On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 02:49:14PM +0100, Rene Mayrhofer wrote:
> Ok, I know I am a bit late, but since I recently got my Debian
> developer status and this is exactly what I asked for in my mail on
> 2001-01-01, I second this.
> Are 2 seconds (this should be the 2. second on this phrasing if I
> h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Okay, hopefully the final language change:
>
> Proposal is to change section 2.1.5 of the Debian policy to say:
>
>Non-free programs with cryptographic program code must be stored
> on
>the "non-us" server because
[Yes, I know I'm (a bit) late, but I think one point has to be raised,
and as no-one has done so as far as I can tell...]
You are all aware that the http://www.bxa.doc.gov/Encryption/Default.htm
are Crypt Policies of the *Administration*, right?
And we also know that this administration has chang
>>"Steve" == Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Steve> On 29-Jan-01, 20:07 (CST), Anthony Towns
wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 07:34:57PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > Heh. Sure. I'll do it once. And your proposal has no way of
>> > ensuring the tags are either accurat
On 29-Jan-01, 20:07 (CST), Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 07:34:57PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
> > Anthony> Are you going to go through the distribution and maintain a
> > Anthony> list of which packages all these tags apply to, and
On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 09:23:26AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Personally, I'm developing a bit of a pet peeve against people who
> insist that things be done while at the same time refusing to do them
> themselves.
>
> Are you going to go through the distribution and maintain a list of
> which p
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 07:34:57PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
> Anthony> Are you going to go through the distribution and maintain a
> Anthony> list of which packages all these tags apply to, and which
> Anthony> they don't?
> Heh. Sure. I'll do
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
>> > This is a complete strawman. No one's said anything about adding 150+
>> > countries. Maybe two or three, or even half a dozen, but not 150+.
>> ANd, incidentally, if any tags are permitted, I shall insist
>> on at least non-india, non-bhutan, non-nep
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 12:51:35PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> [incidentally, your sigs all fail to verify, for some reason]
Geez, what now? Stupid bloody program.
> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
> Anthony> In truth, other members of the Debian community (using the
> Anthon
Hi,
[incidentally, your sigs all fail to verify, for some reason]
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 01:05:43AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Anthony> Actually we're currently making the determination on whether
Anthony> the software's legal to di
>>"Colin" == Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Colin> In a non-free package I maintain, I explain in
Colin> debian/copyright why the package is in non-free, to aid CD-ROM
Colin> distributors trying to decide whether they can include the
Colin> package. Does this mean that I have to add
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 12:42:22PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>"Jakob" == Jakob Bøhm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Jakob> no-source (example: Netscape, opera)
> > Jakob> no-commercial-use (example: zyxel)
> > Jakob> payment-required (example: ope
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>"Jakob" == Jakob Bøhm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jakob> no-source (example: Netscape, opera)
> Jakob> no-commercial-use (example: zyxel)
> Jakob> payment-required (example: opera<5.0)
> Jakob> contains-crypto (example: RSA, gnupg)
> Jakob> uses-us-
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 01:05:43AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
> > Would you also object to adding a header to the Packages files something
> > like:
>
> >Package: xine-decss
> >Section: non-US/utils
> >Distribution-Hint: non-US, non-UK
>
Jakob Bøhm wrote:
>
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >
>
> However some of this is speculative, maybe someone
> closer to the core should survey the existing mirrors
> to check how many can actually carry crypto legally,
> then it would be easier to decide whether or not
> losing the remaining mirror
>>"Arthur" == Arthur Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Arthur> Hi
Arthur> Manoj Srivastava schrieb:
>> I repeat: we only have non-US since master lives in US, and we
>> must obey US laws for master while master is here. How up are
>> you on the laws of Bhutan, if I may ask?
Arthur> Why is ma
>>"Jakob" == Jakob Bøhm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jakob> 5. For countries in which almost anything is illegal,
Jakob> dropping Debian mirroring in those countries is already
Jakob> being done as a solution.
The end cases are not the problem; what is a problem is that
there is a spe
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> >>"Jakob" == Jakob Bøhm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Jakob> The main archive is mirrored and copied around the globe both
> Jakob> inside and outside SPI. Including anything which it would
> Jakob> be illegal to post or copy anywhere in the world could get
>
Seth Arnold schrieb:
> No, moving the main server to some other country would just strain the
> poor intercontinental links all the more, as nice a political statement
> as it would make.
There could still be partial mirrors everywhere, but only _one_
master.
ciao, 2ri
* Arthur Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010128 03:48]:
> Shure the US is getting preferential treatment. Would you ever
> bother to set up master in, say, Iran and have to maintain a
> second master even though everything could be put onto the
> second master in the first place?
I would guess a large p
Hi
Manoj Srivastava schrieb:
> I repeat: we only have non-US since master lives in US, and we
> must obey US laws for master while master is here. How up are
> you on the laws of Bhutan, if I may ask?
Why is master in such a restrictive country as the US anyway?
As long as there are any contries
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 08:38:37PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >>"Jakob" == Jakob Bøhm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Oh, in case you are wondering, I shall formally object to any
>> such scheme to pull any more software off master that we
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 08:38:37PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Debian is inclusive; and things that can't be put on master
> are put on the non-{the country master lives in} servers. People in
> jurisdiction where some software is illegal, can always craft rsync
> rules to do partial
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 08:38:37PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Jakob" == Jakob Bøhm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh, in case you are wondering, I shall formally object to any
> such scheme to pull any more software off master that we are not
> constrained to do because of silly pa
>>"Jakob" == Jakob Bøhm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jakob> The main archive is mirrored and copied around the globe both
Jakob> inside and outside SPI. Including anything which it would
Jakob> be illegal to post or copy anywhere in the world could get
Jakob> those mirrors and users in troub
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 10:37:57PM +0100, Jakob B?hm wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >
> >
> > This is wrong. If there is no problem exporting it from the
> > US, it shall be put on master proper (we don't care what the laws in
> > iran say, for example, when it comes to putting soft
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> >>"Jakob" == Jakob Bøhm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jakob> What I was proposing was, that package maintainers would
> Jakob> (by some future policy change not directly related to non-us)
>
> Frankly, I would be opposed to such a policy mod. I am not
> con
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
>
> This is wrong. If there is no problem exporting it from the
> US, it shall be put on master proper (we don't care what the laws in
> iran say, for example, when it comes to putting software on the sites
> in the US).
>
> People, I know this appare
>>"Jakob" == Jakob Bøhm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jakob> What I was proposing was, that package maintainers would
Jakob> (by some future policy change not directly related to non-us)
Frankly, I would be opposed to such a policy mod. I am not
convinced that such granularity does not o
>>"Jakob" == Jakob Bøhm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jakob> I propose changing end to:
Jakob> because of export, import and possession restrictions of various
Jakob> countries (not limited to the USA).
This is wrong. If there is no problem exporting it from the
US, it shall be put on
Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
>
> > Okay, hopefully the final language change:
> >
> > Proposal is to change section 2.1.5 of the Debian policy to say:
> >
> >Non-free programs with cryptographic program code must be stored on
> >the "non-us" server because of export restrictions of the U.S.
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> >>"Jakob" == Jakob Bøhm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Jakob> 2. Mechanical filtering on specific common issues including
> Jakob> the meta-issue "other problems" becomes possible, e.g. when
> Jakob> creating cd-roms or mirrors, or when setting up a
> Jakob> fool
> Okay, hopefully the final language change:
>
> Proposal is to change section 2.1.5 of the Debian policy to say:
>
>Non-free programs with cryptographic program code must be stored on
>the "non-us" server because of export restrictions of the U.S.
>
>Programs which use patented algo
Sam TH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The Texas legal profession got pissed, since Nolo was taking their
> clients, and sued.
There were also allegations that Nolo was including out-of-date
materials, forms, etc.
IANAL, but my wife has a JD...
Mike.
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 03:40:56PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Jakob" == Jakob Bøhm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Jakob> 2. Mechanical filtering on specific common issues including
> Jakob> the meta-issue "other problems" becomes possible, e.g. when
> Jakob> creating cd-roms or mirro
>>"Jakob" == Jakob Bøhm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jakob> 2. Mechanical filtering on specific common issues including
Jakob> the meta-issue "other problems" becomes possible, e.g. when
Jakob> creating cd-roms or mirrors, or when setting up a
Jakob> fool-proofing filter on apt to protect ones
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 11:57:31PM +0100, Jakob B?hm wrote:
> Some examples of issues for 2 include
>
> no-source (example: Netscape, opera)
> no-commercial-use (example: zyxel)
> payment-required (example: opera<5.0)
These are all non-free. If they're also in non-US
there must be other reasons.
Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
>
> On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Jakob Bøhm wrote:
>
> > Placing crypto software in any part of the main
> > archive still has a very important legal problem:
>
>
> > Sorry, to be putting down a nice idea, but I would
> > hate to see the project getting in trouble from
> > check
Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
>
>
> 'non-US' seems to be a misnomer nowadays (as it has been
for some time
> already). Should it perhaps be replaced by 'crypto' and
'patented', so
> that both can be separately mirrored in different
countries?
>
> Remco
> --
Many crypto algorithms are patented, so there
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Jakob Bøhm wrote:
> Placing crypto software in any part of the main
> archive still has a very important legal problem:
> Sorry, to be putting down a nice idea, but I would
> hate to see the project getting in trouble from
> checking only US laws.
'non-US' seems to be a mis
Placing crypto software in any part of the main
archive still has a very important legal problem:
Even though the US may have lifted its restrictions
on crypto stuff, some other countries might not
(China?, Russia?). This means three subproblems:
1. Placing crypto stuff in the "us" archive will
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 09:20:35AM -0800, Pete Lypkie wrote:
> >Programs which use patented algorithms that have a restricted
> >license must also be stored on "non-us", since the "non-us" server
> >[...]
> > By the way, what does "restricted license" mean in this context?
> > Surely ev
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 10:06:41AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Better English:
>
>Programs which use patented algorithms that have a restricted
>license must also be stored on "non-us", since the "non-us" server
>is located in a country where patenting algorithms is not
>permitte
> > This would be non-DFSG if we couldn't distribute it at all.
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 11:17:05PM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote:
> You can certainly say "this _archive_ is only for the use of residents
> of the following countries" and even try to enforce that, as long as
> you don't actually tr
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 04:27:37PM -0800, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Okay, hopefully the final language change:
>
> Proposal is to change section 2.1.5 of the Debian policy to say:
>
>Non-free programs with cryptographic program code must be stored on
>the "non-us" server because of export
Raul Miller writes:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > > non-US/main, since the license to the software itself is free.
>
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 02:47:57PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > But if I don't misunderstand chapter 7 (and 8) of the GPL a program
> > licenced under the G
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > non-US/main, since the license to the software itself is free.
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 02:47:57PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> But if I don't misunderstand chapter 7 (and 8) of the GPL a program
> licenced under the GPL that is threatened by a patent
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > But is it non-US/main or non-US/non-free?
>
> non-US/main, since the license to the software itself is free.
But if I don't misunderstand chapter 7 (and 8) of the GPL a program
licenced under the GPL that is threate
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Package which have a DFSG-compliant license and don't use a patented
> algorithm will be allowed in main (as happens right now).
Which algorithms qualify as "patented"? Those for which are patent
exists, or those where the patent owner has published
On 11 Jan 2001 01:29:14 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
> >...
> >Programs which use patented algorithms that have a restrictied
> >license also need to be stored on "non-us", since that is located
> >in a country where it is not allowed to pa
On Jan 11, Drake Diedrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Due to the dilligence of our security agencies the blacklisted 7 are not
>on the Internet (the official US govt line IIRC). At the very least it
>appears They've made it difficult to get IP numbers and DNS names if you're
>blacklisted.
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 04:16:18PM -0800, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
> This is a slightly updated changed to reflect comments from people.
> Debian developers can second this proposal for inclusion in the
> policy text.
>
> Proposal is to change section 2.1.5 of the Debian policy to say:
>
>N
On 20010111T010726+0100, Rene Mayrhofer wrote:
> I am now about 2 - 3 days away from my first upload of freeswan. Should it go
> into net (instead of non-US) now ? :-)
No.
A proposal does not automatically mean a policy change.
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joey Hess writes:
>Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> * DFSG free programs with crypto can be made and (re)distributed
>> from the US now, as long as you don't consciously export it to
>> one of 7 countries which are on a special blacklist
>
>Of course that raises the q
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 10:41:39PM +, Tim Haynes wrote:
>
> But, if you don't mind me being absolutely clear, putting the stuff up on a
> publicly accessible site based in the US knowing that folks from the dodgy
> 7 might come visiting is still acceptable?
>
Due to the dilligence of our
Previously Marco d'Itri wrote:
> But is it non-US/main or non-US/non-free?
non-US/main, since the license to the software itself is free.
Wichert.
--
/ Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \
| [EMAIL
On Jan 11, Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Programs which use patented algorithms that have a restrictied
> license must also be stored on "non-us", since that is located in a
> country where it is not allowed to patent algorithms.
But is it non-US/main or non-US/non-free?
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 12:38:40AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> That means if you use an algorithm that is patented in Germany
> the package will be in non-us? You better rename this "non-US"
> to "patented/main" and add the other needed "patented/contrib",
> "patented/non-free" and "patented/non-US
Previously Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Any examples of such countries?
See an earlier post I made, that listed them all.
> * Tell all the FTP mirrors of non-US that must of them are no longer
> allowed to ship non-US (e.g. ftp.de.debian.org is located in Germany
> where it's not 100% forbidden to pa
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>...
>Programs which use patented algorithms that have a restrictied
>license also need to be stored on "non-us", since that is located
>in a country where it is not allowed to patent algorithms.
>...
Any examples of such countries?
> If t
Yay. More random crossposts amongst multiple lists. Bcc'ed to -project.
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 01:13:32AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> In addition, packages which have a DFSG-compliant license and use
> a patented algorithm that does not have a restrictive license will
> also be allowed in ma
Okay, hopefully the final language change:
Proposal is to change section 2.1.5 of the Debian policy to say:
Non-free programs with cryptographic program code must be stored on
the "non-us" server because of export restrictions of the U.S.
Programs which use patented algorithms that have
Okay, one more final language change:
Proposal is to change section 2.1.5 of the Debian policy to say:
Non-free programs with cryptographic program code need to be stored
on the "non-us" server because of export restrictions of the U.S.
Programs which use patented algorithms that have
Previously Joey Hess wrote:
> You could just devolve it to the maintainers of the packages in question.
> It's not a great deal different from deciding if a package belongs in
> non-free, main, or cannot be put in debian at all.
But ftpmaster verifies that as well, that's why it takes a while be
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > So for the export restrictions only a "non-US/non-free" will be needed.
>
> crypto export restrictions, yes. Right.
>
> > That means if you use an algorithm that is patented in Germany the package
> > will be in non-us? You better rename this "non-U
This is a slightly updated changed to reflect comments from people.
Debian developers can second this proposal for inclusion in the
policy text.
Proposal is to change section 2.1.5 of the Debian policy to say:
Non-free programs with cryptographic program code need to be stored
on the "non-
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> The exact restrictions are listed in some legal documentation; you can
> find it at the URL I gave earlier. We could indeed consider this on a
> per-package basis, but this would mean a lot of extra work for our
> ftpmaster team, which I don't think is warranted for non-fr
Previously Andrea Glorioso wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this mean that program which are
> under a DFSG-compliant *license* and which don't have
> patent-encumbered code will be allowed to stay in main?
Package which have a DFSG-compliant license and don't use a patented
algorithm wi
Robert Thomson wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 10:41:39PM +, Tim Haynes wrote:
> > Robert Thomson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > So long as you don't mail a CD, cross a border, or force-feed to a mirror
> > > in one of the 7 victim countries, then you're fine.
> >
> > But, if you don't m
Previously Adam Heath wrote:
> What if the non-free program contains source, but is non-free for other
> reasons?
The exact restrictions are listed in some legal documentation; you can
find it at the URL I gave earlier. We could indeed consider this on a
per-package basis, but this would mean a lo
Previously Adrian Bunk wrote:
> So for the export restrictions only a "non-US/non-free" will be needed.
crypto export restrictions, yes. Right.
> That means if you use an algorithm that is patented in Germany the package
> will be in non-us? You better rename this "non-US" to "patented/main" and
Robert Thomson wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 01:10:55PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > > * DFSG free programs with crypto can be made and (re)distributed
> > > from the US now, as long as you don't consciously export it to
> > > one of 7 countries which are on a s
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>...
> Non-free programs with cryptographic program code need to be stored
> on the "non-us" server because of export restrictions of the U.S.
So for the export restrictions only a "non-US/non-free" will be needed.
> Programs which use
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 10:41:39PM +, Tim Haynes wrote:
> Robert Thomson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So long as you don't mail a CD, cross a border, or force-feed to a mirror
> > in one of the 7 victim countries, then you're fine.
>
> But, if you don't mind me being absolutely clear, putti
Previously Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> I was of the understanding that we would also have to notify the US of what is
> on our site.
We only need to tell them that our site has crypto stuff from what I
understand.
Wichert.
--
Robert Thomson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 01:10:55PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > > * DFSG free programs with crypto can be made and (re)distributed
> > > from the US now, as long as you don't consciously export it to
> > > one of 7 countr
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 01:10:55PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > * DFSG free programs with crypto can be made and (re)distributed
> > from the US now, as long as you don't consciously export it to
> > one of 7 countries which are on a special blacklist
>
> Of course th
I was of the understanding that we would also have to notify the US of what is
on our site.
At 12:51 PM 01-10-2001 -0800, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
In light of this I'm proposing to change section 2.1.5 of the
Debian policy to say:
Non-free programs with cryptographic program code need to be stored
on the "non-us" server because of export restrictions of the U.S.
Programs
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 22:11:21 +0100, Arthur Korn wrote:
> We do "consciously export" crypto to the blacklisted countries if we put
> it into main, don't we?
I doubt it. I strongly suspect Transmeta's lawyers have gone over this issue
before (witness ftp.kernel.org/pub/welcome.msg and
pub/linux/
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 13:10:55 -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > * DFSG free programs with crypto can be made and (re)distributed
> > from the US now, as long as you don't consciously export it to
> > one of 7 countries which are on a special blacklist
>
> Of course that
> "Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Wichert> I've been reading through the current US export policies
Wichert> in between lately to see if we still need non-US, or at
Wichert> least in the way we currently have it (there is lots of
Wichert> info on the c
Hi
We do "consciously export" crypto to the blacklisted countries
if we put it into main, don't we?
Wichert Akkerman schrieb:
> * DFSG free programs with crypto can be made and (re)distributed
> from the US now, as long as you don't consciously export it to
> one of 7 countries which are on
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
> Non-free programs with cryptographic program code need to be stored
> on the "non-us" server because of export restrictions of the U.S.
What if the non-free program contains source, but is non-free for other
reasons?
> Programs whi
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> * DFSG free programs with crypto can be made and (re)distributed
> from the US now, as long as you don't consciously export it to
> one of 7 countries which are on a special blacklist
Of course that raises the question: What can Debian do to prevent export
to one of
Previously Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> * DFSG free programs with crypto can be made and (re)distributed
> from the US now, as long as you don't consciously export it to
> one of 7 countries which are on a special blacklist
Extra info: those 7 are Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan
and
86 matches
Mail list logo
