Nice for the blogger (and the ad provider), not nice for the advertiser. And pissing off advertisers is (strange as it may sound to the crowd here) not good for the future of the web. Unless you really want everything to become paid-for instead of ad-supported.
Actually, what you write here totally makes sense to me. I'm thinking Web ads as similar to newspaper and magazine ads: the web after all is very much like a newspaper or magazine. One browses the pages, reads a bit here, reads a bit there, and moves on.
How does one measures the effectiveness of those ads? Not by click-through rates, as there are none! Sometimes by coupons ("bring this coupon and enjoy $ off on your next purchase"), but usually by numbers of magazines/papers sold. Or web equivalent: page impressions, site hits, whatever.
Of course page hits and so are not so measurable, and software like AdBlock of course is not helping (I'm considering installing it now as I'm on a slow link; Flashblock takes the irritation away already for me but not the bytes).
So advertising on the web should not have too much of an issue, and I don't think advertisers would not already realise what this study suggests. Click-through rates are nice as an extra service that a newspaper ad can not provide; the only times I have clicked on an ad was either a Google ad when searching, or accidental. I do see some of them of course, and as long as they do not flash that's OK to me. I don't mind. Newspapers also have complete pages with ads, I see some, most I just skip. And I think that's quite a common way of reading a newspaper, and for advertisers nothing to worry about, that is how it works for long long time already.
For a start: my laptop has a 10Mbit Ethernet port. Now 100 Mb is standard, and 1 Gb available. Is there any reason why I should expect my laptop to get a free upgrade? I don't think so.
Do I have reason to expect it is compatible with 1Gb networks? Maybe. Albeit at a lower speed. Same for these BluRay players: they were up to standard when sold, and are now the newer disks still play - without the new features of course. Why should the old player get a free upgrade? No reason for that.
People should buy products (hardware, software, whatever) based on the CURRENT feature set. Not based on promised upgrades, that is a nice extra but not relevant.
But some will believe that music isn't worth their money, but is worth the effort to torrent. they will claim that they are just not willing to reward the awful quality of music with their money, rather than complaining about money. If the music quality is truly that awful that they complain about it, then why the effort to go find it on-line, and download it? That clearly indicates the quality is not awful. I for one won't put any effort in downloading it at all!
Apple doesn't want DRM. The labels force them to use it in their contracts. Probably you are right here, I can't tell as I'm not intimate with the actual contracts between Apple and the music labels. Though on the other hand it appears to me that Apple has used this DRM position very well: the variable pricing has been demanded by the labels, and refused by Apple, before. This pricing power from the reseller gives a very good indication of the incredibly strong market position they have.
Rest of your argument i fully agree with; this is part of my arguments as well. Finally iTunes gets real competition, and suddenly they may have to follow the market instead of setting it.
Apple has more or less a stranglehold now on the market, and the labels demanding DRM on their music help Apple maintaining this stranglehold, and block e.g. Amazon from selling music that plays on the iPod lolz, how can apple block people from selling mp3s? how have they even attempted to do this? not to mention apple doesnt own the mp3 standard and cant dictate to anyone anything about it.
Incase the joke is missed, iPods play mp3s Apple can not. And you apparently totally missed the point: the major labels always demanded DRM. The mp3 you are referring to is presumably without DRM, thus music from the major labels could not be sold as mp3 (this just changed, but only just), and the major labels depended on Apple to sell music for the iPods. So in effect the DRM they demanded resulted in the major labels being dependent on Apple.
Of course other people can sell music as mp3 files, but not all music is/was allowed to be sold in DRM-less formats by the copyright owners!
I argued it before here that DRM is a dead end, killing itself by limiting it's own market. And apparently this is really happening, and happening so much that it's starting to cut in profits.
Apple has more or less a stranglehold now on the market, and the labels demanding DRM on their music help Apple maintaining this stranglehold, and block e.g. Amazon from selling music that plays on the iPod. After all, when they must use DRM, they can not use Apple's DRM, and thus the market for Amazon and the rest is limited to the non-iPod market. And that market of course is small, and no serious competition for Apple.
The only way out for the labels, the only way to break Apple's hold including the demands of one price for all songs, is to drop the DRM requirement. And finally they do so - it started of course with some iTunes-plus songs, and then one after another the labels realised that they themselves are locked in by DRM as much, if not more so, than the consumers. Even "rootkit" Sony BMG apparently finally realised that.
Now the only thing I can hope for is some real competition. US$ 0.99 (HK$ 7.7) for a single song is imho way too expensive. For that price I can buy complete movies (legal, mind you - old ones, but still, a complete movie, on VCD, sometimes go for HK$10 for two). A new movie on VCD costs here HK$ 40-50, a DVD costs about HK$ 90-120, a music CD costs HK$ 70-100 for local artists and HK$ 110-150 for overseas artists. This for legal copies, not the cheap illegal import from China.
So now finally the labels have cut the DRM from the songs, allowing Amazon and presumably soon other vendors, maybe Microsoft or Yahoo, to sell songs without DRM. Amazon is now selling a lot at prices lower than iTunes, this will likely attract customers away from iTunes. iTunes is getting competition, and may be forced to lower their prices. iTunes may also decide to give up on their DRM, the lock-in is broken up by the supply side and there is no need for them to put on the DRM. After all adding DRM costs money: it takes computer cycles, requiring more computer power; it requires extra logic on their chips or software in the iPods, etc. DRM less media is cheaper, even if only marginally so.
So will Apple give up on their DRM? Sure. I'm really sure they will. Maybe not anytime soon, but as soon as Amazon et. al. get some traction, they will. As soon as there comes a real competitor to the iPod, they will do as well just to keep there store going.
You must be American. And a bit geographically challenged. I was talking about Hong Kong. OK it used to be a British colony, but that doesn't make it anywhere NEAR Europe! I have to admit of course the land area in Hong Kong is not big. Though there are quite some mountains in the way and half of the territory is country park...
Mmm... still too expensive. Canada is not much better than USA. Now in Hong Kong, I pay $50 (about USD6) per month for my mobile, including 300 minutes calling. I have an IDD plan of $65 (USD 8.5) for 500 mins calling to a.o. USA, Canada, and most European countries. IDD plan is for my mobile and land lines (in my office). That's all. Oh well EU mobiles not included and I do surpass that 500 mins a bit sometimes so pay in the end maybe $500 (USD 60 or so) total for calling. 200-300 mins usage mobile, and about 600-800 mins per month international. Quite managable.
At this kind of prices I don't use VOIP like Skype; costs more and worse quality. I only use it for videophone with my parents so they can see my baby.
You Americans really pay way too much for mobile. I am having a plan of 300 mins, call-forwarding, all the basics, and pay only $50 per month. Hong Kong $ that is - 7.8 to the USD. Cheaper plans are available. Even pre-paid exists. For USD50 per month I can get an unlimited GPRS data plan, and for double that price an unlimited G3 data plan. And more minutes that you can ever use. In contrast I'm charged about $120 per month for my land line, three of 'm, and those I really need in office. But that again includes unlimited local calls.
Trade marks are regional. Domains are not. Internet knows no boundaries; even if you register your tradermark in, say, the USA (this being Slashdot), it may not be valid in Hong Kong (where I happen to live). Or in Japan. Or any European country. So it may be a good idea in the first placve, it's not necessarily going to get your domain back cheaper or so.
Sounds very much like what we said 10, 15 years or so ago when the GSM phones started to really boom. There are three groups of people:
1. There were people who were not imporant enough to be reachable all the time, so they didn't have a mobile phone.
2. Then there were the more important people, who thought it was a good idea to be reachable all the time, they had one.
3. And those really important ones didn't have a mobile phone, because they were important enough to decide by themselves when they are reachable and when not.
Now of course we know where it all led: everyone and their dog have a mobile phone. For example in Hong Kong where I live, there are about 7,5-8 million mobile phone accounts in use, on a population of 7 million people. And a couple hundred thousand dogs, at most.
Ever heard of the "switch it off" option? I think even those blackberries have such a feature. Just like my mobile (it's off now). And my e-mail (closed at the moment). And on top of that: e-mail can wait. It can wait much better than a phone call.
Every evening I receive e-mails, and actually I do answer a lot of them. It's part of my work. I don't complain, I'm the boss. BUt I'd much rather have my customers send me e-mail that I can reply when I have time (end of the evening, before going off to bed, check and answer the urgent ones) than getting ten phone calls spread over the evening.
It's a matter of self-discipline. Switch it off.
I love my country, now and then. This is such a moment.
And I love Microsoft's comment as well. Now lets first see that they manage to make OOXML an open standard! But at least someone still beliefs in it. It's so heartwarming. And actually a bid sad.
Yes, sarcasm is hard to show in a web comment. Personally I also use OOo, works great for me (simple docs, simple spreadsheet work), I don't need more and probably never will need much more. I love the pdf export, use that a lot. MS Office would probably also do the job for me just as well, but that doesn't run under Linux and costs more.
Stealing is wrong, so when people ask me for a dodgy copy of Office, I point them to a free alternative.
I may assume you mean OpenOffice.org with that free alternative? Well many people here will agree that it is exactly what people are asking for: a dodgy copy of Office.
If Linux becomes the O/S of choice for cheap hardware, then I hope GNU/Linux will not get the name of "poor man's operating system". While it may be free of charge, it is not is a label the software deserves. Oh well Lindows or whatever it's now could be "poor man's Windows", they deserve that I guess. Seems to be the market they're targeting anyways.
So the electric co. will buy the electricity in your car battery (at wholesale prices). Then when it doesn't need the power anyore, it recharges your battery (for which you are billed retail). Do this several dozen times a day and watch your bill skyrocket.
My parents have a solar cell installed on their roof, subsidised by the government (they live in The Netherlands). On a good day, if they do not use any electricity, they should be able to see the electricity meter run backwards. I can imagine that is the same in this case: if electricity is withdrawn, the meter runs backwards. So no billing would be done at all for that stored electricity, and it doesn't cost the user anything.
Natural gas lines are't suitable for hydrogen. It's the smallest atom so it tends to leak from most any seal.
Hydrogen is small, but hydrogen always comes as an H2 molecule, and that is not quite the smallest gas particle. Helium is the smallest gas particle: the smallest of the noble gases, and it comes as single atoms. Leak tests are always done with He. If He doesn't leak, then nothing will. A nice extra is that He is virtually absent from our atmosphere, so any trace amount He found indicates a leak.
That said, it is certainly true that sometimes methane does not leak where H2 does. However this can never be in large quantities, as otherwise the methane would also be leaking already. I don't know whether this is a really significant problem with the existing gas network.
Much more likely an issue I think is hydrogen fatigue: many metals become brittle when exposed to H2 gas over a long period of time, and break. This is a serious issue in the design of chemical reactors, surfaces that are exposed to H2 can not carry any pressure load (so they build a second vessel around it, that carries the pressure, the gap filled with another gas such as nitrogen).
I'm sure this project is going to take off like wildfire. I wouldn't hold my breath. They are already at version 2.8.15, so this doesn't sound exactly like new software to me. Now I'm not exactly in the mathematics field, considering many comments here it's not that well known. On the other hand, they are already at version 2.8.15, which indicates the project is not new so does have a decent support base. Anyway good luck to the developers with it, it seems to be useful for the mathematicians under us.
Luckily the vast majority of the companies, even the vast majority of the employment, falls in the small and medium enterprise segment. The less-than-ten-people businesses. There things work differently. And for those companies OSS is commonly good enough, and many fancy features are simply not used because they are too cumbersome. Like calendaring, I don't even use it for my personal work. Too inconvenient as it is tied to my computer.
get very few opt-outs Might this be because nobody with two neurons to rub together actually uses an opt-out link?
No, I ask them specifically to reply. Or call me - telephone number is in the mails that I send. As is my real, verifiable company name.
You may be a nice person and run a respectable enterprise in all other respects, but if you're sending out unsolicited emails on anything more than an individual basis, you're a spammer.
Which, like most people here also don't get because they can not READ and are completely pre-determined that any commercial mail == spam, is the case. E-mails are not sent out randomly, but only to addresses where there is a reasonable and real chance they are in the same business.
No, if you are harvesting email addresses and sending unsolicited commercial messages to them, it is quite simple:
You are a spammer.
Most e-mail addresses I get are from business cards and from websites where people post their e-mail with the specific purpose to get offers of the product that I have. Some I get from other sources, but again this is from sources where the e-mail addresses are posted with the specific intent of receiving these offers.
So it is not as black-and-white as most people here try to put it. I have a mailing list containing maybe 500 addresses or so, and get on average 10-20 reactions on the offers sent, and 50-100 or so total reply regularly on the various offers. That is what I call a targeted list. Even though not everyone opted in, some actually did.
Second, how does the system know that the message you received and the message Jane received are the same? Spammers have long been randomizing parts of messages in order to block older spam filters.
An interesting thing, as outlined in TFA that you should R, is that the mails do not have to be the same. They may have different check-sums even. However they are checked against the sending IP-address. If more messages from the same IP address arrive (presumably within a certain time frame), they are all considered spam or ham. Spammers tend to send lots of mails from the same IP address at a time, so that should work.
How they handle mailing lists though is not clear to me really. There are quite some loose ends to the article.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice for the blogger (and the ad provider), not nice for the advertiser. And pissing off advertisers is (strange as it may sound to the crowd here) not good for the future of the web. Unless you really want everything to become paid-for instead of ad-supported.
Actually, what you write here totally makes sense to me. I'm thinking Web ads as similar to newspaper and magazine ads: the web after all is very much like a newspaper or magazine. One browses the pages, reads a bit here, reads a bit there, and moves on.
How does one measures the effectiveness of those ads? Not by click-through rates, as there are none! Sometimes by coupons ("bring this coupon and enjoy $ off on your next purchase"), but usually by numbers of magazines/papers sold. Or web equivalent: page impressions, site hits, whatever.
Of course page hits and so are not so measurable, and software like AdBlock of course is not helping (I'm considering installing it now as I'm on a slow link; Flashblock takes the irritation away already for me but not the bytes).
So advertising on the web should not have too much of an issue, and I don't think advertisers would not already realise what this study suggests. Click-through rates are nice as an extra service that a newspaper ad can not provide; the only times I have clicked on an ad was either a Google ad when searching, or accidental. I do see some of them of course, and as long as they do not flash that's OK to me. I don't mind. Newspapers also have complete pages with ads, I see some, most I just skip. And I think that's quite a common way of reading a newspaper, and for advertisers nothing to worry about, that is how it works for long long time already.
Wouter.
Here I for one totally disagree.
For a start: my laptop has a 10Mbit Ethernet port. Now 100 Mb is standard, and 1 Gb available. Is there any reason why I should expect my laptop to get a free upgrade? I don't think so.
Do I have reason to expect it is compatible with 1Gb networks? Maybe. Albeit at a lower speed. Same for these BluRay players: they were up to standard when sold, and are now the newer disks still play - without the new features of course. Why should the old player get a free upgrade? No reason for that.
People should buy products (hardware, software, whatever) based on the CURRENT feature set. Not based on promised upgrades, that is a nice extra but not relevant.
Wouter.
But some will believe that music isn't worth their money, but is worth the effort to torrent. they will claim that they are just not willing to reward the awful quality of music with their money, rather than complaining about money. If the music quality is truly that awful that they complain about it, then why the effort to go find it on-line, and download it? That clearly indicates the quality is not awful. I for one won't put any effort in downloading it at all!
Apple doesn't want DRM. The labels force them to use it in their contracts. Probably you are right here, I can't tell as I'm not intimate with the actual contracts between Apple and the music labels. Though on the other hand it appears to me that Apple has used this DRM position very well: the variable pricing has been demanded by the labels, and refused by Apple, before. This pricing power from the reseller gives a very good indication of the incredibly strong market position they have.
Rest of your argument i fully agree with; this is part of my arguments as well. Finally iTunes gets real competition, and suddenly they may have to follow the market instead of setting it.
Incase the joke is missed, iPods play mp3s Apple can not. And you apparently totally missed the point: the major labels always demanded DRM. The mp3 you are referring to is presumably without DRM, thus music from the major labels could not be sold as mp3 (this just changed, but only just), and the major labels depended on Apple to sell music for the iPods. So in effect the DRM they demanded resulted in the major labels being dependent on Apple.
Of course other people can sell music as mp3 files, but not all music is/was allowed to be sold in DRM-less formats by the copyright owners!
I argued it before here that DRM is a dead end, killing itself by limiting it's own market. And apparently this is really happening, and happening so much that it's starting to cut in profits.
Apple has more or less a stranglehold now on the market, and the labels demanding DRM on their music help Apple maintaining this stranglehold, and block e.g. Amazon from selling music that plays on the iPod. After all, when they must use DRM, they can not use Apple's DRM, and thus the market for Amazon and the rest is limited to the non-iPod market. And that market of course is small, and no serious competition for Apple.
The only way out for the labels, the only way to break Apple's hold including the demands of one price for all songs, is to drop the DRM requirement. And finally they do so - it started of course with some iTunes-plus songs, and then one after another the labels realised that they themselves are locked in by DRM as much, if not more so, than the consumers. Even "rootkit" Sony BMG apparently finally realised that.
Now the only thing I can hope for is some real competition. US$ 0.99 (HK$ 7.7) for a single song is imho way too expensive. For that price I can buy complete movies (legal, mind you - old ones, but still, a complete movie, on VCD, sometimes go for HK$10 for two). A new movie on VCD costs here HK$ 40-50, a DVD costs about HK$ 90-120, a music CD costs HK$ 70-100 for local artists and HK$ 110-150 for overseas artists. This for legal copies, not the cheap illegal import from China.
So now finally the labels have cut the DRM from the songs, allowing Amazon and presumably soon other vendors, maybe Microsoft or Yahoo, to sell songs without DRM. Amazon is now selling a lot at prices lower than iTunes, this will likely attract customers away from iTunes. iTunes is getting competition, and may be forced to lower their prices. iTunes may also decide to give up on their DRM, the lock-in is broken up by the supply side and there is no need for them to put on the DRM. After all adding DRM costs money: it takes computer cycles, requiring more computer power; it requires extra logic on their chips or software in the iPods, etc. DRM less media is cheaper, even if only marginally so.
So will Apple give up on their DRM? Sure. I'm really sure they will. Maybe not anytime soon, but as soon as Amazon et. al. get some traction, they will. As soon as there comes a real competitor to the iPod, they will do as well just to keep there store going.
You must be American. And a bit geographically challenged. I was talking about Hong Kong. OK it used to be a British colony, but that doesn't make it anywhere NEAR Europe! I have to admit of course the land area in Hong Kong is not big. Though there are quite some mountains in the way and half of the territory is country park...
Mmm... still too expensive. Canada is not much better than USA. Now in Hong Kong, I pay $50 (about USD6) per month for my mobile, including 300 minutes calling. I have an IDD plan of $65 (USD 8.5) for 500 mins calling to a.o. USA, Canada, and most European countries. IDD plan is for my mobile and land lines (in my office). That's all. Oh well EU mobiles not included and I do surpass that 500 mins a bit sometimes so pay in the end maybe $500 (USD 60 or so) total for calling. 200-300 mins usage mobile, and about 600-800 mins per month international. Quite managable.
At this kind of prices I don't use VOIP like Skype; costs more and worse quality. I only use it for videophone with my parents so they can see my baby.
You Americans really pay way too much for mobile. I am having a plan of 300 mins, call-forwarding, all the basics, and pay only $50 per month. Hong Kong $ that is - 7.8 to the USD. Cheaper plans are available. Even pre-paid exists. For USD50 per month I can get an unlimited GPRS data plan, and for double that price an unlimited G3 data plan. And more minutes that you can ever use. In contrast I'm charged about $120 per month for my land line, three of 'm, and those I really need in office. But that again includes unlimited local calls.
Trade marks are regional. Domains are not. Internet knows no boundaries; even if you register your tradermark in, say, the USA (this being Slashdot), it may not be valid in Hong Kong (where I happen to live). Or in Japan. Or any European country. So it may be a good idea in the first placve, it's not necessarily going to get your domain back cheaper or so.
Sounds very much like what we said 10, 15 years or so ago when the GSM phones started to really boom. There are three groups of people:
1. There were people who were not imporant enough to be reachable all the time, so they didn't have a mobile phone.
2. Then there were the more important people, who thought it was a good idea to be reachable all the time, they had one.
3. And those really important ones didn't have a mobile phone, because they were important enough to decide by themselves when they are reachable and when not.
Now of course we know where it all led: everyone and their dog have a mobile phone. For example in Hong Kong where I live, there are about 7,5-8 million mobile phone accounts in use, on a population of 7 million people. And a couple hundred thousand dogs, at most.
Ever heard of the "switch it off" option? I think even those blackberries have such a feature. Just like my mobile (it's off now). And my e-mail (closed at the moment). And on top of that: e-mail can wait. It can wait much better than a phone call.
Every evening I receive e-mails, and actually I do answer a lot of them. It's part of my work. I don't complain, I'm the boss. BUt I'd much rather have my customers send me e-mail that I can reply when I have time (end of the evening, before going off to bed, check and answer the urgent ones) than getting ten phone calls spread over the evening.
It's a matter of self-discipline. Switch it off.
I love my country, now and then. This is such a moment.
And I love Microsoft's comment as well. Now lets first see that they manage to make OOXML an open standard! But at least someone still beliefs in it. It's so heartwarming. And actually a bid sad.
Yes, sarcasm is hard to show in a web comment. Personally I also use OOo, works great for me (simple docs, simple spreadsheet work), I don't need more and probably never will need much more. I love the pdf export, use that a lot. MS Office would probably also do the job for me just as well, but that doesn't run under Linux and costs more.
I may assume you mean OpenOffice.org with that free alternative? Well many people here will agree that it is exactly what people are asking for: a dodgy copy of Office.
If Linux becomes the O/S of choice for cheap hardware, then I hope GNU/Linux will not get the name of "poor man's operating system". While it may be free of charge, it is not is a label the software deserves. Oh well Lindows or whatever it's now could be "poor man's Windows", they deserve that I guess. Seems to be the market they're targeting anyways.
My parents have a solar cell installed on their roof, subsidised by the government (they live in The Netherlands). On a good day, if they do not use any electricity, they should be able to see the electricity meter run backwards. I can imagine that is the same in this case: if electricity is withdrawn, the meter runs backwards. So no billing would be done at all for that stored electricity, and it doesn't cost the user anything.
Hydrogen is small, but hydrogen always comes as an H2 molecule, and that is not quite the smallest gas particle. Helium is the smallest gas particle: the smallest of the noble gases, and it comes as single atoms. Leak tests are always done with He. If He doesn't leak, then nothing will. A nice extra is that He is virtually absent from our atmosphere, so any trace amount He found indicates a leak.
That said, it is certainly true that sometimes methane does not leak where H2 does. However this can never be in large quantities, as otherwise the methane would also be leaking already. I don't know whether this is a really significant problem with the existing gas network.
Much more likely an issue I think is hydrogen fatigue: many metals become brittle when exposed to H2 gas over a long period of time, and break. This is a serious issue in the design of chemical reactors, surfaces that are exposed to H2 can not carry any pressure load (so they build a second vessel around it, that carries the pressure, the gap filled with another gas such as nitrogen).
Luckily the vast majority of the companies, even the vast majority of the employment, falls in the small and medium enterprise segment. The less-than-ten-people businesses. There things work differently. And for those companies OSS is commonly good enough, and many fancy features are simply not used because they are too cumbersome. Like calendaring, I don't even use it for my personal work. Too inconvenient as it is tied to my computer.
No, I ask them specifically to reply. Or call me - telephone number is in the mails that I send. As is my real, verifiable company name.
You may be a nice person and run a respectable enterprise in all other respects, but if you're sending out unsolicited emails on anything more than an individual basis, you're a spammer.Which, like most people here also don't get because they can not READ and are completely pre-determined that any commercial mail == spam, is the case. E-mails are not sent out randomly, but only to addresses where there is a reasonable and real chance they are in the same business.
Which is why you will NEVER get my e-mails. Don't worry.
No, if you are harvesting email addresses and sending unsolicited commercial messages to them, it is quite simple:
You are a spammer.
Most e-mail addresses I get are from business cards and from websites where people post their e-mail with the specific purpose to get offers of the product that I have. Some I get from other sources, but again this is from sources where the e-mail addresses are posted with the specific intent of receiving these offers.
So it is not as black-and-white as most people here try to put it. I have a mailing list containing maybe 500 addresses or so, and get on average 10-20 reactions on the offers sent, and 50-100 or so total reply regularly on the various offers. That is what I call a targeted list. Even though not everyone opted in, some actually did.
Second, how does the system know that the message you received and the message Jane received are the same? Spammers have long been randomizing parts of messages in order to block older spam filters.
An interesting thing, as outlined in TFA that you should R, is that the mails do not have to be the same. They may have different check-sums even. However they are checked against the sending IP-address. If more messages from the same IP address arrive (presumably within a certain time frame), they are all considered spam or ham. Spammers tend to send lots of mails from the same IP address at a time, so that should work.
How they handle mailing lists though is not clear to me really. There are quite some loose ends to the article.