<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Carbon Footprint of Spam</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.polaine.com/2009/04/21/the-carbon-footprint-of-spam/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.polaine.com/2009/04/21/the-carbon-footprint-of-spam/</link>
	<description>Uncommon Sense</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:40:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: c0t0d0s0.org</title>
		<link>http://www.polaine.com/2009/04/21/the-carbon-footprint-of-spam/comment-page-1/#comment-8555</link>
		<dc:creator>c0t0d0s0.org</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:24:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.polaine.com/?p=1256#comment-8555</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The carbon footprint of spam...&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;There is an interesting whitepaper available from McAfee and ICF. Albeit it´s from an vendor of security software, it provides some interesting points: Filtering spam is beneficial, but fighting spam at the source is even better. When McColo, a major s...&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>The carbon footprint of spam&#8230;</strong></p>

<p>There is an interesting whitepaper available from McAfee and ICF. Albeit it´s from an vendor of security software, it provides some interesting points: Filtering spam is beneficial, but fighting spam at the source is even better. When McColo, a major s&#8230;</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

