Re: where does it search

[Rocco Rutte]

Hi,

* bill lam wrote:

Thanks Vance and Kyle. I once had to kill mutt when searching gmail
imap with ~b.


If your mutt is recent enough, it also supports body caching so that
already viewed message won't be downloaded again (for searching or any
other operation):

http://dev.mutt.org/doc/manual.html#tuning-messages

Regards, Rocco

Re: where does it search

[Rocco Rutte]

Hi,

* Vance Shipley wrote:

I have been using a bookmark for http://www.mutt.org/doc/manual.
I now see that a more up to date manual is here
http://dev.mutt.org/doc/manual.html where this is documented.


It's not about outdated or up-to-date, please use the manual for the
version of mutt you're using which should be installed locally.

http://www.mutt.org/doc/manual/ says it applies to version 1.4.2.3 which
is still the lates official stable release (to which the manual at
dev.mutt.org in parts doesn't apply).

Regards, Rocco

mutt & OSX Tiger's QuickLook

[Kyle Wheeler]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hey all,

I just discovered that I can use OSX 10.5.x's "Quick Look" feature 
with mutt - something I didn't know I could do before.

In case anyone out there is as surprised as I am, here's how: the 
program you want is called "qlmanage". It comes with OSX, and is your 
way of telling it to do stuff. To get it to work with mutt, just add 
the following line to your mailcap file:

 image/*; qlmanage -p %s; test=type qlmanage &>/dev/null

You can use it for other file types, of course, such as 
application/msword, you just have to add other lines to your mailcap 
associating it with those files.

Hopefully that helps someone!

~Kyle
- -- 
I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and 
as necessary in the political world as storms are in the physical.
-- Thomas Jefferson
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Comment: Thank you for using encryption!

iEYEARECAAYFAkjc9SgACgkQBkIOoMqOI16aBwCfebIReBaAzzlUiv0AOlAkAJYY
SnAAn2XgGBmm+vqRx/1XhZa8seBSc5Li
=jcha
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

STOP THE SHIT WITH CHALLAGE REPONSES [WAS: by [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Re: Re: URLs screwed in the mail body]

[Michelle Konzack]

I do not know WHO is using  this  Challange  reponse  system  but  since
2008-09-01 I  have gotten more then 300 of them and I promise you, if  I
find you I will DoS You and/or ISP.

Since ,  and  adresses do not  work,  and  I
know, there are at least TWO persons here which use this  Service,  STOP
THIS SHIT IMMEDIATELY

I am on GSM and I dislike to download you spam which cost 0.009 Euro/kB
(my German provider "e-plus").

Note:  FERRARO Ltd. (Stephan Ferraro; Stuttgart/Germany)
   will get a seperated message from my Advocat...

Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
24V Electronic Engineer
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant



- Forwarded message from "FERRARO Ltd." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -

Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:18:58 +0200 (CEST)
Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: "FERRARO Ltd." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re: URLs screwed in the mail body
X-TDMailSerialnumber: 8511780

Hello,

this is the automatic Challenge-Response system of FERRARO Ltd. to protect 
against spam mails.

Please confirm your sent email by going on the following web address:
http://www.trashmail.net/?cmd=confirm&id=1415936&pw=QCglgRkD7XavKrgf8I8Xnlvd5Fp2yc7c

===

Hallo,

dies ist das automatische Challenge-Reponse System von der FERRARO Ltd. zum 
Schutz vor Spam.

Bitte bestätigen Sie Ihre E-Mail indem Sie auf folgenden Link gehen:
http://www.trashmail.net/?cmd=confirm&id=1415936&pw=QCglgRkD7XavKrgf8I8Xnlvd5Fp2yc7c

-- Sent message follows --
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Wed Sep 24 18:18:58 2008
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: by archivum.info (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 2F4F878D95D2; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:18:58 +0200 (CEST)
X-Original-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from colonelk.gbnet.net (colonelk.gbnet.net [194.70.126.25])
by archivum.info (Postfix) with SMTP id 0E93678D95AE
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:18:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (qmail 11679 invoked by uid 610); 24 Sep 2008 16:16:23 -
Received: (qmail 11185 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2008 16:15:36 -
Received: from dm.gbnet.net (194.70.142.30)
  by colonelk.gbnet.net with SMTP; 24 Sep 2008 16:15:36 -
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvICABYF2khYxgtsiGdsb2JhbACTKAEBARUiqWSBZQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,301,1220223600"; 
   d="pgp?scan208";a="91132571"
Received: from server4.pinguin-hosting.de ([88.198.11.108])
  by dm.gbnet.net with ESMTP; 24 Sep 2008 17:15:32 +0100
Received: from tp570.private.tamay-dogan.net (unknown [194.250.145.134])
(Authenticated sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by server4.pinguin-hosting.de (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 8D60A5DD952;
Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:15:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by tp570.private.tamay-dogan.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 24 
Sep 2008 18:15:19 +0200
Received: by tp570.private.tamay-dogan.net (TDSSMTP outspool);
Sun, 21 Sep 2008 19:32:12 +0200
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 19:32:11 +0200
From: Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Francis Moreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mutt-users@mutt.org
Subject: Re: URLs screwed in the mail body
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="HcccYpVZDxQ8hzPO"
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Message-Flag: Improper configuration of Outlook is a breeding ground for 
viruses. Please take care your Client is configured correctly. Greetings 
Michelle.
X-Disclaimer-DE: Eine weitere Verwendung oder die Veroeffentlichung dieser Mail 
oder dieser Mailadresse ist nur mit der Einwilligung des Autors gestattet.
Organization: Tamay Dogan Network
X-Operating-System: Linux tp570 2.4.27-2-686
X-Uptime: 19:29:42 up  3:12,  9 users,  load average: 0.09, 0.20, 0.16
X-Homepage: http://www.debian.tamay-dogan.net/
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
List-Post: 
List-Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], body only "unsubscribe 
mutt-users"
Precedence: bulk
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


--HcccYpVZDxQ8hzPO
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Since the message is piped to urlview, why not using:

macro generic,pager,index  \cb  "|mimedecode |urlview\n"

which should do the trick, at least for me.

Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
24V Electronic Engineer
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant


--=20
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
+49/177/935194750, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
+33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)

--HcccYpVZDxQ8hzPO
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.pgp"

Re: Unexpected network error

[Ravi Uday]

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Kyle Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Thursday, September 25 at 04:26 PM, quoth Ravi Uday:
>>I dont ahve $imap_keepalive set.
>>So you want me to have this :
>>
>>$timeout=15
>>$imap_keepalive=10
>
> That's awfully small. You can make them bigger (e.g. timeout=300,
> imap_keepalive=60, or even larger). I know the man page makes it sound
> like timeout really needs to be extra small, but don't sweat it. The
> default is 600, and you generally don't really need it anywhere near
> as small as 15. Think about that: that's potentially checking your
> email every 15 seconds. Depending on the number of mailboxes you have

Well 600 is damn big, check your emails every 10mins !! How did you(they)
arrive at this number ? Outlook does it every 20 secs or lesser. And its better
to get your mails fast then wait for 10mins..
Since I use mutt in a corporate n/w, it doesnt matter if its 10secs/20secs.

Ravi

> and the latency of your  connection, it could easily take longer than
> that to complete a check for mail! I know mail admins that get grumpy
> when people check their email even every 5 minutes, due to all the
> network traffic they generate. When you're checking a file on disk,
> well, you can check that pretty dang often without a performance
> effect. But over the network? You may be causing your own problem by
> having such small timeouts.
>
> Generally, I would say: stick with the default values unless you have
> a reason to change them (the defaults weren't chosen by morons).
> Chances are, you can probably leave $timeout at 600. Give the defaults
> a try, and go from there.
>
> ~Kyle
> - --
> What progress we are making. In the Middle Ages they would have burned
> me. Now they are content with burning my books.
>   -- Sigmund Freud
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Comment: Thank you for using encryption!
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkjcXo4ACgkQBkIOoMqOI16qcQCeOhB3O9JjRDtJDuA96+KFcWmb
> 2KcAoM5bQBTBZXtSSC4s4DeCduvRF2vV
> =rK7o
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>

Re: Unexpected network error

[Kyle Wheeler]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Friday, September 26 at 12:39 PM, quoth Ravi Uday:
>> That's awfully small. You can make them bigger (e.g. timeout=300, 
>> imap_keepalive=60, or even larger). I know the man page makes it sound 
>> like timeout really needs to be extra small, but don't sweat it. The 
>> default is 600, and you generally don't really need it anywhere near 
>> as small as 15. Think about that: that's potentially checking your 
>> email every 15 seconds. Depending on the number of mailboxes you have
>
> Well 600 is damn big, check your emails every 10mins !! How did 
> you(they) arrive at this number?

Generally, over IMAP, the *best* way to do it is to use IMAP's IDLE 
extension. What happens is that the IMAP server will *notify* you when 
you get mail, rather than having you constantly ask it "now? how about  
now? now? now? what about now?", and mutt fully supports the IDLE 
feature (better than some IMAP servers do, actually).

Anyway, I don't know where the 10 minute default came from in the 
beginning, but I think it's quite reasonable.

> Outlook does it every 20 secs or lesser.

No, I'm afraid you're mistaken.

http://email.about.com/od/outlookexpresstips/qt/et052206.htm says:

 Decide on how often you want Windows Mail or Outlook Express to
 look for new mail. Typical values are between 10 and 60 minutes.

www.outlook-tips.net/beginner/autosr.htm says:

 You should not check it more often than every 8 -10 min because it
 creates too much load on your mail server and a large amount of
 mail will cause some versions of Outlook to hang if it is still
 downloading mail when the next automatic mail pass starts.

I also just loaded up my copy of VirtualBox to check out Microsoft 
Outlook 2000 myself. The default setting for new accounts is to check 
for new messages every 10 minutes, and it's *impossible* to change 
that setting to less than 1 minute (you can see a screen shot of the 
dialog box here: http://www.memoryhole.net/~kyle/outlook.png - note 
the "Check for new messages every" config option in the center of the 
dialog box).

> And its better to get your mails fast then wait for 10mins..

Ummm, okay... I think if someone has something that important to say, 
they should use a medium other than email (such as the phone). Email 
transmission can easily introduce delays of several minutes, long 
before you even have the chance to receive it.

> Since I use mutt in a corporate n/w, it doesnt matter if its 
> 10secs/20secs.

The speed of your network doesn't matter. What matters is the load and 
response time of your IMAP server. I know mail admins (good ones) that 
have warned their users against checking mail more often than every 5 
minutes, despite the fact that most of their clients use a full-duplex 
100 Base-T ethernet connection to connect to the server (and some use 
gigabit). It's not necessarily the bandwidth, but also the disk I/O - 
when you've got 20+ people all checking their entire folder 
hierarchies constantly, that can kill your server.

Just as an experiment, see how long it takes for the following command 
to kill your computer (or just imagine it; trust me, your computer 
will quickly become unusable):

 while true; do find $HOME >/dev/null & done

...or, even more fun:

 while true; do
 find $HOME -type f -exec tail {} \; >/dev/null &
 done

Now, granted, there are ways that you may be able to mitigate the 
problem, and let's not get into questions of how powerful and/or 
efficient and/or well-configured your mail server is. The fact of the 
matter is: checking your mail that quickly (every few seconds) over 
and over again is not only uncommon, but generally a really bad 
idea---even on a corporate network.

If you really MUST have your mail that fast (assuming your IMAP server 
doesn't support the IDLE command), then a better option would be to 
have your email forwarded to your local computer as it comes in, so 
you can check your inbox as often as you want without causing anyone 
else any trouble.

~Kyle
- -- 
No one loves armed missionaries.
  -- Maximilien Robespierre
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Comment: Thank you for using encryption!

iEYEARECAAYFAkjdRgIACgkQBkIOoMqOI14ToACeOTrMHHNuqW3qY1I5MWx60xsJ
SJcAoOXS8cyIru3sEX8HlOmoZuzkk3AX
=51IW
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Unexpected network error

[Ravi Uday]

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Kyle Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Friday, September 26 at 12:39 PM, quoth Ravi Uday:
>>> That's awfully small. You can make them bigger (e.g. timeout=300,
>>> imap_keepalive=60, or even larger). I know the man page makes it sound
>>> like timeout really needs to be extra small, but don't sweat it. The
>>> default is 600, and you generally don't really need it anywhere near
>>> as small as 15. Think about that: that's potentially checking your
>>> email every 15 seconds. Depending on the number of mailboxes you have
>>
>> Well 600 is damn big, check your emails every 10mins !! How did
>> you(they) arrive at this number?
>
> Generally, over IMAP, the *best* way to do it is to use IMAP's IDLE
> extension. What happens is that the IMAP server will *notify* you when
> you get mail, rather than having you constantly ask it "now? how about
> now? now? now? what about now?", and mutt fully supports the IDLE
> feature (better than some IMAP servers do, actually).
>
> Anyway, I don't know where the 10 minute default came from in the
> beginning, but I think it's quite reasonable.
>
>> Outlook does it every 20 secs or lesser.
>
> No, I'm afraid you're mistaken.
>
> http://email.about.com/od/outlookexpresstips/qt/et052206.htm says:
>
> Decide on how often you want Windows Mail or Outlook Express to
> look for new mail. Typical values are between 10 and 60 minutes.
>
> www.outlook-tips.net/beginner/autosr.htm says:
>
> You should not check it more often than every 8 -10 min because it
> creates too much load on your mail server and a large amount of
> mail will cause some versions of Outlook to hang if it is still
> downloading mail when the next automatic mail pass starts.
>
> I also just loaded up my copy of VirtualBox to check out Microsoft
> Outlook 2000 myself. The default setting for new accounts is to check
> for new messages every 10 minutes, and it's *impossible* to change
> that setting to less than 1 minute (you can see a screen shot of the



Well I am not mistaken. I dont know which version you are using or looked at:
Here is mine : MS Office Outlook 2003 (11.8...) SP3

And in there I can clearly set it at 1 minute.
(Goto : Tools->Send/Receive --> Send-Receive-Settings --> Define
Send/Receive groups)
In there you can see the least allowed is 1 min.

I also spoke with network-admin and he confirmed its in the order of secs.

Practically, I also asked my colleague to send me a email. And within
20-30secs it was there in my Outlook.



> dialog box here: http://www.memoryhole.net/~kyle/outlook.png - note
> the "Check for new messages every" config option in the center of the
> dialog box).
>
>> And its better to get your mails fast then wait for 10mins..
>
> Ummm, okay... I think if someone has something that important to say,
> they should use a medium other than email (such as the phone). Email
> transmission can easily introduce delays of several minutes, long
> before you even have the chance to receive it.
>
>> Since I use mutt in a corporate n/w, it doesnt matter if its
>> 10secs/20secs.
>
> The speed of your network doesn't matter. What matters is the load and
> response time of your IMAP server. I know mail admins (good ones) that
> have warned their users against checking mail more often than every 5
> minutes, despite the fact that most of their clients use a full-duplex
> 100 Base-T ethernet connection to connect to the server (and some use
> gigabit). It's not necessarily the bandwidth, but also the disk I/O -
> when you've got 20+ people all checking their entire folder
> hierarchies constantly, that can kill your server.
>
> Just as an experiment, see how long it takes for the following command
> to kill your computer (or just imagine it; trust me, your computer
> will quickly become unusable):
>
> while true; do find $HOME >/dev/null & done
>
> ...or, even more fun:
>
> while true; do
> find $HOME -type f -exec tail {} \; >/dev/null &
> done
>
> Now, granted, there are ways that you may be able to mitigate the
> problem, and let's not get into questions of how powerful and/or
> efficient and/or well-configured your mail server is. The fact of the
> matter is: checking your mail that quickly (every few seconds) over
> and over again is not only uncommon, but generally a really bad
> idea---even on a corporate network.
>

Well most commonly all your terminals(PCs) will be wired to a VLAN operating
over a catalyst giga-bit switches. It has the capacity to switch
packets at x-gigs per secs and we
are here talking of kb's of mail data. Its negligence IMO.


- Ravi

> If you really MUST have your mail that fast (assuming your IMAP server
> doesn't support the IDLE command), then a better option would be to
> have your email forwarded to your local computer as it comes in, so
> you can check your inbox as often as you want without causing anyone
> else any trouble

Re: Unexpected network error

[Kyle Wheeler]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Friday, September 26 at 03:23 PM, quoth Ravi Uday:
>> I also just loaded up my copy of VirtualBox to check out Microsoft 
>> Outlook 2000 myself. The default setting for new accounts is to check 
>> for new messages every 10 minutes, and it's *impossible* to change 
>> that setting to less than 1 minute (you can see a screen shot of the
>
> Well I am not mistaken. I dont know which version you are using or looked at:
> Here is mine : MS Office Outlook 2003 (11.8...) SP3
>
> And in there I can clearly set it at 1 minute. 
> (Goto : Tools->Send/Receive --> Send-Receive-Settings --> Define 
> Send/Receive groups) 
> In there you can see the least allowed is 1 min.

Which is EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. It's impossible to set it to less than 1 
minute. You said you were configuring your Outlook to check every 20 
seconds, which is technically impossible by your own admission.

> I also spoke with network-admin and he confirmed its in the order of 
> secs.

60 seconds is "on the order of secs".

> Practically, I also asked my colleague to send me a email. And within 
> 20-30secs it was there in my Outlook.

That's got nothing to do with anything. The 20-30 second delay could 
easily be how long it takes to deliver email, and Outlook could easily 
be using the IMAP IDLE extension (or whatever the equivalent is in the 
MAPI protocol), which would mean that the mail client gets notified 
the very moment that email arrives.

Mutt also supports the IDLE extension, and can do the exact same thing 
you just observed Outlook do, and mutt can do that even with $timeout 
set to 600, because IDLE doesn't rely on the client re-checking for 
new email. IDLE *informs* the client of new mail *unasked*. It can be 
thought of as a "push" protocol.

Let me say that again: the IDLE extension means that your client tells 
the server "let me know when new mail comes", which is different from 
periodically checking for new mail.

> Well most commonly all your terminals(PCs) will be wired to a VLAN 
> operating over a catalyst giga-bit switches. It has the capacity to 
> switch packets at x-gigs per secs and we are here talking of kb's of 
> mail data. Its negligence IMO.

 You didn't read what I wrote. I'm talking about load on the 
server, not bandwidth. The fanciness of your network is *irrelevant* 
to my point.

~Kyle
- -- 
They say marriages are made in Heaven. But so is thunder and 
lightning.
  -- Clint Eastwood
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Comment: Thank you for using encryption!

iEYEARECAAYFAkjdZdIACgkQBkIOoMqOI17KOQCfaCWjxpk5K+AeZQ+ygREEbNI4
PRAAnA5Npbg7s0PkHkVtQUaQuYmt6ctv
=8cF0
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Unexpected network error

[Ravi Uday]

Ok..sounds like IDLE extension is the way to go.
Let me see how to make that extension. Thanks Kyle

- Ravi

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Kyle Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Friday, September 26 at 03:23 PM, quoth Ravi Uday:
>>> I also just loaded up my copy of VirtualBox to check out Microsoft
>>> Outlook 2000 myself. The default setting for new accounts is to check
>>> for new messages every 10 minutes, and it's *impossible* to change
>>> that setting to less than 1 minute (you can see a screen shot of the
>>
>> Well I am not mistaken. I dont know which version you are using or looked at:
>> Here is mine : MS Office Outlook 2003 (11.8...) SP3
>>
>> And in there I can clearly set it at 1 minute.
>> (Goto : Tools->Send/Receive --> Send-Receive-Settings --> Define
>> Send/Receive groups)
>> In there you can see the least allowed is 1 min.
>
> Which is EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. It's impossible to set it to less than 1
> minute. You said you were configuring your Outlook to check every 20
> seconds, which is technically impossible by your own admission.
>
>> I also spoke with network-admin and he confirmed its in the order of
>> secs.
>
> 60 seconds is "on the order of secs".
>
>> Practically, I also asked my colleague to send me a email. And within
>> 20-30secs it was there in my Outlook.
>
> That's got nothing to do with anything. The 20-30 second delay could
> easily be how long it takes to deliver email, and Outlook could easily
> be using the IMAP IDLE extension (or whatever the equivalent is in the
> MAPI protocol), which would mean that the mail client gets notified
> the very moment that email arrives.
>
> Mutt also supports the IDLE extension, and can do the exact same thing
> you just observed Outlook do, and mutt can do that even with $timeout
> set to 600, because IDLE doesn't rely on the client re-checking for
> new email. IDLE *informs* the client of new mail *unasked*. It can be
> thought of as a "push" protocol.
>
> Let me say that again: the IDLE extension means that your client tells
> the server "let me know when new mail comes", which is different from
> periodically checking for new mail.
>
>> Well most commonly all your terminals(PCs) will be wired to a VLAN
>> operating over a catalyst giga-bit switches. It has the capacity to
>> switch packets at x-gigs per secs and we are here talking of kb's of
>> mail data. Its negligence IMO.
>
>  You didn't read what I wrote. I'm talking about load on the
> server, not bandwidth. The fanciness of your network is *irrelevant*
> to my point.
>
> ~Kyle
> - --
> They say marriages are made in Heaven. But so is thunder and
> lightning.
>  -- Clint Eastwood
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Comment: Thank you for using encryption!
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkjdZdIACgkQBkIOoMqOI17KOQCfaCWjxpk5K+AeZQ+ygREEbNI4
> PRAAnA5Npbg7s0PkHkVtQUaQuYmt6ctv
> =8cF0
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>