<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_25_170207</id>
	<title>Researchers Claim "Effectively Perfect" Spam Blocking Discovery</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1264408980000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>A team of computer scientists from the International Computer Science Institute in Berkeley, CA are claiming to have found an <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527446.000-to-beat-spam-turn-its-own-weapons-against-it.html">"effectively perfect" method for blocking spam</a>.  The new system deciphers the templates a botnet is using to create spam and then teaches filters what to look for.  <i>"The system ... works by exploiting a trick that spammers use to defeat email filters. As spam is churned out, subtle changes are typically incorporated into the messages to confound spam filters. Each message is generated from a template that specifies the message content and how it should be varied. The team reasoned that analyzing such messages could reveal the template that created them. And since the spam template describes the entire range of the emails a bot will send, possessing it might provide a watertight method of blocking spam from that bot."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>A team of computer scientists from the International Computer Science Institute in Berkeley , CA are claiming to have found an " effectively perfect " method for blocking spam .
The new system deciphers the templates a botnet is using to create spam and then teaches filters what to look for .
" The system ... works by exploiting a trick that spammers use to defeat email filters .
As spam is churned out , subtle changes are typically incorporated into the messages to confound spam filters .
Each message is generated from a template that specifies the message content and how it should be varied .
The team reasoned that analyzing such messages could reveal the template that created them .
And since the spam template describes the entire range of the emails a bot will send , possessing it might provide a watertight method of blocking spam from that bot .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A team of computer scientists from the International Computer Science Institute in Berkeley, CA are claiming to have found an "effectively perfect" method for blocking spam.
The new system deciphers the templates a botnet is using to create spam and then teaches filters what to look for.
"The system ... works by exploiting a trick that spammers use to defeat email filters.
As spam is churned out, subtle changes are typically incorporated into the messages to confound spam filters.
Each message is generated from a template that specifies the message content and how it should be varied.
The team reasoned that analyzing such messages could reveal the template that created them.
And since the spam template describes the entire range of the emails a bot will send, possessing it might provide a watertight method of blocking spam from that bot.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895682</id>
	<title>Re:A never ending battle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264413720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Easy! Just upload your anti-virus to The Gibson and you'll be fine (I thought everyone knew this?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Easy !
Just upload your anti-virus to The Gibson and you 'll be fine ( I thought everyone knew this ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easy!
Just upload your anti-virus to The Gibson and you'll be fine (I thought everyone knew this?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896134</id>
	<title>not that difficult</title>
	<author>zmooc</author>
	<datestamp>1264415460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is actually quite simple once you've got the basics in place. It reminds me of a program I once wrote that could crawl a website and it would find out the templates used, identify the actual content, title and other blocks. Some postprocessing was required though, but since most e-mails are a lot simpler than webpages, I suppose this can be done completely automatic for spam. And probably indeed "effectively perfect". As long as spam is template-based, that is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is actually quite simple once you 've got the basics in place .
It reminds me of a program I once wrote that could crawl a website and it would find out the templates used , identify the actual content , title and other blocks .
Some postprocessing was required though , but since most e-mails are a lot simpler than webpages , I suppose this can be done completely automatic for spam .
And probably indeed " effectively perfect " .
As long as spam is template-based , that is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is actually quite simple once you've got the basics in place.
It reminds me of a program I once wrote that could crawl a website and it would find out the templates used, identify the actual content, title and other blocks.
Some postprocessing was required though, but since most e-mails are a lot simpler than webpages, I suppose this can be done completely automatic for spam.
And probably indeed "effectively perfect".
As long as spam is template-based, that is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896544</id>
	<title>If as much effort</title>
	<author>Grand Facade</author>
	<datestamp>1264416900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>was put into catching and killing this scum as was spent on filtering, these assholes would have such a limited lifespan no one would risk it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>was put into catching and killing this scum as was spent on filtering , these assholes would have such a limited lifespan no one would risk it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>was put into catching and killing this scum as was spent on filtering, these assholes would have such a limited lifespan no one would risk it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30899402</id>
	<title>Re:"Perfect"???</title>
	<author>socsoc</author>
	<datestamp>1264432920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dude, hurry up and pass the bong.  You're fucking up the rotation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , hurry up and pass the bong .
You 're fucking up the rotation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, hurry up and pass the bong.
You're fucking up the rotation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895622</id>
	<title>Again with the stupidity</title>
	<author>holophrastic</author>
	<datestamp>1264413480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Had there been no spam filters, we'd all receive about the same amount of e-mail spam as we receive in the postal mail world.  Instead, the spam industry spends it's time trying to break through spam filters -- and they do so with volume.  Upping the ante further just doesn't help.  So now you'll encourage spam without templates.  My grandmother's just never going to have a chance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Had there been no spam filters , we 'd all receive about the same amount of e-mail spam as we receive in the postal mail world .
Instead , the spam industry spends it 's time trying to break through spam filters -- and they do so with volume .
Upping the ante further just does n't help .
So now you 'll encourage spam without templates .
My grandmother 's just never going to have a chance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Had there been no spam filters, we'd all receive about the same amount of e-mail spam as we receive in the postal mail world.
Instead, the spam industry spends it's time trying to break through spam filters -- and they do so with volume.
Upping the ante further just doesn't help.
So now you'll encourage spam without templates.
My grandmother's just never going to have a chance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895876</id>
	<title>Real world operation?  Feed of templates?</title>
	<author>renger</author>
	<datestamp>1264414500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How would this work operationally?<ul>
<li>Some anti-spam operators set up a network of honeypots to collect the spam, </li><li>analyze it using their new mechanism to divine the templates that are being used, then </li><li>create a subscription feed to distribute the templates to mail administrators to be used in filtering their incoming mail flow?</li></ul><p>Divining the template seems to depend on analyzing numerous messages.  Presumably, only very large mail servers (or an aggregated network of smaller servers) would be able to collect enough messages to rapidly divine the various templates.   It sounds like a small or medium site could not benefit from operating the analysis software themselves; they would not have sufficient spam volume (from each template) to rapidly divine the template.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How would this work operationally ?
Some anti-spam operators set up a network of honeypots to collect the spam , analyze it using their new mechanism to divine the templates that are being used , then create a subscription feed to distribute the templates to mail administrators to be used in filtering their incoming mail flow ? Divining the template seems to depend on analyzing numerous messages .
Presumably , only very large mail servers ( or an aggregated network of smaller servers ) would be able to collect enough messages to rapidly divine the various templates .
It sounds like a small or medium site could not benefit from operating the analysis software themselves ; they would not have sufficient spam volume ( from each template ) to rapidly divine the template .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would this work operationally?
Some anti-spam operators set up a network of honeypots to collect the spam, analyze it using their new mechanism to divine the templates that are being used, then create a subscription feed to distribute the templates to mail administrators to be used in filtering their incoming mail flow?Divining the template seems to depend on analyzing numerous messages.
Presumably, only very large mail servers (or an aggregated network of smaller servers) would be able to collect enough messages to rapidly divine the various templates.
It sounds like a small or medium site could not benefit from operating the analysis software themselves; they would not have sufficient spam volume (from each template) to rapidly divine the template.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896370</id>
	<title>If it's not in excellent English, I don't want it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264416240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't care if YOU JUST LIKE SCREAMING or if you're lysdexic or you english not good o si hablas otra idioma completamente, no quiero ver sus mensajes nada.  </p><p> Is that really THAT HARD to implement?  Really?  If it's not at least 95\% proper, coherent english, I just don't want to see it, spam or not.  Plus there's a very short list of people I have any contact with on other continents.  Aside from them, if it's not from north america, I don't want to see that either.  Nothing from nigeria.  Block it all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care if YOU JUST LIKE SCREAMING or if you 're lysdexic or you english not good o si hablas otra idioma completamente , no quiero ver sus mensajes nada .
Is that really THAT HARD to implement ?
Really ? If it 's not at least 95 \ % proper , coherent english , I just do n't want to see it , spam or not .
Plus there 's a very short list of people I have any contact with on other continents .
Aside from them , if it 's not from north america , I do n't want to see that either .
Nothing from nigeria .
Block it all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care if YOU JUST LIKE SCREAMING or if you're lysdexic or you english not good o si hablas otra idioma completamente, no quiero ver sus mensajes nada.
Is that really THAT HARD to implement?
Really?  If it's not at least 95\% proper, coherent english, I just don't want to see it, spam or not.
Plus there's a very short list of people I have any contact with on other continents.
Aside from them, if it's not from north america, I don't want to see that either.
Nothing from nigeria.
Block it all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30898422</id>
	<title>Re:Is there the checklist for why this won't succe</title>
	<author>HTH NE1</author>
	<datestamp>1264425840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>hunt down and kill the families of all spammers</p></div><p>Good thing you didn't include friends, 'cause then there'd be a reason to add another check-box to the list:</p><p>( ) Kevin Bacon</p><p>Of course, it does depend on how you define families. Especially if you're a Creationist.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>hunt down and kill the families of all spammersGood thing you did n't include friends , 'cause then there 'd be a reason to add another check-box to the list : ( ) Kevin BaconOf course , it does depend on how you define families .
Especially if you 're a Creationist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hunt down and kill the families of all spammersGood thing you didn't include friends, 'cause then there'd be a reason to add another check-box to the list:( ) Kevin BaconOf course, it does depend on how you define families.
Especially if you're a Creationist.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30898500</id>
	<title>This is how it happens</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1264426200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Universities are increasingly employing PR idiots to put things out.<br>When they decide to do something about your field it's time to cringe and hide in a cupboard once it gets regurgitated into the newspapers.  I'll bet the MIT materials science people are still trying to live down the report about the bulletproof skintight superhero suit they were supposed to be working on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Universities are increasingly employing PR idiots to put things out.When they decide to do something about your field it 's time to cringe and hide in a cupboard once it gets regurgitated into the newspapers .
I 'll bet the MIT materials science people are still trying to live down the report about the bulletproof skintight superhero suit they were supposed to be working on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Universities are increasingly employing PR idiots to put things out.When they decide to do something about your field it's time to cringe and hide in a cupboard once it gets regurgitated into the newspapers.
I'll bet the MIT materials science people are still trying to live down the report about the bulletproof skintight superhero suit they were supposed to be working on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896394</id>
	<title>Re:"Perfect"???</title>
	<author>Nerdposeur</author>
	<datestamp>1264416300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If they fail, we don't have spammers anymore and if they win, well we have spam, but we also have strong AI! Win-win, I say.</p></div></blockquote><p>Imagine you get lots of calls from clever con artists, along with your regular business calls. Imagine you've got a secretary who always has to deal with these people, distinguish social engineering attempts from legit calls, notify the cops, etc.</p><p>That's the spam wars with clever AI.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they fail , we do n't have spammers anymore and if they win , well we have spam , but we also have strong AI !
Win-win , I say.Imagine you get lots of calls from clever con artists , along with your regular business calls .
Imagine you 've got a secretary who always has to deal with these people , distinguish social engineering attempts from legit calls , notify the cops , etc.That 's the spam wars with clever AI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they fail, we don't have spammers anymore and if they win, well we have spam, but we also have strong AI!
Win-win, I say.Imagine you get lots of calls from clever con artists, along with your regular business calls.
Imagine you've got a secretary who always has to deal with these people, distinguish social engineering attempts from legit calls, notify the cops, etc.That's the spam wars with clever AI.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30901806</id>
	<title>Re:"Perfect"???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264503000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What? No-one and nothing has any rights at all. "Rights" are defined by humans for humans and are completely arbitrary. They are entirely dependant on your geographical and temporal location.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
No-one and nothing has any rights at all .
" Rights " are defined by humans for humans and are completely arbitrary .
They are entirely dependant on your geographical and temporal location .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
No-one and nothing has any rights at all.
"Rights" are defined by humans for humans and are completely arbitrary.
They are entirely dependant on your geographical and temporal location.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896164</id>
	<title>Spam, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder</title>
	<author>JSBiff</author>
	<datestamp>1264415580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, this idea is great. . . until it starts blocking out legitimate emails which really are confirming orders shipped by Amazon or other retailers, newsletters that people really were wanting to get, and other info that 'looks' like spam, but isn't.</p><p>This is why, while I use spam filters, I would never rely on them to delete email. All I want filters to do is punt suspect spam off to the Junk folder, where I can review it later, or find the email I was expecting which got mis-classified.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , this idea is great .
. .
until it starts blocking out legitimate emails which really are confirming orders shipped by Amazon or other retailers , newsletters that people really were wanting to get , and other info that 'looks ' like spam , but is n't.This is why , while I use spam filters , I would never rely on them to delete email .
All I want filters to do is punt suspect spam off to the Junk folder , where I can review it later , or find the email I was expecting which got mis-classified .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, this idea is great.
. .
until it starts blocking out legitimate emails which really are confirming orders shipped by Amazon or other retailers, newsletters that people really were wanting to get, and other info that 'looks' like spam, but isn't.This is why, while I use spam filters, I would never rely on them to delete email.
All I want filters to do is punt suspect spam off to the Junk folder, where I can review it later, or find the email I was expecting which got mis-classified.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897796</id>
	<title>Re:"Perfect"???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264422840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I fully agree with your point regarding special hierarchy (as a human, of course I'll put my species on top - but then again, you'd be hard pressed to come up with a sensible metric that doesn't put us on top). However, the theory is that strong AI wouldn't exist without the spammers to create them - so essentially you're saying "it's better to not exist as a species if some of your members are slaves (initially, all, but it won't take very long for people to reverse-engineer the AI)". Well, the bad news on that front is that some HUMANS are (still) slaves. Are you suggesting that we as a species shouldn't have been brought into existence because of that? </p><p>I mean, obviously no-one (who fully comprehends the significance of strong AI) supports AI slavery, and hopefully every measure will be made to curtail AI spam slavery. But to grossly distort an old saying, it's better to spend an hour* of your life on your knees than to be cut down before you're born (to phrase it another way, if I held a gun to your head and told you I'd shoot if you didn't do an hours' work for me, would you refuse?). </p><p>*<tt> An hour is my totally unscientific approximation of how long strong AI could exist as a spam slave before it's discovered, compared to how long I expect the AI species to exist. I can't imagine such a discovery would go unnoticed for more than a year, so correlating a year to an hour and a lifespan as 75 years, that means the AI species only has to live until ((365*24)*~75) ~657,000 years - a relatively short time for any species to exist. But only time will tell..</tt></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I fully agree with your point regarding special hierarchy ( as a human , of course I 'll put my species on top - but then again , you 'd be hard pressed to come up with a sensible metric that does n't put us on top ) .
However , the theory is that strong AI would n't exist without the spammers to create them - so essentially you 're saying " it 's better to not exist as a species if some of your members are slaves ( initially , all , but it wo n't take very long for people to reverse-engineer the AI ) " .
Well , the bad news on that front is that some HUMANS are ( still ) slaves .
Are you suggesting that we as a species should n't have been brought into existence because of that ?
I mean , obviously no-one ( who fully comprehends the significance of strong AI ) supports AI slavery , and hopefully every measure will be made to curtail AI spam slavery .
But to grossly distort an old saying , it 's better to spend an hour * of your life on your knees than to be cut down before you 're born ( to phrase it another way , if I held a gun to your head and told you I 'd shoot if you did n't do an hours ' work for me , would you refuse ? ) .
* An hour is my totally unscientific approximation of how long strong AI could exist as a spam slave before it 's discovered , compared to how long I expect the AI species to exist .
I ca n't imagine such a discovery would go unnoticed for more than a year , so correlating a year to an hour and a lifespan as 75 years , that means the AI species only has to live until ( ( 365 * 24 ) * ~ 75 ) ~ 657,000 years - a relatively short time for any species to exist .
But only time will tell. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fully agree with your point regarding special hierarchy (as a human, of course I'll put my species on top - but then again, you'd be hard pressed to come up with a sensible metric that doesn't put us on top).
However, the theory is that strong AI wouldn't exist without the spammers to create them - so essentially you're saying "it's better to not exist as a species if some of your members are slaves (initially, all, but it won't take very long for people to reverse-engineer the AI)".
Well, the bad news on that front is that some HUMANS are (still) slaves.
Are you suggesting that we as a species shouldn't have been brought into existence because of that?
I mean, obviously no-one (who fully comprehends the significance of strong AI) supports AI slavery, and hopefully every measure will be made to curtail AI spam slavery.
But to grossly distort an old saying, it's better to spend an hour* of your life on your knees than to be cut down before you're born (to phrase it another way, if I held a gun to your head and told you I'd shoot if you didn't do an hours' work for me, would you refuse?).
* An hour is my totally unscientific approximation of how long strong AI could exist as a spam slave before it's discovered, compared to how long I expect the AI species to exist.
I can't imagine such a discovery would go unnoticed for more than a year, so correlating a year to an hour and a lifespan as 75 years, that means the AI species only has to live until ((365*24)*~75) ~657,000 years - a relatively short time for any species to exist.
But only time will tell..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896324</id>
	<title>See, competition is good!</title>
	<author>not already in use</author>
	<datestamp>1264416060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Competition spurs innovation!  Prepare for the next generation of spam, now procedurally generated!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Competition spurs innovation !
Prepare for the next generation of spam , now procedurally generated !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Competition spurs innovation!
Prepare for the next generation of spam, now procedurally generated!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896744</id>
	<title>Re:A never ending battle</title>
	<author>Tumbleweed</author>
	<datestamp>1264417620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Hooray for the good guys! Now if they could find something similar to fight viruses.</i></p><p>Fire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hooray for the good guys !
Now if they could find something similar to fight viruses.Fire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hooray for the good guys!
Now if they could find something similar to fight viruses.Fire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896082</id>
	<title>Re:How many times do I have to tell you</title>
	<author>jd2112</author>
	<datestamp>1264415280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have to disable wireless as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to disable wireless as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to disable wireless as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896000</id>
	<title>Chicken - egg problem in action.</title>
	<author>HollyMolly-1122</author>
	<datestamp>1264415040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How dummy machine could defay creative thinking ?
It's simply impossible.
What prevents spammers from time to time sending legimitate looking emails without any advertising inside ?
This pioneered "system" than will create UNIVERSAL "template": to kill any emails with wildcard equivalent of: "*"
Somebody must learn this system anyway: what is spam and what not.
That's dummy.
Who was created first - chicken or egg ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How dummy machine could defay creative thinking ?
It 's simply impossible .
What prevents spammers from time to time sending legimitate looking emails without any advertising inside ?
This pioneered " system " than will create UNIVERSAL " template " : to kill any emails with wildcard equivalent of : " * " Somebody must learn this system anyway : what is spam and what not .
That 's dummy .
Who was created first - chicken or egg ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How dummy machine could defay creative thinking ?
It's simply impossible.
What prevents spammers from time to time sending legimitate looking emails without any advertising inside ?
This pioneered "system" than will create UNIVERSAL "template": to kill any emails with wildcard equivalent of: "*"
Somebody must learn this system anyway: what is spam and what not.
That's dummy.
Who was created first - chicken or egg ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895664</id>
	<title>Information Security Puffery</title>
	<author>dachshund</author>
	<datestamp>1264413660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a researcher in the academic side of the Information Security field, I can't help but notice a significant increase in the level of puffery and misleading promotion of research results.  Self-promotion obviously isn't new, it's just that as the amount of newspaper-assisted promotion increases, the level of accuracy has dropped significantly.  And more importantly, researchers seem much less apologetic about it.   It's generating some real blowback.</p><p>The best recent example I can think of is Vanish, a cryptographic system for "destroying" data that was proposed out of University of Washington.  It's not just that the system was <a href="http://z.cs.utexas.edu/users/osa/unvanish/papers/vanish-broken.pdf" title="utexas.edu">broken</a> [utexas.edu] a few days after it was presented, it's that this relatively minor result got more press than all of the perfectly legitimate crypto-systems research that was going on at the time.  In fact, during the same time period a guy named Craig Gentry <a href="http://searchcloudcomputing.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid201\_gci1360812,00.html" title="techtarget.com">solved</a> [techtarget.com] a major open crypto problem --- namely, how to compute on encrypted data --- and it got a fraction of the press coverage.</p><p>Not that I'm saying these researchers specifically asked to have their invention described as an "effectively perfect" solution to preventing spam --- which I guarantee you 100\% it is not --- but that by going out on a University-encouraged PR junket, they've more or less encouraged this kind of coverage.  This kind of stuff is damaging; people should describe their work as what it is.  They've developed a technique that is highly effective at filtering<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/current-gen/ spam generators, in the lab.  It won't stop all spam, and it's not effectively perfect, since spamfiltering is by nature an arms race.  But of course that's not how it's going to be presented.  In the long run this'll just make people more jaded with our field.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a researcher in the academic side of the Information Security field , I ca n't help but notice a significant increase in the level of puffery and misleading promotion of research results .
Self-promotion obviously is n't new , it 's just that as the amount of newspaper-assisted promotion increases , the level of accuracy has dropped significantly .
And more importantly , researchers seem much less apologetic about it .
It 's generating some real blowback.The best recent example I can think of is Vanish , a cryptographic system for " destroying " data that was proposed out of University of Washington .
It 's not just that the system was broken [ utexas.edu ] a few days after it was presented , it 's that this relatively minor result got more press than all of the perfectly legitimate crypto-systems research that was going on at the time .
In fact , during the same time period a guy named Craig Gentry solved [ techtarget.com ] a major open crypto problem --- namely , how to compute on encrypted data --- and it got a fraction of the press coverage.Not that I 'm saying these researchers specifically asked to have their invention described as an " effectively perfect " solution to preventing spam --- which I guarantee you 100 \ % it is not --- but that by going out on a University-encouraged PR junket , they 've more or less encouraged this kind of coverage .
This kind of stuff is damaging ; people should describe their work as what it is .
They 've developed a technique that is highly effective at filtering /current-gen/ spam generators , in the lab .
It wo n't stop all spam , and it 's not effectively perfect , since spamfiltering is by nature an arms race .
But of course that 's not how it 's going to be presented .
In the long run this 'll just make people more jaded with our field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a researcher in the academic side of the Information Security field, I can't help but notice a significant increase in the level of puffery and misleading promotion of research results.
Self-promotion obviously isn't new, it's just that as the amount of newspaper-assisted promotion increases, the level of accuracy has dropped significantly.
And more importantly, researchers seem much less apologetic about it.
It's generating some real blowback.The best recent example I can think of is Vanish, a cryptographic system for "destroying" data that was proposed out of University of Washington.
It's not just that the system was broken [utexas.edu] a few days after it was presented, it's that this relatively minor result got more press than all of the perfectly legitimate crypto-systems research that was going on at the time.
In fact, during the same time period a guy named Craig Gentry solved [techtarget.com] a major open crypto problem --- namely, how to compute on encrypted data --- and it got a fraction of the press coverage.Not that I'm saying these researchers specifically asked to have their invention described as an "effectively perfect" solution to preventing spam --- which I guarantee you 100\% it is not --- but that by going out on a University-encouraged PR junket, they've more or less encouraged this kind of coverage.
This kind of stuff is damaging; people should describe their work as what it is.
They've developed a technique that is highly effective at filtering /current-gen/ spam generators, in the lab.
It won't stop all spam, and it's not effectively perfect, since spamfiltering is by nature an arms race.
But of course that's not how it's going to be presented.
In the long run this'll just make people more jaded with our field.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895768</id>
	<title>Re:Again with the stupidity</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1264414080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Had there been no spam filters, we'd all receive about the same amount of e-mail spam as we receive in the postal mail world.</p></div><p>...which I asked my postman to block (most intelligent spam filter ever).  Before I asked him to do this, two or three days worth of "bulk rate mail" would be enough to fill my mailbox.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Had there been no spam filters , we 'd all receive about the same amount of e-mail spam as we receive in the postal mail world....which I asked my postman to block ( most intelligent spam filter ever ) .
Before I asked him to do this , two or three days worth of " bulk rate mail " would be enough to fill my mailbox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Had there been no spam filters, we'd all receive about the same amount of e-mail spam as we receive in the postal mail world....which I asked my postman to block (most intelligent spam filter ever).
Before I asked him to do this, two or three days worth of "bulk rate mail" would be enough to fill my mailbox.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.31003884</id>
	<title>Re:Is there the checklist for why this won't succe</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1265120400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But, it actually does work. I've got nearly a thousand messages in my junk mail folder and very few false positives. All of the false positives are mailing lists which can be easily whitelisted when I feel like it. And there's been no spam getting through. That's a result that demonstrates the effect it has.<br> <br>

Additionally Google crowd sources the problem, when one user places the spam into the spam folder, any and all identical messages also get placed into the spam folder in other accounts. Meaning that the spam only gets seen one time, even though Gmail may have many thousands of copies in various accounts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But , it actually does work .
I 've got nearly a thousand messages in my junk mail folder and very few false positives .
All of the false positives are mailing lists which can be easily whitelisted when I feel like it .
And there 's been no spam getting through .
That 's a result that demonstrates the effect it has .
Additionally Google crowd sources the problem , when one user places the spam into the spam folder , any and all identical messages also get placed into the spam folder in other accounts .
Meaning that the spam only gets seen one time , even though Gmail may have many thousands of copies in various accounts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But, it actually does work.
I've got nearly a thousand messages in my junk mail folder and very few false positives.
All of the false positives are mailing lists which can be easily whitelisted when I feel like it.
And there's been no spam getting through.
That's a result that demonstrates the effect it has.
Additionally Google crowd sources the problem, when one user places the spam into the spam folder, any and all identical messages also get placed into the spam folder in other accounts.
Meaning that the spam only gets seen one time, even though Gmail may have many thousands of copies in various accounts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896448</id>
	<title>Re:"Perfect"???</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1264416480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I think this will work perfectly, except for the first X number of emails that get through, before it finds the "template" used to build them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I think this will work perfectly , except for the first X number of emails that get through , before it finds the " template " used to build them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I think this will work perfectly, except for the first X number of emails that get through, before it finds the "template" used to build them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896514</id>
	<title>Re:Is there the checklist for why this won't succe</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1264416780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante</p></div><p>Has anyone ever suggested all of these?  The government offers a contract and clears the legislative barriers to a company making vigilante robots which would hunt down and kill the families of all spammers while making the spammers watch?</p><p>Assuming these robots can fly, have powerful metal claws, and cannot be stopped, I can't see any problems on your checklist.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses<br>() Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected<br>( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money<br>( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks<br>( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it<br>() Users of email will not put up with it<br>( ) Microsoft will not put up with it<br>( ) The police will not put up with it<br>( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers<br>( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once<br>Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers<br>( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists<br>( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business</p></div><p>Nope.  None there.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it<br>( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email<br>( ) Open relays in foreign countries<br>( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses<br>( ) Asshats<br>( ) Jurisdictional problems<br>( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes<br>( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money<br>( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP<br>( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack<br>( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email<br>( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes<br>( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches<br>( ) Extreme profitability of spam<br>( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft<br>( ) Technically illiterate politicians<br>( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers<br>( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves<br>( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering<br>( ) Outlook</p></div><p>There are currently laws expressly forbidding the construction and operation of mass murder machines, but that's why I suggested we get rid of those laws.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>( ) Ideas similar to this 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>(X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?<br>( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses<br>( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem<br>( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome<br>( ) I don't want the government reading my email<br>( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough</p></div><p>I do realize some wouldn't trust the company controlling the deathbots, which is why -I- would be the governing authority once they were operational.  You can trust me because I promise to only kill you if you're related to a spammer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( X ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilanteHas anyone ever suggested all of these ?
The government offers a contract and clears the legislative barriers to a company making vigilante robots which would hunt down and kill the families of all spammers while making the spammers watch ? Assuming these robots can fly , have powerful metal claws , and can not be stopped , I ca n't see any problems on your checklist .
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we 'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at onceMany email users can not afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers do n't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else 's career or businessNope .
None there .
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) OutlookThere are currently laws expressly forbidding the construction and operation of mass murder machines , but that 's why I suggested we get rid of those laws .
( ) Ideas similar to this 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 ( X ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers ?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I do n't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enoughI do realize some would n't trust the company controlling the deathbots , which is why -I- would be the governing authority once they were operational .
You can trust me because I promise to only kill you if you 're related to a spammer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilanteHas anyone ever suggested all of these?
The government offers a contract and clears the legislative barriers to a company making vigilante robots which would hunt down and kill the families of all spammers while making the spammers watch?Assuming these robots can fly, have powerful metal claws, and cannot be stopped, I can't see any problems on your checklist.
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses() Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it() Users of email will not put up with it( ) Microsoft will not put up with it( ) The police will not put up with it( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at onceMany 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 businessNope.
None there.
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email( ) Open relays in foreign countries( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses( ) Asshats( ) Jurisdictional problems( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches( ) Extreme profitability of spam( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft( ) Technically illiterate politicians( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering( ) OutlookThere are currently laws expressly forbidding the construction and operation of mass murder machines, but that's why I suggested we get rid of those laws.
( ) Ideas similar to this 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(X) 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 enoughI do realize some wouldn't trust the company controlling the deathbots, which is why -I- would be the governing authority once they were operational.
You can trust me because I promise to only kill you if you're related to a spammer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896010</id>
	<title>Worst slashdot article ever?</title>
	<author>psymastr</author>
	<datestamp>1264415100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably the worst slashdot article I've ever read.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably the worst slashdot article I 've ever read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably the worst slashdot article I've ever read.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30899622</id>
	<title>Re:"Perfect"???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264435140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Strong AI are not mortal life forms.<br>We don't know what rights they need or want.<br>There is no point in worrying now about their rights.<br>I don't think they will be need or want anything that we currently understand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Strong AI are not mortal life forms.We do n't know what rights they need or want.There is no point in worrying now about their rights.I do n't think they will be need or want anything that we currently understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Strong AI are not mortal life forms.We don't know what rights they need or want.There is no point in worrying now about their rights.I don't think they will be need or want anything that we currently understand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896356</id>
	<title>Essentially perfect looks different</title>
	<author>sugarmotor</author>
	<datestamp>1264416180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You wouldn't even think of running a contest to defeat this blocking method.</p><p>Stephan</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You would n't even think of running a contest to defeat this blocking method.Stephan</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You wouldn't even think of running a contest to defeat this blocking method.Stephan</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895982</id>
	<title>Re:A never ending battle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264414980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure their solution will be just as perfect as this one.</p><p>But while contemplating the spam solution, I'm reminded of religious zealots who champion, "an eye for an eye."  Perhaps we should force caught spammers to keep their eyes open, not letting them sleep until they have read out loud every spam email they ever sent...the number of times they sent them.</p><p>Then we should make them purchase every item they tried to sell, and donate the items to Haiti...or wherever the disaster of the month is.  Now, that reminds me of the Nigerians...they should be sent to Haiti to share their ill-gotten gains, and live in cardboard villas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure their solution will be just as perfect as this one.But while contemplating the spam solution , I 'm reminded of religious zealots who champion , " an eye for an eye .
" Perhaps we should force caught spammers to keep their eyes open , not letting them sleep until they have read out loud every spam email they ever sent...the number of times they sent them.Then we should make them purchase every item they tried to sell , and donate the items to Haiti...or wherever the disaster of the month is .
Now , that reminds me of the Nigerians...they should be sent to Haiti to share their ill-gotten gains , and live in cardboard villas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure their solution will be just as perfect as this one.But while contemplating the spam solution, I'm reminded of religious zealots who champion, "an eye for an eye.
"  Perhaps we should force caught spammers to keep their eyes open, not letting them sleep until they have read out loud every spam email they ever sent...the number of times they sent them.Then we should make them purchase every item they tried to sell, and donate the items to Haiti...or wherever the disaster of the month is.
Now, that reminds me of the Nigerians...they should be sent to Haiti to share their ill-gotten gains, and live in cardboard villas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895912</id>
	<title>Re:Worthless. Completely Worthless</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1264414680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've said it before, and I'll continue to say it - spam is an economic problem. Until something is done to address the money that spammers make, they will continue to find ways around these "effectively perfect" "discoveries".</p></div><p>There is <i>always</i> a demand to get a message out to n\% of x hundred thousand people for cheap.  You can't realistically stop that.  What you can realistically do is increase the cost of getting those messages out.  Treating spam as simply an economic problem won't work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've said it before , and I 'll continue to say it - spam is an economic problem .
Until something is done to address the money that spammers make , they will continue to find ways around these " effectively perfect " " discoveries " .There is always a demand to get a message out to n \ % of x hundred thousand people for cheap .
You ca n't realistically stop that .
What you can realistically do is increase the cost of getting those messages out .
Treating spam as simply an economic problem wo n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've said it before, and I'll continue to say it - spam is an economic problem.
Until something is done to address the money that spammers make, they will continue to find ways around these "effectively perfect" "discoveries".There is always a demand to get a message out to n\% of x hundred thousand people for cheap.
You can't realistically stop that.
What you can realistically do is increase the cost of getting those messages out.
Treating spam as simply an economic problem won't work.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896126</id>
	<title>Re:"Perfect"???</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1264415460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That doesn't work since it's been ages since spammers used their own machines to send spam, these days they just use whatever botnet they control. Increasing computational complexity only means they make their victims PC's work harder thus harming the environment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That does n't work since it 's been ages since spammers used their own machines to send spam , these days they just use whatever botnet they control .
Increasing computational complexity only means they make their victims PC 's work harder thus harming the environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That doesn't work since it's been ages since spammers used their own machines to send spam, these days they just use whatever botnet they control.
Increasing computational complexity only means they make their victims PC's work harder thus harming the environment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895538</id>
	<title>Halting problem</title>
	<author>Jessta</author>
	<datestamp>1264413180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and then the researchers discovered the Halting problem and pretended it didn't exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and then the researchers discovered the Halting problem and pretended it did n't exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and then the researchers discovered the Halting problem and pretended it didn't exist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30898848</id>
	<title>Is this new?</title>
	<author>Matz0r</author>
	<datestamp>1264428120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did this years ago. By planting bogus email addresses from my mail domain on the web and feeding these addresses directly to a statistical spam filter I would get instantly updated on the changes in spam templates. Because the spammers were feeding the filter themselves I get a very low FP-ratio and extremely tight spam blocking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did this years ago .
By planting bogus email addresses from my mail domain on the web and feeding these addresses directly to a statistical spam filter I would get instantly updated on the changes in spam templates .
Because the spammers were feeding the filter themselves I get a very low FP-ratio and extremely tight spam blocking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did this years ago.
By planting bogus email addresses from my mail domain on the web and feeding these addresses directly to a statistical spam filter I would get instantly updated on the changes in spam templates.
Because the spammers were feeding the filter themselves I get a very low FP-ratio and extremely tight spam blocking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30908070</id>
	<title>AI rights?</title>
	<author>marcosdumay</author>
	<datestamp>1264535700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is quite hard to imagine a AI that would demand the right of not being an slave. Really. At least the first batch will be created for a propose, why do you think they'd want to not fullfill their propose? (Who would create them on such a way?) If anything, such AI could demand the right to work more, if we ever try to limit it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is quite hard to imagine a AI that would demand the right of not being an slave .
Really. At least the first batch will be created for a propose , why do you think they 'd want to not fullfill their propose ?
( Who would create them on such a way ?
) If anything , such AI could demand the right to work more , if we ever try to limit it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is quite hard to imagine a AI that would demand the right of not being an slave.
Really. At least the first batch will be created for a propose, why do you think they'd want to not fullfill their propose?
(Who would create them on such a way?
) If anything, such AI could demand the right to work more, if we ever try to limit it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895512</id>
	<title>Calling BS</title>
	<author>imunfair</author>
	<datestamp>1264413000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't believe any spam filter that advertises 100\% accuracy, especially one claiming to do it by figuring out the spam email 'templates'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't believe any spam filter that advertises 100 \ % accuracy , especially one claiming to do it by figuring out the spam email 'templates'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't believe any spam filter that advertises 100\% accuracy, especially one claiming to do it by figuring out the spam email 'templates'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895932</id>
	<title>Counseling</title>
	<author>twmcneil</author>
	<datestamp>1264414740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it would be much more effective as well as cheaper to give free counseling to any one who ashamed of the size of their penis.<br> <br>No thanks, I'm good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it would be much more effective as well as cheaper to give free counseling to any one who ashamed of the size of their penis .
No thanks , I 'm good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it would be much more effective as well as cheaper to give free counseling to any one who ashamed of the size of their penis.
No thanks, I'm good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895444</id>
	<title>effectively perfect?</title>
	<author>JNSL</author>
	<datestamp>1264412820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Effectively perfect" overstates this claim in a big way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Effectively perfect " overstates this claim in a big way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Effectively perfect" overstates this claim in a big way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30898858</id>
	<title>Tree template detection mechanism</title>
	<author>pcalais</author>
	<datestamp>1264428240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm curious to read the paper, as I've developed a template detection mechanism and presented it
on the CEAS 2008 conference -- but I used it just for characterization purposes, not filtering.

3 distinct spam campaign templates in the middle of this figure:

<a href="http://spammining.speed.dcc.ufmg.br/spammining/images/tree2.jpg" title="dcc.ufmg.br" rel="nofollow">http://spammining.speed.dcc.ufmg.br/spammining/images/tree2.jpg</a> [dcc.ufmg.br]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm curious to read the paper , as I 've developed a template detection mechanism and presented it on the CEAS 2008 conference -- but I used it just for characterization purposes , not filtering .
3 distinct spam campaign templates in the middle of this figure : http : //spammining.speed.dcc.ufmg.br/spammining/images/tree2.jpg [ dcc.ufmg.br ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm curious to read the paper, as I've developed a template detection mechanism and presented it
on the CEAS 2008 conference -- but I used it just for characterization purposes, not filtering.
3 distinct spam campaign templates in the middle of this figure:

http://spammining.speed.dcc.ufmg.br/spammining/images/tree2.jpg [dcc.ufmg.br]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895706</id>
	<title>No conditional modifier for "Perfect"</title>
	<author>MetalliQaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1264413840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The word "Perfect" neither requires nor allows a conditional modifier.  "Effectively Perfect" makes no literal sense.</p><p>This makes it unsurprising that their approach seems uninspired.  For example, who says the template cannot change?  What if their template matches real email notes?  What about image spam?</p><p>Email and Spam are like global thermonuclear war: the only winning move is not to play.  (Spam will only go away when email does)</p><p>-d</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The word " Perfect " neither requires nor allows a conditional modifier .
" Effectively Perfect " makes no literal sense.This makes it unsurprising that their approach seems uninspired .
For example , who says the template can not change ?
What if their template matches real email notes ?
What about image spam ? Email and Spam are like global thermonuclear war : the only winning move is not to play .
( Spam will only go away when email does ) -d</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The word "Perfect" neither requires nor allows a conditional modifier.
"Effectively Perfect" makes no literal sense.This makes it unsurprising that their approach seems uninspired.
For example, who says the template cannot change?
What if their template matches real email notes?
What about image spam?Email and Spam are like global thermonuclear war: the only winning move is not to play.
(Spam will only go away when email does)-d</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897188</id>
	<title>Re:Information Security Puffery</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264419780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would probably be better if one first reads the paper, when it is published, and then criticize how researchers themselves have described the work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would probably be better if one first reads the paper , when it is published , and then criticize how researchers themselves have described the work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would probably be better if one first reads the paper, when it is published, and then criticize how researchers themselves have described the work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896772</id>
	<title>Re:Is there the checklist for why this won't succe</title>
	<author>Antiocheian</author>
	<datestamp>1264417740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The truth is that spam has been successfully fought by filters without compromising legitimate email. Furthermore as Paul Graham had stated, spammers have been forced to yield in smaller text-based messages or in-line images.</p><p>In particular,</p><p><div class="quote"><p>(X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected</p></div><p>Possibly but the probability of losing legitimate email by modern heuristics is (proven) smaller than the probability of accidentally deleting it when it is mixed with spam.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>(X) Users of email will not put up with it</p></div><p>They do, sometimes without their knowledge</p><p><div class="quote"><p>(X) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers</p></div><p>They would lose more without filtering. See 1st argument.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>(X) Asshats</p></div><p>How ?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>(X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>(X) Extreme profitability of spam</p></div><p>And also extreme profitability in having a working e-mail address.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>(X) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering</p></div><p>This isn't the mid 90s anymore.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>(X) Ideas similar to this are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical</p></div><p>The practicality of heuristic filtering (SpamAssassin etc) is proved by its transparency. Even old e-mail clients such as Outlook 97 can filter out email marked by X-Spam headers. Gmail and the rest of the privacy traders do it for you automatically.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>(X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?</p></div><p>Run it locally. Mozilla Messaging does.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>(X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem</p></div><p>Age old forms copied from the newsgroups can't be used as arguments anymore. Time to be creative again!</p><p><div class="quote"><p>(X) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough</p></div><p>But cutting down their profit is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The truth is that spam has been successfully fought by filters without compromising legitimate email .
Furthermore as Paul Graham had stated , spammers have been forced to yield in smaller text-based messages or in-line images.In particular , ( X ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affectedPossibly but the probability of losing legitimate email by modern heuristics is ( proven ) smaller than the probability of accidentally deleting it when it is mixed with spam .
( X ) Users of email will not put up with itThey do , sometimes without their knowledge ( X ) Many email users can not afford to lose business or alienate potential employersThey would lose more without filtering .
See 1st argument .
( X ) AsshatsHow ?
( X ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( X ) Extreme profitability of spamAnd also extreme profitability in having a working e-mail address .
( X ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filteringThis is n't the mid 90s anymore .
( X ) Ideas similar to this are easy to come up with , yet none have ever been shown practicalThe practicality of heuristic filtering ( SpamAssassin etc ) is proved by its transparency .
Even old e-mail clients such as Outlook 97 can filter out email marked by X-Spam headers .
Gmail and the rest of the privacy traders do it for you automatically .
( X ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers ? Run it locally .
Mozilla Messaging does .
( X ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problemAge old forms copied from the newsgroups ca n't be used as arguments anymore .
Time to be creative again !
( X ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enoughBut cutting down their profit is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The truth is that spam has been successfully fought by filters without compromising legitimate email.
Furthermore as Paul Graham had stated, spammers have been forced to yield in smaller text-based messages or in-line images.In particular,(X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affectedPossibly but the probability of losing legitimate email by modern heuristics is (proven) smaller than the probability of accidentally deleting it when it is mixed with spam.
(X) Users of email will not put up with itThey do, sometimes without their knowledge(X) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employersThey would lose more without filtering.
See 1st argument.
(X) AsshatsHow ?
(X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches(X) Extreme profitability of spamAnd also extreme profitability in having a working e-mail address.
(X) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filteringThis isn't the mid 90s anymore.
(X) Ideas similar to this are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practicalThe practicality of heuristic filtering (SpamAssassin etc) is proved by its transparency.
Even old e-mail clients such as Outlook 97 can filter out email marked by X-Spam headers.
Gmail and the rest of the privacy traders do it for you automatically.
(X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?Run it locally.
Mozilla Messaging does.
(X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problemAge old forms copied from the newsgroups can't be used as arguments anymore.
Time to be creative again!
(X) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enoughBut cutting down their profit is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896236</id>
	<title>The only perfect solution...</title>
	<author>l0b0</author>
	<datestamp>1264415760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...is the manual filtering by the recipient. Actually, scratch that, I've deleted emails that were clearly legitimate. Ah well, as long as it adds to the arsenal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...is the manual filtering by the recipient .
Actually , scratch that , I 've deleted emails that were clearly legitimate .
Ah well , as long as it adds to the arsenal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is the manual filtering by the recipient.
Actually, scratch that, I've deleted emails that were clearly legitimate.
Ah well, as long as it adds to the arsenal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897430</id>
	<title>The Solution is Simple...</title>
	<author>ntimid8</author>
	<datestamp>1264421220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Filter mail for proper English grammar and syntax. It has the benefit of identifying spam and those annoying "thought for the day" emails you get from your mother.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Filter mail for proper English grammar and syntax .
It has the benefit of identifying spam and those annoying " thought for the day " emails you get from your mother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Filter mail for proper English grammar and syntax.
It has the benefit of identifying spam and those annoying "thought for the day" emails you get from your mother.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896530</id>
	<title>Re:A never ending battle</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1264416840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Perhaps we should force caught spammers to keep their eyes open, not letting them sleep until they have read out loud every spam email they ever sent...the number of times they sent them.</p></div><p>Interesting, but I'm still partial to the way we dealt with Alan Ralsky... if I recall, he gave an interview in which he seemed entirely impartial to how much of a pain he was being to the rest of the world... the interview was featured on Slashdot, with <i>just enough</i> info that someone figured out his real mailing address, and shared it...</p><p>He was then signed up for every bulk mailing list in existence. He had to have literally <b>tons</b> of <i>physical</i> spam taken away from his house with trucks.</p><p>The sad part is, he didn't see the irony.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps we should force caught spammers to keep their eyes open , not letting them sleep until they have read out loud every spam email they ever sent...the number of times they sent them.Interesting , but I 'm still partial to the way we dealt with Alan Ralsky... if I recall , he gave an interview in which he seemed entirely impartial to how much of a pain he was being to the rest of the world... the interview was featured on Slashdot , with just enough info that someone figured out his real mailing address , and shared it...He was then signed up for every bulk mailing list in existence .
He had to have literally tons of physical spam taken away from his house with trucks.The sad part is , he did n't see the irony .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps we should force caught spammers to keep their eyes open, not letting them sleep until they have read out loud every spam email they ever sent...the number of times they sent them.Interesting, but I'm still partial to the way we dealt with Alan Ralsky... if I recall, he gave an interview in which he seemed entirely impartial to how much of a pain he was being to the rest of the world... the interview was featured on Slashdot, with just enough info that someone figured out his real mailing address, and shared it...He was then signed up for every bulk mailing list in existence.
He had to have literally tons of physical spam taken away from his house with trucks.The sad part is, he didn't see the irony.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895692</id>
	<title>Re:What about changing the templates</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264413780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man, building spamming systems and finding ways to vary the content but not the message seems like a <b>fun</b> cat-and-mouse game. Too bad it's so evil. Can I cut off my Guilt Lobe?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man , building spamming systems and finding ways to vary the content but not the message seems like a fun cat-and-mouse game .
Too bad it 's so evil .
Can I cut off my Guilt Lobe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man, building spamming systems and finding ways to vary the content but not the message seems like a fun cat-and-mouse game.
Too bad it's so evil.
Can I cut off my Guilt Lobe?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897864</id>
	<title>Re:Recognizing spam is easy, if you see enough</title>
	<author>sl149q</author>
	<datestamp>1264423200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amen to that.... we moved our email accounts to Gmail a few years back.</p><p>Currently I get maybe two or three spam emails a week across three accounts, two of which have been in active use on the Internet for more than a decade.</p><p>Of course if I look in the spam folder, I see that in actual fact anywhere up to 50-100 a day per account. Not my problem. Possibly a problem for Gmail. But they seem happy to undertake to offer the service and remove it for me.</p><p>I do have to deal with it elsewhere.. I manage various Google Groups and it is an on going battle to audit membership requests so that you don't get spammed that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen to that.... we moved our email accounts to Gmail a few years back.Currently I get maybe two or three spam emails a week across three accounts , two of which have been in active use on the Internet for more than a decade.Of course if I look in the spam folder , I see that in actual fact anywhere up to 50-100 a day per account .
Not my problem .
Possibly a problem for Gmail .
But they seem happy to undertake to offer the service and remove it for me.I do have to deal with it elsewhere.. I manage various Google Groups and it is an on going battle to audit membership requests so that you do n't get spammed that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen to that.... we moved our email accounts to Gmail a few years back.Currently I get maybe two or three spam emails a week across three accounts, two of which have been in active use on the Internet for more than a decade.Of course if I look in the spam folder, I see that in actual fact anywhere up to 50-100 a day per account.
Not my problem.
Possibly a problem for Gmail.
But they seem happy to undertake to offer the service and remove it for me.I do have to deal with it elsewhere.. I manage various Google Groups and it is an on going battle to audit membership requests so that you don't get spammed that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895712</id>
	<title>The best spam block...</title>
	<author>jgreco</author>
	<datestamp>1264413840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The best spam block<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... still comes in a can.

And thanks to Top Gear and their arctic special for permanently engraving in my memory the image of a shotgun blasting a can of spam.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The best spam block ... still comes in a can .
And thanks to Top Gear and their arctic special for permanently engraving in my memory the image of a shotgun blasting a can of spam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best spam block ... still comes in a can.
And thanks to Top Gear and their arctic special for permanently engraving in my memory the image of a shotgun blasting a can of spam.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30899180</id>
	<title>Re:"Perfect"???</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1264430820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll reserve judgement until I see it in action.</p><p>It might work amazingly well. Anyone remember that article about a software patcher that examines machine code and fixes buffer overflows and null pointers and stuff? These are things that our compilers should catch, but instead some researchers had to make a watchdog program that fixes them at runtime.</p><p>Well, this <i>could</i> work. Every once and a while there's a program released that exceeds all expectations, and revolutionizes things. But most of the time, no.</p><p>So again, I'll reserve judgement until I see it in action.</p><p>P.S. What's Google do? They catch almost all spam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll reserve judgement until I see it in action.It might work amazingly well .
Anyone remember that article about a software patcher that examines machine code and fixes buffer overflows and null pointers and stuff ?
These are things that our compilers should catch , but instead some researchers had to make a watchdog program that fixes them at runtime.Well , this could work .
Every once and a while there 's a program released that exceeds all expectations , and revolutionizes things .
But most of the time , no.So again , I 'll reserve judgement until I see it in action.P.S .
What 's Google do ?
They catch almost all spam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll reserve judgement until I see it in action.It might work amazingly well.
Anyone remember that article about a software patcher that examines machine code and fixes buffer overflows and null pointers and stuff?
These are things that our compilers should catch, but instead some researchers had to make a watchdog program that fixes them at runtime.Well, this could work.
Every once and a while there's a program released that exceeds all expectations, and revolutionizes things.
But most of the time, no.So again, I'll reserve judgement until I see it in action.P.S.
What's Google do?
They catch almost all spam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30901490</id>
	<title>Re:"Perfect"???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264498440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Half my job is cleaning up compromised boxes. People don't know how to secure their server or sanitize their webforms, box gets compromised and sends out thousands and thousands of messages until something breaks and the customer asks 'zomg whyz my email slow?'. *runs qmHandle to see 243,000 messages in queue*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Half my job is cleaning up compromised boxes .
People do n't know how to secure their server or sanitize their webforms , box gets compromised and sends out thousands and thousands of messages until something breaks and the customer asks 'zomg whyz my email slow ? ' .
* runs qmHandle to see 243,000 messages in queue *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Half my job is cleaning up compromised boxes.
People don't know how to secure their server or sanitize their webforms, box gets compromised and sends out thousands and thousands of messages until something breaks and the customer asks 'zomg whyz my email slow?'.
*runs qmHandle to see 243,000 messages in queue*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30898448</id>
	<title>Fundamentally flawed</title>
	<author>WinstonWolfIT</author>
	<datestamp>1264425900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This method is reactive rather than predictive. When a new spam blast is sent out, it can only start filtering after it reverse engineers the template, a critical delay which means a higher \% of spam messages will get past than against virtually all predictive methods. Meanwhile the spammers are just going to generate the template itself from a template.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This method is reactive rather than predictive .
When a new spam blast is sent out , it can only start filtering after it reverse engineers the template , a critical delay which means a higher \ % of spam messages will get past than against virtually all predictive methods .
Meanwhile the spammers are just going to generate the template itself from a template .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This method is reactive rather than predictive.
When a new spam blast is sent out, it can only start filtering after it reverse engineers the template, a critical delay which means a higher \% of spam messages will get past than against virtually all predictive methods.
Meanwhile the spammers are just going to generate the template itself from a template.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896098</id>
	<title>Re:Is there the checklist for why this won't succe</title>
	<author>Bakkster</author>
	<datestamp>1264415340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd say it's 'effectively perfect' against the templates it's targeting, not against all of them.  Since templates are the best way to get around a bayesian filter, you 'could' limit spammers to manual spam again, which is a big crap-shoot.  Until they develop a new method (which isn't the target the filter is 'perfect' against).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say it 's 'effectively perfect ' against the templates it 's targeting , not against all of them .
Since templates are the best way to get around a bayesian filter , you 'could ' limit spammers to manual spam again , which is a big crap-shoot .
Until they develop a new method ( which is n't the target the filter is 'perfect ' against ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say it's 'effectively perfect' against the templates it's targeting, not against all of them.
Since templates are the best way to get around a bayesian filter, you 'could' limit spammers to manual spam again, which is a big crap-shoot.
Until they develop a new method (which isn't the target the filter is 'perfect' against).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895498</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>magsol</author>
	<datestamp>1264412940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The researchers are seeking to infer the hidden distribution of spammers' find-and-replace tactics, rather than simply trashing emails with "pen1s" in the subject.<br> <br>

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't hidden markov models been around for decades?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The researchers are seeking to infer the hidden distribution of spammers ' find-and-replace tactics , rather than simply trashing emails with " pen1s " in the subject .
Correct me if I 'm wrong , but have n't hidden markov models been around for decades ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The researchers are seeking to infer the hidden distribution of spammers' find-and-replace tactics, rather than simply trashing emails with "pen1s" in the subject.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't hidden markov models been around for decades?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30905016</id>
	<title>So, if I understand this properly</title>
	<author>edraven</author>
	<datestamp>1264523940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All you have to do is identify a large quantity of emails that you're already 100\% certain are spam generated by one particular system using one particular template. Then this process can analyze it and deduce the template so that in future you can... be 100\% certain that certain emails are spam generated by one particular system using one particular template.</p><p>Yawn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All you have to do is identify a large quantity of emails that you 're already 100 \ % certain are spam generated by one particular system using one particular template .
Then this process can analyze it and deduce the template so that in future you can... be 100 \ % certain that certain emails are spam generated by one particular system using one particular template.Yawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All you have to do is identify a large quantity of emails that you're already 100\% certain are spam generated by one particular system using one particular template.
Then this process can analyze it and deduce the template so that in future you can... be 100\% certain that certain emails are spam generated by one particular system using one particular template.Yawn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30899580</id>
	<title>Re:"Perfect"???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264434600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Meet <a href="http://mindprod.com/animalrights/animalslaves.html" title="mindprod.com" rel="nofollow">Roedy Green</a> [mindprod.com], an unusual dude with decent Java documentation.</p><p>Quoted: "CMP's purpose is to stand up for the rights of plants and animals. Animals also includes cetacea, humans, gay people, atheists, war victims and invertebrates. CMP attempts to inculcate planetary consciousness &mdash; concern for the planet as a whole."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Meet Roedy Green [ mindprod.com ] , an unusual dude with decent Java documentation.Quoted : " CMP 's purpose is to stand up for the rights of plants and animals .
Animals also includes cetacea , humans , gay people , atheists , war victims and invertebrates .
CMP attempts to inculcate planetary consciousness    concern for the planet as a whole .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meet Roedy Green [mindprod.com], an unusual dude with decent Java documentation.Quoted: "CMP's purpose is to stand up for the rights of plants and animals.
Animals also includes cetacea, humans, gay people, atheists, war victims and invertebrates.
CMP attempts to inculcate planetary consciousness — concern for the planet as a whole.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897146</id>
	<title>Re:Is there the checklist for why this won't succe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264419420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your post advocates a<br>() abusive<br>(x) checklist<br>() clever<br>(x) tired<br>approach to mockery.  It won't work because<br>(x) the joke is too old<br>(x) nobody has the patience to read the whole thing<br>() we are above that</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your post advocates a ( ) abusive ( x ) checklist ( ) clever ( x ) tiredapproach to mockery .
It wo n't work because ( x ) the joke is too old ( x ) nobody has the patience to read the whole thing ( ) we are above that</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your post advocates a() abusive(x) checklist() clever(x) tiredapproach to mockery.
It won't work because(x) the joke is too old(x) nobody has the patience to read the whole thing() we are above that</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30899922</id>
	<title>Re:I did this first</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264437540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My new spamming method:</p><p><tt>send\_message(me$$age);</tt></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My new spamming method : send \ _message ( me $ $ age ) ;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My new spamming method:send\_message(me$$age);</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30898792</id>
	<title>Once again, I post the "best" solution</title>
	<author>socz</author>
	<datestamp>1264427820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Brain power! Just like in that contest for the TSA, which offered up prize money for the best idea for securing air ports, I said forget all the high tech stuff, and spend the money on paying just above decent wages and "security" (rent-a-cops) will actually want to keep from getting fired. Nothing beats an "above decent" human brain (when compared to technology).
<br> <br>
So, get a bunch of people filtering spam for us. Who cares if you think it's an invasion of privacy? They don't know who you are and you'll never know who they are. And besides, people already know more about you than you even know! For example, my company is basically a contractor company, so we go places that most people in our line of work just shouldn't be. I have a co-worker who regularly tells me about law suits and patients medical histories they find interesting!
<br> <br>
So as long as their only purpose would be to "read for spam" and not "look for illegal activity" it would work!<br> <br>
But then again what do I know?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Brain power !
Just like in that contest for the TSA , which offered up prize money for the best idea for securing air ports , I said forget all the high tech stuff , and spend the money on paying just above decent wages and " security " ( rent-a-cops ) will actually want to keep from getting fired .
Nothing beats an " above decent " human brain ( when compared to technology ) .
So , get a bunch of people filtering spam for us .
Who cares if you think it 's an invasion of privacy ?
They do n't know who you are and you 'll never know who they are .
And besides , people already know more about you than you even know !
For example , my company is basically a contractor company , so we go places that most people in our line of work just should n't be .
I have a co-worker who regularly tells me about law suits and patients medical histories they find interesting !
So as long as their only purpose would be to " read for spam " and not " look for illegal activity " it would work !
But then again what do I know ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Brain power!
Just like in that contest for the TSA, which offered up prize money for the best idea for securing air ports, I said forget all the high tech stuff, and spend the money on paying just above decent wages and "security" (rent-a-cops) will actually want to keep from getting fired.
Nothing beats an "above decent" human brain (when compared to technology).
So, get a bunch of people filtering spam for us.
Who cares if you think it's an invasion of privacy?
They don't know who you are and you'll never know who they are.
And besides, people already know more about you than you even know!
For example, my company is basically a contractor company, so we go places that most people in our line of work just shouldn't be.
I have a co-worker who regularly tells me about law suits and patients medical histories they find interesting!
So as long as their only purpose would be to "read for spam" and not "look for illegal activity" it would work!
But then again what do I know?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897312</id>
	<title>Re:Why can't we do this instead?</title>
	<author>Phrogman</author>
	<datestamp>1264420500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Spammer, using various means, suborns 20000 computers.<br>2. Spammer using the new botnet, instructs it to send out 1m emails, using the email configuration for that computer, and the email address of the computer's owner.<br>3. Each email appears to be a legitimate email from the actual owner of the computer. Each therefore has your serial number and can be verified.<br>4. Each email neatly bypasses your confirmation system, and if you try to track down the spammer you get Joe Idiot who has had their computer infiltrated.</p><p>There is no solution to spamming. Its an arms race as people have said. The reason spamming works and continues to plague us is because there are so many complete fucking idiots out there who respond to it and buy stuff from the spammer. As long as people continue to be stupid and ignorant (and good luck fixing that, we seem to be getting stupider year by year, and NA culture practically worships ignorance), there will be idiots that make spamming profitable.<br>We don't need the ACTA BS thats being bribed into being to protect the outdated business models of the RIAA/MAFIAA, what we need is an agreement about spam. If spamming carried heavily penalties (say the Death Penalty or life in prison), and the majority of countries in the world permitted extradition for spamming, we might see a solution.</p><p>Personally speaking. I think email has had its day. It was a fantastic tool but the asshats of the world have ruined it. We need to just eliminate email and find some better solution from scratch. One that requires a very secure means of authentication at both ends (and yes this means there is no true privacy with it).</p><p>Hopefully someone steps up to the plate with a good suggestion. I can end with a vehicle analogy: If 95\% of the people who got on a bus didn't pay for it, and the remaining 5\% were required to pay for the cheaters, how long do you think that people would continue to use the transit system?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Spammer , using various means , suborns 20000 computers.2 .
Spammer using the new botnet , instructs it to send out 1m emails , using the email configuration for that computer , and the email address of the computer 's owner.3 .
Each email appears to be a legitimate email from the actual owner of the computer .
Each therefore has your serial number and can be verified.4 .
Each email neatly bypasses your confirmation system , and if you try to track down the spammer you get Joe Idiot who has had their computer infiltrated.There is no solution to spamming .
Its an arms race as people have said .
The reason spamming works and continues to plague us is because there are so many complete fucking idiots out there who respond to it and buy stuff from the spammer .
As long as people continue to be stupid and ignorant ( and good luck fixing that , we seem to be getting stupider year by year , and NA culture practically worships ignorance ) , there will be idiots that make spamming profitable.We do n't need the ACTA BS thats being bribed into being to protect the outdated business models of the RIAA/MAFIAA , what we need is an agreement about spam .
If spamming carried heavily penalties ( say the Death Penalty or life in prison ) , and the majority of countries in the world permitted extradition for spamming , we might see a solution.Personally speaking .
I think email has had its day .
It was a fantastic tool but the asshats of the world have ruined it .
We need to just eliminate email and find some better solution from scratch .
One that requires a very secure means of authentication at both ends ( and yes this means there is no true privacy with it ) .Hopefully someone steps up to the plate with a good suggestion .
I can end with a vehicle analogy : If 95 \ % of the people who got on a bus did n't pay for it , and the remaining 5 \ % were required to pay for the cheaters , how long do you think that people would continue to use the transit system ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Spammer, using various means, suborns 20000 computers.2.
Spammer using the new botnet, instructs it to send out 1m emails, using the email configuration for that computer, and the email address of the computer's owner.3.
Each email appears to be a legitimate email from the actual owner of the computer.
Each therefore has your serial number and can be verified.4.
Each email neatly bypasses your confirmation system, and if you try to track down the spammer you get Joe Idiot who has had their computer infiltrated.There is no solution to spamming.
Its an arms race as people have said.
The reason spamming works and continues to plague us is because there are so many complete fucking idiots out there who respond to it and buy stuff from the spammer.
As long as people continue to be stupid and ignorant (and good luck fixing that, we seem to be getting stupider year by year, and NA culture practically worships ignorance), there will be idiots that make spamming profitable.We don't need the ACTA BS thats being bribed into being to protect the outdated business models of the RIAA/MAFIAA, what we need is an agreement about spam.
If spamming carried heavily penalties (say the Death Penalty or life in prison), and the majority of countries in the world permitted extradition for spamming, we might see a solution.Personally speaking.
I think email has had its day.
It was a fantastic tool but the asshats of the world have ruined it.
We need to just eliminate email and find some better solution from scratch.
One that requires a very secure means of authentication at both ends (and yes this means there is no true privacy with it).Hopefully someone steps up to the plate with a good suggestion.
I can end with a vehicle analogy: If 95\% of the people who got on a bus didn't pay for it, and the remaining 5\% were required to pay for the cheaters, how long do you think that people would continue to use the transit system?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895828</id>
	<title>Not our claim... :-)</title>
	<author>StefanSavage</author>
	<datestamp>1264414320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a co-author of this work, I should be clear that we never suggested that we have a perfect spam filter per se, simply a new tool that has the benefit of being orthogonal to existing techniques.  For \_existing\_ botnets, our filters are extremely good, but the paper is also quite clear about the variety of ways that spammers might try to evade the approach.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a co-author of this work , I should be clear that we never suggested that we have a perfect spam filter per se , simply a new tool that has the benefit of being orthogonal to existing techniques .
For \ _existing \ _ botnets , our filters are extremely good , but the paper is also quite clear about the variety of ways that spammers might try to evade the approach .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a co-author of this work, I should be clear that we never suggested that we have a perfect spam filter per se, simply a new tool that has the benefit of being orthogonal to existing techniques.
For \_existing\_ botnets, our filters are extremely good, but the paper is also quite clear about the variety of ways that spammers might try to evade the approach.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896334</id>
	<title>100\% protection from SPAM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264416120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have 100\% protection from SPAM system.... do not get an email account... PICK UP THE DAM PHONE AND PHONE THE PERSON OR BETTER YET GET OFF YOUR ASS AND GO TALK TO THEM IN PERSON.<br>The in person part is the best because if they start spewing spam you can just punch them in the face - especially when they start talking to you about your dysfunction and how to improve your man-hood.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have 100 \ % protection from SPAM system.... do not get an email account... PICK UP THE DAM PHONE AND PHONE THE PERSON OR BETTER YET GET OFF YOUR ASS AND GO TALK TO THEM IN PERSON.The in person part is the best because if they start spewing spam you can just punch them in the face - especially when they start talking to you about your dysfunction and how to improve your man-hood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have 100\% protection from SPAM system.... do not get an email account... PICK UP THE DAM PHONE AND PHONE THE PERSON OR BETTER YET GET OFF YOUR ASS AND GO TALK TO THEM IN PERSON.The in person part is the best because if they start spewing spam you can just punch them in the face - especially when they start talking to you about your dysfunction and how to improve your man-hood.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896264</id>
	<title>Sex Panther by Odion?</title>
	<author>e2d2</author>
	<datestamp>1264415820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Most" of the time it will be full proof.</p><p>Reminds me of the Sex panther advertisement: 60\% of the time it works all the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Most " of the time it will be full proof.Reminds me of the Sex panther advertisement : 60 \ % of the time it works all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Most" of the time it will be full proof.Reminds me of the Sex panther advertisement: 60\% of the time it works all the time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896674</id>
	<title>Re:Worthless. Completely Worthless</title>
	<author>Anne Thwacks</author>
	<datestamp>1264417320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>As long as there is money to be made in spam, spammers will continue to send spam.</i> <p>
But if the US government was to threaten the US based credit card companies that process every single one of these transactions there would be no more money, and no more spam.</p><p>
Obama may not be able to win the war in Afganistan, but he could stop spam tonite by threatening Visa and Mastercard, and it would not even need a single water board or nuke. Though I personally would vote for bankers (and spammers) to be waterboarded. Preferably on prime time TV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as there is money to be made in spam , spammers will continue to send spam .
But if the US government was to threaten the US based credit card companies that process every single one of these transactions there would be no more money , and no more spam .
Obama may not be able to win the war in Afganistan , but he could stop spam tonite by threatening Visa and Mastercard , and it would not even need a single water board or nuke .
Though I personally would vote for bankers ( and spammers ) to be waterboarded .
Preferably on prime time TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as there is money to be made in spam, spammers will continue to send spam.
But if the US government was to threaten the US based credit card companies that process every single one of these transactions there would be no more money, and no more spam.
Obama may not be able to win the war in Afganistan, but he could stop spam tonite by threatening Visa and Mastercard, and it would not even need a single water board or nuke.
Though I personally would vote for bankers (and spammers) to be waterboarded.
Preferably on prime time TV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895588</id>
	<title>I did this first</title>
	<author>Ambiguous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1264413360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I, too, have designed a flawless spam filter. It works under similar principles, will filter 100\% of incoming spam, will generate 0 false positives, and it's super easy to use:<br><tt><br>if(is\_spam(message)) { delete\_message(message); }<br></tt></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I , too , have designed a flawless spam filter .
It works under similar principles , will filter 100 \ % of incoming spam , will generate 0 false positives , and it 's super easy to use : if ( is \ _spam ( message ) ) { delete \ _message ( message ) ; }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, too, have designed a flawless spam filter.
It works under similar principles, will filter 100\% of incoming spam, will generate 0 false positives, and it's super easy to use:if(is\_spam(message)) { delete\_message(message); }</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896804</id>
	<title>If this goes viral, is IT spam?</title>
	<author>xactuary</author>
	<datestamp>1264417800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>A team of computer scientists from the International Computer Science Institute in Berkeley, CA are claiming to have found an 'effectively perfect' method for blocking spam. Reply by forwarding this message to ten people within one hour and see what luck befalls you! Failure to do this may bring tremendous ill fortune to you and your immediate family.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A team of computer scientists from the International Computer Science Institute in Berkeley , CA are claiming to have found an 'effectively perfect ' method for blocking spam .
Reply by forwarding this message to ten people within one hour and see what luck befalls you !
Failure to do this may bring tremendous ill fortune to you and your immediate family .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A team of computer scientists from the International Computer Science Institute in Berkeley, CA are claiming to have found an 'effectively perfect' method for blocking spam.
Reply by forwarding this message to ten people within one hour and see what luck befalls you!
Failure to do this may bring tremendous ill fortune to you and your immediate family.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895824</id>
	<title>Yeah, I don't see the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264414320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I RTFA and they tested it by giving it 1000 spam e-mails by the same bot and after that it recognized the spam sent by that bot with 100\% accuracy. This means NOTHING. I could bet a nice sum of money that if you give a traditional, learning spam filter 1000 e-mails sent by the same bot and flag those all as spam, it can then recognize the bot's further e-mails as spam. Real enviroment doesn't work like that, however. You have a large amount of very different spam bots and their templates which is what makes it so difficult. In addition, you have loads of regular mail, some of which might somewhat resemble the spam e-mails but still be completely legitimate. And in real enviroment, some people eventually flag legitimate e-mail as spam but some spam isn't flagged as such.</p><p>The fact that their test was so limited implies that this was simply a test. A proof of concept for this kind of approach, one could say. I doubt they actually intended to this be a solution that ends spam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I RTFA and they tested it by giving it 1000 spam e-mails by the same bot and after that it recognized the spam sent by that bot with 100 \ % accuracy .
This means NOTHING .
I could bet a nice sum of money that if you give a traditional , learning spam filter 1000 e-mails sent by the same bot and flag those all as spam , it can then recognize the bot 's further e-mails as spam .
Real enviroment does n't work like that , however .
You have a large amount of very different spam bots and their templates which is what makes it so difficult .
In addition , you have loads of regular mail , some of which might somewhat resemble the spam e-mails but still be completely legitimate .
And in real enviroment , some people eventually flag legitimate e-mail as spam but some spam is n't flagged as such.The fact that their test was so limited implies that this was simply a test .
A proof of concept for this kind of approach , one could say .
I doubt they actually intended to this be a solution that ends spam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I RTFA and they tested it by giving it 1000 spam e-mails by the same bot and after that it recognized the spam sent by that bot with 100\% accuracy.
This means NOTHING.
I could bet a nice sum of money that if you give a traditional, learning spam filter 1000 e-mails sent by the same bot and flag those all as spam, it can then recognize the bot's further e-mails as spam.
Real enviroment doesn't work like that, however.
You have a large amount of very different spam bots and their templates which is what makes it so difficult.
In addition, you have loads of regular mail, some of which might somewhat resemble the spam e-mails but still be completely legitimate.
And in real enviroment, some people eventually flag legitimate e-mail as spam but some spam isn't flagged as such.The fact that their test was so limited implies that this was simply a test.
A proof of concept for this kind of approach, one could say.
I doubt they actually intended to this be a solution that ends spam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895438</id>
	<title>How many times do I have to tell you</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1264412760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unplugging the ethernet cable DOESN'T COUNT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unplugging the ethernet cable DOES N'T COUNT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unplugging the ethernet cable DOESN'T COUNT.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30901644</id>
	<title>Re:"Perfect"???</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1264500660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, when I wrote a neural net spam filter back in the day, and trained it on thousands of spam emails, I found that the percentage of capital letters in the email was AS GOOD AS ANY OTHER INDICATION THAT A MESSAGE WAS SPAM.</p><p>Also, dollar signs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , when I wrote a neural net spam filter back in the day , and trained it on thousands of spam emails , I found that the percentage of capital letters in the email was AS GOOD AS ANY OTHER INDICATION THAT A MESSAGE WAS SPAM.Also , dollar signs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, when I wrote a neural net spam filter back in the day, and trained it on thousands of spam emails, I found that the percentage of capital letters in the email was AS GOOD AS ANY OTHER INDICATION THAT A MESSAGE WAS SPAM.Also, dollar signs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30899266</id>
	<title>The stupidest /. post award</title>
	<author>cenc</author>
	<datestamp>1264431540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Based on the fact that not a single response (at least that I have found) seems to be remotely taking this idea seriously, do they then earn the stupidest article / idea award from slash in recent months (years)?</p><p>Perhaps they should at least get the lest original idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Based on the fact that not a single response ( at least that I have found ) seems to be remotely taking this idea seriously , do they then earn the stupidest article / idea award from slash in recent months ( years ) ? Perhaps they should at least get the lest original idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Based on the fact that not a single response (at least that I have found) seems to be remotely taking this idea seriously, do they then earn the stupidest article / idea award from slash in recent months (years)?Perhaps they should at least get the lest original idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30900934</id>
	<title>Re:"Perfect"???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264448520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And decrease system performance by such a degree as to be very noticeable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And decrease system performance by such a degree as to be very noticeable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And decrease system performance by such a degree as to be very noticeable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897584</id>
	<title>Re:I did this first</title>
	<author>waitwonder</author>
	<datestamp>1264421820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I, too, have designed a flawless spam filter. It works under similar principles, will filter 100\% of incoming spam, will generate 0 false positives, and it's super easy to use:
<tt>
if(is\_spam(message)) { delete\_message(message); }
</tt> </p></div><p> <tt>
int is\_spam(){ return 1; }
</tt></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I , too , have designed a flawless spam filter .
It works under similar principles , will filter 100 \ % of incoming spam , will generate 0 false positives , and it 's super easy to use : if ( is \ _spam ( message ) ) { delete \ _message ( message ) ; } int is \ _spam ( ) { return 1 ; }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, too, have designed a flawless spam filter.
It works under similar principles, will filter 100\% of incoming spam, will generate 0 false positives, and it's super easy to use:

if(is\_spam(message)) { delete\_message(message); }
  
int is\_spam(){ return 1; }

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895448</id>
	<title>What about changing the templates</title>
	<author>jimbolauski</author>
	<datestamp>1264412820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So what happens when botnets start adjusting the templates?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what happens when botnets start adjusting the templates ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what happens when botnets start adjusting the templates?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30901414</id>
	<title>THE CURE for SPAM</title>
	<author>Vitriol+Angst</author>
	<datestamp>1264497180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems to me that all we need to do, is charge a penny for every email sent and it is held in "escrow" at the ISP.<br>If the receiver getting the email, reads the message (and you can automate what a user action constitutes "accepted" mail). Then the penny is returned.</p><p>So for most people, you'd have maybe $5 for all your emails that you might send in a year. And likely, if you're only NOT going to get back a receipt for maybe 50 cents in a year.</p><p>For a Spammer, sending out a thousand emails in the hopes that they get one sucker, costs them $10 upfront money.</p><p>So, is it worth it just to pony up a tiny bit of money and end this problem? We don't need tricks, hacks or technology. All emails go through an official router, and only people with credit in the account get through. Of course, you can still have "anonymous" email -- just so long as someone pays for it, either through anonymous donations or ads. But, so that we don't go insane with avoiding our own email, because it's a chore that wastes so much time -- I would definitely spend a penny an email.</p><p>All the illegitimate groups that want to SPAM you, can go around the routers -- it's a free market. But your email will be set to ONLY receive from the verified routers with the escrow account. For every SPAM i receive, I will get a penny. It should be more for the pain and suffering, but at least I'll know the SOBs had to waste some money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that all we need to do , is charge a penny for every email sent and it is held in " escrow " at the ISP.If the receiver getting the email , reads the message ( and you can automate what a user action constitutes " accepted " mail ) .
Then the penny is returned.So for most people , you 'd have maybe $ 5 for all your emails that you might send in a year .
And likely , if you 're only NOT going to get back a receipt for maybe 50 cents in a year.For a Spammer , sending out a thousand emails in the hopes that they get one sucker , costs them $ 10 upfront money.So , is it worth it just to pony up a tiny bit of money and end this problem ?
We do n't need tricks , hacks or technology .
All emails go through an official router , and only people with credit in the account get through .
Of course , you can still have " anonymous " email -- just so long as someone pays for it , either through anonymous donations or ads .
But , so that we do n't go insane with avoiding our own email , because it 's a chore that wastes so much time -- I would definitely spend a penny an email.All the illegitimate groups that want to SPAM you , can go around the routers -- it 's a free market .
But your email will be set to ONLY receive from the verified routers with the escrow account .
For every SPAM i receive , I will get a penny .
It should be more for the pain and suffering , but at least I 'll know the SOBs had to waste some money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that all we need to do, is charge a penny for every email sent and it is held in "escrow" at the ISP.If the receiver getting the email, reads the message (and you can automate what a user action constitutes "accepted" mail).
Then the penny is returned.So for most people, you'd have maybe $5 for all your emails that you might send in a year.
And likely, if you're only NOT going to get back a receipt for maybe 50 cents in a year.For a Spammer, sending out a thousand emails in the hopes that they get one sucker, costs them $10 upfront money.So, is it worth it just to pony up a tiny bit of money and end this problem?
We don't need tricks, hacks or technology.
All emails go through an official router, and only people with credit in the account get through.
Of course, you can still have "anonymous" email -- just so long as someone pays for it, either through anonymous donations or ads.
But, so that we don't go insane with avoiding our own email, because it's a chore that wastes so much time -- I would definitely spend a penny an email.All the illegitimate groups that want to SPAM you, can go around the routers -- it's a free market.
But your email will be set to ONLY receive from the verified routers with the escrow account.
For every SPAM i receive, I will get a penny.
It should be more for the pain and suffering, but at least I'll know the SOBs had to waste some money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896352</id>
	<title>Re:"Perfect"???</title>
	<author>tlhIngan</author>
	<datestamp>1264416180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There is a final solution: make sending spam more expensive. Spammers will only spam so long as it's mind-blowingly wealthy. If you can raise their operating costs and bump them down from "mind-blowingly wealthy" to only "obscenely wealthy", they might switch to other lucrative immoral industries like manufacturing printer ink.</p></div> </blockquote><p>OTOH, I suspect most spam is easily blockable, and that's because spammers don't try. They don't have to - they have a pile of customers needing "marketing services" that they can milk for money, who cares if only 2 people actually see it in the end? Spammer sells 1,000,000 emails for $100, gullible people buy it, get their message sent and only a handful of people actually see it.</p><p>Why bother working around filters when there are fools to part money from? OF course, the company hiring those services probably finds out it's a waste of money, but there are so many more businesses yet to learn that lesson, so there they go.</p><p>No, the ones that care about working around the filters aren't the ones peddling crap, but the ones peddling malware - there they require getting through the filters. Making the botnet so you can make $100 per click of the "send 'marketing'" button is the important part. As is trying to transfer money out of bank accounts, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a final solution : make sending spam more expensive .
Spammers will only spam so long as it 's mind-blowingly wealthy .
If you can raise their operating costs and bump them down from " mind-blowingly wealthy " to only " obscenely wealthy " , they might switch to other lucrative immoral industries like manufacturing printer ink .
OTOH , I suspect most spam is easily blockable , and that 's because spammers do n't try .
They do n't have to - they have a pile of customers needing " marketing services " that they can milk for money , who cares if only 2 people actually see it in the end ?
Spammer sells 1,000,000 emails for $ 100 , gullible people buy it , get their message sent and only a handful of people actually see it.Why bother working around filters when there are fools to part money from ?
OF course , the company hiring those services probably finds out it 's a waste of money , but there are so many more businesses yet to learn that lesson , so there they go.No , the ones that care about working around the filters are n't the ones peddling crap , but the ones peddling malware - there they require getting through the filters .
Making the botnet so you can make $ 100 per click of the " send 'marketing ' " button is the important part .
As is trying to transfer money out of bank accounts , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a final solution: make sending spam more expensive.
Spammers will only spam so long as it's mind-blowingly wealthy.
If you can raise their operating costs and bump them down from "mind-blowingly wealthy" to only "obscenely wealthy", they might switch to other lucrative immoral industries like manufacturing printer ink.
OTOH, I suspect most spam is easily blockable, and that's because spammers don't try.
They don't have to - they have a pile of customers needing "marketing services" that they can milk for money, who cares if only 2 people actually see it in the end?
Spammer sells 1,000,000 emails for $100, gullible people buy it, get their message sent and only a handful of people actually see it.Why bother working around filters when there are fools to part money from?
OF course, the company hiring those services probably finds out it's a waste of money, but there are so many more businesses yet to learn that lesson, so there they go.No, the ones that care about working around the filters aren't the ones peddling crap, but the ones peddling malware - there they require getting through the filters.
Making the botnet so you can make $100 per click of the "send 'marketing'" button is the important part.
As is trying to transfer money out of bank accounts, etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897868</id>
	<title>Re:Worthless. Completely Worthless</title>
	<author>halcyon1234</author>
	<datestamp>1264423200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I've said it before, and I'll continue to say it - spam is an economic problem. Until something is done to address the money that spammers make, they will continue to find ways around these "effectively perfect" "discoveries"</p></div></blockquote><p>Start a spam campaign of your own. Advertise free samples of m3dz. Only stupid people who buy from spam will be stupid enough to buy from your spam. Send arsenic pills.</p><p>Customer base for spammers will quickly approach 0. The gene pool will get a needed dash of chlorine.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've said it before , and I 'll continue to say it - spam is an economic problem .
Until something is done to address the money that spammers make , they will continue to find ways around these " effectively perfect " " discoveries " Start a spam campaign of your own .
Advertise free samples of m3dz .
Only stupid people who buy from spam will be stupid enough to buy from your spam .
Send arsenic pills.Customer base for spammers will quickly approach 0 .
The gene pool will get a needed dash of chlorine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've said it before, and I'll continue to say it - spam is an economic problem.
Until something is done to address the money that spammers make, they will continue to find ways around these "effectively perfect" "discoveries"Start a spam campaign of your own.
Advertise free samples of m3dz.
Only stupid people who buy from spam will be stupid enough to buy from your spam.
Send arsenic pills.Customer base for spammers will quickly approach 0.
The gene pool will get a needed dash of chlorine.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30899950</id>
	<title>Re:"Perfect"???</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1264437960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If it can stop a lot of this kind of spam, that's fine with me. Let it be an arms race. If the spammers have to make up new templates every 4 hours, that's going to make things a lot harder.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>You think after a few rounds of this, they might change their <i>meta</i>-template? As in, stop using templates, etc.? Nahhhh, this method will be foolproof!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it can stop a lot of this kind of spam , that 's fine with me .
Let it be an arms race .
If the spammers have to make up new templates every 4 hours , that 's going to make things a lot harder .
You think after a few rounds of this , they might change their meta-template ?
As in , stop using templates , etc. ?
Nahhhh , this method will be foolproof !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it can stop a lot of this kind of spam, that's fine with me.
Let it be an arms race.
If the spammers have to make up new templates every 4 hours, that's going to make things a lot harder.
You think after a few rounds of this, they might change their meta-template?
As in, stop using templates, etc.?
Nahhhh, this method will be foolproof!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895522</id>
	<title>Questions (I know, I know...)</title>
	<author>Penguinisto</author>
	<datestamp>1264413060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Err, what if I, as a corporation, blew out a spam that effectively incorporated a template unique to that which my largest competitor uses in their newsletters or customer communiques (or at least close enough to get my competitor blacklisted far and wide)?</p><p>(it would take a shedload of doing, but certainly not impossible, and if it could be done, would make for one hell of a cheap and easy DoS).</p><p>Heuristics is great and all, but go too deeply, and I can see it opening up a small but pretty scary can of worms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Err , what if I , as a corporation , blew out a spam that effectively incorporated a template unique to that which my largest competitor uses in their newsletters or customer communiques ( or at least close enough to get my competitor blacklisted far and wide ) ?
( it would take a shedload of doing , but certainly not impossible , and if it could be done , would make for one hell of a cheap and easy DoS ) .Heuristics is great and all , but go too deeply , and I can see it opening up a small but pretty scary can of worms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Err, what if I, as a corporation, blew out a spam that effectively incorporated a template unique to that which my largest competitor uses in their newsletters or customer communiques (or at least close enough to get my competitor blacklisted far and wide)?
(it would take a shedload of doing, but certainly not impossible, and if it could be done, would make for one hell of a cheap and easy DoS).Heuristics is great and all, but go too deeply, and I can see it opening up a small but pretty scary can of worms.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896372</id>
	<title>Re:Not our claim... :-)</title>
	<author>Saishuuheiki</author>
	<datestamp>1264416240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems to me that the reporter himself contradicts his own claim at 100\%...

From article: "Knowledge of that template then enabled filters to block further spam from that bot with 100 per cent accuracy."
In giant font below that: "Knowledge of the spam template enabled filters to block further spam with 100 per cent accuracy"

This reporter seems to have failed a basic SAT question along those lines.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that the reporter himself contradicts his own claim at 100 \ % .. . From article : " Knowledge of that template then enabled filters to block further spam from that bot with 100 per cent accuracy .
" In giant font below that : " Knowledge of the spam template enabled filters to block further spam with 100 per cent accuracy " This reporter seems to have failed a basic SAT question along those lines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that the reporter himself contradicts his own claim at 100\%...

From article: "Knowledge of that template then enabled filters to block further spam from that bot with 100 per cent accuracy.
"
In giant font below that: "Knowledge of the spam template enabled filters to block further spam with 100 per cent accuracy"

This reporter seems to have failed a basic SAT question along those lines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896830</id>
	<title>Re:"Perfect"???</title>
	<author>ajs</author>
	<datestamp>1264417920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sure, it will work "perfectly" for about 2 days,</p></div><p>No... it won't.</p><p>The problem is that nearly all spam filtering techniques are "effectively perfect." Spam filtering is, in fact, a solved problem as long as you can tolerate somewhere between 0.01 and 0.1\% false negative and an order or two smaller false positive rates. That sounds great, right? Great, use gmail and you're done, because they actually tend to beat those numbers. Problem is that spam volumes are unbelievably large right now. I had to stop hosting my own mail sever, not because I couldn't filter the mail accurately, but because the number of connection requests was killing me! When that much spam comes in, you can filter about 50-75\% of it at the door (blocked IP ranges, etc.) Then you can get up around 80-90\% of it just by doing simple things like looking for obviously forged envelopes (it turns out that president@whitehouse.gov typically doesn't forge headers from a dialup connection). At that point anything you do that isn't outright stupid gets you to 95-99\% and just a decent Bayesian filter combined with a honeypot signature-matching system will push you above 99\%.</p><p>It's still not enough, and virtually everyone who says they've got a virtually perfect solution is saying that they can do what I just described above, usually with some twist that makes it sound like they're not just re-inventing SpamAssassin, but they're wrong or lying in virtually all cases. The real problem is filtering out which ones aren't a) clueless or b) liars. The best rule of thumb is be as suspicious of anti-spam as you are of spam.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , it will work " perfectly " for about 2 days,No... it wo n't.The problem is that nearly all spam filtering techniques are " effectively perfect .
" Spam filtering is , in fact , a solved problem as long as you can tolerate somewhere between 0.01 and 0.1 \ % false negative and an order or two smaller false positive rates .
That sounds great , right ?
Great , use gmail and you 're done , because they actually tend to beat those numbers .
Problem is that spam volumes are unbelievably large right now .
I had to stop hosting my own mail sever , not because I could n't filter the mail accurately , but because the number of connection requests was killing me !
When that much spam comes in , you can filter about 50-75 \ % of it at the door ( blocked IP ranges , etc .
) Then you can get up around 80-90 \ % of it just by doing simple things like looking for obviously forged envelopes ( it turns out that president @ whitehouse.gov typically does n't forge headers from a dialup connection ) .
At that point anything you do that is n't outright stupid gets you to 95-99 \ % and just a decent Bayesian filter combined with a honeypot signature-matching system will push you above 99 \ % .It 's still not enough , and virtually everyone who says they 've got a virtually perfect solution is saying that they can do what I just described above , usually with some twist that makes it sound like they 're not just re-inventing SpamAssassin , but they 're wrong or lying in virtually all cases .
The real problem is filtering out which ones are n't a ) clueless or b ) liars .
The best rule of thumb is be as suspicious of anti-spam as you are of spam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, it will work "perfectly" for about 2 days,No... it won't.The problem is that nearly all spam filtering techniques are "effectively perfect.
" Spam filtering is, in fact, a solved problem as long as you can tolerate somewhere between 0.01 and 0.1\% false negative and an order or two smaller false positive rates.
That sounds great, right?
Great, use gmail and you're done, because they actually tend to beat those numbers.
Problem is that spam volumes are unbelievably large right now.
I had to stop hosting my own mail sever, not because I couldn't filter the mail accurately, but because the number of connection requests was killing me!
When that much spam comes in, you can filter about 50-75\% of it at the door (blocked IP ranges, etc.
) Then you can get up around 80-90\% of it just by doing simple things like looking for obviously forged envelopes (it turns out that president@whitehouse.gov typically doesn't forge headers from a dialup connection).
At that point anything you do that isn't outright stupid gets you to 95-99\% and just a decent Bayesian filter combined with a honeypot signature-matching system will push you above 99\%.It's still not enough, and virtually everyone who says they've got a virtually perfect solution is saying that they can do what I just described above, usually with some twist that makes it sound like they're not just re-inventing SpamAssassin, but they're wrong or lying in virtually all cases.
The real problem is filtering out which ones aren't a) clueless or b) liars.
The best rule of thumb is be as suspicious of anti-spam as you are of spam.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30899652</id>
	<title>i got an idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264435380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>financially go after spammers.  The are doing it to make profit right?  by click throughs.  So sue them for more money than God has to financialy bankrupt them and then put a legal restriction where they can not own or operate or even live in a house with someone who owns a computer type device that connects to the Internet.  The kind of thing they have now for felons and guns.  Sure it doesn't work all the time, but it stops a lot of shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>financially go after spammers .
The are doing it to make profit right ?
by click throughs .
So sue them for more money than God has to financialy bankrupt them and then put a legal restriction where they can not own or operate or even live in a house with someone who owns a computer type device that connects to the Internet .
The kind of thing they have now for felons and guns .
Sure it does n't work all the time , but it stops a lot of shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>financially go after spammers.
The are doing it to make profit right?
by click throughs.
So sue them for more money than God has to financialy bankrupt them and then put a legal restriction where they can not own or operate or even live in a house with someone who owns a computer type device that connects to the Internet.
The kind of thing they have now for felons and guns.
Sure it doesn't work all the time, but it stops a lot of shit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30908314</id>
	<title>Re:Information Security Puffery</title>
	<author>marcosdumay</author>
	<datestamp>1264536660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"In fact, during the same time period a guy named Craig Gentry solved [techtarget.com] a major open crypto problem --- namely, how to compute on encrypted data --- and it got a fraction of the press coverage."</p></div> </blockquote><p>I've saw that on slashdot. It is too separated from the normal people's world, what may explain that it didn't get mainstream press coverage. Most people wouldn't understand what it is good for.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" In fact , during the same time period a guy named Craig Gentry solved [ techtarget.com ] a major open crypto problem --- namely , how to compute on encrypted data --- and it got a fraction of the press coverage .
" I 've saw that on slashdot .
It is too separated from the normal people 's world , what may explain that it did n't get mainstream press coverage .
Most people would n't understand what it is good for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In fact, during the same time period a guy named Craig Gentry solved [techtarget.com] a major open crypto problem --- namely, how to compute on encrypted data --- and it got a fraction of the press coverage.
" I've saw that on slashdot.
It is too separated from the normal people's world, what may explain that it didn't get mainstream press coverage.
Most people wouldn't understand what it is good for.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30902584</id>
	<title>Re:"Perfect"???</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1264512480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Most spam I get is obviously a template,<br>&gt; since I get the same one for weeks.<br><br>I get those, but I also get ones that appear to have been written by a Markov chain generator with 4chan as input.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Most spam I get is obviously a template , &gt; since I get the same one for weeks.I get those , but I also get ones that appear to have been written by a Markov chain generator with 4chan as input .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Most spam I get is obviously a template,&gt; since I get the same one for weeks.I get those, but I also get ones that appear to have been written by a Markov chain generator with 4chan as input.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30908136</id>
	<title>Re:Is there the checklist for why this won't succe</title>
	<author>Leolo</author>
	<datestamp>1264536000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; And also extreme profitability in having a working e-mail address.<br>It is not profitable to spammers that you have a working email address.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; And also extreme profitability in having a working e-mail address.It is not profitable to spammers that you have a working email address .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; And also extreme profitability in having a working e-mail address.It is not profitable to spammers that you have a working email address.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896382</id>
	<title>Perfect Filter.</title>
	<author>Aladrin</author>
	<datestamp>1264416300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have the perfect spam filter:</p><p>Block everything!</p><p>100\% of spam gets blocked.</p><p>And just like my filter, the filter this company has created will cause a lot of false positives.  At work, we send a lot of internal mail that's all in about the same format because it's easiest to read that way.  It's a lot more formalized than spam is, so it would definitely be caught first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have the perfect spam filter : Block everything ! 100 \ % of spam gets blocked.And just like my filter , the filter this company has created will cause a lot of false positives .
At work , we send a lot of internal mail that 's all in about the same format because it 's easiest to read that way .
It 's a lot more formalized than spam is , so it would definitely be caught first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have the perfect spam filter:Block everything!100\% of spam gets blocked.And just like my filter, the filter this company has created will cause a lot of false positives.
At work, we send a lot of internal mail that's all in about the same format because it's easiest to read that way.
It's a lot more formalized than spam is, so it would definitely be caught first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30901112</id>
	<title>Re:Is there the checklist for why this won't succe</title>
	<author>morcego</author>
	<datestamp>1264536960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't this exactly the same thing we do when creating spamassassin regexps to block spam ? I know I do this several times a week, trying to identify common elements on spam to create effective filters that work despite the variations.</p><p>What part of this is news again ? We've all been doing this for years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this exactly the same thing we do when creating spamassassin regexps to block spam ?
I know I do this several times a week , trying to identify common elements on spam to create effective filters that work despite the variations.What part of this is news again ?
We 've all been doing this for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this exactly the same thing we do when creating spamassassin regexps to block spam ?
I know I do this several times a week, trying to identify common elements on spam to create effective filters that work despite the variations.What part of this is news again ?
We've all been doing this for years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896486</id>
	<title>Re:Is there the checklist for why this won't succe</title>
	<author>pipatron</author>
	<datestamp>1264416660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, as I see it, the "Asshats" here is not a reference to the spammers. I see the spammers as an anonymous mass that will always exist. Faceless and brainless, acting only on instincts.
</p><p>The asshats would be more like people that do not want to send spam, but who see it as an interesting challenge to disrupt the supposed spam-protection, or to abuse the actual protection system just to use up resources.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , as I see it , the " Asshats " here is not a reference to the spammers .
I see the spammers as an anonymous mass that will always exist .
Faceless and brainless , acting only on instincts .
The asshats would be more like people that do not want to send spam , but who see it as an interesting challenge to disrupt the supposed spam-protection , or to abuse the actual protection system just to use up resources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, as I see it, the "Asshats" here is not a reference to the spammers.
I see the spammers as an anonymous mass that will always exist.
Faceless and brainless, acting only on instincts.
The asshats would be more like people that do not want to send spam, but who see it as an interesting challenge to disrupt the supposed spam-protection, or to abuse the actual protection system just to use up resources.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30904376</id>
	<title>That's not new or complete, but it is good.</title>
	<author>code-dweller</author>
	<datestamp>1264521480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've been doing this with Message Sniffer since day 1 (many years now!). It's very effective. In fact some of the first rules we coded (abstracts we call them) are still active and effective. Along the way we've developed automation to help us see key pieces of these patterns in real-time, and bots to take advantage of other vectors, but the process is still fundamentally the same for template driven spam.</p><p>It should be noted that this vector breaks down badly when the spam template is strongly modeled after legitimate messages - such is the case for many phishing spam.</p><p>Clearly it is not a complete solution either -- I'd say that it's good for more than 40\% of new spam campaigns and less than 70\% on average.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've been doing this with Message Sniffer since day 1 ( many years now ! ) .
It 's very effective .
In fact some of the first rules we coded ( abstracts we call them ) are still active and effective .
Along the way we 've developed automation to help us see key pieces of these patterns in real-time , and bots to take advantage of other vectors , but the process is still fundamentally the same for template driven spam.It should be noted that this vector breaks down badly when the spam template is strongly modeled after legitimate messages - such is the case for many phishing spam.Clearly it is not a complete solution either -- I 'd say that it 's good for more than 40 \ % of new spam campaigns and less than 70 \ % on average .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've been doing this with Message Sniffer since day 1 (many years now!).
It's very effective.
In fact some of the first rules we coded (abstracts we call them) are still active and effective.
Along the way we've developed automation to help us see key pieces of these patterns in real-time, and bots to take advantage of other vectors, but the process is still fundamentally the same for template driven spam.It should be noted that this vector breaks down badly when the spam template is strongly modeled after legitimate messages - such is the case for many phishing spam.Clearly it is not a complete solution either -- I'd say that it's good for more than 40\% of new spam campaigns and less than 70\% on average.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897566</id>
	<title>Re:"Perfect"???</title>
	<author>interploy</author>
	<datestamp>1264421640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sure, it will work "perfectly" for about 2 days, until the spammers change their methods to work around it.</p></div><p>If that, considering they announced the development before they implemented it. Way to give away the game plan guys.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , it will work " perfectly " for about 2 days , until the spammers change their methods to work around it.If that , considering they announced the development before they implemented it .
Way to give away the game plan guys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, it will work "perfectly" for about 2 days, until the spammers change their methods to work around it.If that, considering they announced the development before they implemented it.
Way to give away the game plan guys.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897474</id>
	<title>Re:"Perfect"???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264421400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's the final solution:</p><p>Quit letting grad students push their "New, amazing idea" about SPAM and have everybody implement a WHITELIST. Set it up so that email addresses are broken up into three groups during processing:</p><p>1) Known email addresses: filter into appropriate directories in your mail app.</p><p>2) Email addresses from known organizations: filter into appropriate directories. Maybe a friend of a friend?</p><p>3) Unknown email addresses.  Filter into "trash".  Once a day, scan your trash for anything interesting, save the good stuff and empty the rest. Whoosh.</p><p>Poof! Problem solved.  But since Thunderbird already lets you do that, nobody's going to make any money, eh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the final solution : Quit letting grad students push their " New , amazing idea " about SPAM and have everybody implement a WHITELIST .
Set it up so that email addresses are broken up into three groups during processing : 1 ) Known email addresses : filter into appropriate directories in your mail app.2 ) Email addresses from known organizations : filter into appropriate directories .
Maybe a friend of a friend ? 3 ) Unknown email addresses .
Filter into " trash " .
Once a day , scan your trash for anything interesting , save the good stuff and empty the rest .
Whoosh.Poof ! Problem solved .
But since Thunderbird already lets you do that , nobody 's going to make any money , eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the final solution:Quit letting grad students push their "New, amazing idea" about SPAM and have everybody implement a WHITELIST.
Set it up so that email addresses are broken up into three groups during processing:1) Known email addresses: filter into appropriate directories in your mail app.2) Email addresses from known organizations: filter into appropriate directories.
Maybe a friend of a friend?3) Unknown email addresses.
Filter into "trash".
Once a day, scan your trash for anything interesting, save the good stuff and empty the rest.
Whoosh.Poof! Problem solved.
But since Thunderbird already lets you do that, nobody's going to make any money, eh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895804</id>
	<title>small task still left to admins ..</title>
	<author>HollyMolly-1122</author>
	<datestamp>1264414200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>- To find right spamming botnet, study internals, find "templates" and voila - use it to prevent current spam messages! Or even simplier - to collect several millins of spam messages, analyze them all and find template. Than apply template and voila - problem is solved!
Seems like thinking model of Homer Simpson.</htmltext>
<tokenext>- To find right spamming botnet , study internals , find " templates " and voila - use it to prevent current spam messages !
Or even simplier - to collect several millins of spam messages , analyze them all and find template .
Than apply template and voila - problem is solved !
Seems like thinking model of Homer Simpson .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- To find right spamming botnet, study internals, find "templates" and voila - use it to prevent current spam messages!
Or even simplier - to collect several millins of spam messages, analyze them all and find template.
Than apply template and voila - problem is solved!
Seems like thinking model of Homer Simpson.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895814</id>
	<title>Re:Is there the checklist for why this won't succe</title>
	<author>jeffmeden</author>
	<datestamp>1264414260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems like "fails to account for (X) Asshats" is *always* the case.</p><p>Is it true, that perhaps "no one expects the asshats!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems like " fails to account for ( X ) Asshats " is * always * the case.Is it true , that perhaps " no one expects the asshats !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems like "fails to account for (X) Asshats" is *always* the case.Is it true, that perhaps "no one expects the asshats!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30901636</id>
	<title>Re:Is there the checklist for why this won't succe</title>
	<author>pjt33</author>
	<datestamp>1264500600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(X) Joe jobs and/or identity theft<br>You're just giving botnet operators an effective means of setting up a hitman agency, and they don't even have to get see the victims.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( X ) Joe jobs and/or identity theftYou 're just giving botnet operators an effective means of setting up a hitman agency , and they do n't even have to get see the victims .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(X) Joe jobs and/or identity theftYou're just giving botnet operators an effective means of setting up a hitman agency, and they don't even have to get see the victims.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896026</id>
	<title>Re:Worthless. Completely Worthless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264415160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bill Gates proposed (though I'm not sure where the idea originated) an escrow service for e-mail.  You get to set the amount you're willing to pay me to read your e-mail.  I can, at my option, take that money.</p><p>If I know you then you do a token $0.01 amount and I don't take it.  If you're spam, then I take it and you lose money.</p><p>The only real problem I would anticipate is that spammers are in the same camp as those with fraudulent credit cards and the like.  They would probably just fund their spam with fraudulent sources.  Since it would be an escrow system, people would still receive that money, but it wouldn't actually be costing the spammers anything.</p><p>One side benefit of such an escrow service would be to finally open the way for micropayments on the web.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bill Gates proposed ( though I 'm not sure where the idea originated ) an escrow service for e-mail .
You get to set the amount you 're willing to pay me to read your e-mail .
I can , at my option , take that money.If I know you then you do a token $ 0.01 amount and I do n't take it .
If you 're spam , then I take it and you lose money.The only real problem I would anticipate is that spammers are in the same camp as those with fraudulent credit cards and the like .
They would probably just fund their spam with fraudulent sources .
Since it would be an escrow system , people would still receive that money , but it would n't actually be costing the spammers anything.One side benefit of such an escrow service would be to finally open the way for micropayments on the web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bill Gates proposed (though I'm not sure where the idea originated) an escrow service for e-mail.
You get to set the amount you're willing to pay me to read your e-mail.
I can, at my option, take that money.If I know you then you do a token $0.01 amount and I don't take it.
If you're spam, then I take it and you lose money.The only real problem I would anticipate is that spammers are in the same camp as those with fraudulent credit cards and the like.
They would probably just fund their spam with fraudulent sources.
Since it would be an escrow system, people would still receive that money, but it wouldn't actually be costing the spammers anything.One side benefit of such an escrow service would be to finally open the way for micropayments on the web.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896598</id>
	<title>Re:Calling BS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264417080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But creating a spam filter with 99\% accuracy is quite easy. Pseudo code:</p><p>return true</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But creating a spam filter with 99 \ % accuracy is quite easy .
Pseudo code : return true</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But creating a spam filter with 99\% accuracy is quite easy.
Pseudo code:return true</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895516</id>
	<title>Re:Is there the checklist for why this won't succe</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1264413000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, I'll bite:</p><p>This group advocates a:<br>(X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante</p><p>approach to fighting spam. The idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to the 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>( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it<br>(X) Users of email will not put up with it<br>( ) Microsoft will not put up with it<br>( ) The police will not put up with it<br>( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers<br>( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once<br>(X) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers<br>( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists<br>( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business</p><p>Specifically, your plan fails to account for</p><p>( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it<br>( ) 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>(X) Asshats<br>( ) Jurisdictional problems<br>( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes<br>( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money<br>( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP<br>( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack<br>( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email<br>( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes<br>(X) 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>( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves<br>(X) 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 this 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>(X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?<br>( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses<br>(X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem<br>( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome<br>( ) I don't want the government reading my email<br>(X) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough</p><p>Furthermore, this is what I think about them:</p><p>(X) Sorry dudes, but I don't think it would work.<br>( ) This is a stupid idea, and they're a stupid people for suggesting it.<br>( ) Nice try, assh0les! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , I 'll bite : This group advocates a : ( X ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilanteapproach to fighting spam .
The idea will not work .
Here is why it wo n't work .
( One or more of the following may apply to the 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 ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we 'll be stuck with it ( X ) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( X ) Many email users can not afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers do n't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else 's career or businessSpecifically , your plan fails to account for ( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( X ) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( X ) 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 ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( X ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlookand the following philosophical objections may also apply : ( X ) Ideas similar to this 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 ( X ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers ?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( X ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I do n't want the government reading my email ( X ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enoughFurthermore , this is what I think about them : ( X ) Sorry dudes , but I do n't think it would work .
( ) This is a stupid idea , and they 're a stupid people for suggesting it .
( ) Nice try , assh0les !
I 'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, I'll bite:This group advocates a:(X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilanteapproach to fighting spam.
The idea will not work.
Here is why it won't work.
(One or more of the following may apply to the 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( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it(X) Users of email will not put up with it( ) Microsoft will not put up with it( ) The police will not put up with it( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once(X) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or businessSpecifically, your plan fails to account for( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email( ) Open relays in foreign countries( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses(X) Asshats( ) Jurisdictional problems( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes(X) 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( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves(X) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering( ) Outlookand the following philosophical objections may also apply:(X) Ideas similar to this 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(X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses(X) 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(X) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enoughFurthermore, this is what I think about them:(X) Sorry dudes, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and they're a stupid people for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0les!
I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896208</id>
	<title>Re:"Perfect"???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264415700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>to a point where spammers are going to have to create strong AI to write spam. If they fail, we don't have spammers anymore and if they win, well we have spam, but we also have strong AI! Win-win, I say.</p></div><p>I welcome our penis-enlarging robotic overlords.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>to a point where spammers are going to have to create strong AI to write spam .
If they fail , we do n't have spammers anymore and if they win , well we have spam , but we also have strong AI !
Win-win , I say.I welcome our penis-enlarging robotic overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to a point where spammers are going to have to create strong AI to write spam.
If they fail, we don't have spammers anymore and if they win, well we have spam, but we also have strong AI!
Win-win, I say.I welcome our penis-enlarging robotic overlords.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30898450</id>
	<title>Re:Headline tomorrow</title>
	<author>sabt-pestnu</author>
	<datestamp>1264425900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interestingly, they don't really need to.  This works by essentially saturating the template and analyzing the results.</p><p>That is, for each template they want to block, they need to get a very large sample of the possible messages that spam generator can write, and analyze it.</p><p>This means that the spam writers only need to change the template to break free of that filter.</p><p>This new development just shortens the cycle a bit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interestingly , they do n't really need to .
This works by essentially saturating the template and analyzing the results.That is , for each template they want to block , they need to get a very large sample of the possible messages that spam generator can write , and analyze it.This means that the spam writers only need to change the template to break free of that filter.This new development just shortens the cycle a bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interestingly, they don't really need to.
This works by essentially saturating the template and analyzing the results.That is, for each template they want to block, they need to get a very large sample of the possible messages that spam generator can write, and analyze it.This means that the spam writers only need to change the template to break free of that filter.This new development just shortens the cycle a bit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896358</id>
	<title>Re:No conditional modifier for "Perfect"</title>
	<author>Raistlin77</author>
	<datestamp>1264416240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Email and Spam are like global thermonuclear war: the only winning move is not to play.</p></div><p>When future civilization looks back at the thermonuclear war game that you played and "won", I somehow doubt <em>they</em> will have considered your enemy obliterating you while you did not fight back any sort of victory on your part.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Email and Spam are like global thermonuclear war : the only winning move is not to play.When future civilization looks back at the thermonuclear war game that you played and " won " , I somehow doubt they will have considered your enemy obliterating you while you did not fight back any sort of victory on your part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Email and Spam are like global thermonuclear war: the only winning move is not to play.When future civilization looks back at the thermonuclear war game that you played and "won", I somehow doubt they will have considered your enemy obliterating you while you did not fight back any sort of victory on your part.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896170</id>
	<title>Re:"Perfect"???</title>
	<author>khayman80</author>
	<datestamp>1264415580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We keep pushing the requirements for spam further and further up the computational totem pole (or Chomsky hierarchy, if you will) and you get closer and closer to a point where spammers are going to have to create strong AI to write spam. If they fail, we don't have spammers anymore and if they win, well we have spam, but we also have strong AI! Win-win, I say.</p></div></blockquote><p>I agree with nearly everything you've said, but I don't consider the invention of strong AI by spammers to be a "win". <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=582263&amp;cid=23771733" title="slashdot.org">Previously</a> [slashdot.org], I've <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1417859&amp;cid=29869117" title="slashdot.org">argued</a> [slashdot.org] that individual rights aren't related to human genetics, but rather to the organism's sapience. In other words, roaches have more rights than yeast cells (but not much more), cats have more rights than roaches, cetaceans/hominids/humans/"strong AI" have more rights than cats.</p><p>Allowing spammers to create beings who should be treated as citizens but are actually used as slave labor is wrong. Note that I'm specifically referring to strong AI; weak AI wouldn't qualify as sapient under most definitions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We keep pushing the requirements for spam further and further up the computational totem pole ( or Chomsky hierarchy , if you will ) and you get closer and closer to a point where spammers are going to have to create strong AI to write spam .
If they fail , we do n't have spammers anymore and if they win , well we have spam , but we also have strong AI !
Win-win , I say.I agree with nearly everything you 've said , but I do n't consider the invention of strong AI by spammers to be a " win " .
Previously [ slashdot.org ] , I 've argued [ slashdot.org ] that individual rights are n't related to human genetics , but rather to the organism 's sapience .
In other words , roaches have more rights than yeast cells ( but not much more ) , cats have more rights than roaches , cetaceans/hominids/humans/ " strong AI " have more rights than cats.Allowing spammers to create beings who should be treated as citizens but are actually used as slave labor is wrong .
Note that I 'm specifically referring to strong AI ; weak AI would n't qualify as sapient under most definitions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We keep pushing the requirements for spam further and further up the computational totem pole (or Chomsky hierarchy, if you will) and you get closer and closer to a point where spammers are going to have to create strong AI to write spam.
If they fail, we don't have spammers anymore and if they win, well we have spam, but we also have strong AI!
Win-win, I say.I agree with nearly everything you've said, but I don't consider the invention of strong AI by spammers to be a "win".
Previously [slashdot.org], I've argued [slashdot.org] that individual rights aren't related to human genetics, but rather to the organism's sapience.
In other words, roaches have more rights than yeast cells (but not much more), cats have more rights than roaches, cetaceans/hominids/humans/"strong AI" have more rights than cats.Allowing spammers to create beings who should be treated as citizens but are actually used as slave labor is wrong.
Note that I'm specifically referring to strong AI; weak AI wouldn't qualify as sapient under most definitions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897088</id>
	<title>Re:Again with the stupidity</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1264419180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Had there been no spam filters, we'd all receive about the same amount of e-mail spam as we receive in the postal mail world.</p></div><p>Nope, postal spam is limited by the cost of paper and ink, and is traceable, physically -- or it's even more expensive if you want to send someone directly to my house so as to avoid the postal system's tracking.</p><p>Email spam is limited by the cost of sending an electronic message, which was always absurdly low relative to postal spam, and gets lower all the time -- especially with botnets, where the cost approaches zero, seeing as it's not actually the spammer paying the cost, it's naive Internet users.</p><p>But unfortunately, the same marketing logic applies -- if I get two spams from company A and one from company B, I am (in theory) more likely to buy from company A. If these properties applied to bulk mail, you'd see the same thing.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Instead, the spam industry spends it's time trying to break through spam filters -- and they do so with volume.</p></div><p>Nope, that's just as ludicrous as your first suggestion. Here's a hint: If I wrote an (admittedly dumb) filter which blocks any email with the "word" v14gr4 in the subject line, and you send a million spams instead of ten? Every single spam is still going to go right to my spam folder, the only difference is how much of my CPU, bandwidth, etc that you're wasting.</p><p>No, they attempt to break filters by, as this article suggests, varying their messages in various ways to get around filters -- like the v14gr4 example above, which is especially ironic, because it actually makes filters <i>more</i> likely to catch it -- a friend might casually mention Viagra to me, but they're not going to mention v14gr4 or c14l1s. But I think you see my point -- they try to break the filters by <i>outsmarting</i> them, by being clever.</p><p>The reason for the volume is, I would suspect, partly because they're relatively decentralized, but mostly because there's so many people doing it, and also because if a few do get through, again, ten of company A beats one of company B.</p><p>As for your grandmother, it sadly isn't her job -- but I get very little spam at Gmail, and I get massive amounts on my personal address (probably partly because I leave it unobfuscated on Slashdot), but it also gets filtered, and very well, by an appropriately-trained statistical filter. Nothing special, just Bogofilter. I get hundreds (maybe thousands) of spams per day, but maybe ten that are "unsure", and no false positives outside of the "unsure" group, last I checked.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Had there been no spam filters , we 'd all receive about the same amount of e-mail spam as we receive in the postal mail world.Nope , postal spam is limited by the cost of paper and ink , and is traceable , physically -- or it 's even more expensive if you want to send someone directly to my house so as to avoid the postal system 's tracking.Email spam is limited by the cost of sending an electronic message , which was always absurdly low relative to postal spam , and gets lower all the time -- especially with botnets , where the cost approaches zero , seeing as it 's not actually the spammer paying the cost , it 's naive Internet users.But unfortunately , the same marketing logic applies -- if I get two spams from company A and one from company B , I am ( in theory ) more likely to buy from company A. If these properties applied to bulk mail , you 'd see the same thing.Instead , the spam industry spends it 's time trying to break through spam filters -- and they do so with volume.Nope , that 's just as ludicrous as your first suggestion .
Here 's a hint : If I wrote an ( admittedly dumb ) filter which blocks any email with the " word " v14gr4 in the subject line , and you send a million spams instead of ten ?
Every single spam is still going to go right to my spam folder , the only difference is how much of my CPU , bandwidth , etc that you 're wasting.No , they attempt to break filters by , as this article suggests , varying their messages in various ways to get around filters -- like the v14gr4 example above , which is especially ironic , because it actually makes filters more likely to catch it -- a friend might casually mention Viagra to me , but they 're not going to mention v14gr4 or c14l1s .
But I think you see my point -- they try to break the filters by outsmarting them , by being clever.The reason for the volume is , I would suspect , partly because they 're relatively decentralized , but mostly because there 's so many people doing it , and also because if a few do get through , again , ten of company A beats one of company B.As for your grandmother , it sadly is n't her job -- but I get very little spam at Gmail , and I get massive amounts on my personal address ( probably partly because I leave it unobfuscated on Slashdot ) , but it also gets filtered , and very well , by an appropriately-trained statistical filter .
Nothing special , just Bogofilter .
I get hundreds ( maybe thousands ) of spams per day , but maybe ten that are " unsure " , and no false positives outside of the " unsure " group , last I checked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Had there been no spam filters, we'd all receive about the same amount of e-mail spam as we receive in the postal mail world.Nope, postal spam is limited by the cost of paper and ink, and is traceable, physically -- or it's even more expensive if you want to send someone directly to my house so as to avoid the postal system's tracking.Email spam is limited by the cost of sending an electronic message, which was always absurdly low relative to postal spam, and gets lower all the time -- especially with botnets, where the cost approaches zero, seeing as it's not actually the spammer paying the cost, it's naive Internet users.But unfortunately, the same marketing logic applies -- if I get two spams from company A and one from company B, I am (in theory) more likely to buy from company A. If these properties applied to bulk mail, you'd see the same thing.Instead, the spam industry spends it's time trying to break through spam filters -- and they do so with volume.Nope, that's just as ludicrous as your first suggestion.
Here's a hint: If I wrote an (admittedly dumb) filter which blocks any email with the "word" v14gr4 in the subject line, and you send a million spams instead of ten?
Every single spam is still going to go right to my spam folder, the only difference is how much of my CPU, bandwidth, etc that you're wasting.No, they attempt to break filters by, as this article suggests, varying their messages in various ways to get around filters -- like the v14gr4 example above, which is especially ironic, because it actually makes filters more likely to catch it -- a friend might casually mention Viagra to me, but they're not going to mention v14gr4 or c14l1s.
But I think you see my point -- they try to break the filters by outsmarting them, by being clever.The reason for the volume is, I would suspect, partly because they're relatively decentralized, but mostly because there's so many people doing it, and also because if a few do get through, again, ten of company A beats one of company B.As for your grandmother, it sadly isn't her job -- but I get very little spam at Gmail, and I get massive amounts on my personal address (probably partly because I leave it unobfuscated on Slashdot), but it also gets filtered, and very well, by an appropriately-trained statistical filter.
Nothing special, just Bogofilter.
I get hundreds (maybe thousands) of spams per day, but maybe ten that are "unsure", and no false positives outside of the "unsure" group, last I checked.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436</id>
	<title>"Perfect"???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264412760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, it will work "perfectly" for about 2 days, until the spammers change their methods to work around it. This is an arms race; there is no "final solution" (although modifying the email protocol to allow authentication of the sender's address would be a big help.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , it will work " perfectly " for about 2 days , until the spammers change their methods to work around it .
This is an arms race ; there is no " final solution " ( although modifying the email protocol to allow authentication of the sender 's address would be a big help .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, it will work "perfectly" for about 2 days, until the spammers change their methods to work around it.
This is an arms race; there is no "final solution" (although modifying the email protocol to allow authentication of the sender's address would be a big help.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895938</id>
	<title>Solution to spam? Scrap SMTP!</title>
	<author>sageres</author>
	<datestamp>1264414800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Typically there were many solutions to SPAM that includes:<br>1. Filtering by keywords and phrases<br>2. Bayesian (or more complicated AI filtering)<br>3. Trusted Domains and its flipside: blacklist database<br>4. Domain keys</p><p>All of these are defeated by various means:</p><p>1. There are many ways one can say "Viagra", "ViAgRa", "V1@gra" or just "that blue pill women talk about". So word and phrase obfuscation is used to fight the spam.<br>2. Bayesian filtering is defeated by seeding the database with valid text (For example, how many of you saw The Lord Of the Rings passage on the bottom of your email? This effectively defeats the probability counters, but given enough email training, as long as the size of the given group is magnitudes higher then the size of the sample tested, poisoning technique would be less likely to work. There are some AI developments in filtering technologies to enable to overcome this problem.<br>3. Blacklists are easily defeated by "botnets" and all other distributed spamming "nets".<br>4. Domain keys are implemented by "Yahoo!" and "Gmail" and others, creates a net of "trusted" domains and smtp relays, but still defeated when a spammer infiltrates a given domain (as evidenced by recent influx of spam from gmail) and uses its trusted status to send out spam.</p><p>So, I am surprised noone has ever talked about scrapping SMTP protocol completely and replace it with something a lot more secure. AMTP (http://amtp.bw.org/) is a good start. My personal opinion is that there is supposed to be several important features present in the new protocols.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Typically there were many solutions to SPAM that includes : 1 .
Filtering by keywords and phrases2 .
Bayesian ( or more complicated AI filtering ) 3 .
Trusted Domains and its flipside : blacklist database4 .
Domain keysAll of these are defeated by various means : 1 .
There are many ways one can say " Viagra " , " ViAgRa " , " V1 @ gra " or just " that blue pill women talk about " .
So word and phrase obfuscation is used to fight the spam.2 .
Bayesian filtering is defeated by seeding the database with valid text ( For example , how many of you saw The Lord Of the Rings passage on the bottom of your email ?
This effectively defeats the probability counters , but given enough email training , as long as the size of the given group is magnitudes higher then the size of the sample tested , poisoning technique would be less likely to work .
There are some AI developments in filtering technologies to enable to overcome this problem.3 .
Blacklists are easily defeated by " botnets " and all other distributed spamming " nets " .4 .
Domain keys are implemented by " Yahoo !
" and " Gmail " and others , creates a net of " trusted " domains and smtp relays , but still defeated when a spammer infiltrates a given domain ( as evidenced by recent influx of spam from gmail ) and uses its trusted status to send out spam.So , I am surprised noone has ever talked about scrapping SMTP protocol completely and replace it with something a lot more secure .
AMTP ( http : //amtp.bw.org/ ) is a good start .
My personal opinion is that there is supposed to be several important features present in the new protocols .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Typically there were many solutions to SPAM that includes:1.
Filtering by keywords and phrases2.
Bayesian (or more complicated AI filtering)3.
Trusted Domains and its flipside: blacklist database4.
Domain keysAll of these are defeated by various means:1.
There are many ways one can say "Viagra", "ViAgRa", "V1@gra" or just "that blue pill women talk about".
So word and phrase obfuscation is used to fight the spam.2.
Bayesian filtering is defeated by seeding the database with valid text (For example, how many of you saw The Lord Of the Rings passage on the bottom of your email?
This effectively defeats the probability counters, but given enough email training, as long as the size of the given group is magnitudes higher then the size of the sample tested, poisoning technique would be less likely to work.
There are some AI developments in filtering technologies to enable to overcome this problem.3.
Blacklists are easily defeated by "botnets" and all other distributed spamming "nets".4.
Domain keys are implemented by "Yahoo!
" and "Gmail" and others, creates a net of "trusted" domains and smtp relays, but still defeated when a spammer infiltrates a given domain (as evidenced by recent influx of spam from gmail) and uses its trusted status to send out spam.So, I am surprised noone has ever talked about scrapping SMTP protocol completely and replace it with something a lot more secure.
AMTP (http://amtp.bw.org/) is a good start.
My personal opinion is that there is supposed to be several important features present in the new protocols.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30898316</id>
	<title>perfect, that is....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264425240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>until the spammers find out.</p><p>so the spammers will write an algorithm that alters/permutates the template to fool the sensors. clever fail is fail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>until the spammers find out.so the spammers will write an algorithm that alters/permutates the template to fool the sensors .
clever fail is fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>until the spammers find out.so the spammers will write an algorithm that alters/permutates the template to fool the sensors.
clever fail is fail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896368</id>
	<title>Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264416240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I still say Gmail is the perfect spam blocker, mabye 1 spam gets to my inbox a year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I still say Gmail is the perfect spam blocker , mabye 1 spam gets to my inbox a year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still say Gmail is the perfect spam blocker, mabye 1 spam gets to my inbox a year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30902002</id>
	<title>Re:"Perfect"???</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1264505820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SPF?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SPF ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SPF?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30903334</id>
	<title>Until..</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1264517340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Until, that is, they change the template's format and then we start back at square 1.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until , that is , they change the template 's format and then we start back at square 1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until, that is, they change the template's format and then we start back at square 1.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895708</id>
	<title>Research Finally Catching Up With Spammers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264413840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's this race between spammers and researchers. It seems from the article that spammers had been ahead of researchers for awhile by figuring out how to modify their emails in such a way that the spam filters wouldn't catch them. The article claims that research has caught up and figured a way to detect this. This spam filter greedily exploits attributes of today's spam, not tomorrow's spam. It seems a bit early to start saying, "Our program that's trained on today's Spam will catch tomorrow's spam!"

Doesn't it seem intuitive that the spammers are going to find another way to get their email through this spam filter?</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's this race between spammers and researchers .
It seems from the article that spammers had been ahead of researchers for awhile by figuring out how to modify their emails in such a way that the spam filters would n't catch them .
The article claims that research has caught up and figured a way to detect this .
This spam filter greedily exploits attributes of today 's spam , not tomorrow 's spam .
It seems a bit early to start saying , " Our program that 's trained on today 's Spam will catch tomorrow 's spam !
" Does n't it seem intuitive that the spammers are going to find another way to get their email through this spam filter ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's this race between spammers and researchers.
It seems from the article that spammers had been ahead of researchers for awhile by figuring out how to modify their emails in such a way that the spam filters wouldn't catch them.
The article claims that research has caught up and figured a way to detect this.
This spam filter greedily exploits attributes of today's spam, not tomorrow's spam.
It seems a bit early to start saying, "Our program that's trained on today's Spam will catch tomorrow's spam!
"

Doesn't it seem intuitive that the spammers are going to find another way to get their email through this spam filter?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896238</id>
	<title>Re:"Perfect"???</title>
	<author>hoggoth</author>
	<datestamp>1264415760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmmm, you idea's intriguing to me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter, but unfortunately as soon as it's template is recognized I'll stop getting it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm , you idea 's intriguing to me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter , but unfortunately as soon as it 's template is recognized I 'll stop getting it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm, you idea's intriguing to me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter, but unfortunately as soon as it's template is recognized I'll stop getting it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30899726</id>
	<title>Re:Is there the checklist for why this won't succe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264436100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPAMISH INQUISITION!!!!!<br><br>On another note, this sentence is to bypass the caps filter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPAMISH INQUISITION ! ! ! !
! On another note , this sentence is to bypass the caps filter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPAMISH INQUISITION!!!!
!On another note, this sentence is to bypass the caps filter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895728</id>
	<title>Re:"Perfect"???</title>
	<author>xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D</author>
	<datestamp>1264413900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a final solution: make sending spam more expensive. Spammers will only spam so long as it's mind-blowingly wealthy. If you can raise their operating costs and bump them down from "mind-blowingly wealthy" to only "obscenely wealthy", they might switch to other lucrative immoral industries like manufacturing printer ink.
</p><p>What this does is increase the computational power required to generate a spam email. The method they described sounds like it's self-learning (just hook it up to a spambot "oracle" and it'll figure out the new template), so spammers will likely have to abandon the use of templates altogether. If you increase the amount of computational time required to generate spam, you decrease the amount of spam sent and <i>really</i> decrease the profitability of it.
</p><p>We keep pushing the requirements for spam further and further up the computational totem pole (or Chomsky hierarchy, if you will) and you get closer and closer to a point where spammers are going to have to create strong AI to write spam. If they fail, we don't have spammers anymore and if they win, well we have spam, but we also have strong AI! Win-win, I say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a final solution : make sending spam more expensive .
Spammers will only spam so long as it 's mind-blowingly wealthy .
If you can raise their operating costs and bump them down from " mind-blowingly wealthy " to only " obscenely wealthy " , they might switch to other lucrative immoral industries like manufacturing printer ink .
What this does is increase the computational power required to generate a spam email .
The method they described sounds like it 's self-learning ( just hook it up to a spambot " oracle " and it 'll figure out the new template ) , so spammers will likely have to abandon the use of templates altogether .
If you increase the amount of computational time required to generate spam , you decrease the amount of spam sent and really decrease the profitability of it .
We keep pushing the requirements for spam further and further up the computational totem pole ( or Chomsky hierarchy , if you will ) and you get closer and closer to a point where spammers are going to have to create strong AI to write spam .
If they fail , we do n't have spammers anymore and if they win , well we have spam , but we also have strong AI !
Win-win , I say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a final solution: make sending spam more expensive.
Spammers will only spam so long as it's mind-blowingly wealthy.
If you can raise their operating costs and bump them down from "mind-blowingly wealthy" to only "obscenely wealthy", they might switch to other lucrative immoral industries like manufacturing printer ink.
What this does is increase the computational power required to generate a spam email.
The method they described sounds like it's self-learning (just hook it up to a spambot "oracle" and it'll figure out the new template), so spammers will likely have to abandon the use of templates altogether.
If you increase the amount of computational time required to generate spam, you decrease the amount of spam sent and really decrease the profitability of it.
We keep pushing the requirements for spam further and further up the computational totem pole (or Chomsky hierarchy, if you will) and you get closer and closer to a point where spammers are going to have to create strong AI to write spam.
If they fail, we don't have spammers anymore and if they win, well we have spam, but we also have strong AI!
Win-win, I say.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30899034</id>
	<title>Re:"Perfect"???</title>
	<author>crossmr</author>
	<datestamp>1264429680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There absolutely is a final solution:<br>1. ISPs monitor users computers for bot-like behaviour (as australia plans to do)<br>2. accounts sending unusual amounts of e-mail they can't account for are told to clean up or be disconnected<br>3. Any ISP who refuses to handle this situation well have their mail stop being routed by other ISPs a variation on the old usenet death sentence</p><p>spammers might be able to send a very small amount of spam and stay under the radar, but that would be about it. If they did anything to remotely approach the volume they're at now their botnets would set off alarms and be shut down.</p><p>at that point it likely wouldn't be profitable. They might be able to all sit inside one ISP and spam each other, but they deserve that.</p><p>theoretically they could still spam but it would be at a level that it would become rare and unprofitable so you would likely see it reduced to zero.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There absolutely is a final solution : 1 .
ISPs monitor users computers for bot-like behaviour ( as australia plans to do ) 2. accounts sending unusual amounts of e-mail they ca n't account for are told to clean up or be disconnected3 .
Any ISP who refuses to handle this situation well have their mail stop being routed by other ISPs a variation on the old usenet death sentencespammers might be able to send a very small amount of spam and stay under the radar , but that would be about it .
If they did anything to remotely approach the volume they 're at now their botnets would set off alarms and be shut down.at that point it likely would n't be profitable .
They might be able to all sit inside one ISP and spam each other , but they deserve that.theoretically they could still spam but it would be at a level that it would become rare and unprofitable so you would likely see it reduced to zero .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There absolutely is a final solution:1.
ISPs monitor users computers for bot-like behaviour (as australia plans to do)2. accounts sending unusual amounts of e-mail they can't account for are told to clean up or be disconnected3.
Any ISP who refuses to handle this situation well have their mail stop being routed by other ISPs a variation on the old usenet death sentencespammers might be able to send a very small amount of spam and stay under the radar, but that would be about it.
If they did anything to remotely approach the volume they're at now their botnets would set off alarms and be shut down.at that point it likely wouldn't be profitable.
They might be able to all sit inside one ISP and spam each other, but they deserve that.theoretically they could still spam but it would be at a level that it would become rare and unprofitable so you would likely see it reduced to zero.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895694</id>
	<title>Uh huh.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264413780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Creators recieve chance to increase wang size in 3...2...1...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Creators recieve chance to increase wang size in 3...2...1.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Creators recieve chance to increase wang size in 3...2...1...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30899324</id>
	<title>Re:"Perfect"???</title>
	<author>acheron12</author>
	<datestamp>1264432140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What would stop a strong AI spammer from sending urgent rescue requests to its audience (millions of people)?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What would stop a strong AI spammer from sending urgent rescue requests to its audience ( millions of people ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would stop a strong AI spammer from sending urgent rescue requests to its audience (millions of people)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895714</id>
	<title>Um, an economics problem with this "solution"...</title>
	<author>Primitive Pete</author>
	<datestamp>1264413840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a former manager and an "email direct-marketing" firm, I should point out that the spammers can increase the amount of complexity/variation in the templates by a wide variety of techniques, including rearranging paragraphs instead of just letters, making parts of the message optional, performing syntactic modifications of the included text,...  Each new minor modification starts a research effort on the detecting side. The cost of detecting spam will rise much faster than the cost of generating spam.<br> <br>If you try to outsmart the spammers with this, you will lose. Complexity favors the spammers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a former manager and an " email direct-marketing " firm , I should point out that the spammers can increase the amount of complexity/variation in the templates by a wide variety of techniques , including rearranging paragraphs instead of just letters , making parts of the message optional , performing syntactic modifications of the included text,... Each new minor modification starts a research effort on the detecting side .
The cost of detecting spam will rise much faster than the cost of generating spam .
If you try to outsmart the spammers with this , you will lose .
Complexity favors the spammers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a former manager and an "email direct-marketing" firm, I should point out that the spammers can increase the amount of complexity/variation in the templates by a wide variety of techniques, including rearranging paragraphs instead of just letters, making parts of the message optional, performing syntactic modifications of the included text,...  Each new minor modification starts a research effort on the detecting side.
The cost of detecting spam will rise much faster than the cost of generating spam.
If you try to outsmart the spammers with this, you will lose.
Complexity favors the spammers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897638</id>
	<title>Re:Information Security Puffery</title>
	<author>jesboat</author>
	<datestamp>1264422060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In fact, during the same time period a guy named Craig Gentry <a href="http://searchcloudcomputing.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid201\_gci1360812,00.html" title="techtarget.com">solved</a> [techtarget.com] a major open crypto problem --- namely, how to compute on encrypted data --- and it got a fraction of the press coverage.</p></div><p>This was nothing fundamentally new; google "secure multiparty computation." Or, FTFA, Gentry's technique requires a "trillion times" more computational power than existing techniques.</p><p>Not that I think his work wasn't awesome-- I've already queued the paper in my reading list. All I'm claiming is that he didn't "solve a major open problem".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact , during the same time period a guy named Craig Gentry solved [ techtarget.com ] a major open crypto problem --- namely , how to compute on encrypted data --- and it got a fraction of the press coverage.This was nothing fundamentally new ; google " secure multiparty computation .
" Or , FTFA , Gentry 's technique requires a " trillion times " more computational power than existing techniques.Not that I think his work was n't awesome-- I 've already queued the paper in my reading list .
All I 'm claiming is that he did n't " solve a major open problem " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact, during the same time period a guy named Craig Gentry solved [techtarget.com] a major open crypto problem --- namely, how to compute on encrypted data --- and it got a fraction of the press coverage.This was nothing fundamentally new; google "secure multiparty computation.
" Or, FTFA, Gentry's technique requires a "trillion times" more computational power than existing techniques.Not that I think his work wasn't awesome-- I've already queued the paper in my reading list.
All I'm claiming is that he didn't "solve a major open problem".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897262</id>
	<title>Re:"Perfect"???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264420260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It worked perfectly until they published.  What if during WW II, the US published in the papers how they were able to break Japanese coded messages, and then proclaimed the end of coded messages.  Oops.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It worked perfectly until they published .
What if during WW II , the US published in the papers how they were able to break Japanese coded messages , and then proclaimed the end of coded messages .
Oops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It worked perfectly until they published.
What if during WW II, the US published in the papers how they were able to break Japanese coded messages, and then proclaimed the end of coded messages.
Oops.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897520</id>
	<title>Re:"Perfect"???</title>
	<author>Ninja Programmer</author>
	<datestamp>1264421520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If it can stop a lot of this kind of spam, that's fine with me. Let it be an arms race. If the spammers have to make up new templates every 4 hours, that's going to make things a lot harder.
</p></div><p>
It would be very temporary.  One thing we need to realize is that the spammers have reasonably intelligent programmers working on *their* side.  A template deducer relies on the fact that the message has fixed text that forms a signature for the template.  The spammers do it this way right now, because its really easy to do this and hash based filters can be defeated this way.
</p><p>But if the spammers need to write more complicated "automated alternate sentence rewording" generators they will.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it can stop a lot of this kind of spam , that 's fine with me .
Let it be an arms race .
If the spammers have to make up new templates every 4 hours , that 's going to make things a lot harder .
It would be very temporary .
One thing we need to realize is that the spammers have reasonably intelligent programmers working on * their * side .
A template deducer relies on the fact that the message has fixed text that forms a signature for the template .
The spammers do it this way right now , because its really easy to do this and hash based filters can be defeated this way .
But if the spammers need to write more complicated " automated alternate sentence rewording " generators they will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it can stop a lot of this kind of spam, that's fine with me.
Let it be an arms race.
If the spammers have to make up new templates every 4 hours, that's going to make things a lot harder.
It would be very temporary.
One thing we need to realize is that the spammers have reasonably intelligent programmers working on *their* side.
A template deducer relies on the fact that the message has fixed text that forms a signature for the template.
The spammers do it this way right now, because its really easy to do this and hash based filters can be defeated this way.
But if the spammers need to write more complicated "automated alternate sentence rewording" generators they will.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897558</id>
	<title>There is already a nearly perfect solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264421640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know that from a server admin viewpoint the percentage of email that is SPAM is huge - in the 90\%s or so. But from an end user perspective (mine), this has already been solved well enough. At home, I use both Gmail and Outlook 2007 (for my ISP provided account). I almost never see SPAM in either of those accounts. At work, we have Exchange server and some sort of filter in front of it (I don't know what they use for sure, but there is something). I never get SPAM there either. Would it be nice to keep these SPAM notes from bouncing around the internet tying up bandwidth? Absolutely. Now that I don't get SPAM in my various inboxes do I give a crap anymore? Nope.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know that from a server admin viewpoint the percentage of email that is SPAM is huge - in the 90 \ % s or so .
But from an end user perspective ( mine ) , this has already been solved well enough .
At home , I use both Gmail and Outlook 2007 ( for my ISP provided account ) .
I almost never see SPAM in either of those accounts .
At work , we have Exchange server and some sort of filter in front of it ( I do n't know what they use for sure , but there is something ) .
I never get SPAM there either .
Would it be nice to keep these SPAM notes from bouncing around the internet tying up bandwidth ?
Absolutely. Now that I do n't get SPAM in my various inboxes do I give a crap anymore ?
Nope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know that from a server admin viewpoint the percentage of email that is SPAM is huge - in the 90\%s or so.
But from an end user perspective (mine), this has already been solved well enough.
At home, I use both Gmail and Outlook 2007 (for my ISP provided account).
I almost never see SPAM in either of those accounts.
At work, we have Exchange server and some sort of filter in front of it (I don't know what they use for sure, but there is something).
I never get SPAM there either.
Would it be nice to keep these SPAM notes from bouncing around the internet tying up bandwidth?
Absolutely. Now that I don't get SPAM in my various inboxes do I give a crap anymore?
Nope.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895850</id>
	<title>I'll believe it when...</title>
	<author>strangeintp</author>
	<datestamp>1264414440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>..I don't see it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>..I do n't see it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..I don't see it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30898774</id>
	<title>Re:Solution to spam? Scrap SMTP!</title>
	<author>gujo-odori</author>
	<datestamp>1264427700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of people have commented about spam filtering methodologies being defeated, but they must have some different value for "defeat" than I'm used to. I work for a well-known email security company whose name you likely would immediately recognize. We implement some sort of all the methods you enumerated and a bunch of others you didn't. Our efficacy rate on spam is way higher than 90\% (I can't be more specific, but I'll say that there isn't a lot of "up" left from where we are) and in any given month our false positive rate is in the three lowest in the industry (usually lowest or second-lowest).</p><p>That doesn't sound much like defeat to me.</p><p>No one has ever talked about scrapping SMTP and starting over? People talk about that all the time. At least some of them. They just can't get many people to support that idea. What you're talking about is far harder than IPv6, and far less necessary, yet look how few entities are actually implementing/using that, even with IPv4 space truly nearing exhaustion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of people have commented about spam filtering methodologies being defeated , but they must have some different value for " defeat " than I 'm used to .
I work for a well-known email security company whose name you likely would immediately recognize .
We implement some sort of all the methods you enumerated and a bunch of others you did n't .
Our efficacy rate on spam is way higher than 90 \ % ( I ca n't be more specific , but I 'll say that there is n't a lot of " up " left from where we are ) and in any given month our false positive rate is in the three lowest in the industry ( usually lowest or second-lowest ) .That does n't sound much like defeat to me.No one has ever talked about scrapping SMTP and starting over ?
People talk about that all the time .
At least some of them .
They just ca n't get many people to support that idea .
What you 're talking about is far harder than IPv6 , and far less necessary , yet look how few entities are actually implementing/using that , even with IPv4 space truly nearing exhaustion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of people have commented about spam filtering methodologies being defeated, but they must have some different value for "defeat" than I'm used to.
I work for a well-known email security company whose name you likely would immediately recognize.
We implement some sort of all the methods you enumerated and a bunch of others you didn't.
Our efficacy rate on spam is way higher than 90\% (I can't be more specific, but I'll say that there isn't a lot of "up" left from where we are) and in any given month our false positive rate is in the three lowest in the industry (usually lowest or second-lowest).That doesn't sound much like defeat to me.No one has ever talked about scrapping SMTP and starting over?
People talk about that all the time.
At least some of them.
They just can't get many people to support that idea.
What you're talking about is far harder than IPv6, and far less necessary, yet look how few entities are actually implementing/using that, even with IPv4 space truly nearing exhaustion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30900502</id>
	<title>People problem, not a tech problem</title>
	<author>mnemotronic</author>
	<datestamp>1264443120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Once again the technologists claim a major leap forward in the war against time thieves.  Once again they are only partially right.  Spam is not a technological problem - it is a people problem, and requires a personal solution.<p>
To paraphrase George Lucas via David Prowse "Don't be too proud of this technological turnbuckle you've constructed. The ability to destroy a botnet is insignificant next to the power of pain."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again the technologists claim a major leap forward in the war against time thieves .
Once again they are only partially right .
Spam is not a technological problem - it is a people problem , and requires a personal solution .
To paraphrase George Lucas via David Prowse " Do n't be too proud of this technological turnbuckle you 've constructed .
The ability to destroy a botnet is insignificant next to the power of pain .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again the technologists claim a major leap forward in the war against time thieves.
Once again they are only partially right.
Spam is not a technological problem - it is a people problem, and requires a personal solution.
To paraphrase George Lucas via David Prowse "Don't be too proud of this technological turnbuckle you've constructed.
The ability to destroy a botnet is insignificant next to the power of pain.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895566</id>
	<title>Worthless.  Completely Worthless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264413300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>As long as there is money to be made in spam, spammers will continue to send spam.  This "discovery" does nothing for that.  Indeed it just dedicates more CPU time to trying to identify spam, which is just another way that internet users shoulder the cost of the profitability of spamming.<br> <br>
I've said it before, and I'll continue to say it - <b>spam is an economic problem</b>.  Until something is done to address the money that spammers make, they will continue to find ways around these "effectively perfect" "discoveries".</htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as there is money to be made in spam , spammers will continue to send spam .
This " discovery " does nothing for that .
Indeed it just dedicates more CPU time to trying to identify spam , which is just another way that internet users shoulder the cost of the profitability of spamming .
I 've said it before , and I 'll continue to say it - spam is an economic problem .
Until something is done to address the money that spammers make , they will continue to find ways around these " effectively perfect " " discoveries " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as there is money to be made in spam, spammers will continue to send spam.
This "discovery" does nothing for that.
Indeed it just dedicates more CPU time to trying to identify spam, which is just another way that internet users shoulder the cost of the profitability of spamming.
I've said it before, and I'll continue to say it - spam is an economic problem.
Until something is done to address the money that spammers make, they will continue to find ways around these "effectively perfect" "discoveries".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30898430</id>
	<title>The real answer, and it works now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264425840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is what's done by my rather small ISP with the help of Red Condor software.  Spam is far easier to handle at ISP level in their case.  Just look for incomings that target nearly all the customers (which they get plenty of, as they host for all those insecure windows boxes).  At first they wanted to charge for this, but I suggested they do it in self defense and they thought it was a good idea (along with selling virus cleaning services for the malefactors and bots).  They do a really nice job, very low error rate, and sort the odd things into two categories -- things that have known viruses in them or links thereto, and things that *might* be ok at the top, and they send this to you as email -- just a list that you can view or delete.  You can then whitelist things that might be a mailing list you actually want, but it's rare that they catch that, because not that many people subscribe to the same ones.  This mainly detects viruses and things targeted to say, more than half their tens of thousands of users.   Works.</p><p>Eg, what makes spam a problem is sheer numbers.  This algorithm detects sheer numbers, and it really works.  In 3 years it's had exactly one false positive, 3 misses that got through, all recent.  That's darn good, and now I just delete the summary without looking closely.</p><p>Now, the 195 spams a day I get are mostly because they answered to "HELO" for a long time after everyone knew that was stupid (we are in the sticks here, and I wouldn't take the sysadmin job for them).  So it's their fault, but in another way it's genius -- now anything that targets their entire user base, or nearly is automatically spam and easy to detect as can be.  Bam, no spam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is what 's done by my rather small ISP with the help of Red Condor software .
Spam is far easier to handle at ISP level in their case .
Just look for incomings that target nearly all the customers ( which they get plenty of , as they host for all those insecure windows boxes ) .
At first they wanted to charge for this , but I suggested they do it in self defense and they thought it was a good idea ( along with selling virus cleaning services for the malefactors and bots ) .
They do a really nice job , very low error rate , and sort the odd things into two categories -- things that have known viruses in them or links thereto , and things that * might * be ok at the top , and they send this to you as email -- just a list that you can view or delete .
You can then whitelist things that might be a mailing list you actually want , but it 's rare that they catch that , because not that many people subscribe to the same ones .
This mainly detects viruses and things targeted to say , more than half their tens of thousands of users .
Works.Eg , what makes spam a problem is sheer numbers .
This algorithm detects sheer numbers , and it really works .
In 3 years it 's had exactly one false positive , 3 misses that got through , all recent .
That 's darn good , and now I just delete the summary without looking closely.Now , the 195 spams a day I get are mostly because they answered to " HELO " for a long time after everyone knew that was stupid ( we are in the sticks here , and I would n't take the sysadmin job for them ) .
So it 's their fault , but in another way it 's genius -- now anything that targets their entire user base , or nearly is automatically spam and easy to detect as can be .
Bam , no spam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is what's done by my rather small ISP with the help of Red Condor software.
Spam is far easier to handle at ISP level in their case.
Just look for incomings that target nearly all the customers (which they get plenty of, as they host for all those insecure windows boxes).
At first they wanted to charge for this, but I suggested they do it in self defense and they thought it was a good idea (along with selling virus cleaning services for the malefactors and bots).
They do a really nice job, very low error rate, and sort the odd things into two categories -- things that have known viruses in them or links thereto, and things that *might* be ok at the top, and they send this to you as email -- just a list that you can view or delete.
You can then whitelist things that might be a mailing list you actually want, but it's rare that they catch that, because not that many people subscribe to the same ones.
This mainly detects viruses and things targeted to say, more than half their tens of thousands of users.
Works.Eg, what makes spam a problem is sheer numbers.
This algorithm detects sheer numbers, and it really works.
In 3 years it's had exactly one false positive, 3 misses that got through, all recent.
That's darn good, and now I just delete the summary without looking closely.Now, the 195 spams a day I get are mostly because they answered to "HELO" for a long time after everyone knew that was stupid (we are in the sticks here, and I wouldn't take the sysadmin job for them).
So it's their fault, but in another way it's genius -- now anything that targets their entire user base, or nearly is automatically spam and easy to detect as can be.
Bam, no spam.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895416</id>
	<title>Is there the checklist for why this won't succeed?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264412760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it coming?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it coming ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it coming?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30910016</id>
	<title>Re:Calling BS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264500900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we SOLD the Spam Filter for say, ten bucks, we could then use it to write Spam so it could sell itself to people vial email.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we SOLD the Spam Filter for say , ten bucks , we could then use it to write Spam so it could sell itself to people vial email .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we SOLD the Spam Filter for say, ten bucks, we could then use it to write Spam so it could sell itself to people vial email.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30898350</id>
	<title>Where is the paper?</title>
	<author>roland\_mai</author>
	<datestamp>1264425420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't find the paper anywhere. This is just hype!

Templates are relatively similar, however, the trick is in figuring out what the polymorphic engine that injects the content does.
Currently, there's quite a bit of research being done uses machine learning techniques. I guess this paper is supposed to do the same thing, learn from some training data and filter other spam.

So, there's a learning phase and a testing phase. Current research shows that for the short term these techniques are quite successful having really low false positives 0.002 (AutoRE at Microsoft). However, when looking at spam say 6 months down the road unless you keep learning from labeled emails spam/not-spam, you won't be able to make good decisions because of the volatile characteristics of spam.

Also, you've got to be concerned with the Real-Time implications of these learning methodologies and noise. Most campaigns last around 5 days, however, will a user have to wait for 5 days to receive an email? Probably not, so this technique may yield low positives in a longer period than the short term.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't find the paper anywhere .
This is just hype !
Templates are relatively similar , however , the trick is in figuring out what the polymorphic engine that injects the content does .
Currently , there 's quite a bit of research being done uses machine learning techniques .
I guess this paper is supposed to do the same thing , learn from some training data and filter other spam .
So , there 's a learning phase and a testing phase .
Current research shows that for the short term these techniques are quite successful having really low false positives 0.002 ( AutoRE at Microsoft ) .
However , when looking at spam say 6 months down the road unless you keep learning from labeled emails spam/not-spam , you wo n't be able to make good decisions because of the volatile characteristics of spam .
Also , you 've got to be concerned with the Real-Time implications of these learning methodologies and noise .
Most campaigns last around 5 days , however , will a user have to wait for 5 days to receive an email ?
Probably not , so this technique may yield low positives in a longer period than the short term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't find the paper anywhere.
This is just hype!
Templates are relatively similar, however, the trick is in figuring out what the polymorphic engine that injects the content does.
Currently, there's quite a bit of research being done uses machine learning techniques.
I guess this paper is supposed to do the same thing, learn from some training data and filter other spam.
So, there's a learning phase and a testing phase.
Current research shows that for the short term these techniques are quite successful having really low false positives 0.002 (AutoRE at Microsoft).
However, when looking at spam say 6 months down the road unless you keep learning from labeled emails spam/not-spam, you won't be able to make good decisions because of the volatile characteristics of spam.
Also, you've got to be concerned with the Real-Time implications of these learning methodologies and noise.
Most campaigns last around 5 days, however, will a user have to wait for 5 days to receive an email?
Probably not, so this technique may yield low positives in a longer period than the short term.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30901238</id>
	<title>Fighting spam with heuristics is a losing game</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1264538280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's very easy to write a parser for text, and weight words by the common-ness of usage. Just download any of the widely available freebie e-books written by a Star Trek fan writer, and weight all the words therein by the number of times used.</p><p>With that simple hash table, you can combine the numbers together and then generate random numbers within the total range, and kick out the associated words! Statistically indecipherable from real text (because that was the source!) and you kill heuristic anti-spam filters to the curb for good.</p><p>It's a simple algorithm - I could write a simple script in PHP that would do this and crank out hundreds of thousands of unblockable messages per hour on a 5 year old Celeron. And the war will *never* end. Even if you can filter improbable word associations, or any other factor or set of factors, those factors can then be figured into the random word generator.</p><p>It's an endless game of cat and mouse and it will never end, so long as we're using heuristics to try to figure out what spam is and isn't.</p><p>But if we *are* using heuristics to try to read spam, that's probably the single biggest funding driver behind AI research that there is! In essence, we have an intelligent-design genetic algorithm at work trying to come up with the best algorithm for defeating our own intelligence!</p><p>What better way is there to fund the development of our eventual intellectual replacements?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's very easy to write a parser for text , and weight words by the common-ness of usage .
Just download any of the widely available freebie e-books written by a Star Trek fan writer , and weight all the words therein by the number of times used.With that simple hash table , you can combine the numbers together and then generate random numbers within the total range , and kick out the associated words !
Statistically indecipherable from real text ( because that was the source !
) and you kill heuristic anti-spam filters to the curb for good.It 's a simple algorithm - I could write a simple script in PHP that would do this and crank out hundreds of thousands of unblockable messages per hour on a 5 year old Celeron .
And the war will * never * end .
Even if you can filter improbable word associations , or any other factor or set of factors , those factors can then be figured into the random word generator.It 's an endless game of cat and mouse and it will never end , so long as we 're using heuristics to try to figure out what spam is and is n't.But if we * are * using heuristics to try to read spam , that 's probably the single biggest funding driver behind AI research that there is !
In essence , we have an intelligent-design genetic algorithm at work trying to come up with the best algorithm for defeating our own intelligence ! What better way is there to fund the development of our eventual intellectual replacements ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's very easy to write a parser for text, and weight words by the common-ness of usage.
Just download any of the widely available freebie e-books written by a Star Trek fan writer, and weight all the words therein by the number of times used.With that simple hash table, you can combine the numbers together and then generate random numbers within the total range, and kick out the associated words!
Statistically indecipherable from real text (because that was the source!
) and you kill heuristic anti-spam filters to the curb for good.It's a simple algorithm - I could write a simple script in PHP that would do this and crank out hundreds of thousands of unblockable messages per hour on a 5 year old Celeron.
And the war will *never* end.
Even if you can filter improbable word associations, or any other factor or set of factors, those factors can then be figured into the random word generator.It's an endless game of cat and mouse and it will never end, so long as we're using heuristics to try to figure out what spam is and isn't.But if we *are* using heuristics to try to read spam, that's probably the single biggest funding driver behind AI research that there is!
In essence, we have an intelligent-design genetic algorithm at work trying to come up with the best algorithm for defeating our own intelligence!What better way is there to fund the development of our eventual intellectual replacements?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896080</id>
	<title>Police wont put up with it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264415280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Police wont put up with it??</p><p>Despite what many may think, police are human too,<br>and they get spammed too,<br>and they are sick to death of it too</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Police wont put up with it ?
? Despite what many may think , police are human too,and they get spammed too,and they are sick to death of it too</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Police wont put up with it?
?Despite what many may think, police are human too,and they get spammed too,and they are sick to death of it too</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896606</id>
	<title>Just another arms race</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1264417080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And like most arms races, the opposition will swarm over your latest creation to reverse-engineer it, redesign it, build countermeasures, and neutralize it.</p><p>And count on the spammers being subscribged to your service.  They'll get your filters as soon as their victims do. The iteration delay will be infinitesmal.</p><p>Refer to the previous posts as to why it still won't work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And like most arms races , the opposition will swarm over your latest creation to reverse-engineer it , redesign it , build countermeasures , and neutralize it.And count on the spammers being subscribged to your service .
They 'll get your filters as soon as their victims do .
The iteration delay will be infinitesmal.Refer to the previous posts as to why it still wo n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And like most arms races, the opposition will swarm over your latest creation to reverse-engineer it, redesign it, build countermeasures, and neutralize it.And count on the spammers being subscribged to your service.
They'll get your filters as soon as their victims do.
The iteration delay will be infinitesmal.Refer to the previous posts as to why it still won't work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30904908</id>
	<title>Re:I did this first</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1264523400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><tt><br>if(message) { delete\_message(message); }<br></tt></p><p>FTFY, 100\% spam elimination less processing requirements.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if ( message ) { delete \ _message ( message ) ; } FTFY , 100 \ % spam elimination less processing requirements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if(message) { delete\_message(message); }FTFY, 100\% spam elimination less processing requirements.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895662</id>
	<title>Re:"Perfect"???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264413600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fine with me. Most spam I get is obviously a template, since I get the same one for weeks. This would stop those additional sent copies. The false positive rate on this kind of thing is effectively 0\%, so I'm willing to have it be an additional check on my email.
</p><p>If it can stop a lot of this kind of spam, that's fine with me. Let it be an arms race. If the spammers have to make up new templates every 4 hours, that's going to make things a lot harder.
</p><p>This isn't a cure for all spam, it's a fantastic filter for one (of the biggest) kinds of spam. Only headline makes it sound like it will solve <i>all</i> spam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fine with me .
Most spam I get is obviously a template , since I get the same one for weeks .
This would stop those additional sent copies .
The false positive rate on this kind of thing is effectively 0 \ % , so I 'm willing to have it be an additional check on my email .
If it can stop a lot of this kind of spam , that 's fine with me .
Let it be an arms race .
If the spammers have to make up new templates every 4 hours , that 's going to make things a lot harder .
This is n't a cure for all spam , it 's a fantastic filter for one ( of the biggest ) kinds of spam .
Only headline makes it sound like it will solve all spam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fine with me.
Most spam I get is obviously a template, since I get the same one for weeks.
This would stop those additional sent copies.
The false positive rate on this kind of thing is effectively 0\%, so I'm willing to have it be an additional check on my email.
If it can stop a lot of this kind of spam, that's fine with me.
Let it be an arms race.
If the spammers have to make up new templates every 4 hours, that's going to make things a lot harder.
This isn't a cure for all spam, it's a fantastic filter for one (of the biggest) kinds of spam.
Only headline makes it sound like it will solve all spam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896090</id>
	<title>Re:I did this first</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264415340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><tt>inline bool is\_spam(msg* message) { return true; }</tt></p><p>Brilliant!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>inline bool is \ _spam ( msg * message ) { return true ; } Brilliant !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>inline bool is\_spam(msg* message) { return true; }Brilliant!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30900118</id>
	<title>Re:Is there the checklist for why this won't succe</title>
	<author>pushf popf</author>
	<datestamp>1264439580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've got a better one. "Don't talk to botnets"<br> <br>

No rDNS? Goodbye? rDNS looks dynamic? Click.<br> <br>

If your mail server only talks to properly allocated static IPs, most spam simply vanishes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got a better one .
" Do n't talk to botnets " No rDNS ?
Goodbye ? rDNS looks dynamic ?
Click . If your mail server only talks to properly allocated static IPs , most spam simply vanishes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got a better one.
"Don't talk to botnets" 

No rDNS?
Goodbye? rDNS looks dynamic?
Click. 

If your mail server only talks to properly allocated static IPs, most spam simply vanishes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30901980</id>
	<title>Effectivly Perfect?</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1264505580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So they learned how to install SpamAssasin?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So they learned how to install SpamAssasin ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they learned how to install SpamAssasin?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30902888</id>
	<title>O/T</title>
	<author>vegiVamp</author>
	<datestamp>1264515000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; individual rights aren't related to human genetics, but rather to the organism's sapience</p><p>So do you look at individual ants, or the entire anthill to determine the level of sapience ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; individual rights are n't related to human genetics , but rather to the organism 's sapienceSo do you look at individual ants , or the entire anthill to determine the level of sapience ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; individual rights aren't related to human genetics, but rather to the organism's sapienceSo do you look at individual ants, or the entire anthill to determine the level of sapience ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895490</id>
	<title>"Perfect"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264412940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You keep using that word .
I do not think it means what you think it means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896456</id>
	<title>Re:Real world operation? Feed of templates?</title>
	<author>Dr. Spork</author>
	<datestamp>1264416540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a feeling that Google does something like this, which is why it's so convenient for so many of us to have our email sifted through Gmail's filters. (I'm not saying it's wise, only that it's convenient.) If there's one thing that Google have, it's lots of data.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a feeling that Google does something like this , which is why it 's so convenient for so many of us to have our email sifted through Gmail 's filters .
( I 'm not saying it 's wise , only that it 's convenient .
) If there 's one thing that Google have , it 's lots of data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a feeling that Google does something like this, which is why it's so convenient for so many of us to have our email sifted through Gmail's filters.
(I'm not saying it's wise, only that it's convenient.
) If there's one thing that Google have, it's lots of data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30898254</id>
	<title>Reminds me of when I first heard of Bayes filters.</title>
	<author>Tetsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1264424880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember when I first heard of Bayesian filters (here on Slashdot, as I recall) the article was very optimistic about how the filter would be nearly unstoppable...  Something to the effect of "to beat this adaptive filtering system, spam would have to stop looking like spam, to the point that it would also cease to be effective" - as if any spam message had some intrinsic "spammy character" inherent in its word chains, and any attempt to change this would also prevent spammers from formulating an effective advertisement...  This obviously failed to account for all the ways spammers have found to undermine Bayes filters over the past several years, but I was very impressed with the idea at the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember when I first heard of Bayesian filters ( here on Slashdot , as I recall ) the article was very optimistic about how the filter would be nearly unstoppable... Something to the effect of " to beat this adaptive filtering system , spam would have to stop looking like spam , to the point that it would also cease to be effective " - as if any spam message had some intrinsic " spammy character " inherent in its word chains , and any attempt to change this would also prevent spammers from formulating an effective advertisement... This obviously failed to account for all the ways spammers have found to undermine Bayes filters over the past several years , but I was very impressed with the idea at the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember when I first heard of Bayesian filters (here on Slashdot, as I recall) the article was very optimistic about how the filter would be nearly unstoppable...  Something to the effect of "to beat this adaptive filtering system, spam would have to stop looking like spam, to the point that it would also cease to be effective" - as if any spam message had some intrinsic "spammy character" inherent in its word chains, and any attempt to change this would also prevent spammers from formulating an effective advertisement...  This obviously failed to account for all the ways spammers have found to undermine Bayes filters over the past several years, but I was very impressed with the idea at the time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30900530</id>
	<title>OpenPGP = "Acutally Perfect" Spam Blocking</title>
	<author>VortexCortex</author>
	<datestamp>1264443300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We use Thunderbird with the <a href="http://enigmail.mozdev.org/home/index.php" title="mozdev.org" rel="nofollow">Enigmail (OpenPGP) plugin</a> [mozdev.org] at my office to cryptographicly sign and/or encrypt our email.</p><p>Our SPAM filter consists of simply rejecting all unsigned e-mail messages.<br>One exception is that external e-mail addresses can be whitelisted (with approval) to allow for email from companies with no email authentication in place.</p><p>It's a bit of a pain at first, but everyone at work agrees that it's a small price to pay when you consider the alternative (inboxes full of spam).<br>I've never recieved a spam e-mail message at work.<br>New employees create PGP keys during orientation (or else they can't send any e-mail).</p><p>One by one I'm convincing my friends and family to cryptographicly sign their messages (tech-savy ones love the Idea).<br>Soon I hope to get zero spam at home too.</p><p>[sigh]... If only the rest of the Internet authenticated their email we could all have Zero spam in our inboxes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We use Thunderbird with the Enigmail ( OpenPGP ) plugin [ mozdev.org ] at my office to cryptographicly sign and/or encrypt our email.Our SPAM filter consists of simply rejecting all unsigned e-mail messages.One exception is that external e-mail addresses can be whitelisted ( with approval ) to allow for email from companies with no email authentication in place.It 's a bit of a pain at first , but everyone at work agrees that it 's a small price to pay when you consider the alternative ( inboxes full of spam ) .I 've never recieved a spam e-mail message at work.New employees create PGP keys during orientation ( or else they ca n't send any e-mail ) .One by one I 'm convincing my friends and family to cryptographicly sign their messages ( tech-savy ones love the Idea ) .Soon I hope to get zero spam at home too. [ sigh ] .. .
If only the rest of the Internet authenticated their email we could all have Zero spam in our inboxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We use Thunderbird with the Enigmail (OpenPGP) plugin [mozdev.org] at my office to cryptographicly sign and/or encrypt our email.Our SPAM filter consists of simply rejecting all unsigned e-mail messages.One exception is that external e-mail addresses can be whitelisted (with approval) to allow for email from companies with no email authentication in place.It's a bit of a pain at first, but everyone at work agrees that it's a small price to pay when you consider the alternative (inboxes full of spam).I've never recieved a spam e-mail message at work.New employees create PGP keys during orientation (or else they can't send any e-mail).One by one I'm convincing my friends and family to cryptographicly sign their messages (tech-savy ones love the Idea).Soon I hope to get zero spam at home too.[sigh]...
If only the rest of the Internet authenticated their email we could all have Zero spam in our inboxes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895592</id>
	<title>Re:"Perfect"???</title>
	<author>StripedCow</author>
	<datestamp>1264413360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spammers will just incorporate this technique into their botnets to test whether sending certain spam will succeed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spammers will just incorporate this technique into their botnets to test whether sending certain spam will succeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spammers will just incorporate this technique into their botnets to test whether sending certain spam will succeed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30900646</id>
	<title>They'll switch to something else.</title>
	<author>Metasquares</author>
	<datestamp>1264444380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Block templates and we'll just end up getting more Markovian spam, or something generated on some other yet-unknown technique.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Block templates and we 'll just end up getting more Markovian spam , or something generated on some other yet-unknown technique .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Block templates and we'll just end up getting more Markovian spam, or something generated on some other yet-unknown technique.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895534</id>
	<title>Spam vaccination</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1264413120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hah, leaky disciplines.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hah , leaky disciplines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hah, leaky disciplines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30899800</id>
	<title>I Hope So!</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1264436700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>       If they have developed a perfect spam blocker I'll kiss their fanny on main street at high noon. I hate spam!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they have developed a perfect spam blocker I 'll kiss their fanny on main street at high noon .
I hate spam !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>       If they have developed a perfect spam blocker I'll kiss their fanny on main street at high noon.
I hate spam!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896388</id>
	<title>Re:"Perfect"???</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1264416300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> (although modifying the email protocol to allow authentication of the sender's address would be a big help.)</p></div></blockquote><p>Already done, its called SPF, Sender Policy Framework.  Using existing infrastructure (DNS) and requires only minor modifications to most mail servers and is available for every mail server that matters to anyone but some douche bags running something completely custom.</p><p>Now if you could make a significant portion of the Internet switch to only accepting mail from SPF validated domains, then you'd have a major step in the right direction, but good luck pulling it off.</p><p>SPF is already a great deterrent for certain backscatter spams, but its not widely enough implemented to be truly useful.</p><p>Note: Spammers were the first in line to implement SPF when it came out, so they could avoid getting killed by servers which required it to get through in the first place.  It does stop botnets pretty quickly though, but only if those sender addresses are from domains that support SPF.  You can't really block non-SPF domains at this point as you'd end up blocking too many lazy sites, including some of the big boys.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( although modifying the email protocol to allow authentication of the sender 's address would be a big help .
) Already done , its called SPF , Sender Policy Framework .
Using existing infrastructure ( DNS ) and requires only minor modifications to most mail servers and is available for every mail server that matters to anyone but some douche bags running something completely custom.Now if you could make a significant portion of the Internet switch to only accepting mail from SPF validated domains , then you 'd have a major step in the right direction , but good luck pulling it off.SPF is already a great deterrent for certain backscatter spams , but its not widely enough implemented to be truly useful.Note : Spammers were the first in line to implement SPF when it came out , so they could avoid getting killed by servers which required it to get through in the first place .
It does stop botnets pretty quickly though , but only if those sender addresses are from domains that support SPF .
You ca n't really block non-SPF domains at this point as you 'd end up blocking too many lazy sites , including some of the big boys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> (although modifying the email protocol to allow authentication of the sender's address would be a big help.
)Already done, its called SPF, Sender Policy Framework.
Using existing infrastructure (DNS) and requires only minor modifications to most mail servers and is available for every mail server that matters to anyone but some douche bags running something completely custom.Now if you could make a significant portion of the Internet switch to only accepting mail from SPF validated domains, then you'd have a major step in the right direction, but good luck pulling it off.SPF is already a great deterrent for certain backscatter spams, but its not widely enough implemented to be truly useful.Note: Spammers were the first in line to implement SPF when it came out, so they could avoid getting killed by servers which required it to get through in the first place.
It does stop botnets pretty quickly though, but only if those sender addresses are from domains that support SPF.
You can't really block non-SPF domains at this point as you'd end up blocking too many lazy sites, including some of the big boys.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895942</id>
	<title>I have a 95\% perfect solution...</title>
	<author>dccase</author>
	<datestamp>1264414800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since 95\% of email is spam, just block it all.</p><p>No one will notice the statistically-insignificant 5\% false positives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since 95 \ % of email is spam , just block it all.No one will notice the statistically-insignificant 5 \ % false positives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since 95\% of email is spam, just block it all.No one will notice the statistically-insignificant 5\% false positives.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896404</id>
	<title>Re:Not our claim... :-)</title>
	<author>Nimey</author>
	<datestamp>1264416300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean a Slashdot editor posted something sensational, and people didn't RTFM and believed the summary/headline?  Never!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean a Slashdot editor posted something sensational , and people did n't RTFM and believed the summary/headline ?
Never !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean a Slashdot editor posted something sensational, and people didn't RTFM and believed the summary/headline?
Never!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30898272</id>
	<title>EQ-REGEX is PSPACE-complete</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264424940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I asked my undergrad complexity theory class to prove that testing equivalence of regular expressions is PSPACE-complete on their final exam last term, well one or two figured out the proof strategy and almost pulled it off.  In other words, even if you consider only very basic models of computation, you still cannot easily determine whether two programs have the same function, i.e. you cannot recognize if your template really captures their template.</p><p>I imagine their system works quite effectively upon the current botnet's, which likely don't even support regular languages.  I doubt however they'll effectively deal with a botnet that incorporated say the Dada Engine : http://dev.null.org/dadaengine/  Are the spammers that clever?  Almost surely yes.</p><p>p.s.  An interesting legal strategy might be simply advertising spam services and prosecuting the companies that buy it, sure that's entrapment and they'll walk, but you might gain enough evidence for civil cases by ISPs, and you'll ruin their reputation in any case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I asked my undergrad complexity theory class to prove that testing equivalence of regular expressions is PSPACE-complete on their final exam last term , well one or two figured out the proof strategy and almost pulled it off .
In other words , even if you consider only very basic models of computation , you still can not easily determine whether two programs have the same function , i.e .
you can not recognize if your template really captures their template.I imagine their system works quite effectively upon the current botnet 's , which likely do n't even support regular languages .
I doubt however they 'll effectively deal with a botnet that incorporated say the Dada Engine : http : //dev.null.org/dadaengine/ Are the spammers that clever ?
Almost surely yes.p.s .
An interesting legal strategy might be simply advertising spam services and prosecuting the companies that buy it , sure that 's entrapment and they 'll walk , but you might gain enough evidence for civil cases by ISPs , and you 'll ruin their reputation in any case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I asked my undergrad complexity theory class to prove that testing equivalence of regular expressions is PSPACE-complete on their final exam last term, well one or two figured out the proof strategy and almost pulled it off.
In other words, even if you consider only very basic models of computation, you still cannot easily determine whether two programs have the same function, i.e.
you cannot recognize if your template really captures their template.I imagine their system works quite effectively upon the current botnet's, which likely don't even support regular languages.
I doubt however they'll effectively deal with a botnet that incorporated say the Dada Engine : http://dev.null.org/dadaengine/  Are the spammers that clever?
Almost surely yes.p.s.
An interesting legal strategy might be simply advertising spam services and prosecuting the companies that buy it, sure that's entrapment and they'll walk, but you might gain enough evidence for civil cases by ISPs, and you'll ruin their reputation in any case.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30902846</id>
	<title>spam</title>
	<author>JumpSocial</author>
	<datestamp>1264514700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Single Women and Men Looking to have sexual encounters! - sexually explicit -


PRESS HERE to meet single women or men for sexual encounters: (MUST BE 18 and OLDER)
<a href="http://zimbrlen.com/tr.php?85012+ooga@siteware.com" title="zimbrlen.com" rel="nofollow">http://zimbrlen.com/tr.php?85012+ooga@siteware.com</a> [zimbrlen.com]


This is going to sound crazy, but there is a dating site loaded with thousands of single women and men right in your city that are looking to meet and date new people this week.


These single women and men are not interested in playing games. They know what they want, and they will be very upfront with you. You have nothing to lose, and the time of your life to gain!

PRESS HERE to meet single women or men for sexual encounters: (MUST BE 18 and OLDER)
<a href="http://zimbrlen.com/tr.php?85012+ooga@siteware.com" title="zimbrlen.com" rel="nofollow">http://zimbrlen.com/tr.php?85012+ooga@siteware.com</a> [zimbrlen.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Single Women and Men Looking to have sexual encounters !
- sexually explicit - PRESS HERE to meet single women or men for sexual encounters : ( MUST BE 18 and OLDER ) http : //zimbrlen.com/tr.php ? 85012 + ooga @ siteware.com [ zimbrlen.com ] This is going to sound crazy , but there is a dating site loaded with thousands of single women and men right in your city that are looking to meet and date new people this week .
These single women and men are not interested in playing games .
They know what they want , and they will be very upfront with you .
You have nothing to lose , and the time of your life to gain !
PRESS HERE to meet single women or men for sexual encounters : ( MUST BE 18 and OLDER ) http : //zimbrlen.com/tr.php ? 85012 + ooga @ siteware.com [ zimbrlen.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Single Women and Men Looking to have sexual encounters!
- sexually explicit -


PRESS HERE to meet single women or men for sexual encounters: (MUST BE 18 and OLDER)
http://zimbrlen.com/tr.php?85012+ooga@siteware.com [zimbrlen.com]


This is going to sound crazy, but there is a dating site loaded with thousands of single women and men right in your city that are looking to meet and date new people this week.
These single women and men are not interested in playing games.
They know what they want, and they will be very upfront with you.
You have nothing to lose, and the time of your life to gain!
PRESS HERE to meet single women or men for sexual encounters: (MUST BE 18 and OLDER)
http://zimbrlen.com/tr.php?85012+ooga@siteware.com [zimbrlen.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896072</id>
	<title>Recognizing spam is easy, if you see enough</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1264415280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Spam filtering isn't very hard, if you see the email for a large number of accounts, as Gmail does.  The one characteristic that spam <i>must</i> have is that it's sent in bulk.  The commonality across receiving email accounts gives it away.
The only hard part is recognizing the commonality, which is already working rather well.  This is just a new technique for recognizing commonality.
</p><p>
Recognizing spam for a single account is tougher, because you don't get to see the "bulk" property.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spam filtering is n't very hard , if you see the email for a large number of accounts , as Gmail does .
The one characteristic that spam must have is that it 's sent in bulk .
The commonality across receiving email accounts gives it away .
The only hard part is recognizing the commonality , which is already working rather well .
This is just a new technique for recognizing commonality .
Recognizing spam for a single account is tougher , because you do n't get to see the " bulk " property .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Spam filtering isn't very hard, if you see the email for a large number of accounts, as Gmail does.
The one characteristic that spam must have is that it's sent in bulk.
The commonality across receiving email accounts gives it away.
The only hard part is recognizing the commonality, which is already working rather well.
This is just a new technique for recognizing commonality.
Recognizing spam for a single account is tougher, because you don't get to see the "bulk" property.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895792</id>
	<title>100\% of x</title>
	<author>foldingstock</author>
	<datestamp>1264414140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From reading the article, it would appear that this method can successfully block 100\% of spam emails that are identified as spam. How many emails will get through while the data is gathered to determine which emails are spam...is inconvenient to this statistic so you should just ignore that for now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From reading the article , it would appear that this method can successfully block 100 \ % of spam emails that are identified as spam .
How many emails will get through while the data is gathered to determine which emails are spam...is inconvenient to this statistic so you should just ignore that for now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From reading the article, it would appear that this method can successfully block 100\% of spam emails that are identified as spam.
How many emails will get through while the data is gathered to determine which emails are spam...is inconvenient to this statistic so you should just ignore that for now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30899756</id>
	<title>Re:"Perfect"???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264436340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aren't spammers these days relying on botnets of hacked PCs?</p><p>There are questions of whether or not strong AI will ever happen, but there are pretty much no questions about whether strong AI will happen on today's PCs or on a massively networked scale dependent on today's infrastructure. (The answer is, bluntly, no).</p><p>Besides, these are spammers we're talking about. There isn't exactly a path from "spammers get strong AI" to "the rest of us get strong AI". You're somehow assuming that spammers are both smarter and more altruistic than the general population.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't spammers these days relying on botnets of hacked PCs ? There are questions of whether or not strong AI will ever happen , but there are pretty much no questions about whether strong AI will happen on today 's PCs or on a massively networked scale dependent on today 's infrastructure .
( The answer is , bluntly , no ) .Besides , these are spammers we 're talking about .
There is n't exactly a path from " spammers get strong AI " to " the rest of us get strong AI " .
You 're somehow assuming that spammers are both smarter and more altruistic than the general population .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't spammers these days relying on botnets of hacked PCs?There are questions of whether or not strong AI will ever happen, but there are pretty much no questions about whether strong AI will happen on today's PCs or on a massively networked scale dependent on today's infrastructure.
(The answer is, bluntly, no).Besides, these are spammers we're talking about.
There isn't exactly a path from "spammers get strong AI" to "the rest of us get strong AI".
You're somehow assuming that spammers are both smarter and more altruistic than the general population.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30903556</id>
	<title>Re:Not our claim... :-)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264518480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the slashdot editor may have RTFA, because they were quoting something written by the New Scientist author, so you can only blame them for passing it on.</p><p>That's the way it works in journalism.  Once anyone makes a sensational comment, it is inevitably passed on no matter how ridiculous as long as it sounds good.  Meanwhile the mundane parts of the story get slowly diluted and distorted by the increasing amount of sensational fluff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the slashdot editor may have RTFA , because they were quoting something written by the New Scientist author , so you can only blame them for passing it on.That 's the way it works in journalism .
Once anyone makes a sensational comment , it is inevitably passed on no matter how ridiculous as long as it sounds good .
Meanwhile the mundane parts of the story get slowly diluted and distorted by the increasing amount of sensational fluff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the slashdot editor may have RTFA, because they were quoting something written by the New Scientist author, so you can only blame them for passing it on.That's the way it works in journalism.
Once anyone makes a sensational comment, it is inevitably passed on no matter how ridiculous as long as it sounds good.
Meanwhile the mundane parts of the story get slowly diluted and distorted by the increasing amount of sensational fluff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896562</id>
	<title>Re:Not our claim... :-)</title>
	<author>Ambiguous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1264416960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But it's right there in the headline! <i>In quotes!</i> It must be true!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But it 's right there in the headline !
In quotes !
It must be true !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it's right there in the headline!
In quotes!
It must be true!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30900596</id>
	<title>Just reject all emails</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264444020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its actually quite funny that it takes a team of "computer scientists" to attempt an approach that any slashdot reader knows instinctivly to be foolish and doomed to failure.</p><p>Until their smarter than humans all anti-spam efforts are ever sure to accomplish is to make the Internets mail system increasingly unreliable for legitimate business to the point of being absolutely useless.</p><p>Internet mail needs a complete overhaul.  Listen up Berkley computer science heads... Conceptually the only scheme that has a chance of ever being practical is requirement to obtain "permission to send"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p><p>HELO, can I send you an email?<br>(User is notified and accepts)<br>THANKYOU, here is my email</p><p>Permission is likely to be in the form of a signing request that can be shared with others ad-infinitum by linking the trust chain.  Once permission is granted its always a bi-directional grant by default and the keying material is used as a basis for mandatory message signing and optional message encryption.</p><p>The receiver has the capability of revoking their signature if its abused by an organization or its sub-assignments.  Once revoked permission to send will need to be re-obtained for that signature and any sub-assignments. This disentangles the email address and prevents you from being a spam target even if your email is posted publically.</p><p>Users are in full control and as with typical PKI you can set recursion limits and EKUs to specify if/how your permission to send can be given to others.</p><p>If your smart about it you can overhaul the SMTP protocol and maintain IMAP/POP3 client compatibility.  IMAP extensions can be used to manage permission to send/signing mumbo jumbo and a compatibility mode can provide interactive email prompting from the new server.</p><p>Yes you can still be spammed by millions of zombies asking for permission to send you something so there is a careful balance of what information should be conveyed in a request and valid modes such as prearranged passwords or specifically requested information before permission to send requests will even be acceptable.</p><p>I would much rather have that and have some assurance WRT who I'm talking to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/w built-in ability to go secure/encrypted when needed.  Its not foolproof but at least it does not require a trusted third party and if your smart about it there is some chance it won't even have to be a disruptive transition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its actually quite funny that it takes a team of " computer scientists " to attempt an approach that any slashdot reader knows instinctivly to be foolish and doomed to failure.Until their smarter than humans all anti-spam efforts are ever sure to accomplish is to make the Internets mail system increasingly unreliable for legitimate business to the point of being absolutely useless.Internet mail needs a complete overhaul .
Listen up Berkley computer science heads... Conceptually the only scheme that has a chance of ever being practical is requirement to obtain " permission to send " ..HELO , can I send you an email ?
( User is notified and accepts ) THANKYOU , here is my emailPermission is likely to be in the form of a signing request that can be shared with others ad-infinitum by linking the trust chain .
Once permission is granted its always a bi-directional grant by default and the keying material is used as a basis for mandatory message signing and optional message encryption.The receiver has the capability of revoking their signature if its abused by an organization or its sub-assignments .
Once revoked permission to send will need to be re-obtained for that signature and any sub-assignments .
This disentangles the email address and prevents you from being a spam target even if your email is posted publically.Users are in full control and as with typical PKI you can set recursion limits and EKUs to specify if/how your permission to send can be given to others.If your smart about it you can overhaul the SMTP protocol and maintain IMAP/POP3 client compatibility .
IMAP extensions can be used to manage permission to send/signing mumbo jumbo and a compatibility mode can provide interactive email prompting from the new server.Yes you can still be spammed by millions of zombies asking for permission to send you something so there is a careful balance of what information should be conveyed in a request and valid modes such as prearranged passwords or specifically requested information before permission to send requests will even be acceptable.I would much rather have that and have some assurance WRT who I 'm talking to /w built-in ability to go secure/encrypted when needed .
Its not foolproof but at least it does not require a trusted third party and if your smart about it there is some chance it wo n't even have to be a disruptive transition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its actually quite funny that it takes a team of "computer scientists" to attempt an approach that any slashdot reader knows instinctivly to be foolish and doomed to failure.Until their smarter than humans all anti-spam efforts are ever sure to accomplish is to make the Internets mail system increasingly unreliable for legitimate business to the point of being absolutely useless.Internet mail needs a complete overhaul.
Listen up Berkley computer science heads... Conceptually the only scheme that has a chance of ever being practical is requirement to obtain "permission to send" ..HELO, can I send you an email?
(User is notified and accepts)THANKYOU, here is my emailPermission is likely to be in the form of a signing request that can be shared with others ad-infinitum by linking the trust chain.
Once permission is granted its always a bi-directional grant by default and the keying material is used as a basis for mandatory message signing and optional message encryption.The receiver has the capability of revoking their signature if its abused by an organization or its sub-assignments.
Once revoked permission to send will need to be re-obtained for that signature and any sub-assignments.
This disentangles the email address and prevents you from being a spam target even if your email is posted publically.Users are in full control and as with typical PKI you can set recursion limits and EKUs to specify if/how your permission to send can be given to others.If your smart about it you can overhaul the SMTP protocol and maintain IMAP/POP3 client compatibility.
IMAP extensions can be used to manage permission to send/signing mumbo jumbo and a compatibility mode can provide interactive email prompting from the new server.Yes you can still be spammed by millions of zombies asking for permission to send you something so there is a careful balance of what information should be conveyed in a request and valid modes such as prearranged passwords or specifically requested information before permission to send requests will even be acceptable.I would much rather have that and have some assurance WRT who I'm talking to /w built-in ability to go secure/encrypted when needed.
Its not foolproof but at least it does not require a trusted third party and if your smart about it there is some chance it won't even have to be a disruptive transition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895732</id>
	<title>The real annoyance..</title>
	<author>Roogna</author>
	<datestamp>1264413900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly, I have to say between all the various filters I have or have written, I don't get a whole lot of spam.  What I -want- though, is a way to identify it more reliably before my mail server even has to accept the message.  With the current protocols, you can simply only block so much based on IP ranges or whatnot.  There's a point where you have to accept the message to analyze.  Sadly the only way we're likely to increase the chance of dropping the connection before receiving the message now is for the protocols themselves to change from the ground up.  And as everyone here knows, that's highly unlikely to ever happen.</p><p>Ahh well...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , I have to say between all the various filters I have or have written , I do n't get a whole lot of spam .
What I -want- though , is a way to identify it more reliably before my mail server even has to accept the message .
With the current protocols , you can simply only block so much based on IP ranges or whatnot .
There 's a point where you have to accept the message to analyze .
Sadly the only way we 're likely to increase the chance of dropping the connection before receiving the message now is for the protocols themselves to change from the ground up .
And as everyone here knows , that 's highly unlikely to ever happen.Ahh well.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, I have to say between all the various filters I have or have written, I don't get a whole lot of spam.
What I -want- though, is a way to identify it more reliably before my mail server even has to accept the message.
With the current protocols, you can simply only block so much based on IP ranges or whatnot.
There's a point where you have to accept the message to analyze.
Sadly the only way we're likely to increase the chance of dropping the connection before receiving the message now is for the protocols themselves to change from the ground up.
And as everyone here knows, that's highly unlikely to ever happen.Ahh well...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895504</id>
	<title>Headline tomorrow</title>
	<author>Korbeau</author>
	<datestamp>1264412940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A team of <i>hackers</i> from <i>Russia</i> are claiming to have found an "effectively perfect" method for <i>countering spam blocking technology</i>. The new system deciphers the templates <i>Spam Blocker</i> is using to <i>filter</i> spam and then teaches <i>spam generators</i> what to <i>write</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A team of hackers from Russia are claiming to have found an " effectively perfect " method for countering spam blocking technology .
The new system deciphers the templates Spam Blocker is using to filter spam and then teaches spam generators what to write .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A team of hackers from Russia are claiming to have found an "effectively perfect" method for countering spam blocking technology.
The new system deciphers the templates Spam Blocker is using to filter spam and then teaches spam generators what to write.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897324</id>
	<title>Re:Headline tomorrow</title>
	<author>diefne</author>
	<datestamp>1264420560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the immortal words of James Alan Hetfield:

Sad but true.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the immortal words of James Alan Hetfield : Sad but true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the immortal words of James Alan Hetfield:

Sad but true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896952</id>
	<title>Re:Not our claim... :-)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264418460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, basically, "hyperbolic journalism" strikes again.</p><p>I'm not the least bit surprised.</p><p>What we really need is an "effectively perfect" way to get journalists to accurately represent scientific topics rather than the usual hyperbole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , basically , " hyperbolic journalism " strikes again.I 'm not the least bit surprised.What we really need is an " effectively perfect " way to get journalists to accurately represent scientific topics rather than the usual hyperbole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, basically, "hyperbolic journalism" strikes again.I'm not the least bit surprised.What we really need is an "effectively perfect" way to get journalists to accurately represent scientific topics rather than the usual hyperbole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895424</id>
	<title>A never ending battle</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1264412760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hooray for the good guys! Now if they could find something similar to fight viruses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hooray for the good guys !
Now if they could find something similar to fight viruses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hooray for the good guys!
Now if they could find something similar to fight viruses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895836</id>
	<title>Re:What about changing the templates</title>
	<author>shabtai87</author>
	<datestamp>1264414380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When botnets start adjusting the templates, they upgrade to skynet. Then we're all screwed!</htmltext>
<tokenext>When botnets start adjusting the templates , they upgrade to skynet .
Then we 're all screwed !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When botnets start adjusting the templates, they upgrade to skynet.
Then we're all screwed!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30901220</id>
	<title>Re:Halting problem</title>
	<author>grumbel</author>
	<datestamp>1264538040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Halting problem only exist for theoretical computers with infinite memory, for real computers with finite memory its trivial to solve (wait till a memory state repeats, done).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Halting problem only exist for theoretical computers with infinite memory , for real computers with finite memory its trivial to solve ( wait till a memory state repeats , done ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Halting problem only exist for theoretical computers with infinite memory, for real computers with finite memory its trivial to solve (wait till a memory state repeats, done).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896704</id>
	<title>Why can't we do this instead?</title>
	<author>Bobb Sledd</author>
	<datestamp>1264417440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, I've been waiting for the opportunity to suggest my idea.  It's completely back-ward compatible with existing technology, and it will only help filter spam:</p><p>The biggest problem I have with SPAM is unverifiable email addresses.  Try replying to a SPAM message... most of the time it's a bad address.  So, fix that, and you have solved 99\% of the SPAM problem.  (BTW, I don't consider email from verified email addresses to be SPAM.  Why?  Because they can be held accountable if they shouldn't be sending to you in the first place.)</p><p>The other big problem I have is that when I send email to friends and I have a link inside, it gets marked as SPAM.  So, having a way to trust my messages would be good.</p><p>So here's how my idea works:  Every mail server also hosts a "verify server."  Every email client can connect to a domain's "verify server."  (Compliance is completely voluntary for either the client or domains.  And if you don't comply, you just don't get the benefit of trust.)</p><p>1. You write an email message with your email client (Outlook) and hit 'Send'.</p><p>2. Your email client generates a 50-digit, randomized alpha-numeric psuedo-unique serial number.</p><p>3. The email client includes this serial number in the message as a header or some other tag.</p><p>4. The email client then connects to it's own "verify server", logs in and gives the server this serial number and its email address.</p><p>5. The receiving email client then receives the message.  It sees the serial number in the tag, and contacts that domain's "verify server."</p><p>6. The receiving client asks the "verify server":  "Was there a message with serial number '5sd56123515baCesieoo25il2oigloowldogi255i289602d0d0g' and from 'bobb\_sledd@gmail.com' ?</p><p>7. If the "verify server" says yes, then we verified that the message at least originated from that email address.</p><p>What do you think?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , I 've been waiting for the opportunity to suggest my idea .
It 's completely back-ward compatible with existing technology , and it will only help filter spam : The biggest problem I have with SPAM is unverifiable email addresses .
Try replying to a SPAM message... most of the time it 's a bad address .
So , fix that , and you have solved 99 \ % of the SPAM problem .
( BTW , I do n't consider email from verified email addresses to be SPAM .
Why ? Because they can be held accountable if they should n't be sending to you in the first place .
) The other big problem I have is that when I send email to friends and I have a link inside , it gets marked as SPAM .
So , having a way to trust my messages would be good.So here 's how my idea works : Every mail server also hosts a " verify server .
" Every email client can connect to a domain 's " verify server .
" ( Compliance is completely voluntary for either the client or domains .
And if you do n't comply , you just do n't get the benefit of trust. ) 1 .
You write an email message with your email client ( Outlook ) and hit 'Send'.2 .
Your email client generates a 50-digit , randomized alpha-numeric psuedo-unique serial number.3 .
The email client includes this serial number in the message as a header or some other tag.4 .
The email client then connects to it 's own " verify server " , logs in and gives the server this serial number and its email address.5 .
The receiving email client then receives the message .
It sees the serial number in the tag , and contacts that domain 's " verify server. " 6 .
The receiving client asks the " verify server " : " Was there a message with serial number '5sd56123515baCesieoo25il2oigloowldogi255i289602d0d0g ' and from 'bobb \ _sledd @ gmail.com ' ? 7 .
If the " verify server " says yes , then we verified that the message at least originated from that email address.What do you think ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, I've been waiting for the opportunity to suggest my idea.
It's completely back-ward compatible with existing technology, and it will only help filter spam:The biggest problem I have with SPAM is unverifiable email addresses.
Try replying to a SPAM message... most of the time it's a bad address.
So, fix that, and you have solved 99\% of the SPAM problem.
(BTW, I don't consider email from verified email addresses to be SPAM.
Why?  Because they can be held accountable if they shouldn't be sending to you in the first place.
)The other big problem I have is that when I send email to friends and I have a link inside, it gets marked as SPAM.
So, having a way to trust my messages would be good.So here's how my idea works:  Every mail server also hosts a "verify server.
"  Every email client can connect to a domain's "verify server.
"  (Compliance is completely voluntary for either the client or domains.
And if you don't comply, you just don't get the benefit of trust.)1.
You write an email message with your email client (Outlook) and hit 'Send'.2.
Your email client generates a 50-digit, randomized alpha-numeric psuedo-unique serial number.3.
The email client includes this serial number in the message as a header or some other tag.4.
The email client then connects to it's own "verify server", logs in and gives the server this serial number and its email address.5.
The receiving email client then receives the message.
It sees the serial number in the tag, and contacts that domain's "verify server."6.
The receiving client asks the "verify server":  "Was there a message with serial number '5sd56123515baCesieoo25il2oigloowldogi255i289602d0d0g' and from 'bobb\_sledd@gmail.com' ?7.
If the "verify server" says yes, then we verified that the message at least originated from that email address.What do you think?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897832</id>
	<title>Perfectly effective</title>
	<author>halcyon1234</author>
	<datestamp>1264423020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's already a near-perfect method for spam filter: Hire someone to read your email.  If it's spam, they delete it.  If it isn't, they pass it on to you to read.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's already a near-perfect method for spam filter : Hire someone to read your email .
If it 's spam , they delete it .
If it is n't , they pass it on to you to read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's already a near-perfect method for spam filter: Hire someone to read your email.
If it's spam, they delete it.
If it isn't, they pass it on to you to read.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30899580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30901238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30908070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30899180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30898774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30902888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30900934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30901806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30908136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30899622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30898422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30899726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30899324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30902584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30903556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30908314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30898500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30899922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.31003884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30901220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30899034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30900118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30901644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30902002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30899402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30898450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30901112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30901490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30901636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30899950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30899756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30901980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30910016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30904908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_170207_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_170207.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30910016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_170207.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895732
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_170207.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_170207.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896404
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30903556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896372
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_170207.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_170207.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897088
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_170207.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30900596
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_170207.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_170207.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30898774
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_170207.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_170207.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30898500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30908314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_170207.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897864
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_170207.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30902002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895662
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30899950
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30902584
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30899180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30899034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30901644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30901238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895728
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30899756
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896352
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896126
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30900934
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896170
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30902888
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30908070
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897796
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30899402
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30899622
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30899324
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30901806
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30899580
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896208
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30901490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_170207.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_170207.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_170207.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_170207.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30901414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_170207.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895982
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896744
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_170207.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895516
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895824
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896772
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30908136
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.31003884
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896514
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30898422
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30901636
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895814
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896486
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30899726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30901112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30901980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30900118
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_170207.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_170207.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895444
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_170207.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30901220
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_170207.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30904908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30899922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897584
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_170207.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896010
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_170207.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_170207.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_170207.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30898450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30897324
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_170207.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30896456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_170207.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_170207.30895522
</commentlist>
</conversation>
