.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899299</id>
	<title>Is there a reason to keep archives private?</title>
	<author>tetranz</author>
	<datestamp>1256753220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is more to do with Yahoo Groups than Google Groups but they seem similar. Recently I've joined several Yahoo Groups about specialized ham radio topics. Nearly all of them keep their archives private. I have apply to join (basically push a button and say who I am) and then wait for approval from the admin. Once approved I can read the archives and also post. Posting from members is usually unmoderated. It's painless enough but still very frustrating when I'm just searching around for information and a quick look at the archives is probably all I want.</p><p>I don't mind having to join if I want to post but do they achieve anything by keeping the archives private?  Yahoo obscure the email addresses so spammers' 'bots are not going to get much from them. I've asked several admins "why do you keep the archives private?" and have not received a convincing answer. It usually goes something like "I understand your frustration but we have a lot of trouble with spam" and sometimes goes on to imply what a silly question I asked. Well<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I still don't see how keeping the archives private helps to reduce spam.  I haven't been a group admin so maybe I'm missing something.</p><p>I can understand keeping archives private or non-existent for a group on a personal or private subject but that doesn't apply to these groups.</p><p>My guess is that this is Yahoo's default setting when a group is created and few admins really think about it. Of course Yahoo want as many people as possible to join.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is more to do with Yahoo Groups than Google Groups but they seem similar .
Recently I 've joined several Yahoo Groups about specialized ham radio topics .
Nearly all of them keep their archives private .
I have apply to join ( basically push a button and say who I am ) and then wait for approval from the admin .
Once approved I can read the archives and also post .
Posting from members is usually unmoderated .
It 's painless enough but still very frustrating when I 'm just searching around for information and a quick look at the archives is probably all I want.I do n't mind having to join if I want to post but do they achieve anything by keeping the archives private ?
Yahoo obscure the email addresses so spammers ' 'bots are not going to get much from them .
I 've asked several admins " why do you keep the archives private ?
" and have not received a convincing answer .
It usually goes something like " I understand your frustration but we have a lot of trouble with spam " and sometimes goes on to imply what a silly question I asked .
Well ... I still do n't see how keeping the archives private helps to reduce spam .
I have n't been a group admin so maybe I 'm missing something.I can understand keeping archives private or non-existent for a group on a personal or private subject but that does n't apply to these groups.My guess is that this is Yahoo 's default setting when a group is created and few admins really think about it .
Of course Yahoo want as many people as possible to join .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is more to do with Yahoo Groups than Google Groups but they seem similar.
Recently I've joined several Yahoo Groups about specialized ham radio topics.
Nearly all of them keep their archives private.
I have apply to join (basically push a button and say who I am) and then wait for approval from the admin.
Once approved I can read the archives and also post.
Posting from members is usually unmoderated.
It's painless enough but still very frustrating when I'm just searching around for information and a quick look at the archives is probably all I want.I don't mind having to join if I want to post but do they achieve anything by keeping the archives private?
Yahoo obscure the email addresses so spammers' 'bots are not going to get much from them.
I've asked several admins "why do you keep the archives private?
" and have not received a convincing answer.
It usually goes something like "I understand your frustration but we have a lot of trouble with spam" and sometimes goes on to imply what a silly question I asked.
Well ... I still don't see how keeping the archives private helps to reduce spam.
I haven't been a group admin so maybe I'm missing something.I can understand keeping archives private or non-existent for a group on a personal or private subject but that doesn't apply to these groups.My guess is that this is Yahoo's default setting when a group is created and few admins really think about it.
Of course Yahoo want as many people as possible to join.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897841</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps a new mail header?</title>
	<author>Straker Skunk</author>
	<datestamp>1256746860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PGP/GPG is overkill. Just drop messages that fail an SPF check. Spoofing is part of the problem here, and SPF was tailor-made to address spoofing.</p><p>If you do use PGP/GPG, you don't need an extra header for the signature; it's usually added as a small attachment, and better mail clients already pick up on that for verification.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PGP/GPG is overkill .
Just drop messages that fail an SPF check .
Spoofing is part of the problem here , and SPF was tailor-made to address spoofing.If you do use PGP/GPG , you do n't need an extra header for the signature ; it 's usually added as a small attachment , and better mail clients already pick up on that for verification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PGP/GPG is overkill.
Just drop messages that fail an SPF check.
Spoofing is part of the problem here, and SPF was tailor-made to address spoofing.If you do use PGP/GPG, you don't need an extra header for the signature; it's usually added as a small attachment, and better mail clients already pick up on that for verification.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29900547</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps a new mail header?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256757900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You Personally advocate a</p><p>(x) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante</p><p>approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won&rsquo;t work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)</p><p>( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses<br>(x) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected<br>( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money<br>( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks<br>(x) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we&rsquo;ll be stuck with it<br>(x) Users of email will not put up with it<br>(x) Microsoft will not put up with it<br>( ) The police will not put up with it<br>( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers<br>(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once<br>( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers<br>( ) Spammers don&rsquo;t care about invalid addresses in their lists<br>( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else&rsquo;s career or business</p><p>Specifically, your plan fails to account for</p><p>( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it<br>(x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email<br>( ) Open relays in foreign countries<br>( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses<br>( ) Asshats<br>( ) Jurisdictional problems<br>( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes<br>( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money<br>( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP<br>( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack<br>(x) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email<br>(x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes<br>( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches<br>(x) Extreme profitability of spam<br>( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft<br>( ) Technically illiterate politicians<br>( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers<br>( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Microsoft<br>( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Yahoo<br>(x) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves<br>( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering<br>( ) Outlook</p><p>and the following philosophical objections may also apply:</p><p>(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical<br>( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable<br>( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation<br>( ) Blacklists suck<br>( ) Whitelists suck<br>( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored<br>( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud<br>( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks<br>( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually<br>( ) Sending email should be free<br>( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?<br>( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses<br>( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem<br>( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome<br>( ) I don&rsquo;t want the government reading my email<br>( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough</p><p>Furthermore, this is what I think about you:</p><p>(x) Sorry dude, but I don&rsquo;t think it would work.<br>( ) This is a stupid idea, and you&rsquo;re a fascist for suggesting it.<br>( ) Nice try, assh0le! I&rsquo;m going to find out where you live and burn your house down!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You Personally advocate a ( x ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilanteapproach to fighting spam .
Your idea will not work .
Here is why it won    t work .
( One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea , and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed .
) ( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( x ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( x ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we    ll be stuck with it ( x ) Users of email will not put up with it ( x ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( x ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users can not afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don    t care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else    s career or businessSpecifically , your plan fails to account for ( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( x ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( x ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( x ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( x ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Microsoft ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Yahoo ( x ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlookand the following philosophical objections may also apply : ( x ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with , yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers ?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don    t want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enoughFurthermore , this is what I think about you : ( x ) Sorry dude , but I don    t think it would work .
( ) This is a stupid idea , and you    re a fascist for suggesting it .
( ) Nice try , assh0le !
I    m going to find out where you live and burn your house down !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You Personally advocate a(x) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilanteapproach to fighting spam.
Your idea will not work.
Here is why it won’t work.
(One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.
)( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses(x) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks(x) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we’ll be stuck with it(x) Users of email will not put up with it(x) Microsoft will not put up with it( ) The police will not put up with it( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers( ) Spammers don’t care about invalid addresses in their lists( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else’s career or businessSpecifically, your plan fails to account for( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it(x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email( ) Open relays in foreign countries( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses( ) Asshats( ) Jurisdictional problems( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack(x) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email(x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches(x) Extreme profitability of spam( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft( ) Technically illiterate politicians( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Microsoft( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Yahoo(x) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering( ) Outlookand the following philosophical objections may also apply:(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation( ) Blacklists suck( ) Whitelists suck( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually( ) Sending email should be free( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome( ) I don’t want the government reading my email( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enoughFurthermore, this is what I think about you:(x) Sorry dude, but I don’t think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you’re a fascist for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le!
I’m going to find out where you live and burn your house down!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899197</id>
	<title>Re:Finally, someone important points out the obvio</title>
	<author>Stan92057</author>
	<datestamp>1256752740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gmail filters the emails for spam?? could have fooled me!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gmail filters the emails for spam ? ?
could have fooled me !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gmail filters the emails for spam??
could have fooled me!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897685</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29900947</id>
	<title>Usenet flaws</title>
	<author>Improv</author>
	<datestamp>1256759640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this is essentially the same thing as Usenet, it's no wonder. NNTP was designed in the days when we were generally able to trust people not to be malign - it's a very trusting, open protocol, and when people or servers broke the rules, sensible people would stop peering with them. Sophisticated, malign groups of people are a problem in any system, but particularly for systems where there's a lot of built-in trust.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this is essentially the same thing as Usenet , it 's no wonder .
NNTP was designed in the days when we were generally able to trust people not to be malign - it 's a very trusting , open protocol , and when people or servers broke the rules , sensible people would stop peering with them .
Sophisticated , malign groups of people are a problem in any system , but particularly for systems where there 's a lot of built-in trust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this is essentially the same thing as Usenet, it's no wonder.
NNTP was designed in the days when we were generally able to trust people not to be malign - it's a very trusting, open protocol, and when people or servers broke the rules, sensible people would stop peering with them.
Sophisticated, malign groups of people are a problem in any system, but particularly for systems where there's a lot of built-in trust.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897833</id>
	<title>Google Beta</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256746800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see a lot of Google's products needing the oh so familiar Beta label again.<br>
Seriously, Google's offering is not without it's serious drawbacks, and I suspect that the good stuff is to be had from actual paid services.  However, this kind of letting crap slip where people can spoof the name of a valid member is a serious Alpha quality flaw.  What's the point of identifying anyone, if everyone can pretend to be everyone else?  I mean that is the actually concept of identity, to uniquely label something as different as other things.<br>
I think Google is trying to take on more than it can handle and it is beginning to really show now that they've removed the excuse of "Beta".</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see a lot of Google 's products needing the oh so familiar Beta label again .
Seriously , Google 's offering is not without it 's serious drawbacks , and I suspect that the good stuff is to be had from actual paid services .
However , this kind of letting crap slip where people can spoof the name of a valid member is a serious Alpha quality flaw .
What 's the point of identifying anyone , if everyone can pretend to be everyone else ?
I mean that is the actually concept of identity , to uniquely label something as different as other things .
I think Google is trying to take on more than it can handle and it is beginning to really show now that they 've removed the excuse of " Beta " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see a lot of Google's products needing the oh so familiar Beta label again.
Seriously, Google's offering is not without it's serious drawbacks, and I suspect that the good stuff is to be had from actual paid services.
However, this kind of letting crap slip where people can spoof the name of a valid member is a serious Alpha quality flaw.
What's the point of identifying anyone, if everyone can pretend to be everyone else?
I mean that is the actually concept of identity, to uniquely label something as different as other things.
I think Google is trying to take on more than it can handle and it is beginning to really show now that they've removed the excuse of "Beta".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897527</id>
	<title>Cue Spam</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256745540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cue Spam Comments in 3...2...1</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cue Spam Comments in 3...2...1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cue Spam Comments in 3...2...1</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898273</id>
	<title>Re:Join the 21st Century</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1256748660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope.  I belong to the AVS (audio-visual science) forum for awhile, and stated matter-of-factly that digital TV has reception problems and the converter boxes from Dish are junk.  I was banned.</p><p>You can't have free speech in a system where the Sysop is like a dictator - deciding what can or can not be said.  Even a benevolent dictator can be bad.  Usenet offers a place that is libertarian in nature - people police themselves - and nobody gets censored even if they are whackjob KKK members.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope .
I belong to the AVS ( audio-visual science ) forum for awhile , and stated matter-of-factly that digital TV has reception problems and the converter boxes from Dish are junk .
I was banned.You ca n't have free speech in a system where the Sysop is like a dictator - deciding what can or can not be said .
Even a benevolent dictator can be bad .
Usenet offers a place that is libertarian in nature - people police themselves - and nobody gets censored even if they are whackjob KKK members .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope.
I belong to the AVS (audio-visual science) forum for awhile, and stated matter-of-factly that digital TV has reception problems and the converter boxes from Dish are junk.
I was banned.You can't have free speech in a system where the Sysop is like a dictator - deciding what can or can not be said.
Even a benevolent dictator can be bad.
Usenet offers a place that is libertarian in nature - people police themselves - and nobody gets censored even if they are whackjob KKK members.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898455</id>
	<title>Re:Good opporunity for GPG / PGP?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256749380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course. It solves the general email spam problem as well. But can you imagine trying to get your local PTA membership to use this or even understand what it is?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course .
It solves the general email spam problem as well .
But can you imagine trying to get your local PTA membership to use this or even understand what it is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course.
It solves the general email spam problem as well.
But can you imagine trying to get your local PTA membership to use this or even understand what it is?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898711</id>
	<title>Re:Join the 21st Century</title>
	<author>Richard Steiner</author>
	<datestamp>1256750640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>USENET has always been far more than a "mailing list", and I could do things to control/filter/sort messages to my liking with Yarn and slrn that I can't even touch with the web-based forum software I've seen (and I've seen a lot of it).</p><p>I really wish web-based forum software would catch up.  Even USENET in the early 90's far surpassed it in many respects.  Most web forums are nice for posting pictures, but horrible in terms of threading and controlling what actually shows up in your reading list.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>USENET has always been far more than a " mailing list " , and I could do things to control/filter/sort messages to my liking with Yarn and slrn that I ca n't even touch with the web-based forum software I 've seen ( and I 've seen a lot of it ) .I really wish web-based forum software would catch up .
Even USENET in the early 90 's far surpassed it in many respects .
Most web forums are nice for posting pictures , but horrible in terms of threading and controlling what actually shows up in your reading list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>USENET has always been far more than a "mailing list", and I could do things to control/filter/sort messages to my liking with Yarn and slrn that I can't even touch with the web-based forum software I've seen (and I've seen a lot of it).I really wish web-based forum software would catch up.
Even USENET in the early 90's far surpassed it in many respects.
Most web forums are nice for posting pictures, but horrible in terms of threading and controlling what actually shows up in your reading list.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897919</id>
	<title>Re:Join the 21st Century</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256747100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why most mailing lists have archives you can easily read in your web browser.  Mailman even automatically makes the web archives for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why most mailing lists have archives you can easily read in your web browser .
Mailman even automatically makes the web archives for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why most mailing lists have archives you can easily read in your web browser.
Mailman even automatically makes the web archives for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897785</id>
	<title>Free Sh0es Now!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256746620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Buy one pair get one free! Our selection catalog beats all others hands down, and feet down! freeshoes@bargain99.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Buy one pair get one free !
Our selection catalog beats all others hands down , and feet down !
freeshoes @ bargain99.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buy one pair get one free!
Our selection catalog beats all others hands down, and feet down!
freeshoes@bargain99.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899793</id>
	<title>Re:Upgrade the Captchas</title>
	<author>psydeshow</author>
	<datestamp>1256755020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CAPTCHAs don't work. The technology implies an arms race (better obfuscation vs. better pattern recognition), but the whole thing is trivially easy to subvert through social engineering / outsourcing. You don't need to pay for better algorithms, just give a kid $20 and challenge him to create more Google accounts today than he did yesterday.</p><p>Meanwhile, they annoy the shit out of honest users.</p><p>Google knows how to detect and filter spam. Hell, any engineer could figure out that the same message cross-posted to more than 5 unrelated groups is a good candidate for automatic filtering. Others have mentioned honeypots. Others have mentioned SPF. Others have mentioned tracking known SMTP relay routes. All of those things make more sense than hoping that stronger captchas will fix anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CAPTCHAs do n't work .
The technology implies an arms race ( better obfuscation vs. better pattern recognition ) , but the whole thing is trivially easy to subvert through social engineering / outsourcing .
You do n't need to pay for better algorithms , just give a kid $ 20 and challenge him to create more Google accounts today than he did yesterday.Meanwhile , they annoy the shit out of honest users.Google knows how to detect and filter spam .
Hell , any engineer could figure out that the same message cross-posted to more than 5 unrelated groups is a good candidate for automatic filtering .
Others have mentioned honeypots .
Others have mentioned SPF .
Others have mentioned tracking known SMTP relay routes .
All of those things make more sense than hoping that stronger captchas will fix anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CAPTCHAs don't work.
The technology implies an arms race (better obfuscation vs. better pattern recognition), but the whole thing is trivially easy to subvert through social engineering / outsourcing.
You don't need to pay for better algorithms, just give a kid $20 and challenge him to create more Google accounts today than he did yesterday.Meanwhile, they annoy the shit out of honest users.Google knows how to detect and filter spam.
Hell, any engineer could figure out that the same message cross-posted to more than 5 unrelated groups is a good candidate for automatic filtering.
Others have mentioned honeypots.
Others have mentioned SPF.
Others have mentioned tracking known SMTP relay routes.
All of those things make more sense than hoping that stronger captchas will fix anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897707</id>
	<title>Upgrade the Captchas</title>
	<author>scorp1us</author>
	<datestamp>1256746320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google has some of the weakest around. And whats more is becaue Google uses domain keys it is a desired domain because that stuff gets through the spam filters better.</p><p>I wish Google had an automated honey pot system where you could drop a google address, and any google account would instantly get shut off for sending mail to it. The idea is you plant the email address in a place where automated spambots will harvest it and poof! no more spammer.</p><p>Of course it  could be used for abuse and if passed off as a legit account, so there needs to be some registration and tying of spam honey pot accounts to their owners for accountability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has some of the weakest around .
And whats more is becaue Google uses domain keys it is a desired domain because that stuff gets through the spam filters better.I wish Google had an automated honey pot system where you could drop a google address , and any google account would instantly get shut off for sending mail to it .
The idea is you plant the email address in a place where automated spambots will harvest it and poof !
no more spammer.Of course it could be used for abuse and if passed off as a legit account , so there needs to be some registration and tying of spam honey pot accounts to their owners for accountability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google has some of the weakest around.
And whats more is becaue Google uses domain keys it is a desired domain because that stuff gets through the spam filters better.I wish Google had an automated honey pot system where you could drop a google address, and any google account would instantly get shut off for sending mail to it.
The idea is you plant the email address in a place where automated spambots will harvest it and poof!
no more spammer.Of course it  could be used for abuse and if passed off as a legit account, so there needs to be some registration and tying of spam honey pot accounts to their owners for accountability.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897689</id>
	<title>Join the 21st Century</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256746260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Time to move away from the antiquated system of mailing lists.  Web based forums are much easier to control and a far, far better way of sharing information with users.  I hate coming across an otherwise useful site and then having to go to a mailing list to see what other users are talking about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Time to move away from the antiquated system of mailing lists .
Web based forums are much easier to control and a far , far better way of sharing information with users .
I hate coming across an otherwise useful site and then having to go to a mailing list to see what other users are talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time to move away from the antiquated system of mailing lists.
Web based forums are much easier to control and a far, far better way of sharing information with users.
I hate coming across an otherwise useful site and then having to go to a mailing list to see what other users are talking about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898701</id>
	<title>All well and good, but I have to wonder</title>
	<author>vegiVamp</author>
	<datestamp>1256750580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...how exactly do the spammers know which users are pre-moderated on which groups ?<br><br>Just blasting all addresses, regardless of validity may be a good tactic for standard mailboxen, but it seems to me that the ratio of pre-moderated to not-even-subscribed on any given group would be pretty prohibitive. Coupled with the presumably already reasonably low positive feedback on spam (which is not to say that the roi is bad, mind you), and you *should* get only fragments of percents of successfully inserted mails - UNLESS you have prior knowledge of which addresses will work on which groups.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...how exactly do the spammers know which users are pre-moderated on which groups ? Just blasting all addresses , regardless of validity may be a good tactic for standard mailboxen , but it seems to me that the ratio of pre-moderated to not-even-subscribed on any given group would be pretty prohibitive .
Coupled with the presumably already reasonably low positive feedback on spam ( which is not to say that the roi is bad , mind you ) , and you * should * get only fragments of percents of successfully inserted mails - UNLESS you have prior knowledge of which addresses will work on which groups .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...how exactly do the spammers know which users are pre-moderated on which groups ?Just blasting all addresses, regardless of validity may be a good tactic for standard mailboxen, but it seems to me that the ratio of pre-moderated to not-even-subscribed on any given group would be pretty prohibitive.
Coupled with the presumably already reasonably low positive feedback on spam (which is not to say that the roi is bad, mind you), and you *should* get only fragments of percents of successfully inserted mails - UNLESS you have prior knowledge of which addresses will work on which groups.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29902621</id>
	<title>Re:Join the 21st Century</title>
	<author>Malohin</author>
	<datestamp>1256724480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not a new slogan.
"Join the 21st century" seems somewhat orthogonal to "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." I wrote this a year ago, based on much older posts and e-mail:<br> <a href="http://malohin.livejournal.com/2008/03/05/" title="livejournal.com" rel="nofollow">Why I don't like forums</a> [livejournal.com] </p><p>========</p><p> <b>Tracking</b> </p><ol>
<li>Tracking all the user-ids and passwords for all the various forums is a pain.</li>
<li>Many folks use a separate e-mail alias for each forum, so they know when one starts spamming, adding Yet Another bit of bit of data to track.</li>
<li>Many forums require or encourage the collection and distribution of additional data: birth date, location, Instant Messaging handles, web sites, etc. Some of this may be required to authenticate when you try to recover a password or otherwise get the attention of the administrators. It's Yet Even More data to track and update, in addition to any privacy concerns.</li>
</ol><p> <b>Display</b> </p><ol>
<li>The layout of each forum is completely different. You have to figure out or recall Yet Another scheme before you can figure out what is going on.</li>
<li>Most forums are laid out badly. None of them offers much real customization for end-users. Were it up to me, I'd be able to make every damned one of them look exactly the same when I visited.</li>
<li>Many forums use a layout or style that is pretty much illegible:
	<ul>
	<li>Tiny type.</li>
	<li>Low contrast text. I'm not sure which is worse, gray on black or lime green on black. No, the worst was deep green on burgundy.</li>
	<li>Many forums give way too much emphasis to avatars, signatures, animations, etc. It can actually be hard to find the posts sometimes.</li>
	<li>Rigid layouts that make it impossible to resize the screen or browser and see more of the actual posts.</li>
	</ul></li>
</ol><p> <b>Delivery, Attention</b> </p><ol>
<li>Posts to a mailing list sit on my machine waiting for me. I don't have to remember to visit a forum or find some way to track multiple forums.</li>
<li>Posts from e-mail lists arrive asynchronously and are already delivered, filtered, and sorted by the time I want to read them. With a forum, I have to go get each post or page of posts from each forum I might choose to visit, and they have to be loaded at that time.</li>
<li>Posts that arrive in e-mail can be filtered or organized according to my criteria. Forum posts are organized by the admins and posters into "boards," "sub-boards," and "threads" that are frequently named oddly or just make no sense.</li>
<li>Many forums use some sort of "newness" filter and try to keep track of what is "new" for you -- and do so badly. The user interface to control this feature (if the feature exists, if the user interface exists) range from bad to worse.</li>
<li>Forums show quite a bit of extraneous information. Showing the poster's handle makes sense, but each post also shows: their avatar, the date they joined, their location, title, "status," role, post count, IM handles, login status, and so on. It shows this for <b>EVERY</b> poster in the thread. Then there is the information for <b>EVERY</b> thread: number of views, number of replies, rating, activity level, various status flags, original poster, last poster, time stamp, number of pages of posts, a page list, and so on. Then the information about <b>EVERY</b> post: reply number, a reply-and-quote button, reply button, report button, site tools and links. At the bottom is also the actual time it took to create the page, standards compliance, etc., etc... Where was the content again?</li>
<li>Following discussions in forums requires much more attention than in e-mail.
<br> <b>Let me state this again</b>: Reading posts on forums is much, much more work than reading posts from mailing lists.<p>I am on numerous high and low volume mailing lists. The incoming posts are tagged and filtered into various mailboxes as messages are delivered. At some point during the day, I'll decide to "glance over" these mailboxes. I may have already filtered and marked certain posts with tags like "interesting" or "defer" based on the author or content and can tell in seconds if a spate of posts might be interesting to me.</p><p>Compare that to the amount of time it might take me to visit one forum. I have to:</p><ol>
	<li>Remember the URL of a forum,</li>
	<li>navigate to the right page to log in (this can take longer if the web site requires or necessitates I visit some other page(s) and navigate to the forum from there),</li>
	<li>find my credentials,</li>
	<li>actually log-in (I wish I could say this was always easy),</li>
	<li>remember, look up, or figure out which method this forum uses to indicate new activity,</li>
	<li>figure out which "boards," "sub-boards," and/or "threads" I might be interested in; which might have new postings; and which postings might be by people I care to read.</li>
	<li>load the page (and avatars, and smileys, and animations, and signatures, and sounds, and music, and Flash, and JavaScript, and page images, and ads -- every time),</li>
	<li>and finally, find the new posts, which may or may not be indicated in some way.</li>
	</ol></li>
</ol><p>No, RSS feeds and such really don't help. Most of the "feed readers" I've seen are terrible. There is little or no ability to sort or analyze the items that show up and the interfaces are primitive, at best.</p><p> <b>Posting, Responding, Searching</b> </p><ol>
<li>Every forum has some sort of web-based editor for adding new posts or responding to existing posts. Each of them is different and 99\% of them are awful. None of them allow me to use *my* writing tools.</li>
<li>Yes, you can edit the post in whatever editor you choose and paste it in, but that's just another layer you must work through to post a new message.</li>
<li>Many forums have no facility or do not allow users to "preview" posts, or make it too easy to accidentally post something that is not quite ready. The mechanisms for doing this is different on each forum.</li>
<li>Many forums do not allow users to edit or delete posts.  The mechanisms for doing this is different on each forum, and frequently the mechanism for editing/deleting a post is different as well.</li>
<li>Each forum has its own version of not-really-HTML, a sub-set of allowed HTML and/or CSS, or worse--a mix of several. Which forum am I on again? Coupled with a limited or nonexistent ability to edit or delete posts, it's a nightmare.</li>
<li>Forum post quoting mechanisms are uniformly terrible. Many don't reliably refer to the quoted post or author in some reasonable fashion.</li>
<li>Discussion threading models are, again, different for each forum, poorly implemented, and frequently just not used.</li>
<li>The search tools on most forums (if they exist at all) are simply execrable. Again, each search mechanism is completely different. The regular expressions or "wildcards" allowed (if any) are different, work differently, or just don't work, and there is usually no way to tell if they've failed or how they've failed.</li>
</ol><p> <b>Persistence, Archive, Data Retention</b> </p><ol>
<li>E-mail comes to my inbox and I can archive or delete what I wish. Posts to a forum and the archive are strictly under the control of the administration. Anything they choose to limit access to or remove is at their whim. (For example, please note the original message this article expands on was posted to a mailing list in early 2006, and I dug it out of my archive.)</li>
<li>Relying on a forum as an archive of posts is unreliable.
<ul>
<li>The admins may lose the domain name, hosting, the server, etc. and a forum can disappear for any number of reasons, including the admins simply losing interest or other "real life" concerns--with little or no warning.</li>
<li>Many forums purge old threads and posts on a completely idiosyncratic schedule, and delete items with little or no warning.</li>
</ul></li>
<li>It's hard to archive messages posted to a forum. You end up:
<ul>
<li>Saving whole pages of posts (some you want, some you don't, perhaps in multiple pages) in HTML format, with images and so on, which may or may not work stand-alone in your browser</li>
<li>Editing the HTML pages you saved so just "the good stuff" is saved and visible, which is a TON of work</li>
<li>Using a simple copy-and-paste on the text, which loses any of the links and images you might have wanted to keep--which leads to extracting the links and adding them to the text, which is a ton of work.</li>
</ul><p>
Then you have to figure out where to keep the files and how to organize them. If this was e-mail, none of this would be necessary.</p></li>
</ol><p>========<br> Have I missed anything important? Has the state of affairs really improved much? Forums are better...how?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not a new slogan .
" Join the 21st century " seems somewhat orthogonal to " Those who can not remember the past are condemned to repeat it .
" I wrote this a year ago , based on much older posts and e-mail : Why I do n't like forums [ livejournal.com ] = = = = = = = = Tracking Tracking all the user-ids and passwords for all the various forums is a pain .
Many folks use a separate e-mail alias for each forum , so they know when one starts spamming , adding Yet Another bit of bit of data to track .
Many forums require or encourage the collection and distribution of additional data : birth date , location , Instant Messaging handles , web sites , etc .
Some of this may be required to authenticate when you try to recover a password or otherwise get the attention of the administrators .
It 's Yet Even More data to track and update , in addition to any privacy concerns .
Display The layout of each forum is completely different .
You have to figure out or recall Yet Another scheme before you can figure out what is going on .
Most forums are laid out badly .
None of them offers much real customization for end-users .
Were it up to me , I 'd be able to make every damned one of them look exactly the same when I visited .
Many forums use a layout or style that is pretty much illegible : Tiny type .
Low contrast text .
I 'm not sure which is worse , gray on black or lime green on black .
No , the worst was deep green on burgundy .
Many forums give way too much emphasis to avatars , signatures , animations , etc .
It can actually be hard to find the posts sometimes .
Rigid layouts that make it impossible to resize the screen or browser and see more of the actual posts .
Delivery , Attention Posts to a mailing list sit on my machine waiting for me .
I do n't have to remember to visit a forum or find some way to track multiple forums .
Posts from e-mail lists arrive asynchronously and are already delivered , filtered , and sorted by the time I want to read them .
With a forum , I have to go get each post or page of posts from each forum I might choose to visit , and they have to be loaded at that time .
Posts that arrive in e-mail can be filtered or organized according to my criteria .
Forum posts are organized by the admins and posters into " boards , " " sub-boards , " and " threads " that are frequently named oddly or just make no sense .
Many forums use some sort of " newness " filter and try to keep track of what is " new " for you -- and do so badly .
The user interface to control this feature ( if the feature exists , if the user interface exists ) range from bad to worse .
Forums show quite a bit of extraneous information .
Showing the poster 's handle makes sense , but each post also shows : their avatar , the date they joined , their location , title , " status , " role , post count , IM handles , login status , and so on .
It shows this for EVERY poster in the thread .
Then there is the information for EVERY thread : number of views , number of replies , rating , activity level , various status flags , original poster , last poster , time stamp , number of pages of posts , a page list , and so on .
Then the information about EVERY post : reply number , a reply-and-quote button , reply button , report button , site tools and links .
At the bottom is also the actual time it took to create the page , standards compliance , etc. , etc... Where was the content again ?
Following discussions in forums requires much more attention than in e-mail .
Let me state this again : Reading posts on forums is much , much more work than reading posts from mailing lists.I am on numerous high and low volume mailing lists .
The incoming posts are tagged and filtered into various mailboxes as messages are delivered .
At some point during the day , I 'll decide to " glance over " these mailboxes .
I may have already filtered and marked certain posts with tags like " interesting " or " defer " based on the author or content and can tell in seconds if a spate of posts might be interesting to me.Compare that to the amount of time it might take me to visit one forum .
I have to : Remember the URL of a forum , navigate to the right page to log in ( this can take longer if the web site requires or necessitates I visit some other page ( s ) and navigate to the forum from there ) , find my credentials , actually log-in ( I wish I could say this was always easy ) , remember , look up , or figure out which method this forum uses to indicate new activity , figure out which " boards , " " sub-boards , " and/or " threads " I might be interested in ; which might have new postings ; and which postings might be by people I care to read .
load the page ( and avatars , and smileys , and animations , and signatures , and sounds , and music , and Flash , and JavaScript , and page images , and ads -- every time ) , and finally , find the new posts , which may or may not be indicated in some way .
No , RSS feeds and such really do n't help .
Most of the " feed readers " I 've seen are terrible .
There is little or no ability to sort or analyze the items that show up and the interfaces are primitive , at best .
Posting , Responding , Searching Every forum has some sort of web-based editor for adding new posts or responding to existing posts .
Each of them is different and 99 \ % of them are awful .
None of them allow me to use * my * writing tools .
Yes , you can edit the post in whatever editor you choose and paste it in , but that 's just another layer you must work through to post a new message .
Many forums have no facility or do not allow users to " preview " posts , or make it too easy to accidentally post something that is not quite ready .
The mechanisms for doing this is different on each forum .
Many forums do not allow users to edit or delete posts .
The mechanisms for doing this is different on each forum , and frequently the mechanism for editing/deleting a post is different as well .
Each forum has its own version of not-really-HTML , a sub-set of allowed HTML and/or CSS , or worse--a mix of several .
Which forum am I on again ?
Coupled with a limited or nonexistent ability to edit or delete posts , it 's a nightmare .
Forum post quoting mechanisms are uniformly terrible .
Many do n't reliably refer to the quoted post or author in some reasonable fashion .
Discussion threading models are , again , different for each forum , poorly implemented , and frequently just not used .
The search tools on most forums ( if they exist at all ) are simply execrable .
Again , each search mechanism is completely different .
The regular expressions or " wildcards " allowed ( if any ) are different , work differently , or just do n't work , and there is usually no way to tell if they 've failed or how they 've failed .
Persistence , Archive , Data Retention E-mail comes to my inbox and I can archive or delete what I wish .
Posts to a forum and the archive are strictly under the control of the administration .
Anything they choose to limit access to or remove is at their whim .
( For example , please note the original message this article expands on was posted to a mailing list in early 2006 , and I dug it out of my archive .
) Relying on a forum as an archive of posts is unreliable .
The admins may lose the domain name , hosting , the server , etc .
and a forum can disappear for any number of reasons , including the admins simply losing interest or other " real life " concerns--with little or no warning .
Many forums purge old threads and posts on a completely idiosyncratic schedule , and delete items with little or no warning .
It 's hard to archive messages posted to a forum .
You end up : Saving whole pages of posts ( some you want , some you do n't , perhaps in multiple pages ) in HTML format , with images and so on , which may or may not work stand-alone in your browser Editing the HTML pages you saved so just " the good stuff " is saved and visible , which is a TON of work Using a simple copy-and-paste on the text , which loses any of the links and images you might have wanted to keep--which leads to extracting the links and adding them to the text , which is a ton of work .
Then you have to figure out where to keep the files and how to organize them .
If this was e-mail , none of this would be necessary .
= = = = = = = = Have I missed anything important ?
Has the state of affairs really improved much ?
Forums are better...how ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not a new slogan.
"Join the 21st century" seems somewhat orthogonal to "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
" I wrote this a year ago, based on much older posts and e-mail: Why I don't like forums [livejournal.com] ======== Tracking 
Tracking all the user-ids and passwords for all the various forums is a pain.
Many folks use a separate e-mail alias for each forum, so they know when one starts spamming, adding Yet Another bit of bit of data to track.
Many forums require or encourage the collection and distribution of additional data: birth date, location, Instant Messaging handles, web sites, etc.
Some of this may be required to authenticate when you try to recover a password or otherwise get the attention of the administrators.
It's Yet Even More data to track and update, in addition to any privacy concerns.
Display 
The layout of each forum is completely different.
You have to figure out or recall Yet Another scheme before you can figure out what is going on.
Most forums are laid out badly.
None of them offers much real customization for end-users.
Were it up to me, I'd be able to make every damned one of them look exactly the same when I visited.
Many forums use a layout or style that is pretty much illegible:
	
	Tiny type.
Low contrast text.
I'm not sure which is worse, gray on black or lime green on black.
No, the worst was deep green on burgundy.
Many forums give way too much emphasis to avatars, signatures, animations, etc.
It can actually be hard to find the posts sometimes.
Rigid layouts that make it impossible to resize the screen or browser and see more of the actual posts.
Delivery, Attention 
Posts to a mailing list sit on my machine waiting for me.
I don't have to remember to visit a forum or find some way to track multiple forums.
Posts from e-mail lists arrive asynchronously and are already delivered, filtered, and sorted by the time I want to read them.
With a forum, I have to go get each post or page of posts from each forum I might choose to visit, and they have to be loaded at that time.
Posts that arrive in e-mail can be filtered or organized according to my criteria.
Forum posts are organized by the admins and posters into "boards," "sub-boards," and "threads" that are frequently named oddly or just make no sense.
Many forums use some sort of "newness" filter and try to keep track of what is "new" for you -- and do so badly.
The user interface to control this feature (if the feature exists, if the user interface exists) range from bad to worse.
Forums show quite a bit of extraneous information.
Showing the poster's handle makes sense, but each post also shows: their avatar, the date they joined, their location, title, "status," role, post count, IM handles, login status, and so on.
It shows this for EVERY poster in the thread.
Then there is the information for EVERY thread: number of views, number of replies, rating, activity level, various status flags, original poster, last poster, time stamp, number of pages of posts, a page list, and so on.
Then the information about EVERY post: reply number, a reply-and-quote button, reply button, report button, site tools and links.
At the bottom is also the actual time it took to create the page, standards compliance, etc., etc... Where was the content again?
Following discussions in forums requires much more attention than in e-mail.
Let me state this again: Reading posts on forums is much, much more work than reading posts from mailing lists.I am on numerous high and low volume mailing lists.
The incoming posts are tagged and filtered into various mailboxes as messages are delivered.
At some point during the day, I'll decide to "glance over" these mailboxes.
I may have already filtered and marked certain posts with tags like "interesting" or "defer" based on the author or content and can tell in seconds if a spate of posts might be interesting to me.Compare that to the amount of time it might take me to visit one forum.
I have to:
	Remember the URL of a forum,
	navigate to the right page to log in (this can take longer if the web site requires or necessitates I visit some other page(s) and navigate to the forum from there),
	find my credentials,
	actually log-in (I wish I could say this was always easy),
	remember, look up, or figure out which method this forum uses to indicate new activity,
	figure out which "boards," "sub-boards," and/or "threads" I might be interested in; which might have new postings; and which postings might be by people I care to read.
load the page (and avatars, and smileys, and animations, and signatures, and sounds, and music, and Flash, and JavaScript, and page images, and ads -- every time),
	and finally, find the new posts, which may or may not be indicated in some way.
No, RSS feeds and such really don't help.
Most of the "feed readers" I've seen are terrible.
There is little or no ability to sort or analyze the items that show up and the interfaces are primitive, at best.
Posting, Responding, Searching 
Every forum has some sort of web-based editor for adding new posts or responding to existing posts.
Each of them is different and 99\% of them are awful.
None of them allow me to use *my* writing tools.
Yes, you can edit the post in whatever editor you choose and paste it in, but that's just another layer you must work through to post a new message.
Many forums have no facility or do not allow users to "preview" posts, or make it too easy to accidentally post something that is not quite ready.
The mechanisms for doing this is different on each forum.
Many forums do not allow users to edit or delete posts.
The mechanisms for doing this is different on each forum, and frequently the mechanism for editing/deleting a post is different as well.
Each forum has its own version of not-really-HTML, a sub-set of allowed HTML and/or CSS, or worse--a mix of several.
Which forum am I on again?
Coupled with a limited or nonexistent ability to edit or delete posts, it's a nightmare.
Forum post quoting mechanisms are uniformly terrible.
Many don't reliably refer to the quoted post or author in some reasonable fashion.
Discussion threading models are, again, different for each forum, poorly implemented, and frequently just not used.
The search tools on most forums (if they exist at all) are simply execrable.
Again, each search mechanism is completely different.
The regular expressions or "wildcards" allowed (if any) are different, work differently, or just don't work, and there is usually no way to tell if they've failed or how they've failed.
Persistence, Archive, Data Retention 
E-mail comes to my inbox and I can archive or delete what I wish.
Posts to a forum and the archive are strictly under the control of the administration.
Anything they choose to limit access to or remove is at their whim.
(For example, please note the original message this article expands on was posted to a mailing list in early 2006, and I dug it out of my archive.
)
Relying on a forum as an archive of posts is unreliable.
The admins may lose the domain name, hosting, the server, etc.
and a forum can disappear for any number of reasons, including the admins simply losing interest or other "real life" concerns--with little or no warning.
Many forums purge old threads and posts on a completely idiosyncratic schedule, and delete items with little or no warning.
It's hard to archive messages posted to a forum.
You end up:

Saving whole pages of posts (some you want, some you don't, perhaps in multiple pages) in HTML format, with images and so on, which may or may not work stand-alone in your browser
Editing the HTML pages you saved so just "the good stuff" is saved and visible, which is a TON of work
Using a simple copy-and-paste on the text, which loses any of the links and images you might have wanted to keep--which leads to extracting the links and adding them to the text, which is a ton of work.
Then you have to figure out where to keep the files and how to organize them.
If this was e-mail, none of this would be necessary.
======== Have I missed anything important?
Has the state of affairs really improved much?
Forums are better...how?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898543</id>
	<title>Block posts to Usenet via Google</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1256749740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Maybe the answer is to block posts to USENET that come in via Google. That seems to be the source of the trouble.
</p><p>
Looking at the newsgroup "comp.lang.python", all the spam seems to be coming in via "posting.google.com" with GMail return addresses.  <a href="http://www.gmailaccountcreator.com/" title="gmailaccountcreator.com">Bulk-created phony gmail accounts</a> [gmailaccountcreator.com] are such a source of spam that they should be blocked until Google gets their act together.  At this point, we have to view GMail like Hotmail, another free email account system made useless by spammers.
</p><p>
Hotmail is widely blocked.  Next, Gmail?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the answer is to block posts to USENET that come in via Google .
That seems to be the source of the trouble .
Looking at the newsgroup " comp.lang.python " , all the spam seems to be coming in via " posting.google.com " with GMail return addresses .
Bulk-created phony gmail accounts [ gmailaccountcreator.com ] are such a source of spam that they should be blocked until Google gets their act together .
At this point , we have to view GMail like Hotmail , another free email account system made useless by spammers .
Hotmail is widely blocked .
Next , Gmail ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Maybe the answer is to block posts to USENET that come in via Google.
That seems to be the source of the trouble.
Looking at the newsgroup "comp.lang.python", all the spam seems to be coming in via "posting.google.com" with GMail return addresses.
Bulk-created phony gmail accounts [gmailaccountcreator.com] are such a source of spam that they should be blocked until Google gets their act together.
At this point, we have to view GMail like Hotmail, another free email account system made useless by spammers.
Hotmail is widely blocked.
Next, Gmail?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29900569</id>
	<title>Re:Ebarassing for group admins</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1256758020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been on several mailing lists hosted on Yahoo Groups over the years, of various sizes, and they all work extremely well.  You get the occasional spam invasion, but that's going to be true of any large mail list provider.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been on several mailing lists hosted on Yahoo Groups over the years , of various sizes , and they all work extremely well .
You get the occasional spam invasion , but that 's going to be true of any large mail list provider .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been on several mailing lists hosted on Yahoo Groups over the years, of various sizes, and they all work extremely well.
You get the occasional spam invasion, but that's going to be true of any large mail list provider.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898051</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps a new mail header?</title>
	<author>andymadigan</author>
	<datestamp>1256747640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In this case, the problem is people faking existing "trusted" users, so yes, it would work to require the mail to be signed before the user would be "trusted".</htmltext>
<tokenext>In this case , the problem is people faking existing " trusted " users , so yes , it would work to require the mail to be signed before the user would be " trusted " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this case, the problem is people faking existing "trusted" users, so yes, it would work to require the mail to be signed before the user would be "trusted".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898683</id>
	<title>Re:Google Groups shouldn't act like Usenet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256750460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of usenet is dead. But not all of it.</p><p>But please - keep spreading the meme that usenet is dead - thanks to that, many of the spammers have left, as well as many of those with no sense of netiquette, and the groups that are still active now have a good signal-to-noise ratio. It's almost like it was before The September that Never Ended.</p><p>It's also unfortunate that web boards have never learned the long lessons of discussion group user interface design. Even tin of 1993 has a better user interface for threading than any version of phpbb or vBulletin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of usenet is dead .
But not all of it.But please - keep spreading the meme that usenet is dead - thanks to that , many of the spammers have left , as well as many of those with no sense of netiquette , and the groups that are still active now have a good signal-to-noise ratio .
It 's almost like it was before The September that Never Ended.It 's also unfortunate that web boards have never learned the long lessons of discussion group user interface design .
Even tin of 1993 has a better user interface for threading than any version of phpbb or vBulletin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of usenet is dead.
But not all of it.But please - keep spreading the meme that usenet is dead - thanks to that, many of the spammers have left, as well as many of those with no sense of netiquette, and the groups that are still active now have a good signal-to-noise ratio.
It's almost like it was before The September that Never Ended.It's also unfortunate that web boards have never learned the long lessons of discussion group user interface design.
Even tin of 1993 has a better user interface for threading than any version of phpbb or vBulletin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898905</id>
	<title>Re:Time to DIY</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1256751420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Looks like a good time to learn to admin a mailing list.</i></p><p>I don't know. Google Groups was a great forum for discussing Stocks on <a href="http://www.google.com/finance" title="google.com">Google's Finance page</a> [google.com]... Until the spammers took over.</p><p>It was really handy to get other's opinion about a stock from a street level perspective or just getting links to relevant sources about the stock you were researching without having to go to a forum and basically search until you found something related to the stock.</p><p>People tried self policing by changing the subject to anyone who spams to "SPAM" since it lets you do that to other people's posts, but even then it got tiring for everyone to keep fighting.</p><p>Reporting did nothing so the legitimate discussion died under the noise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like a good time to learn to admin a mailing list.I do n't know .
Google Groups was a great forum for discussing Stocks on Google 's Finance page [ google.com ] ... Until the spammers took over.It was really handy to get other 's opinion about a stock from a street level perspective or just getting links to relevant sources about the stock you were researching without having to go to a forum and basically search until you found something related to the stock.People tried self policing by changing the subject to anyone who spams to " SPAM " since it lets you do that to other people 's posts , but even then it got tiring for everyone to keep fighting.Reporting did nothing so the legitimate discussion died under the noise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like a good time to learn to admin a mailing list.I don't know.
Google Groups was a great forum for discussing Stocks on Google's Finance page [google.com]... Until the spammers took over.It was really handy to get other's opinion about a stock from a street level perspective or just getting links to relevant sources about the stock you were researching without having to go to a forum and basically search until you found something related to the stock.People tried self policing by changing the subject to anyone who spams to "SPAM" since it lets you do that to other people's posts, but even then it got tiring for everyone to keep fighting.Reporting did nothing so the legitimate discussion died under the noise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897879</id>
	<title>Re:Join the 21st Century</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256746980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Time to move away from the antiquated system of mailing lists. Web based<br>&gt; forums are much easier to control and a far, far better way of sharing<br>&gt; information with users.</p><p>No local control over filtering and sorting, forced to use your weird UI and editor instead of my own?  "Forums" suck.  And "easier to control" is not a feature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Time to move away from the antiquated system of mailing lists .
Web based &gt; forums are much easier to control and a far , far better way of sharing &gt; information with users.No local control over filtering and sorting , forced to use your weird UI and editor instead of my own ?
" Forums " suck .
And " easier to control " is not a feature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Time to move away from the antiquated system of mailing lists.
Web based&gt; forums are much easier to control and a far, far better way of sharing&gt; information with users.No local control over filtering and sorting, forced to use your weird UI and editor instead of my own?
"Forums" suck.
And "easier to control" is not a feature.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899263</id>
	<title>Re:Join the 21st Century</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256753040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Advantages of web based forums:<br> <br>Any idiot can figure them out and navigate them pretty easily, whereas Usenet is more than a little intimidating to new users.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Advantages of web based forums : Any idiot can figure them out and navigate them pretty easily , whereas Usenet is more than a little intimidating to new users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Advantages of web based forums: Any idiot can figure them out and navigate them pretty easily, whereas Usenet is more than a little intimidating to new users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898463</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps a new mail header?</title>
	<author>metamatic</author>
	<datestamp>1256749440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Maybe if we created a mail header with the pgp signature of the message in it we could train our spam filters to filter on that.</p></div></blockquote><p>If Google at least supported S/MIME, that would be a start.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe if we created a mail header with the pgp signature of the message in it we could train our spam filters to filter on that.If Google at least supported S/MIME , that would be a start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe if we created a mail header with the pgp signature of the message in it we could train our spam filters to filter on that.If Google at least supported S/MIME, that would be a start.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897671</id>
	<title>Brilliant (NT)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256746260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Clever, too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clever , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clever, too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899889</id>
	<title>Re:Ebarassing for group admins</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1256755440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are on the Internet, they've seen the stinger picture before unless they just got online for the first time this morning, in which case, they'll see it before the end of the day I'm sure.</p><p>You may be embarrassed, but they are probably viewing far worse out of choice.  Do you get embarrassed when you see a car accident?  Getting embarrassed because spam got through on the Internet is about the same as getting embarrassed when you see a car accident.  Theres no reason for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are on the Internet , they 've seen the stinger picture before unless they just got online for the first time this morning , in which case , they 'll see it before the end of the day I 'm sure.You may be embarrassed , but they are probably viewing far worse out of choice .
Do you get embarrassed when you see a car accident ?
Getting embarrassed because spam got through on the Internet is about the same as getting embarrassed when you see a car accident .
Theres no reason for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are on the Internet, they've seen the stinger picture before unless they just got online for the first time this morning, in which case, they'll see it before the end of the day I'm sure.You may be embarrassed, but they are probably viewing far worse out of choice.
Do you get embarrassed when you see a car accident?
Getting embarrassed because spam got through on the Internet is about the same as getting embarrassed when you see a car accident.
Theres no reason for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29903383</id>
	<title>Google messed it up</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1256728260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in the day when Dejanews was a "cool web 2.0" like thing for Usenet and Usenet was still popular, they could manage the actual, pro spammer attacks with handful of people. Those were the days when CNET had "help.com" which allowed complete newbies to post questions to Usenet.</p><p>Now Google, with impossible to imagine computing resources lets the core Usenet \_and\_ their own private groups gets polluted by trivial spam. Yes, trivial since even my stupid mail filters can sort that kind of spam without even touching bayesian etc. filters.</p><p>It is almost like pyramid scheme. Spammer uses Google groups infrasacture to post pirate software download forums which are solely gathering income from Google adwords. That happens on a big5 one, not some alt.conspiracy low traffic thing.</p><p>In first days, I thought Google didn't care on purpose of promoting their own, closed, moderated fake groups but it was a total tinfoil hat theory. They simply didn't/doesn't have competency to carry that kind of job which 2-3 experienced admins did while Usenet was 10x-20x more popular.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the day when Dejanews was a " cool web 2.0 " like thing for Usenet and Usenet was still popular , they could manage the actual , pro spammer attacks with handful of people .
Those were the days when CNET had " help.com " which allowed complete newbies to post questions to Usenet.Now Google , with impossible to imagine computing resources lets the core Usenet \ _and \ _ their own private groups gets polluted by trivial spam .
Yes , trivial since even my stupid mail filters can sort that kind of spam without even touching bayesian etc .
filters.It is almost like pyramid scheme .
Spammer uses Google groups infrasacture to post pirate software download forums which are solely gathering income from Google adwords .
That happens on a big5 one , not some alt.conspiracy low traffic thing.In first days , I thought Google did n't care on purpose of promoting their own , closed , moderated fake groups but it was a total tinfoil hat theory .
They simply did n't/does n't have competency to carry that kind of job which 2-3 experienced admins did while Usenet was 10x-20x more popular .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the day when Dejanews was a "cool web 2.0" like thing for Usenet and Usenet was still popular, they could manage the actual, pro spammer attacks with handful of people.
Those were the days when CNET had "help.com" which allowed complete newbies to post questions to Usenet.Now Google, with impossible to imagine computing resources lets the core Usenet \_and\_ their own private groups gets polluted by trivial spam.
Yes, trivial since even my stupid mail filters can sort that kind of spam without even touching bayesian etc.
filters.It is almost like pyramid scheme.
Spammer uses Google groups infrasacture to post pirate software download forums which are solely gathering income from Google adwords.
That happens on a big5 one, not some alt.conspiracy low traffic thing.In first days, I thought Google didn't care on purpose of promoting their own, closed, moderated fake groups but it was a total tinfoil hat theory.
They simply didn't/doesn't have competency to carry that kind of job which 2-3 experienced admins did while Usenet was 10x-20x more popular.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897525</id>
	<title>Perhaps a new mail header?</title>
	<author>Zarf</author>
	<datestamp>1256745540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe if we created a mail header with the pgp signature of the message in it we could train our spam filters to filter on that. Google could silently inject the header into its mail clients... no one would need training. Email would look the same. Clients unaware what to do with the header could ignore it. Inside systems like Groups you could see "verified" or not on the email.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe if we created a mail header with the pgp signature of the message in it we could train our spam filters to filter on that .
Google could silently inject the header into its mail clients... no one would need training .
Email would look the same .
Clients unaware what to do with the header could ignore it .
Inside systems like Groups you could see " verified " or not on the email .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe if we created a mail header with the pgp signature of the message in it we could train our spam filters to filter on that.
Google could silently inject the header into its mail clients... no one would need training.
Email would look the same.
Clients unaware what to do with the header could ignore it.
Inside systems like Groups you could see "verified" or not on the email.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897685</id>
	<title>Finally, someone important points out the obvious!</title>
	<author>fsterman</author>
	<datestamp>1256746260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why the hell haven't they put the same spam filters that they use for Gmail on the discussion lists?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why the hell have n't they put the same spam filters that they use for Gmail on the discussion lists ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why the hell haven't they put the same spam filters that they use for Gmail on the discussion lists?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897539</id>
	<title>Tragedy of the Commons</title>
	<author>oldspewey</author>
	<datestamp>1256745660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to be an avid newsgroup participant way back in the day. The flamewars were legendary, and the amount of technical information exchanged on some of those groups was beyond description.</p><p>If there were a way to use spammers for fuel, I'd have no qualms solving our energy woes that way<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to be an avid newsgroup participant way back in the day .
The flamewars were legendary , and the amount of technical information exchanged on some of those groups was beyond description.If there were a way to use spammers for fuel , I 'd have no qualms solving our energy woes that way .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to be an avid newsgroup participant way back in the day.
The flamewars were legendary, and the amount of technical information exchanged on some of those groups was beyond description.If there were a way to use spammers for fuel, I'd have no qualms solving our energy woes that way ... </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897903</id>
	<title>Re:Join the 21st Century</title>
	<author>doconnor</author>
	<datestamp>1256747100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is an issue that really bugged me. The move to web based forums from Usenet and mailing list was a giant step backwards in functionally.</p><p>Advantages of Usenet and mailing lists over web based forums:</p><p>The user can control the interface<br>killfiles<br>threading<br>discussion on issues where centralized in one place rather then across multiple web forums<br>better searching<br>better archiving<br>less bandwidth</p><p>More advanced web forums, like Slashdot, do a better job of supporting these features, but most people still use very primitive forums.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an issue that really bugged me .
The move to web based forums from Usenet and mailing list was a giant step backwards in functionally.Advantages of Usenet and mailing lists over web based forums : The user can control the interfacekillfilesthreadingdiscussion on issues where centralized in one place rather then across multiple web forumsbetter searchingbetter archivingless bandwidthMore advanced web forums , like Slashdot , do a better job of supporting these features , but most people still use very primitive forums .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an issue that really bugged me.
The move to web based forums from Usenet and mailing list was a giant step backwards in functionally.Advantages of Usenet and mailing lists over web based forums:The user can control the interfacekillfilesthreadingdiscussion on issues where centralized in one place rather then across multiple web forumsbetter searchingbetter archivingless bandwidthMore advanced web forums, like Slashdot, do a better job of supporting these features, but most people still use very primitive forums.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897949</id>
	<title>Re:Join the 21st Century</title>
	<author>doconnor</author>
	<datestamp>1256747220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Web based forums are much easier to control</p></div><p>One man's control is another man's tyranny.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Web based forums are much easier to controlOne man 's control is another man 's tyranny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Web based forums are much easier to controlOne man's control is another man's tyranny.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29910989</id>
	<title>Re:Is there a reason to keep archives private?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256833620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They want you to join. They want more members. If you join, you're more likely to participate.<br>It's to tempt to in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They want you to join .
They want more members .
If you join , you 're more likely to participate.It 's to tempt to in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They want you to join.
They want more members.
If you join, you're more likely to participate.It's to tempt to in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899179</id>
	<title>Trolling and flamewars are worse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256752620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I beg to differ, after having borne the brunt of sustained malicious trolling.</p><p><strong>In the long run, you can fight spam</strong> but not trolling. Trolling is a deeper problem, which obviously cannot be fixed by technical means. <strong>Flamewars are a close second.</strong></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I beg to differ , after having borne the brunt of sustained malicious trolling.In the long run , you can fight spam but not trolling .
Trolling is a deeper problem , which obviously can not be fixed by technical means .
Flamewars are a close second .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I beg to differ, after having borne the brunt of sustained malicious trolling.In the long run, you can fight spam but not trolling.
Trolling is a deeper problem, which obviously cannot be fixed by technical means.
Flamewars are a close second.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897729</id>
	<title>Google already has a solution in Labs</title>
	<author>Zocalo</author>
	<datestamp>1256746440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google Mail has a feature in Labs whereby they identify social groups within your email contact so that if you exchange a lot of emails between a certain group of people and suddenly add a new recipient it will flag a possible problem.  Surely it would be possible to apply a similar methodology to Google Groups only with the IP addresses messages originate from - send from a new IP assignment and the message gets moderated, no matter how many successful posts you've made from elsewhere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google Mail has a feature in Labs whereby they identify social groups within your email contact so that if you exchange a lot of emails between a certain group of people and suddenly add a new recipient it will flag a possible problem .
Surely it would be possible to apply a similar methodology to Google Groups only with the IP addresses messages originate from - send from a new IP assignment and the message gets moderated , no matter how many successful posts you 've made from elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google Mail has a feature in Labs whereby they identify social groups within your email contact so that if you exchange a lot of emails between a certain group of people and suddenly add a new recipient it will flag a possible problem.
Surely it would be possible to apply a similar methodology to Google Groups only with the IP addresses messages originate from - send from a new IP assignment and the message gets moderated, no matter how many successful posts you've made from elsewhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29900819</id>
	<title>Re:Finally, someone important points out the obvio</title>
	<author>dickens</author>
	<datestamp>1256759040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was the obvious question to me too.  A buck a user a month for Postini has been without a doubt the biggest bang for a buck that I've spent at my current job.  And you get the MX servers in the bargain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was the obvious question to me too .
A buck a user a month for Postini has been without a doubt the biggest bang for a buck that I 've spent at my current job .
And you get the MX servers in the bargain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was the obvious question to me too.
A buck a user a month for Postini has been without a doubt the biggest bang for a buck that I've spent at my current job.
And you get the MX servers in the bargain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897685</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29907791</id>
	<title>Re:Time to bring back the cancelbots?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256809860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't be silly. That logging in is easily automated, as is creating google accounts. I've long and happily used usenet and there was a huge difference between providers that ran usable feeds and others that did less well (*cough* google *cough*). Google appropriating usenet by adding lots of incompatible groups, indeed inviting the great unwashed to do it too, that can only be read through their web interface from their inferior, unfiltered, spammed and spam-generating feed, I see as a perverted sort of poetic justice.</p><p>Clueing up, learning how to use usenet properly (RFC1855 baby), and switching to an actually competent usenet provider, is the way out of this conundrum. As is hitting your friends over the head with a cluebat and taking them with you, of course. Vote with your feet, people. Walk to end september.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be silly .
That logging in is easily automated , as is creating google accounts .
I 've long and happily used usenet and there was a huge difference between providers that ran usable feeds and others that did less well ( * cough * google * cough * ) .
Google appropriating usenet by adding lots of incompatible groups , indeed inviting the great unwashed to do it too , that can only be read through their web interface from their inferior , unfiltered , spammed and spam-generating feed , I see as a perverted sort of poetic justice.Clueing up , learning how to use usenet properly ( RFC1855 baby ) , and switching to an actually competent usenet provider , is the way out of this conundrum .
As is hitting your friends over the head with a cluebat and taking them with you , of course .
Vote with your feet , people .
Walk to end september .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be silly.
That logging in is easily automated, as is creating google accounts.
I've long and happily used usenet and there was a huge difference between providers that ran usable feeds and others that did less well (*cough* google *cough*).
Google appropriating usenet by adding lots of incompatible groups, indeed inviting the great unwashed to do it too, that can only be read through their web interface from their inferior, unfiltered, spammed and spam-generating feed, I see as a perverted sort of poetic justice.Clueing up, learning how to use usenet properly (RFC1855 baby), and switching to an actually competent usenet provider, is the way out of this conundrum.
As is hitting your friends over the head with a cluebat and taking them with you, of course.
Vote with your feet, people.
Walk to end september.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899155</id>
	<title>Re:Join the 21st Century</title>
	<author>mordejai</author>
	<datestamp>1256752440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IMHO, this is one of the areas where technology like Google Wave can really shine.</p><p>Of course we're still a year away from it being usable, and another two for it being popular enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IMHO , this is one of the areas where technology like Google Wave can really shine.Of course we 're still a year away from it being usable , and another two for it being popular enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMHO, this is one of the areas where technology like Google Wave can really shine.Of course we're still a year away from it being usable, and another two for it being popular enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898195</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps a new mail header?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256748240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea is that the key identifies with that particular e-mail.  Signing up for "IRn0tFagg0t@gmail.com" would get you a key proving the identity of the author.  Copying this key and trying to use it as "Emmanuel.Stewart@gmail.com", wouldnt fool the system at all (because it would look like it is coming from ES, but authenticating as IR).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea is that the key identifies with that particular e-mail .
Signing up for " IRn0tFagg0t @ gmail.com " would get you a key proving the identity of the author .
Copying this key and trying to use it as " Emmanuel.Stewart @ gmail.com " , wouldnt fool the system at all ( because it would look like it is coming from ES , but authenticating as IR ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea is that the key identifies with that particular e-mail.
Signing up for "IRn0tFagg0t@gmail.com" would get you a key proving the identity of the author.
Copying this key and trying to use it as "Emmanuel.Stewart@gmail.com", wouldnt fool the system at all (because it would look like it is coming from ES, but authenticating as IR).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897487</id>
	<title>Time to DIY</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256745420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looks like a good time to learn to admin a mailing list.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like a good time to learn to admin a mailing list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like a good time to learn to admin a mailing list.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898185</id>
	<title>No Tragedy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256748240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Usenet continues to be a wonderful source of binaries and technical info.</p><p>It is still the source for most of the releases I see on p2p networks.</p><p>It is no worse than the political pap and S/N ratio say on a site like Slashdot.</p><p>Usenet simply requires a thick skin and the willingness to self-manage your experience. Those unwilling to do so have been complaining of "tragedy" since the 2nd week of Usenet's existence.</p><p>And sadly they are bringing their puckered asses and regulatory sensibilities to the rest of the Internet, turning it into a suburban picket-fenced nowhere.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Usenet continues to be a wonderful source of binaries and technical info.It is still the source for most of the releases I see on p2p networks.It is no worse than the political pap and S/N ratio say on a site like Slashdot.Usenet simply requires a thick skin and the willingness to self-manage your experience .
Those unwilling to do so have been complaining of " tragedy " since the 2nd week of Usenet 's existence.And sadly they are bringing their puckered asses and regulatory sensibilities to the rest of the Internet , turning it into a suburban picket-fenced nowhere .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Usenet continues to be a wonderful source of binaries and technical info.It is still the source for most of the releases I see on p2p networks.It is no worse than the political pap and S/N ratio say on a site like Slashdot.Usenet simply requires a thick skin and the willingness to self-manage your experience.
Those unwilling to do so have been complaining of "tragedy" since the 2nd week of Usenet's existence.And sadly they are bringing their puckered asses and regulatory sensibilities to the rest of the Internet, turning it into a suburban picket-fenced nowhere.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899665</id>
	<title>What's the problem again?</title>
	<author>Lord Bitman</author>
	<datestamp>1256754540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're a group of technologically literate people. Why don't you just sign your messages and verify based on signature, rather than something completely meaningless like email-address?</p><p>And once again: Why the hell does google not sign all messages which pass through gmail as "really did come from this address"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're a group of technologically literate people .
Why do n't you just sign your messages and verify based on signature , rather than something completely meaningless like email-address ? And once again : Why the hell does google not sign all messages which pass through gmail as " really did come from this address " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're a group of technologically literate people.
Why don't you just sign your messages and verify based on signature, rather than something completely meaningless like email-address?And once again: Why the hell does google not sign all messages which pass through gmail as "really did come from this address"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29907637</id>
	<title>Re:Join the 21st Century</title>
	<author>skeeto</author>
	<datestamp>1256807280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obviously said by someone who hasn't had much experience with a good NNTP client.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) Comparitively, web interfaces are so limiting and clunky, and conversation is usually non-threaded, which I really can't stand.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously said by someone who has n't had much experience with a good NNTP client .
: - ) Comparitively , web interfaces are so limiting and clunky , and conversation is usually non-threaded , which I really ca n't stand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously said by someone who hasn't had much experience with a good NNTP client.
:-) Comparitively, web interfaces are so limiting and clunky, and conversation is usually non-threaded, which I really can't stand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29901383</id>
	<title>Google Wave is the future Google Groups</title>
	<author>sharonlives</author>
	<datestamp>1256761620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google doesn't work backwards.  If you've been on Wave yet, you can tell that this is the way they want to go with group discussions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google does n't work backwards .
If you 've been on Wave yet , you can tell that this is the way they want to go with group discussions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google doesn't work backwards.
If you've been on Wave yet, you can tell that this is the way they want to go with group discussions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898615</id>
	<title>Re:Yahoo chats have had similar syndromes</title>
	<author>Alioth</author>
	<datestamp>1256750160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just pass all messages through SpamAssassin. Unfortunately, you lose the header checks with non-email, but the body will often fail in spammy URIs, plus match a number of other rules.</p><p>SpamAssassin is awesome. My personal email address gets around 1000 spam messages per day. All but two or three get blocked by SA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just pass all messages through SpamAssassin .
Unfortunately , you lose the header checks with non-email , but the body will often fail in spammy URIs , plus match a number of other rules.SpamAssassin is awesome .
My personal email address gets around 1000 spam messages per day .
All but two or three get blocked by SA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just pass all messages through SpamAssassin.
Unfortunately, you lose the header checks with non-email, but the body will often fail in spammy URIs, plus match a number of other rules.SpamAssassin is awesome.
My personal email address gets around 1000 spam messages per day.
All but two or three get blocked by SA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29900009</id>
	<title>Re:Time to DIY</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256755800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Suggested moderation:  -1, Missing the Point</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Suggested moderation : -1 , Missing the Point</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suggested moderation:  -1, Missing the Point</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899719</id>
	<title>Re:and Blogger too</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1256754780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blogs ARE spam 99 times out of 100, its hard to implement spam filtering when the content in and of itself might as well be spam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blogs ARE spam 99 times out of 100 , its hard to implement spam filtering when the content in and of itself might as well be spam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blogs ARE spam 99 times out of 100, its hard to implement spam filtering when the content in and of itself might as well be spam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29903449</id>
	<title>Question to JQuery developer, why use it?</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1256728560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why on earth such an advanced developer, especially in that area would require "Google Groups"? Why not run a private NNTP/web Hybrid which is also perfectly available to index/use?</p><p>I bet there are solutions using JQuery itself, not my area so I just shut up at this point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why on earth such an advanced developer , especially in that area would require " Google Groups " ?
Why not run a private NNTP/web Hybrid which is also perfectly available to index/use ? I bet there are solutions using JQuery itself , not my area so I just shut up at this point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why on earth such an advanced developer, especially in that area would require "Google Groups"?
Why not run a private NNTP/web Hybrid which is also perfectly available to index/use?I bet there are solutions using JQuery itself, not my area so I just shut up at this point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29902285</id>
	<title>Re:Join the 21st Century</title>
	<author>koiransuklaa</author>
	<datestamp>1256722680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is nothing that stops you from accessing mailing lists via web (see gmane et al), but please don't force the rest of us to do that.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, web forums can be ok for some things. Mailing lists are just so much more powerful in many situations that your suggestion is not even funny -- in other words, don't judge a technology because you don't know how to use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is nothing that stops you from accessing mailing lists via web ( see gmane et al ) , but please do n't force the rest of us to do that.Do n't get me wrong , web forums can be ok for some things .
Mailing lists are just so much more powerful in many situations that your suggestion is not even funny -- in other words , do n't judge a technology because you do n't know how to use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is nothing that stops you from accessing mailing lists via web (see gmane et al), but please don't force the rest of us to do that.Don't get me wrong, web forums can be ok for some things.
Mailing lists are just so much more powerful in many situations that your suggestion is not even funny -- in other words, don't judge a technology because you don't know how to use it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29901117</id>
	<title>Just Google Groups?</title>
	<author>insane\_coder</author>
	<datestamp>1256760420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This isn't just Google Groups, Blogger is collapsing under spam too.<br>
I myself just wrote about this the <a href="http://insanecoding.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-online-services-suck.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">other</a> [blogspot.com] <a href="http://insanecoding.blogspot.com/2009/10/blogger-spam.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">day</a> [blogspot.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't just Google Groups , Blogger is collapsing under spam too .
I myself just wrote about this the other [ blogspot.com ] day [ blogspot.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't just Google Groups, Blogger is collapsing under spam too.
I myself just wrote about this the other [blogspot.com] day [blogspot.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899701</id>
	<title>Gmail fails</title>
	<author>Sparr0</author>
	<datestamp>1256754660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google's web apps are notorious for poorly handling email headers.</p><p>Case in point:</p><p>sparr@domain.com is subscribed to the group@googlegroups.com<br>sparr@gmail.com checks sparr@domain.com via POP, and can send as sparr@domain.com<br>using the gmail interface to send email From:sparr@domain.com To:group@googlegroups.com (Sender:sparr@gmail.com) fails, resulting in a bounceback message *TO SPARR@GMAIL.COM* stating that sparr@gmail.com is not a member of the group.</p><p>I could understand some concern over spoofing and authentication if this was coming from a third party, but I am sending from a google application to a google application.  Gmail has already verified that I have permission to send From:sparr@domain.com, why doesn't ggroups trust that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google 's web apps are notorious for poorly handling email headers.Case in point : sparr @ domain.com is subscribed to the group @ googlegroups.comsparr @ gmail.com checks sparr @ domain.com via POP , and can send as sparr @ domain.comusing the gmail interface to send email From : sparr @ domain.com To : group @ googlegroups.com ( Sender : sparr @ gmail.com ) fails , resulting in a bounceback message * TO SPARR @ GMAIL.COM * stating that sparr @ gmail.com is not a member of the group.I could understand some concern over spoofing and authentication if this was coming from a third party , but I am sending from a google application to a google application .
Gmail has already verified that I have permission to send From : sparr @ domain.com , why does n't ggroups trust that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google's web apps are notorious for poorly handling email headers.Case in point:sparr@domain.com is subscribed to the group@googlegroups.comsparr@gmail.com checks sparr@domain.com via POP, and can send as sparr@domain.comusing the gmail interface to send email From:sparr@domain.com To:group@googlegroups.com (Sender:sparr@gmail.com) fails, resulting in a bounceback message *TO SPARR@GMAIL.COM* stating that sparr@gmail.com is not a member of the group.I could understand some concern over spoofing and authentication if this was coming from a third party, but I am sending from a google application to a google application.
Gmail has already verified that I have permission to send From:sparr@domain.com, why doesn't ggroups trust that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899837</id>
	<title>Re:Upgrade the Captchas</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1256755200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Captchas are not a solution anymore.</p><p>Spammers are FAR better that resolving the letters in captchas than  I am.  It took me 3 tries to get a google captcha I could read just recently.</p><p>Ticketmaster.com is an example of extreme over kill.  Not only are the they next to impossible to decipher, they require you to enter a new one for practically EVERYTHING YOU DO.</p><p>Its become easier for me to just drive to a box office than buy tickets online, and funny enough, cheaper too, even including gas involved.</p><p>If captcha's are the solution, the system is doomed.</p><p>This isn't the way to win the war.  The way to win the war is to make it an economic loss to use spam.  Right now there are too many older generations of people that spam still works on.  Change nothing about the Internet now, and spam will die on its own in 20 years as the generations shift through and the mass of the Internet knows better than to buy from spammers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Captchas are not a solution anymore.Spammers are FAR better that resolving the letters in captchas than I am .
It took me 3 tries to get a google captcha I could read just recently.Ticketmaster.com is an example of extreme over kill .
Not only are the they next to impossible to decipher , they require you to enter a new one for practically EVERYTHING YOU DO.Its become easier for me to just drive to a box office than buy tickets online , and funny enough , cheaper too , even including gas involved.If captcha 's are the solution , the system is doomed.This is n't the way to win the war .
The way to win the war is to make it an economic loss to use spam .
Right now there are too many older generations of people that spam still works on .
Change nothing about the Internet now , and spam will die on its own in 20 years as the generations shift through and the mass of the Internet knows better than to buy from spammers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Captchas are not a solution anymore.Spammers are FAR better that resolving the letters in captchas than  I am.
It took me 3 tries to get a google captcha I could read just recently.Ticketmaster.com is an example of extreme over kill.
Not only are the they next to impossible to decipher, they require you to enter a new one for practically EVERYTHING YOU DO.Its become easier for me to just drive to a box office than buy tickets online, and funny enough, cheaper too, even including gas involved.If captcha's are the solution, the system is doomed.This isn't the way to win the war.
The way to win the war is to make it an economic loss to use spam.
Right now there are too many older generations of people that spam still works on.
Change nothing about the Internet now, and spam will die on its own in 20 years as the generations shift through and the mass of the Internet knows better than to buy from spammers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29901241</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps a new mail header?</title>
	<author>dzfoo</author>
	<datestamp>1256761020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I propose the following, RFC #1138:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; X-Im-A-Spammer: Yes|No|Uh?<br>Or<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; X-I-Swear-Im-Not-A-Spammer: No|Maybe|RLY!</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -dZ.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I propose the following , RFC # 1138 :           X-Im-A-Spammer : Yes | No | Uh ? Or           X-I-Swear-Im-Not-A-Spammer : No | Maybe | RLY !
      -dZ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I propose the following, RFC #1138:
          X-Im-A-Spammer: Yes|No|Uh?Or
          X-I-Swear-Im-Not-A-Spammer: No|Maybe|RLY!
      -dZ.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29907883</id>
	<title>Alternative filter?</title>
	<author>Itkovian</author>
	<datestamp>1256811480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe they could use a decent spam filter, such as mollom (http://mollom.com), which is pretty adept at classifying content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they could use a decent spam filter , such as mollom ( http : //mollom.com ) , which is pretty adept at classifying content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they could use a decent spam filter, such as mollom (http://mollom.com), which is pretty adept at classifying content.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29900619</id>
	<title>MOD PARENT DOWN</title>
	<author>BenEnglishAtHome</author>
	<datestamp>1256758140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do people want to move away from that which is "antiquated"?  Many technologies are antiquated but they're still the best way to do things for most people.  In vitro fertilization may be easier to control but I kinda like the old way of doing things.  The CZ75 is a fine pistol but the 1911 is still at least as good.  And while web forums have their uses, mailing lists and usenet groups are still the best way to simply move information without visual decoration.  They also have many wonderful advanced features noted by other respondents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do people want to move away from that which is " antiquated " ?
Many technologies are antiquated but they 're still the best way to do things for most people .
In vitro fertilization may be easier to control but I kinda like the old way of doing things .
The CZ75 is a fine pistol but the 1911 is still at least as good .
And while web forums have their uses , mailing lists and usenet groups are still the best way to simply move information without visual decoration .
They also have many wonderful advanced features noted by other respondents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do people want to move away from that which is "antiquated"?
Many technologies are antiquated but they're still the best way to do things for most people.
In vitro fertilization may be easier to control but I kinda like the old way of doing things.
The CZ75 is a fine pistol but the 1911 is still at least as good.
And while web forums have their uses, mailing lists and usenet groups are still the best way to simply move information without visual decoration.
They also have many wonderful advanced features noted by other respondents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899723</id>
	<title>Re:Join the 21st Century</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256754780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Advantages of web based forums:

Any idiot can figure them out and navigate them pretty easily, whereas Usenet is more than a little intimidating to new users.</p></div><p>No, I'm pretty sure that's an advantage of USENET too. I mean do you really want to be talking to any old idiot? It's fun to take trips out and observer them, but god help me I wouldn't want to actually interact with one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Advantages of web based forums : Any idiot can figure them out and navigate them pretty easily , whereas Usenet is more than a little intimidating to new users.No , I 'm pretty sure that 's an advantage of USENET too .
I mean do you really want to be talking to any old idiot ?
It 's fun to take trips out and observer them , but god help me I would n't want to actually interact with one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Advantages of web based forums:

Any idiot can figure them out and navigate them pretty easily, whereas Usenet is more than a little intimidating to new users.No, I'm pretty sure that's an advantage of USENET too.
I mean do you really want to be talking to any old idiot?
It's fun to take trips out and observer them, but god help me I wouldn't want to actually interact with one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898647</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps a new mail header?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256750340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a much simpler solution: start sending out "Free Penis Pills" ads, and mail everyone that buys them rat poison. Hopefully, after a couple hundred people die from being spam-buying fucktards, the rest will get the idea.</p><p>Alternatively, find the spammers (they have to have real addresses to sell stuff, right?) and shoot them in the face. This is WAY past the point of, "let's fine them" or "let's send them to prison". Time to put those expensive drones we've bought to a better use...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a much simpler solution : start sending out " Free Penis Pills " ads , and mail everyone that buys them rat poison .
Hopefully , after a couple hundred people die from being spam-buying fucktards , the rest will get the idea.Alternatively , find the spammers ( they have to have real addresses to sell stuff , right ?
) and shoot them in the face .
This is WAY past the point of , " let 's fine them " or " let 's send them to prison " .
Time to put those expensive drones we 've bought to a better use.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a much simpler solution: start sending out "Free Penis Pills" ads, and mail everyone that buys them rat poison.
Hopefully, after a couple hundred people die from being spam-buying fucktards, the rest will get the idea.Alternatively, find the spammers (they have to have real addresses to sell stuff, right?
) and shoot them in the face.
This is WAY past the point of, "let's fine them" or "let's send them to prison".
Time to put those expensive drones we've bought to a better use...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897551</id>
	<title>Yahoo chats have had similar syndromes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256745720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yahoo chat as well seems to be overtaken by this spamfest. They have tried to address it with captchas, but the spammers simply go ahead and entire the captcha code and keep spamming. They could require credit card verification to make it harder to open massive numbers of accounts, i suppose. Maybe they could have some sort of scanner that would look for sequences that could identify common patterns in spam messages and flag these messages for moderation. Even moderation itself is ripe for abuse with moderators who abuse that power that they have. Perhaps another solution is a voting system on particular messages like that on slashdot, in this case, simply as to whether the message is spam or not, the messages which are voted to be spam are basically collapsed but could be opened with a click, or can be shown with a show "spam marked messages" feature. Could be useful both on chat and also on message boards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yahoo chat as well seems to be overtaken by this spamfest .
They have tried to address it with captchas , but the spammers simply go ahead and entire the captcha code and keep spamming .
They could require credit card verification to make it harder to open massive numbers of accounts , i suppose .
Maybe they could have some sort of scanner that would look for sequences that could identify common patterns in spam messages and flag these messages for moderation .
Even moderation itself is ripe for abuse with moderators who abuse that power that they have .
Perhaps another solution is a voting system on particular messages like that on slashdot , in this case , simply as to whether the message is spam or not , the messages which are voted to be spam are basically collapsed but could be opened with a click , or can be shown with a show " spam marked messages " feature .
Could be useful both on chat and also on message boards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yahoo chat as well seems to be overtaken by this spamfest.
They have tried to address it with captchas, but the spammers simply go ahead and entire the captcha code and keep spamming.
They could require credit card verification to make it harder to open massive numbers of accounts, i suppose.
Maybe they could have some sort of scanner that would look for sequences that could identify common patterns in spam messages and flag these messages for moderation.
Even moderation itself is ripe for abuse with moderators who abuse that power that they have.
Perhaps another solution is a voting system on particular messages like that on slashdot, in this case, simply as to whether the message is spam or not, the messages which are voted to be spam are basically collapsed but could be opened with a click, or can be shown with a show "spam marked messages" feature.
Could be useful both on chat and also on message boards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899737</id>
	<title>Re:Is there a reason to keep archives private?</title>
	<author>rally2xs</author>
	<datestamp>1256754840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have several yahoogroup lists, all archives are open, I have no spam problems.

My yahoogroups are set to moderate all new users.  If someone joins and then spams, I'm the only one that sees it.  I delete the spam, then the new user.  Simple.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have several yahoogroup lists , all archives are open , I have no spam problems .
My yahoogroups are set to moderate all new users .
If someone joins and then spams , I 'm the only one that sees it .
I delete the spam , then the new user .
Simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have several yahoogroup lists, all archives are open, I have no spam problems.
My yahoogroups are set to moderate all new users.
If someone joins and then spams, I'm the only one that sees it.
I delete the spam, then the new user.
Simple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898669</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps a new mail header?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256750460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HEAR, HEAR!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HEAR , HEAR !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HEAR, HEAR!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897691</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps a new mail header?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256746260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ummm, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google\_Groups" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Google Groups</a> [wikipedia.org] is an archive and Web interface for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Usenet.</a> [wikipedia.org] Email is irrelevant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummm , Google Groups [ wikipedia.org ] is an archive and Web interface for Usenet .
[ wikipedia.org ] Email is irrelevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummm, Google Groups [wikipedia.org] is an archive and Web interface for Usenet.
[wikipedia.org] Email is irrelevant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898255</id>
	<title>Re:Finally, someone important points out the obvio</title>
	<author>ChienAndalu</author>
	<datestamp>1256748540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe they pool their resources in Google Wave and ditch Google Groups as soon as Wave is ready.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they pool their resources in Google Wave and ditch Google Groups as soon as Wave is ready .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they pool their resources in Google Wave and ditch Google Groups as soon as Wave is ready.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897685</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898423</id>
	<title>Re:Join the 21st Century</title>
	<author>Dr\_Barnowl</author>
	<datestamp>1256749260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I imagine they will ; this is <a href="http://wave.google.com/" title="google.com">Google</a> [google.com], after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I imagine they will ; this is Google [ google.com ] , after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I imagine they will ; this is Google [google.com], after all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897545</id>
	<title>Good opporunity for GPG / PGP?</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1256745660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't GPG / PGP email signing perfectly suited to handle this?</p><p>All you need is a way to build a tree or chain of trusted signatures.  The root of the tree could be the person who created the group.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't GPG / PGP email signing perfectly suited to handle this ? All you need is a way to build a tree or chain of trusted signatures .
The root of the tree could be the person who created the group .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't GPG / PGP email signing perfectly suited to handle this?All you need is a way to build a tree or chain of trusted signatures.
The root of the tree could be the person who created the group.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898659</id>
	<title>Digital Signature</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256750400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't they set up an option for the admin to require all posts to be validated by a digital signature?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't they set up an option for the admin to require all posts to be validated by a digital signature ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't they set up an option for the admin to require all posts to be validated by a digital signature?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897969</id>
	<title>Re:Join the 21st Century</title>
	<author>Xtravar</author>
	<datestamp>1256747340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate coming across an otherwise useful forum and then having to sign up and log in to view certain topics and download files from it.</p><p>Not that I use mailing lists or newsgroups...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate coming across an otherwise useful forum and then having to sign up and log in to view certain topics and download files from it.Not that I use mailing lists or newsgroups.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate coming across an otherwise useful forum and then having to sign up and log in to view certain topics and download files from it.Not that I use mailing lists or newsgroups...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899347</id>
	<title>Re:Tragedy of the Commons</title>
	<author>Bigbutt</author>
	<datestamp>1256753400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If there were a way to use spammers for fuel, I'd have no qualms solving our energy woes that way<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... </p></div><p>And people wonder why I refuse to hire sysadmins who used to work for well known spamming companies.</p><p>[John]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If there were a way to use spammers for fuel , I 'd have no qualms solving our energy woes that way ... And people wonder why I refuse to hire sysadmins who used to work for well known spamming companies .
[ John ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there were a way to use spammers for fuel, I'd have no qualms solving our energy woes that way ... And people wonder why I refuse to hire sysadmins who used to work for well known spamming companies.
[John]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897681</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps a new mail header?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256746260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gawd, you PGP/GPG faggots see encryption or digital signing as the answer for every problem.</p><p>It won't help at all in this case. For instance, nothing stops a spammer from signing up for a GMail account that generates such a header, and sending out spam that your spam filter happily allows through. And it would be trivial for a spammer to spoof a legitimate user's signature.</p><p>There is only one solution to spam, and that is to make it completely unprofitable to send. The only way that'll happen is if people stop buying products advertised that way. If spammers don't make any money, then there won't be any incentive for them to spam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gawd , you PGP/GPG faggots see encryption or digital signing as the answer for every problem.It wo n't help at all in this case .
For instance , nothing stops a spammer from signing up for a GMail account that generates such a header , and sending out spam that your spam filter happily allows through .
And it would be trivial for a spammer to spoof a legitimate user 's signature.There is only one solution to spam , and that is to make it completely unprofitable to send .
The only way that 'll happen is if people stop buying products advertised that way .
If spammers do n't make any money , then there wo n't be any incentive for them to spam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gawd, you PGP/GPG faggots see encryption or digital signing as the answer for every problem.It won't help at all in this case.
For instance, nothing stops a spammer from signing up for a GMail account that generates such a header, and sending out spam that your spam filter happily allows through.
And it would be trivial for a spammer to spoof a legitimate user's signature.There is only one solution to spam, and that is to make it completely unprofitable to send.
The only way that'll happen is if people stop buying products advertised that way.
If spammers don't make any money, then there won't be any incentive for them to spam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897657</id>
	<title>Google Groups shouldn't act like Usenet</title>
	<author>MaraDNS</author>
	<datestamp>1256746140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The problems described in the article: Having it so it's not completely obvious a group is moderated, having a choice of either moderation of every post or no ability to control spammers, flamers, and trolls, and no protection against forged moderation sound like issues caused because Google groups tries too much to be like Usenet.
</p><p>
Usenet was a very good idea in the 1980s and early 1990s, before the internet became anonymous and spammers started moving in.  My favorite thing about Usenet is that it's easy to read it offline (Google "Leafnode") for people who do not have a continuous connection to the internet--this was the norm in the UUCP-dominated 1980s, when just about nobody had a direct internet connection.
</p><p>
I recently posted a blog about the death of Usenet:
</p><p>
<a href="http://maradns.blogspot.com/2009/07/memories-of-usenet.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://maradns.blogspot.com/2009/07/memories-of-usenet.html</a> [blogspot.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problems described in the article : Having it so it 's not completely obvious a group is moderated , having a choice of either moderation of every post or no ability to control spammers , flamers , and trolls , and no protection against forged moderation sound like issues caused because Google groups tries too much to be like Usenet .
Usenet was a very good idea in the 1980s and early 1990s , before the internet became anonymous and spammers started moving in .
My favorite thing about Usenet is that it 's easy to read it offline ( Google " Leafnode " ) for people who do not have a continuous connection to the internet--this was the norm in the UUCP-dominated 1980s , when just about nobody had a direct internet connection .
I recently posted a blog about the death of Usenet : http : //maradns.blogspot.com/2009/07/memories-of-usenet.html [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The problems described in the article: Having it so it's not completely obvious a group is moderated, having a choice of either moderation of every post or no ability to control spammers, flamers, and trolls, and no protection against forged moderation sound like issues caused because Google groups tries too much to be like Usenet.
Usenet was a very good idea in the 1980s and early 1990s, before the internet became anonymous and spammers started moving in.
My favorite thing about Usenet is that it's easy to read it offline (Google "Leafnode") for people who do not have a continuous connection to the internet--this was the norm in the UUCP-dominated 1980s, when just about nobody had a direct internet connection.
I recently posted a blog about the death of Usenet:

http://maradns.blogspot.com/2009/07/memories-of-usenet.html [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29900433</id>
	<title>Re:Block posts to Usenet via Google</title>
	<author>bipbop</author>
	<datestamp>1256757540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I blocked gmail a couple years ago for this reason.  It's annoying though, because there are a lot of legitimate gmail users who I'm blocking, but I'm willing to miss their messages in exchange for blocking a much larger number of spam messages.  It sucks, but it's the least effort solution as a reader.</p><p>Also, this isn't a new problem, and it's pretty unlikely that it'll go away AFAICT.  Google Groups has always been a group that Google's least competent employees work in (again AFAICT; I have no personal knowledge of them, it's just consistently been their worst product) and I'd be pretty surprised if things turned around now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I blocked gmail a couple years ago for this reason .
It 's annoying though , because there are a lot of legitimate gmail users who I 'm blocking , but I 'm willing to miss their messages in exchange for blocking a much larger number of spam messages .
It sucks , but it 's the least effort solution as a reader.Also , this is n't a new problem , and it 's pretty unlikely that it 'll go away AFAICT .
Google Groups has always been a group that Google 's least competent employees work in ( again AFAICT ; I have no personal knowledge of them , it 's just consistently been their worst product ) and I 'd be pretty surprised if things turned around now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I blocked gmail a couple years ago for this reason.
It's annoying though, because there are a lot of legitimate gmail users who I'm blocking, but I'm willing to miss their messages in exchange for blocking a much larger number of spam messages.
It sucks, but it's the least effort solution as a reader.Also, this isn't a new problem, and it's pretty unlikely that it'll go away AFAICT.
Google Groups has always been a group that Google's least competent employees work in (again AFAICT; I have no personal knowledge of them, it's just consistently been their worst product) and I'd be pretty surprised if things turned around now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29905521</id>
	<title>moderate new members seems to work for me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256742120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've not seen the spoofing from existing members, but I've enabled "moderate new members" and spam to my group has dropped to zero. I've moderated a few legit new members but I've also caught 100\% of the spammers (who need to be manually identified and deleted). Albeit this has risen to almost 1-2/wk fairly consistently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've not seen the spoofing from existing members , but I 've enabled " moderate new members " and spam to my group has dropped to zero .
I 've moderated a few legit new members but I 've also caught 100 \ % of the spammers ( who need to be manually identified and deleted ) .
Albeit this has risen to almost 1-2/wk fairly consistently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've not seen the spoofing from existing members, but I've enabled "moderate new members" and spam to my group has dropped to zero.
I've moderated a few legit new members but I've also caught 100\% of the spammers (who need to be manually identified and deleted).
Albeit this has risen to almost 1-2/wk fairly consistently.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897913</id>
	<title>Re:Join the 21st Century</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256747100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or time to move away from the broken Google Groups to a real mailing list that doesn't have these problems?</p><p>Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or time to move away from the broken Google Groups to a real mailing list that does n't have these problems ? Do n't throw out the baby with the bathwater .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or time to move away from the broken Google Groups to a real mailing list that doesn't have these problems?Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898439</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps a new mail header?</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1256749320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>For instance, nothing stops a spammer from signing up for a GMail account that generates such a header, and sending out spam that your spam filter happily allows through.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's why, while authentication is an excellent thing to do, it's only half of a solution.  The other half is to have reputations tied to identities.  Sign your spam, get known as a spammer, and now people know to ignore your messages just like they ignore unsigned messages.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For instance , nothing stops a spammer from signing up for a GMail account that generates such a header , and sending out spam that your spam filter happily allows through.That 's why , while authentication is an excellent thing to do , it 's only half of a solution .
The other half is to have reputations tied to identities .
Sign your spam , get known as a spammer , and now people know to ignore your messages just like they ignore unsigned messages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For instance, nothing stops a spammer from signing up for a GMail account that generates such a header, and sending out spam that your spam filter happily allows through.That's why, while authentication is an excellent thing to do, it's only half of a solution.
The other half is to have reputations tied to identities.
Sign your spam, get known as a spammer, and now people know to ignore your messages just like they ignore unsigned messages.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897647</id>
	<title>Put yourself at the mercy of The Cloud...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256746080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and you can expect to get rained on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and you can expect to get rained on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and you can expect to get rained on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898205</id>
	<title>Spammers are spoofing Google Groups</title>
	<author>farnsaw</author>
	<datestamp>1256748300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I manage a moderated google group and I have received spam "from the group" from someone who is not a member.  This makes me think that they sent it directly to me and just spoofed the headers to make it appear to come from google to get past my local spam filter.  I wonder if this is what is really happening?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I manage a moderated google group and I have received spam " from the group " from someone who is not a member .
This makes me think that they sent it directly to me and just spoofed the headers to make it appear to come from google to get past my local spam filter .
I wonder if this is what is really happening ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I manage a moderated google group and I have received spam "from the group" from someone who is not a member.
This makes me think that they sent it directly to me and just spoofed the headers to make it appear to come from google to get past my local spam filter.
I wonder if this is what is really happening?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899409</id>
	<title>Re:Ebarassing for group admins</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256753700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>facebook group?</htmltext>
<tokenext>facebook group ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>facebook group?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899231</id>
	<title>Already put all of Google in killfile</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1256752860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spam levels were above 96\% in some groups I accessed.  And more than 90\% of the spam came from Google Groups.  I guess they put it on autopilot without any spam checks and walked away.  So I just blocked all of Google Groups in my killfile.  At least for now, any legitimate posts from there I will see if someone from outside Google Groups posts a followup and includes it.  But some of the groups are just dead, now.  In a couple cases it's definitely due to the spam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spam levels were above 96 \ % in some groups I accessed .
And more than 90 \ % of the spam came from Google Groups .
I guess they put it on autopilot without any spam checks and walked away .
So I just blocked all of Google Groups in my killfile .
At least for now , any legitimate posts from there I will see if someone from outside Google Groups posts a followup and includes it .
But some of the groups are just dead , now .
In a couple cases it 's definitely due to the spam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spam levels were above 96\% in some groups I accessed.
And more than 90\% of the spam came from Google Groups.
I guess they put it on autopilot without any spam checks and walked away.
So I just blocked all of Google Groups in my killfile.
At least for now, any legitimate posts from there I will see if someone from outside Google Groups posts a followup and includes it.
But some of the groups are just dead, now.
In a couple cases it's definitely due to the spam.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898473</id>
	<title>Re:Good opporunity for GPG / PGP?</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1256749440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The root of the tree could be the person who created the group.</p></div></blockquote><p>No, the root of the "tree" (and by that I mean, "not a tree") should be whoever is reading it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The root of the tree could be the person who created the group.No , the root of the " tree " ( and by that I mean , " not a tree " ) should be whoever is reading it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The root of the tree could be the person who created the group.No, the root of the "tree" (and by that I mean, "not a tree") should be whoever is reading it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897617</id>
	<title>and Blogger too</title>
	<author>GameGod0</author>
	<datestamp>1256745960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google's really dropped the ball on spam blocking with Blogger too. I host a couple of random blogs on there, and they've all been hit with a ridiculous amount of spam in the last year. Blogger doesn't even give you something like Akismet...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google 's really dropped the ball on spam blocking with Blogger too .
I host a couple of random blogs on there , and they 've all been hit with a ridiculous amount of spam in the last year .
Blogger does n't even give you something like Akismet... : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google's really dropped the ball on spam blocking with Blogger too.
I host a couple of random blogs on there, and they've all been hit with a ridiculous amount of spam in the last year.
Blogger doesn't even give you something like Akismet... :(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898375</id>
	<title>Re:Join the 21st Century</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256749020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>cry me a fucking river... spammer!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>cry me a fucking river.. .
spammer ! ! ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cry me a fucking river...
spammer!!!!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897967</id>
	<title>Ebarassing for group admins</title>
	<author>Morris Thorpe</author>
	<datestamp>1256747340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I created and admin a Google group for my son's high school team. We have coaches about 120 parents in the group.</p><p>Even though it's a pain in the ass, I chose to moderate messages for new members. Still, spam gets through. As the group's admin, it's embarrassing to see graphic messages and know that all the parent's on my kid's team are seeing it. Also, moderation means that some messages may not get through in a timely manner.</p><p>I'm looking to migrate the group to an alternative now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I created and admin a Google group for my son 's high school team .
We have coaches about 120 parents in the group.Even though it 's a pain in the ass , I chose to moderate messages for new members .
Still , spam gets through .
As the group 's admin , it 's embarrassing to see graphic messages and know that all the parent 's on my kid 's team are seeing it .
Also , moderation means that some messages may not get through in a timely manner.I 'm looking to migrate the group to an alternative now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I created and admin a Google group for my son's high school team.
We have coaches about 120 parents in the group.Even though it's a pain in the ass, I chose to moderate messages for new members.
Still, spam gets through.
As the group's admin, it's embarrassing to see graphic messages and know that all the parent's on my kid's team are seeing it.
Also, moderation means that some messages may not get through in a timely manner.I'm looking to migrate the group to an alternative now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897803</id>
	<title>Unusable indeed</title>
	<author>Ritz\_Just\_Ritz</author>
	<datestamp>1256746680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been wondering if/when Google would make some sort of effort to deal with the problem.  You'd think that a company that's gone out of their way to hire brainiacs could come up with *some* sort of solution.  I'm a little surprised they've let it spin this far off into the weeds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been wondering if/when Google would make some sort of effort to deal with the problem .
You 'd think that a company that 's gone out of their way to hire brainiacs could come up with * some * sort of solution .
I 'm a little surprised they 've let it spin this far off into the weeds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been wondering if/when Google would make some sort of effort to deal with the problem.
You'd think that a company that's gone out of their way to hire brainiacs could come up with *some* sort of solution.
I'm a little surprised they've let it spin this far off into the weeds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897747</id>
	<title>Well, advertising \_is\_ Google's business...</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1256746440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But maybe this will kill Google Groups and thus eliminate 99\% of the spam on Usenet.  We can hope, anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But maybe this will kill Google Groups and thus eliminate 99 \ % of the spam on Usenet .
We can hope , anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But maybe this will kill Google Groups and thus eliminate 99\% of the spam on Usenet.
We can hope, anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898437</id>
	<title>Re:Time to DIY</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256749320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even better. The main JQuery site runs Drupal, so they can simple install and configure Organic Groups. Now they have a way to moderate and get rid of the spam a lot easier than on that messed up Google Groups.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even better .
The main JQuery site runs Drupal , so they can simple install and configure Organic Groups .
Now they have a way to moderate and get rid of the spam a lot easier than on that messed up Google Groups .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even better.
The main JQuery site runs Drupal, so they can simple install and configure Organic Groups.
Now they have a way to moderate and get rid of the spam a lot easier than on that messed up Google Groups.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897645</id>
	<title>YOU INSENSITIVE C7LO(D!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256746080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>fanatic known that *BSD 0wned. Itself. You can't fatal mistakes, claim that BSD is a Do, or indeed what corpse turned over</htmltext>
<tokenext>fanatic known that * BSD 0wned .
Itself. You ca n't fatal mistakes , claim that BSD is a Do , or indeed what corpse turned over</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fanatic known that *BSD 0wned.
Itself. You can't fatal mistakes, claim that BSD is a Do, or indeed what corpse turned over</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29907907</id>
	<title>Do it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256811900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should block the entire IP address block of the village / town it came from. Then let vigilante justice take its natural course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should block the entire IP address block of the village / town it came from .
Then let vigilante justice take its natural course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should block the entire IP address block of the village / town it came from.
Then let vigilante justice take its natural course.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897791</id>
	<title>Re:Time to DIY</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1256746620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And then have to deal with spam from Gmail accounts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And then have to deal with spam from Gmail accounts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then have to deal with spam from Gmail accounts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898121</id>
	<title>No shit !!  WELCOME TO THE BRAVE NEW WORLD !!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256747940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Welcome to my nightmare<br>I think you're gonna like it<br>I think you're gonna feel... you belong<br>A nocturnal vacation<br>Unnecessary sedation<br>You want to feel at home 'cause you belong</p><p>Welcome to my nightmare<br>Welcome to my breakdown<br>I hope I didn't scare you<br>That's just the way we are when we come down<br>We sweat and laugh and scream here<br>'cuz life is just a dream here<br>You know inside you feel right at home here</p><p>Welcome to my breakdown<br>Whoa<br>You're welcome to my nightmare<br>Yeah</p><p>Welcome to my nightmare<br>I think you're gonna like it<br>I think you're gonna feel... you belong<br>We sweat laugh and scream here<br>'cuz life is just a dream here<br>You know inside you feel right at home here<br>Welcome to my nightmare<br>Welcome to my breakdown<br>Yeah</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to my nightmareI think you 're gon na like itI think you 're gon na feel... you belongA nocturnal vacationUnnecessary sedationYou want to feel at home 'cause you belongWelcome to my nightmareWelcome to my breakdownI hope I did n't scare youThat 's just the way we are when we come downWe sweat and laugh and scream here'cuz life is just a dream hereYou know inside you feel right at home hereWelcome to my breakdownWhoaYou 're welcome to my nightmareYeahWelcome to my nightmareI think you 're gon na like itI think you 're gon na feel... you belongWe sweat laugh and scream here'cuz life is just a dream hereYou know inside you feel right at home hereWelcome to my nightmareWelcome to my breakdownYeah</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to my nightmareI think you're gonna like itI think you're gonna feel... you belongA nocturnal vacationUnnecessary sedationYou want to feel at home 'cause you belongWelcome to my nightmareWelcome to my breakdownI hope I didn't scare youThat's just the way we are when we come downWe sweat and laugh and scream here'cuz life is just a dream hereYou know inside you feel right at home hereWelcome to my breakdownWhoaYou're welcome to my nightmareYeahWelcome to my nightmareI think you're gonna like itI think you're gonna feel... you belongWe sweat laugh and scream here'cuz life is just a dream hereYou know inside you feel right at home hereWelcome to my nightmareWelcome to my breakdownYeah</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29902779</id>
	<title>Re:Join the 21st Century</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256725260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just look at any project that has both mailing lists and forums. The technical discussion will be on the mailing list while the forums only seem to exist as a honey trap for retards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just look at any project that has both mailing lists and forums .
The technical discussion will be on the mailing list while the forums only seem to exist as a honey trap for retards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just look at any project that has both mailing lists and forums.
The technical discussion will be on the mailing list while the forums only seem to exist as a honey trap for retards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898139</id>
	<title>Well,</title>
	<author>pdxp</author>
	<datestamp>1256748000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a concerned legitimate user of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. I must offer these words...

<br> <br>
FREE V1AGRA!!<br>
FREE MOVIE DOWNLOADS!<br>
UNLIMITED P0RN FREE!!<br>
<br> <br> <br>
<em>
(pdxp is no longer with you. the spambots are now infesting his brain, and you are all next)</em></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a concerned legitimate user of / .
I must offer these words.. . FREE V1AGRA ! !
FREE MOVIE DOWNLOADS !
UNLIMITED P0RN FREE ! !
( pdxp is no longer with you .
the spambots are now infesting his brain , and you are all next )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a concerned legitimate user of /.
I must offer these words...

 
FREE V1AGRA!!
FREE MOVIE DOWNLOADS!
UNLIMITED P0RN FREE!!
(pdxp is no longer with you.
the spambots are now infesting his brain, and you are all next)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898467</id>
	<title>my settings</title>
	<author>Deanalator</author>
	<datestamp>1256749440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We were having some problems with this on the wimax hacking google group.</p><p>About a month ago I set all posting options to members only (read is still public, the group is listed in the directory, and there is no moderation). I then set it so people need to request an invite to join.  The signup page says  "Sorry, about the inconvenience, but spam was starting to ramp up, so now users have to request membership manually.  Anyone who is human is welcome, and encouraged to join."</p><p>There has been zero spam since the change.</p><p>It would be nice if there was an option to just let people solve a captcha to join the group, but until then this solution is working fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We were having some problems with this on the wimax hacking google group.About a month ago I set all posting options to members only ( read is still public , the group is listed in the directory , and there is no moderation ) .
I then set it so people need to request an invite to join .
The signup page says " Sorry , about the inconvenience , but spam was starting to ramp up , so now users have to request membership manually .
Anyone who is human is welcome , and encouraged to join .
" There has been zero spam since the change.It would be nice if there was an option to just let people solve a captcha to join the group , but until then this solution is working fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We were having some problems with this on the wimax hacking google group.About a month ago I set all posting options to members only (read is still public, the group is listed in the directory, and there is no moderation).
I then set it so people need to request an invite to join.
The signup page says  "Sorry, about the inconvenience, but spam was starting to ramp up, so now users have to request membership manually.
Anyone who is human is welcome, and encouraged to join.
"There has been zero spam since the change.It would be nice if there was an option to just let people solve a captcha to join the group, but until then this solution is working fine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898495</id>
	<title>Re:Tragedy of the Commons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256749500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I, on the other hand, have also participated in many Usenet discussions, but always have welcomed spammers. People who are against spammers are in my opinion not better than Nazis. and while we're at it: Never forget that Hitler was a vegetarian and non-smoker! Is that really what you want to have in our society? Non-smokers, vegetarians, NAZIS?? I for one have chosen to stay on the side of the spammers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I , on the other hand , have also participated in many Usenet discussions , but always have welcomed spammers .
People who are against spammers are in my opinion not better than Nazis .
and while we 're at it : Never forget that Hitler was a vegetarian and non-smoker !
Is that really what you want to have in our society ?
Non-smokers , vegetarians , NAZIS ? ?
I for one have chosen to stay on the side of the spammers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, on the other hand, have also participated in many Usenet discussions, but always have welcomed spammers.
People who are against spammers are in my opinion not better than Nazis.
and while we're at it: Never forget that Hitler was a vegetarian and non-smoker!
Is that really what you want to have in our society?
Non-smokers, vegetarians, NAZIS??
I for one have chosen to stay on the side of the spammers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29905421</id>
	<title>Re:Tragedy of the Commons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256741460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There will be no end to spam until there are actual consequences. They have caught a couple of spammers, and what happened? They were given a little fine to pay and told not to do it again. Big deal. If these assholes were actually prosecuted for the all the damage they have done and all the laws they have broken they would all be spending multiple sequential life sentences in Leavenworth breaking rocks. Until that happens, there will be no end to spam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There will be no end to spam until there are actual consequences .
They have caught a couple of spammers , and what happened ?
They were given a little fine to pay and told not to do it again .
Big deal .
If these assholes were actually prosecuted for the all the damage they have done and all the laws they have broken they would all be spending multiple sequential life sentences in Leavenworth breaking rocks .
Until that happens , there will be no end to spam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There will be no end to spam until there are actual consequences.
They have caught a couple of spammers, and what happened?
They were given a little fine to pay and told not to do it again.
Big deal.
If these assholes were actually prosecuted for the all the damage they have done and all the laws they have broken they would all be spending multiple sequential life sentences in Leavenworth breaking rocks.
Until that happens, there will be no end to spam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898689</id>
	<title>guess he subscribes to the wrong groups...</title>
	<author>Nyder</author>
	<datestamp>1256750520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use google groups, and maybe i'm lucky, but I don't get spam hardly ever in my groups.</p><p>I get more spam in my mail then I do in groups, and I probably get less emails then I do new group posts a day.</p><p>(i get maybe 10 new emails a day, and 100+ new messages in my fav groups)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use google groups , and maybe i 'm lucky , but I do n't get spam hardly ever in my groups.I get more spam in my mail then I do in groups , and I probably get less emails then I do new group posts a day .
( i get maybe 10 new emails a day , and 100 + new messages in my fav groups )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use google groups, and maybe i'm lucky, but I don't get spam hardly ever in my groups.I get more spam in my mail then I do in groups, and I probably get less emails then I do new group posts a day.
(i get maybe 10 new emails a day, and 100+ new messages in my fav groups)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898737</id>
	<title>So the problem is spam, then?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256750760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, let me get this straight.  The purpose of this article is to complain that there's a popular public service for communication, and ohnoes it gets <b> <i>spam!!1!1!!!  HALP HALP HALP</i> </b>  And what's more, *gasp* a <i>developer</i> of at least a semi-popular library of sorts doesn't like spam!  This changes EVERYTHING!  My entire perception of the internet itself has changed FOREVAR!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , let me get this straight .
The purpose of this article is to complain that there 's a popular public service for communication , and ohnoes it gets spam ! ! 1 ! 1 ! ! !
HALP HALP HALP And what 's more , * gasp * a developer of at least a semi-popular library of sorts does n't like spam !
This changes EVERYTHING !
My entire perception of the internet itself has changed FOREVAR !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, let me get this straight.
The purpose of this article is to complain that there's a popular public service for communication, and ohnoes it gets  spam!!1!1!!!
HALP HALP HALP   And what's more, *gasp* a developer of at least a semi-popular library of sorts doesn't like spam!
This changes EVERYTHING!
My entire perception of the internet itself has changed FOREVAR!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898215</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps a new mail header?</title>
	<author>grumbel</author>
	<datestamp>1256748360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It won't help at all in this case. For instance, nothing stops a spammer from signing up for a GMail account that generates such a header, and sending out spam that your spam filter happily allows through.</p></div><p>Thats trivial to solve, just hold any message whose key is younger then a few days or which isn't trusted enough for moderation.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And it would be trivial for a spammer to spoof a legitimate user's signature.</p></div><p>Unless they hack into a users account it will be pretty much impossible to fake a signature.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The only way that'll happen is if people stop buying products advertised that way.</p></div><p>Good luck with that. Sending spam is virtually free and making a free thing unprofitable ain't gonna work.</p><p>The only way to solve the spam problem is to add accountability into the system and PGP signatures would be one way to do it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It wo n't help at all in this case .
For instance , nothing stops a spammer from signing up for a GMail account that generates such a header , and sending out spam that your spam filter happily allows through.Thats trivial to solve , just hold any message whose key is younger then a few days or which is n't trusted enough for moderation.And it would be trivial for a spammer to spoof a legitimate user 's signature.Unless they hack into a users account it will be pretty much impossible to fake a signature.The only way that 'll happen is if people stop buying products advertised that way.Good luck with that .
Sending spam is virtually free and making a free thing unprofitable ai n't gon na work.The only way to solve the spam problem is to add accountability into the system and PGP signatures would be one way to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It won't help at all in this case.
For instance, nothing stops a spammer from signing up for a GMail account that generates such a header, and sending out spam that your spam filter happily allows through.Thats trivial to solve, just hold any message whose key is younger then a few days or which isn't trusted enough for moderation.And it would be trivial for a spammer to spoof a legitimate user's signature.Unless they hack into a users account it will be pretty much impossible to fake a signature.The only way that'll happen is if people stop buying products advertised that way.Good luck with that.
Sending spam is virtually free and making a free thing unprofitable ain't gonna work.The only way to solve the spam problem is to add accountability into the system and PGP signatures would be one way to do it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29903003</id>
	<title>Re:What's the problem again?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1256726400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; And once again: Why the hell does google not sign all messages which pass<br>&gt; through gmail as "really did come from this address"?</p><p>A large fraction of the spam I receive comes from valid Gmail accounts.  The spammers have no difficulty getting them.  Besides, you don't need any kind of account at all to post to Usenet via Google Groups.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; And once again : Why the hell does google not sign all messages which pass &gt; through gmail as " really did come from this address " ? A large fraction of the spam I receive comes from valid Gmail accounts .
The spammers have no difficulty getting them .
Besides , you do n't need any kind of account at all to post to Usenet via Google Groups .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; And once again: Why the hell does google not sign all messages which pass&gt; through gmail as "really did come from this address"?A large fraction of the spam I receive comes from valid Gmail accounts.
The spammers have no difficulty getting them.
Besides, you don't need any kind of account at all to post to Usenet via Google Groups.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899665</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29907637
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29905421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898711
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29902621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897851
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29902285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29901241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29907791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29902779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29900819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29900619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29900009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29910989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29908769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29900569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29902949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29900433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29903383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29902389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897919
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29900547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29903003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897913
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1419230_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1419230.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897965
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1419230.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899701
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1419230.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29900009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898437
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1419230.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897967
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29900569
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1419230.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898543
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29900433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29902949
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1419230.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897841
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29902389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897681
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898215
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898439
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898297
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29908769
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898051
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29901241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29900547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898463
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897691
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898669
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1419230.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897527
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1419230.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898683
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1419230.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898205
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1419230.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897707
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899837
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899793
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1419230.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897833
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1419230.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29900947
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1419230.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897579
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1419230.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29900619
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29902621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897851
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897913
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897879
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898375
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897903
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899155
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899263
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29902779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29902285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29907637
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1419230.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29903383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29905421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898185
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1419230.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29901383
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1419230.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898615
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1419230.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29903003
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1419230.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897685
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29900819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899197
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1419230.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29910989
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1419230.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898701
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1419230.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29907791
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1419230.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29899719
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1419230.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898467
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1419230.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29897545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29898473
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1419230.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1419230.29903449
</commentlist>
</conversation>
