관리-도구

편집 파일: 1614281183.M55842P27455.server.saraya-global.com,S=11599,W=11840:2,

Envelope-to: jaisone@saraya.com.my
Delivery-date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 03:26:23 +0800
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 11:25:25 -0800
To: <jaisone@saraya.com.my>
Message-ID: <146238755381022146262812512271816@a4yqown.proststess.biz>
From: "Write App Reviews" <WriteAppReviews@proststess.biz>
Content-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=Part.2.6400.1614281125"
 
 Content analysis details: (23.7 points, 5.0 required)
 pts rule name description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 5.0 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99 to 100%
 [score: 1.0000]
 1.0 BAYES_999 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99.9 to 100%
 [score: 1.0000]
 1.2 URIBL_ABUSE_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the ABUSE SURBL
 blocklist
 [URIs: proststess.biz]
 2.7 RCVD_IN_PSBL RBL: Received via a relay in PSBL
 [195.62.46.55 listed in psbl.surriel.com]
 4.5 URIBL_DBL_SPAM Contains a spam URL listed in the Spamhaus DBL
 blocklist
 [URIs: proststess.biz]
 0.0 HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST BODY: HTML font color similar or
 identical to background
 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
 0.9 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/)
 1.9 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50%
 [cf: 100]
 0.8 CPANEL_LOTS_OF_EMPTY_LINE RAW: Spam that has large block of
 empty lines
 0.8 KAM_INFOUSMEBIZ Prevalent use of
 .info|.us|.me|.me.uk|.biz|xyz|id|rocks|life
 domains in spam/malware
 1.0 KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY Sending domain does not have any
 anti-forgery methods
 2.0 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS
 0.0 FSL_BULK_SIG Bulk signature with no Unsubscribe
 1.9 NORDNS_LOW_CONTRAST No rDNS + hidden text
X-Spam-Flag: YES
Subject: ***SPAM*** Get paid to test apps (like Angry Birds!)

------=Part.2.6400.1614281125
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hey

Do you use a lot of apps on your smartphone or tablet? If you are like most people you probably do, but did you know that there is a way you can actually get paid for using the hottest new apps as soon as they are released?

Check it out
http://www.proststess.biz/1462-125-628-55381022/jaisone/tindex9.html
When you think about the fact that the app market is growing like crazy and is worth billions of dollars, it’s easy to see why this makes sense. Every day thousands of apps are released into the app store, and most get lost amongst the crowd.

Developing an app costs thousands of dollars and app developers really don’t want to put all that effort in just to see it flop, so they pay regular app users to download their apps, test them and write a review.

This helps their app climb the rankings in the app store and get positive feedback, the more money they make the more they have to pay app testers like you!

This is a HUGE opportunity and those who get in now are going to profit the most.

Join now!

If you delay and miss out, don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Regards,

http://www.proststess.biz/1462-125-628-55381022/jaisone/tindex10.html

http://www.proststess.biz/1462-125-628-55381022/jaisone/tindex11.html

lopedias a reputation for accuracy.[153] However, a peer review in 2005 of forty-two scientific entries on both Wikipedia and Encyclopædia Britannica by the science journal Nature found few differences in accuracy, and concluded that "the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three."[154] Joseph Reagle suggested that while the study reflects "a topical strength of Wikipedia contributors" in science articles, "Wikipedia may not have fared so well using a random sampling of articles or on humanities subjects."[155] Others raised similar critiques.[156] The findings by Nature were disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica,[157][158] and in response, Nature gave a rebuttal of the points raised by Britannica.[159] In addition to the point-for-point disagreement between these two parties, others have examined the sample size and selection method used in the Nature effort, and suggested a "flawed study design" (in Nature's manual selection of articles, in part or in whole, for comparison), absence of statistical analysis (e.g., of reported confidence intervals), and a lack of study "statistical power" (i.e., owing to small sample size, 42 or 4 × 101 articles compared, vs >105 and >106 set sizes for Britannica and the English Wikipedia, respectively).[160] As a consequence of the open structure, Wikipedia "makes no guarantee of validity" of its content, since no one is ultimately responsible for any claims appearing in it.[161] Concerns have been raised by PC World in 2009 regarding the lack of accountability that results from users' anonymity,[162] the insertion of false information,[163] vandalism, and similar problems. Economist Tyler Cowen wrote: "If I had to guess whether Wikipedia or the median refereed journa

------=Part.2.6400.1614281125
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"

<html>
<head>
=09<title>Newsletter</title>
</head>
<body>
<div style=3D"position:absolute;top:-1000px;left:-1000px;height:0px;width:0=
px;"><a href=3D"http://www.proststess.biz/trPEVNBKFWM/CDQPAGBWO/1462/1227/1=
816/44/55381022/index.htm" style=3D"border=3D0;"><div></div></a></div></spa=
n>

Hey

Do you use a lot of apps on your smartphone or tablet? If you are like most=
 people you probably do, but did you know that there is a way you can actua=
lly get paid for using the hottest new apps as soon as they are released?<b=
r />

<a href=3D"http://www.proststess.biz/1462-125-628-55381022/jaisone/tindex1.=
html" target=3D"blank">Check it out</a>

When you think about the fact that the app market is growing like crazy<=
/b> and is worth billions of dollars, it=E2=80=99s easy to see why this mak=
es sense. Every day thousands of apps are released into the app store, and =
most get lost amongst the crowd.

Developing an app costs thousands of dollars and app developers really don=
=E2=80=99t want to put all that effort in just to see it flop, so they pay =
regular app users to <a href=3D"http://www.proststess.biz/1462-125-628-5538=
1022/jaisone/tindex2.html" target=3D"blank" style=3D"color:red;">downloa=
d their apps, </a>test them and write a review.

This helps their app climb the rankings in the app store and get positiv=
e feedback, the more money they make the more they have to pay app test=
ers like you!

This is a HUGE opportunity and those who get in now are going to profit the=
 most.

If you delay and miss out, don=E2=80=99t say I didn=E2=80=99t warn you.

Regards,

lopedias a reputation for accu=
racy.[153] However, a peer review in 2005 of forty-two scientific entries o=
n both Wikipedia and Encyclop=C3=A6dia Britannica by the science journal Na=
ture found few differences in accuracy, and concluded that "the average sci=
ence entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, abo=
ut three."[154] Joseph Reagle suggested that while the study reflects "a to=
pical strength of Wikipedia contributors" in science articles, "Wikipedia m=
ay not have fared so well using a random sampling of articles or on humanit=
ies subjects."[155] Others raised similar critiques.[156] The findings by N=
ature were disputed by Encyclop=C3=A6dia Britannica,[157][158] and in respo=
nse, Nature gave a rebuttal of the points raised by Britannica.[159] In add=
ition to the point-for-point disagreement between these two parties, others=
 have examined the sample size and selection method used in the Nature effo=
rt, and suggested a "flawed study design" (in Nature's manual selection of =
articles, in part or in whole, for comparison), absence of statistical anal=
ysis (e.g., of reported confidence intervals), and a lack of study "statist=
ical power" (i.e., owing to small sample size, 42 or 4 =C3=97 101 articles =
compared, vs >105 and >106 set sizes for Britannica and the English Wikiped=
ia, respectively).[160]

As a consequence of the open structure, Wikipedia "makes no guarantee of va=
lidity" of its content, since no one is ultimately responsible for any clai=
ms appearing in it.[161] Concerns have been raised by PC World in 2009 rega=
rding the lack of accountability that results from users' anonymity,[162] t=
he insertion of false information,[163] vandalism, and similar problems.

Economist Tyler Cowen wrote: "If I had to guess whether Wikipedia or the me=
dian refereed journa
</body>
</html>

------=Part.2.6400.1614281125--