| Current Path : /proc/thread-self/root/home/ift/mails/13/ |
Linux ift1.ift-informatik.de 5.4.0-216-generic #236-Ubuntu SMP Fri Apr 11 19:53:21 UTC 2025 x86_64 |
| Current File : //proc/thread-self/root/home/ift/mails/13/1476365176.zrspam.133845_2016_10_13 |
From 8409-6851860290-828-christian.gabriel=ift-informatik.de@mail.srvivloffr.net Thu Oct 13 15:26:16 2016
Return-Path: <8409-6851860290-828-christian.gabriel=ift-informatik.de@mail.srvivloffr.net>
X-Original-To: cgabriel@ift-informatik.de
Delivered-To: cgabriel@ift-informatik.de
Received: by ift-informatik.de (Postfix, from userid 5555)
id BDC1D3752519F; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 15:26:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost by h2486555.stratoserver.net
with SpamAssassin (version 3.4.0);
Thu, 13 Oct 2016 15:26:15 +0200
From: "Black Out USA"<BlackOutUSA@srvivloffr.net>
To: <christian.gabriel@ift-informatik.de>
Subject: *****SPAM***** Exposed: American Defeat In WW3 Now Certain...
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 15:16:20 +0200
Message-Id: <0.0.6851860290.xozfxm198671742vdrmej918264.0@srvivloffr.net>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
h2486555.stratoserver.net
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Level: ******
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=6.5 required=5.0 tests=ACT_NOW_CAPS,BAYES_00,
DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FSL_MISSP_REPLYTO,HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST,
HTML_MESSAGE,RDNS_NONE,T_REMOTE_IMAGE,URIBL_BLOCKED,URIBL_DBL_SPAM,
URIBL_JP_SURBL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----------=_57FF8B77.C42E33AA"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------------=_57FF8B77.C42E33AA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Spam detection software, running on the system "h2486555.stratoserver.net",
has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original
message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
similar future email. If you have any questions, see
@@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details.
Content preview: Exposed: American Defeat In WW3 Now Certain... http://srvivloffr.net/g0-VzKS81eB5_JlsvqUjMQfwJHnFk7-rfS7RCgIyAbsvhgY
Exposed: American Defeat In WW3 Now Certain... to re-move http://srvivloffr.net/r5SU4FhyBbIi0dtzO2siIvSjd9FpX7kL4PGHkYC03WJCWMk
[...]
Content analysis details: (6.5 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
for more information.
[URIs: meaning.an]
1.2 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist
[URIs: srvivloffr.net]
1.7 URIBL_DBL_SPAM Contains an URL listed in the DBL blocklist
[URIs: srvivloffr.net]
2.2 ACT_NOW_CAPS BODY: Talks about 'acting now' with capitals
0.0 HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST BODY: HTML font color similar or identical to
background
0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
[score: 0.0000]
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's
domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
0.8 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS
2.5 FSL_MISSP_REPLYTO Mis-spaced from and Reply-to
0.0 T_REMOTE_IMAGE Message contains an external image
The original message was not completely plain text, and may be unsafe to
open with some email clients; in particular, it may contain a virus,
or confirm that your address can receive spam. If you wish to view
it, it may be safer to save it to a file and open it with an editor.
------------=_57FF8B77.C42E33AA
Content-Type: message/rfc822; x-spam-type=original
Content-Description: original message before SpamAssassin
Content-Disposition: attachment
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Received: from sandy.srvivloffr.net (unknown [173.242.113.250])
by ift-informatik.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B8B13752519C
for <christian.gabriel@ift-informatik.de>; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 15:26:11 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; s=k1; d=srvivloffr.net;
h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Message-ID; i=BlackOutUSA@srvivloffr.net;
bh=I5eFjlaqKi9UloqSg/VO50/u6Tg=;
b=iAlgCGXaSXvd24rtruBKm8mEibt1cWoeEI6rNR6HQ62T1V0hhFYnNPpTq8tLebRjM4IiLABh8qZT
erbRoDoP71aBgPQASeo7rwFzkVWVRW/Zg0MDKXzyuwiKNkLR6fqg22ivrVuApV2QOWVd8MmpLbzg
gKkEUy0Z6lGZVssXSVo=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; q=dns; s=k1; d=srvivloffr.net;
b=uxlfHjxhqTmMSPtdwRY4PHXnvB01l0nLNTI2yF9Au67kztqMnunvtPpEbhZjRThRdJkF/sMMk5Y6
qUG9ifO1wC2fCOBfdVOsK3TW8AOkUKlOC8+P7HYmEI7PzUH3EF1fj1VCs/e61Yeix6SMJZWbtca+
Ap76LIC6n4YGyCkGs5g=;
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="69b2241b58aa7c607b4da978bd03db02"
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 15:16:20 +0200
From: "Black Out USA"<BlackOutUSA@srvivloffr.net>
Reply-To: "Black Out USA"<BlackOutUSA@srvivloffr.net>
Subject: Exposed: American Defeat In WW3 Now Certain...
To: <christian.gabriel@ift-informatik.de>
Message-ID: <0.0.6851860290.xozfxm198671742vdrmej918264.0@srvivloffr.net>
--69b2241b58aa7c607b4da978bd03db02
Content-Type: text/plain;
Exposed: American Defeat In WW3 Now Certain...
http://srvivloffr.net/g0-VzKS81eB5_JlsvqUjMQfwJHnFk7-rfS7RCgIyAbsvhgY
Exposed: American Defeat In WW3 Now Certain...
to re-move
http://srvivloffr.net/r5SU4FhyBbIi0dtzO2siIvSjd9FpX7kL4PGHkYC03WJCWMk
The formal study of semantics intersects with many other fields of inquiry, including lexicology, syntax, pragmatics, etymology and others. Independently, semantics is also a well-defined field in its own right, often with synthetic properties. In the philosophy of language, semantics and reference are closely connected. Further related fields include philology, communication, and semiotics. The formal study of semantics can therefore be manifold and complex.Semantics contrasts with syntax, the study of the combinatorics of units of a language (without reference to their meaning), and pragmatics, the study of the relationships between the symbols of a language, their meaning, and the users of the language. Semantics as a field of study also has significant ties to various representational theories of meaning including truth theories of meaning, coherence theories of meaning, and correspondence theories of meaning. Each of these is related to the general philosophical study of reality and the representation of meaning.In Chomskyan linguistics there was no mechanism for the learning of semantic relations, and the nativist view considered all semantic notions as inborn. Thus, even novel concepts were proposed to have been dormant in some sense. This view was also thought unable to address many issues such as metaphor or associative meanings, and semantic change, where meanings within a linguistic community change over time, and qualia or subjective experience. Another issue not addressed by the nativist model was how perceptual cues are combined in thought, e.g. in mental rotation.This view of semantics, as an innate finite meaning inherent in a lexical unit that can be composed to generate meanings for larger chunks of discourse, is now being fiercely debated in the emerging domain of cognitive linguistics and also in the non-Fodorian camp in philosophy of language. The challenge is motivated byIn linguistics, a homonym is one of a group of words that share the same pronunciation but have different meanings, whether spelled the same or not. A more restrictive definition sees homonyms as words that are simultaneously homographs (words that share the same spelling, regardless of their pronunciation) and homophones (words that share the same pronunciation, regardless of their spelling) – that is to say they have same pronunciation and spelling, but different meanings. The relationship between a set of homonyms is called homonymy. Examples of homonyms are the pair stalk (part of a plant) and stalk (follow/harass a person) and the pair left (past tense of leave) and left (opposite of right). A distinction is sometimes made between "true" homonyms, which are unrelated in origin, such as skate (glide on ice) and skate (the fish), and polysemous homonyms, or polysemes, which have a shared origin, such as mouth (of a river) and mouth (of an animal).In non-technical contexts, the term "homonym" may be used (somewhat confusingly) to refer to words that are either homographs or homophones. The words row (propel with oars) and row (argument) and row (a linear arrangement of seating) are considered homographs, while the words read (peruse) and reed (waterside plant) would be considered homophones; under this looser definition, both groups of words represent groups of homonyms.The adjective homonymous can additionally be used wherever two items share the same name, independent of how close they are or aren't related in terms of their meaning or etymologyfactors internal to language, such as the problem of resolving indexical or anaphora (e.g. this x, him, last week). In these situations context serves as the input, but the interpreted utterance also modifies the context, so it is also the output. Thus, the interpretation is necessarily dynamic and the meaning of sentences is viewed as contexts changing potentials instead of propositionsfactors external to language, i.e. language is not a set of labels stuck on things, but "a toolbox, the importance of whose elements lie in the way they function rather than their attachments to things." This view reflects the position of the later Wittgenstein and his famous game example, and is related to the positions of Quine, Davidson, and others.A concrete example of the latter phenomenon is semantic underspecification – meanings are not complete without some elements of context. To take an example of one word, red, its meaning in a phrase such as red book is similar to many other usages, and can be viewed as compositional. However, the colours implied in phrases such as red wine (very dark), and red hair (coppery), or red soil, or red skin are very different. Indeed, these colours by themselves would not be called red by native speakers. These instances are contrastive, so red wine is so called only in comparison with the other kind of wine (which also is not white for the same reasons). This view goes back to de Saussure:Each of a set of synonyms like redouter ('to dread'), craindre ('to fear'), avoir peur ('to be afraid') has its particular value only because they stand in contrast with one another. No word has a value that can be identified independently of what else is in its vicinity.and may go back to earlier Indian views on language, especially the Nyaya view of words as indicators and not carriers of meaning.An attempt to defend a system based on propositional meaning for semantic underspecification can be found in the generative lexicon model of James Pustejovsky, who extends contextual operations (based on type shifting) into the lexicon. Thus meanings are generated "on the fly" (as you go), based on finite context.
--69b2241b58aa7c607b4da978bd03db02
Content-Type: text/html;
<html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<table width="600">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p> </p>
<center>
<h2><span style="font-size:20px;"><u>Prepper</u></span></h2>
</center>
<div style="margin-left: 40px;"><span style="font-size:20px;">Bolt your doors... lock your windows... and<br />
<br />
<strong><a href="http://srvivloffr.net/g0-VzKS81eB5_JlsvqUjMQfwJHnFk7-rfS7RCgIyAbsvhgY">Watch This Mind-Blowing Video TODAY...</a></strong></span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 40px;"><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size:20px;"><a href="http://srvivloffr.net/g0-VzKS81eB5_JlsvqUjMQfwJHnFk7-rfS7RCgIyAbsvhgY"><img src="http://srvivloffr.net/e8fe22419972895348.jpg" style="border:2px solid black;" width="450" /> </a></span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 40px;"><br />
<span style="font-size:20px;">Because it reveals <strong><a href="http://srvivloffr.net/g0-VzKS81eB5_JlsvqUjMQfwJHnFk7-rfS7RCgIyAbsvhgY">The #1 Reason</a> </strong>CIA Director James Woolsey<br />
claims over <strong>228 million</strong><strong> Americans</strong> could be dead by election day...<br />
<br />
And it won't be China, Russia, or ISIS pulling the trigger.<br />
<br />
In fact, it's much closer to home....<br />
<br />
It's already been <strong>banned</strong> in several key <strong>liberal</strong> states...<br />
<br />
But word's spread fast...<br />
<br />
Over 18,453,961 Americans have already seen it...<br />
<br />
<strong><a href="http://srvivloffr.net/g0-VzKS81eB5_JlsvqUjMQfwJHnFk7-rfS7RCgIyAbsvhgY">Click HERE Now to See the Full Shocking Documentary</a></strong><br />
(It only takes 3 minutes)<br />
<br />
<strong><a href="http://srvivloffr.net/g0-VzKS81eB5_JlsvqUjMQfwJHnFk7-rfS7RCgIyAbsvhgY">But Act Now - Before it's too late</a>.</strong></span></div>
<p> </p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table align="center" height="449" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 1px solid white;" width="600">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<div id="random" style="color: #FFFFFF; font: Tahoma 4pt; border: 7px;">
<p style="text-align:left"> </p>
<a href="http://srvivloffr.net/XnqW6Zum0IURHLe6QX-EPz504f2kT-V_jL4wOrk3H5_dl70"><img src="http://srvivloffr.net/22070d021038b80bab.jpg" /></a> <img height="1" src="http://www.srvivloffr.net/xVRV_XY5QNtLrq-N-TBgiPiOnLcaTLVP8x_m2CGP79fGo9o" width="1" /><a href="http://srvivloffr.net/XnqW6Zum0IURHLe6QX-EPz504f2kT-V_jL4wOrk3H5_dl70"><img src="http://srvivloffr.net/22070d021038b80bab.jpg" /></a><img height="1" src="http://www.srvivloffr.net/xVRV_XY5QNtLrq-N-TBgiPiOnLcaTLVP8x_m2CGP79fGo9o" width="1" /> <a href="http://srvivloffr.net/XnqW6Zum0IURHLe6QX-EPz504f2kT-V_jL4wOrk3H5_dl70"><img src="http://srvivloffr.net/22070d021038b80bab.jpg" /></a>The formal study of semantics intersects with many other fields of inquiry, including lexicology, syntax, pragmatics, etymology and others. Independently, semantics is also a well-defined field in its own right, often with synthetic properties. In the philosophy of language, semantics and reference are closely connected. Further related fields include philology, communication, and semiotics. The formal study of semantics can therefore be manifold and complex.Semantics contrasts with syntax, the study of the combinatorics of units of a language (without reference to their meaning), and pragmatics, the study of the relationships between the symbols of a language, their meaning, and the users of the language. Semantics as a field of study also has significant ties to various representational theories of meaning including truth theories of meaning, coherence theories of meaning, and correspondence theories of meaning. Each of these is related to the general philosophical study of reality and the representation of meaning.In Chomskyan linguistics there was no mechanism for the learning of semantic relations, and the nativist view considered all semantic notions as inborn. Thus, even novel concepts were proposed to have been dormant in some sense. This view was also thought unable to address many issues such as metaphor or associative meanings, and semantic change, where meanings within a linguistic community change over time, and qualia or subjective experience. Another issue not addressed by the nativist model was how perceptual cues are combined in thought, e.g. in mental rotation.This view of semantics, as an innate finite meaning inherent in a lexical unit that can be composed to generate meanings for larger chunks of discourse, is now being fiercely debated in the emerging domain of cognitive linguistics and also in the non-Fodorian camp in philosophy of language. The challenge is motivated byIn linguistics, a homonym is one of a group of words that share the same pronunciation but have different meanings, whether spelled the same or not. A more restrictive definition sees homonyms as words that are simultaneously homographs (words that share the same spelling, regardless of their pronunciation) and homophones (words that share the same pronunciation, regardless of their spelling) – that is to say they have same pronunciation and spelling, but different meanings. The relationship between a set of homonyms is called homonymy. Examples of homonyms are the pair stalk (part of a plant) and stalk (follow/harass a person) and the pair left (past tense of leave) and left (opposite of right). A distinction is sometimes made between "true" homonyms, which are unrelated in origin, such as skate (glide on ice) and skate (the fish), and polysemous homonyms, or polysemes, which have a shared origin, such as mouth (of a river) and mouth (of an animal).In non-technical contexts, the term "homonym" may be used (somewhat confusingly) to refer to words that are either homographs or homophones. The words row (propel with oars) and row (argument) and row (a linear arrangement of seating) are considered homographs, while the words read (peruse) and reed (waterside plant) would be considered homophones; under this looser definition, both groups of words represent groups of homonyms.The adjective homonymous can additionally be used wherever two items share the same name, independent of how close they are or aren't related in terms of their meaning or etymologyfactors internal to language, such as the problem of resolving indexical or anaphora (e.g. this x, him, last week). In these situations context serves as the input, but the interpreted utterance also modifies the context, so it is also the output. Thus, the interpretation is necessarily dynamic and the meaning of sentences is viewed as contexts changing potentials instead of propositionsfactors external to language, i.e. language is not a set of labels stuck on things, but "a toolbox, the importance of whose elements lie in the way they function rather than their attachments to things." This view reflects the position of the later Wittgenstein and his famous game example, and is related to the positions of Quine, Davidson, and others.A concrete example of the latter phenomenon is semantic underspecification – meanings are not complete without some elements of context. To take an example of one word, red, its meaning in a phrase such as red book is similar to many other usages, and can be viewed as compositional. However, the colours implied in phrases such as red wine (very dark), and red hair (coppery), or red soil, or red skin are very different. Indeed, these colours by themselves would not be called red by native speakers. These instances are contrastive, so red wine is so called only in comparison with the other kind of wine (which also is not white for the same reasons). This view goes back to de Saussure:Each of a set of synonyms like redouter ('to dread'), craindre ('to fear'), avoir peur ('to be afraid') has its particular value only because they stand in contrast with one another. No word has a value that can be identified independently of what else is in its vicinity.and may go back to earlier Indian views on language, especially the Nyaya view of words as indicators and not carriers of meaning.An attempt to defend a system based on propositional meaning for semantic underspecification can be found in the generative lexicon model of James Pustejovsky, who extends contextual operations (based on type shifting) into the lexicon. Thus meanings are generated "on the fly" (as you go), based on finite context.<img height="1" src="http://www.srvivloffr.net/xVRV_XY5QNtLrq-N-TBgiPiOnLcaTLVP8x_m2CGP79fGo9o" width="1" /><a href="http://srvivloffr.net/XnqW6Zum0IURHLe6QX-EPz504f2kT-V_jL4wOrk3H5_dl70"><img src="http://srvivloffr.net/22070d021038b80bab.jpg" /></a> <img height="1" src="http://www.srvivloffr.net/xVRV_XY5QNtLrq-N-TBgiPiOnLcaTLVP8x_m2CGP79fGo9o" width="1" />
<p> </p>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div style="margin-left: 80px;"><a href="http://srvivloffr.net/GCHV5uE9u0dYaPz2OWLYsZl-rFLPvnQwnacZ7XNIBxji0y0"><img alt="" border="0" src="http://srvivloffr.net/af71e12e27d1f7dc88.jpg" style="" /></a></div>
</body>
</html>
--69b2241b58aa7c607b4da978bd03db02198671742--
------------=_57FF8B77.C42E33AA--