Hello everyone,
I'm writing this message to ask for advice on a filter i'm writing.
The thing is that I've got a server running postfix in which i already
have a postfix filter written in Perl. When i have to reinject the
message into postfix, i do it with the SMTP class from Perl, which
does
W dniu 2009-03-05 06:30, Mihira Fernando pisze:
Have you ever tried sending an e-greeting to someone via 123greeting.com or
some other similar site ?
You're definitely right - I didn't use that one before.
Look what I get in logs:
Mar 5 09:41:50 lola postfix/smtpd[20278]: warning: 72.233.20
However, i have to write a new one in C/C++ and I'm getting some trouble
with the "dot" indicating the "end-of-message". The problem is that when
i send the message back from the filter written in C/C++ anyone can
perform a spam injection by sending messages with this content:
.
MAIL FROM: unr
En/na martijn.list ha escrit:
However, i have to write a new one in C/C++ and I'm getting some
trouble with the "dot" indicating the "end-of-message". The problem
is that when i send the message back from the filter written in C/C++
anyone can perform a spam injection by sending messages with t
On Thu, March 5, 2009 10:13 am, Jordi Moles Blanco said:
> En/na martijn.list ha escrit:
>
> > You are probably forgetting to convert the single dot (.) to dot-dot
> > (..)
> >
> > See RFC 2821 section 4.5.2 Transparency
>
> thanks for your suggestion, I'll give it a try. However, I think that
> I
En/na Magnus Bäck ha escrit:
On Thu, March 5, 2009 10:13 am, Jordi Moles Blanco said:
En/na martijn.list ha escrit:
You are probably forgetting to convert the single dot (.) to dot-dot
(..)
See RFC 2821 section 4.5.2 Transparency
thanks for your suggestion, I'll give it a try
Robert A. Ober escribió:
On 3/4/2009 10:05 AM, Miguel Da Silva - Centro de Matemática wrote:
Victor Duchovni escribió:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 09:35:38AM -0200, Miguel Da Silva - Centro de
Matem?tica wrote:
The user was not "relaying": mail was sent to a domain you are
responsible
for, so t
> Wietse Venema wrote:
> You might want to repeat your precise Postfix version at this point,
> and which queue manager version is configured in your master.cf.
> Current Postfix versions have (qmgr=new, oqmgr=old) in master.cf.
> Older Postfix versions have (nqmgr=new, qmgr=old) instead. The
> p
Santiago Romero:
> (I mean, setting rate_ values higher or lower so that the problem
> reproduces again faster, because it passed 5 days between the last 2
> times qmgr ate the CPU...).
Just run the same test.
Thanks,
Wietse
Hi,
I had installed postfix from the tarball, but made some mistakes. So to be
sure everything is correct I want to reinstall Postfix (probably from a
package), so I first need to uninstall it. But there is no make
uninstall/remove or some removal program, is there any way to uninstall it
properly?
2009/3/5 ghe :
> I need to change email sent by a user from one domain (a.com) so that
> clicking Reply will reply to him at b.com. (a.com isn't always reliable,
> and I admin b.com, among other reasons.)
>
> Google got me to postfix.org's documentation on generic maps. I'm
> running 2.5, so tried
2009/3/5 Carver Banks :
> I tried the following:
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions = check_sender_access
> hash:/etc/postfix/allowed_recipients reject
> but it seems that allows me to restrict the user who is sending not the
> destination address,
> what I am trying to accomplish is to have
2009/3/5 Ray :
> Server is live and fully functional. it deals with thousands of messages per
> day and has for over a year. One user can't receive messages from one
> contact. That contact doesn't even show up in the logs as spam or lost
> connection or anything.
Can you clarify? I assume the r
Paul:
> Hi,
> I had installed postfix from the tarball, but made some mistakes. So to be
> sure everything is correct I want to reinstall Postfix (probably from a
> package), so I first need to uninstall it. But there is no make
> uninstall/remove or some removal program, is there any way to uninst
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Barney Desmond wrote:
> This is a little unclear. I interpret that to mean mail sent from your
> server, from u...@a.com, should appear to come from u...@b.com, so
> that the return-path will be at b.com - is this correct? You then said
> you want "to
ram:
> One of my clients sends mail using a custom application which *cannot*
> recognize a smtpd error message .. like user-not-found, or
> invalid-domain etc
In other words, they have a home-grown partial implementation of
the SMTP protocol. They can't be bothered to do it right and they
just w
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 12:21:15PM +0100, Paul wrote:
> I had installed postfix from the tarball, but made some mistakes. So to be
> sure everything is correct I want to reinstall Postfix (probably from a
> package), so I first need to uninstall it. But there is no make
> uninstall/remove or some
Hi guys,
I have a couple of quick questions:
1) How long does a message sit in the postfix queue for before it attempts
a redeliver (a deffered message sat in the deffered queue)?
2) If you have a mailserver (postfix, dovecot, virtual users/domains mysql)
and you have a back-up MX record set if
du...@linuxgeek.org.uk:
>
> I have a couple of quick questions:
>
> 1) How long does a message sit in the postfix queue for before it attempts
> a redeliver (a deffered message sat in the deffered queue)?
http:/www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#queue_run_delay
http:/www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html
ram wrote:
One of my clients sends mail using a custom application which *cannot*
recognize a smtpd error message .. like user-not-found, or
invalid-domain etc
Now they want our postfix server to accept all mails without checks and
send NDR's for undeliverable mails.
Even if you can make thi
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 12:20:06PM +0100, Santiago Romero wrote:
> Well, I'm using postfix's ubuntu package, so it's not compiled from source
> code because I need all my ~=100 Linux machines to be easily updatable
> (apt-get update && apt-get upgrade).
>
> In this case, I'm going to recompile .
Please wait for an updated patch, we believe we have identified the
cause and reproduced the symptoms (in that order). I have a candidate
patch, but I expect Wietse will send an updated more polished version
in the not too distant future.
Ok, I'll wait for it. I'm going to roll back to "ubu
Thanks!
That worked, next time I will try and read better ;-)
Carver Banks
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-
> us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Barney Desmond
> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 4:11 AM
> To: postfix users list
> Subject: Re:
Or so I thought..., that did restrict all mail to the internal recipients as
well.
I need anyone in mydomain.com to be able to email anyone in mydomain.local, but
I need users on mydomain.local to only be allowed to email a few people in
mydomain.com, and none of the other members of mydoman.lo
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 04:21:01PM +0100, Santiago Romero wrote:
>
>> Please wait for an updated patch, we believe we have identified the
>> cause and reproduced the symptoms (in that order). I have a candidate
>> patch, but I expect Wietse will send an updated more polished version
>> in the not
On Mar 5, 2009, at 7:14, ghe wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Barney Desmond wrote:
This is a little unclear. I interpret that to mean mail sent from
your
server, from u...@a.com, should appear to come from u...@b.com, so
that the return-path will be at b.com - is this
On Mar 5, 2009, at 7:33, wrote:
Hi guys,
I have a couple of quick questions:
1) How long does a message sit in the postfix queue for before it
attempts
a redeliver (a deffered message sat in the deffered queue)?
2) If you have a mailserver (postfix, dovecot, virtual users/domains
mysql)
On Mar 5, 2009, at 7:50, Terry Carmen wrote:
ram wrote:
One of my clients sends mail using a custom application which
*cannot*
recognize a smtpd error message .. like user-not-found, or
invalid-domain etc Now they want our postfix server to accept all
mails without checks and
send NDR's f
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 09:03:13 -0500 (EST), Wietse Venema wrote:
> The answer depends on whose tarball you have installed.
>
> Wietse
I've installed the source tarball from postfix.org
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 09:30:30 -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> The "postfix-files" file found in $config_directory, or in the most
> recent versions of Postfix in $daemon_directory, contains a list of all
> the files that are installed when Postfix is instaled from source.
>
> "cd" to the directory
Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Magnus Bäck wrote:
On Thursday, March 05, 2009 at 00:25 CET,
"Daniel L. Miller" wrote:
What I have/had now was the following:
master.cf:
192.168.0.11:smtp inet n - - - -
smtpd
-o relayhost=[192.168.0.10]:225
192.168.0.11:12
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 05:37:00PM +0100, Paul wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 09:30:30 -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote:
>
> > The "postfix-files" file found in $config_directory, or in the most
> > recent versions of Postfix in $daemon_directory, contains a list of all
> > the files that are installed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
LuKreme wrote:
> But a.com is not you, so how do you intend to control that?
By rewriting on my servers.
> What you want is for user to add a reply-to header to their outbound
> mail.. I suppose there must be a way to create a filter to add that
> h
Jim McIver wrote:
Here's a snippet from maillog, but not sure if it's what your looking for:
Thanks, this is very helpful.
Mar 4 15:10:13 mail postfix/smtpd[56190]: warning: Illegal address
syntax from unknown[113.9.198.198] in MAIL co
mmand: bikedev...@yahoo.co.jp
The above client is li
Paul wrote:
That will only list the files which are installed, but it also configures
FreeBSD to use it as it's MTA, that will not be uninstalled by just
removing to files I guess.
That should be easy to deal with. These settings are changed in a file
called mailer.conf.
Here's the documenta
Ray wrote:
2) "smtpd_delay_reject = yes" is set, so try to figure out sending ip address
and search for it in maillog.
Er, I meant the opposite. If smtpd_delay_reject=yes is set, then the
mail logs should have recorded everything from the sender's domain to
the intended recipient at some poi
>The Postfix "tarball" from "postfix.org" does not do any such thing. Which
>"it" did you have in mind?
It putted itself in some weird manner in my startup.
>That should be easy to deal with. These settings are changed in a file
>called mailer.conf.
I already changed that, but still it gotten b
Santiago Romero:
>
> > Please wait for an updated patch, we believe we have identified the
> > cause and reproduced the symptoms (in that order). I have a candidate
> > patch, but I expect Wietse will send an updated more polished version
> > in the not too distant future.
> >
>
> Ok, I'll wa
>>Cameron Camp wrote:
>> I have monitoring applications on boxes on the same subnet as a box I
>> want to use for mailing list notification using Postfix/mailman to
>> notify several users. An example is some box throwing an snmp trap,
>> where a notification would try to send to
>> notification_l
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 06:58:35PM +0100, Paul wrote:
> >The Postfix "tarball" from "postfix.org" does not do any such thing. Which
> >"it" did you have in mind?
>
> It putted itself in some weird manner in my startup.
>
> >That should be easy to deal with. These settings are changed in a file
Hi again,
Question, even though this proxy is supposed to simply forward the remote
traffic based on the sender_relay file, is it supposed to do DNS lookups on
the destination domain? Having some issues with DNS resolution - server is
sending DNS queries but no reply comes back. Firewall rules per
OK.. How about this one:
I have had good luck blocking SPAM email which has a MAIL FROM:
address in my own domain, by blocking all email from my domain in an
access map on 'smtpd_sender_restrictions', and then listing
'permit_mynetworks' and 'permit_sasl_authenticated' first.
I call this
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 13:03:11 -0500 (EST)
wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
>It will be later today. I don't have much time so I want to have
>it really right the first time. Code that is right takes more work
>than code that works.
Reminds me of a plaque I have in my office.
The
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
LuKreme wrote:
> What you want is for user to add a reply-to header to their outbound
> mail.. I suppose there must be a way to create a filter to add that
> header (formail?)
procmail recognizes the sender, pipes to formail, and formail adds
Reply-T
Noel Jones wrote:
Jim McIver wrote:
Here's a snippet from maillog, but not sure if it's what your looking
for:
Thanks, this is very helpful.
Mar 4 15:10:13 mail postfix/smtpd[56190]: warning: Illegal address
syntax from unknown[113.9.198.198] in MAIL co
mmand: bikedev...@yahoo.co.jp
T
On 5-Mar-2009, at 11:03, Cameron Camp wrote:
(expanded from ): host
mail.domain.com[1.2.3.4] said: 504 5.5.2 :
Sender address rejected: need fully-qualified address (in reply to
RCPT TO command)
Is domain.com your attempt to obfuscate the real domain? If so, use
example.com or exampl
Jim McIver wrote:
I am using vexira for virus/content filtering and it has an area to put
in blacklisted domains. I'll check if I can change to quarantine.
ie
[mailfrom-blacklist]
*.ro
*.nz
*yourtopbrands.com
*server.rwbtec.com
*.co.jp
etc...
If you can't change it to quarantine or tag+deliver
On Mar 5, 2009, at 4:58, Miguel Da Silva - Centro de Matemática y> wrote:
Well, it came from dovecot.org :) Maybe I misunderstood your
question, please let me know. I'm running Postfix 2.3.x and Dovecot
1.0.
My "problem" was a confusing configuration. I mean, settings things
up
Wietse Venema wrote:
du...@linuxgeek.org.uk:
I have a couple of quick questions:
1) How long does a message sit in the postfix queue for before it attempts
a redeliver (a deffered message sat in the deffered queue)?
http:/www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#queue_run_delay
http:/www.postf
Noel Jones wrote:
Looks as if the proxy filter has gotten out of sync with postfix.
I would suggest starting using it as a content_filter. Once you get
that working, you can see if it works with smtpd_proxy_filter.
I find it handy to use " -o syslog_name=postfix-something" in
master.cf to
Robert Ober escribió:
On Mar 5, 2009, at 4:58, Miguel Da Silva - Centro de Matemática
wrote:
Well, it came from dovecot.org :) Maybe I misunderstood your question,
please let me know. I'm running Postfix 2.3.x and Dovecot 1.0.
My "problem" was a confusing configuration. I mean, s
2009/3/6 Carver Banks :
> Or so I thought..., that did restrict all mail to the internal recipients as
> well.
>
> I need anyone in mydomain.com to be able to email anyone in mydomain.local,
> but I need users on mydomain.local to only be allowed to email a few people
> in mydomain.com, and none
Wietse Venema:
> Santiago Romero:
> >
> > > Please wait for an updated patch, we believe we have identified the
> > > cause and reproduced the symptoms (in that order). I have a candidate
> > > patch, but I expect Wietse will send an updated more polished version
> > > in the not too distant futur
Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Noel Jones wrote:
Looks as if the proxy filter has gotten out of sync with postfix.
I would suggest starting using it as a content_filter. Once you get
that working, you can see if it works with smtpd_proxy_filter.
I find it handy to use " -o syslog_name=postfix-som
Noel Jones wrote:
Jim McIver wrote:
I am using vexira for virus/content filtering and it has an area to
put in blacklisted domains. I'll check if I can change to quarantine.
ie
[mailfrom-blacklist]
*.ro
*.nz
*yourtopbrands.com
*server.rwbtec.com
*.co.jp
etc...
If you can't change it to quar
Noel Jones wrote:
Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Noel Jones wrote:
Looks as if the proxy filter has gotten out of sync with postfix.
I would suggest starting using it as a content_filter. Once you get
that working, you can see if it works with smtpd_proxy_filter.
I find it handy to use " -o sysl
Daniel L. Miller a écrit :
> [snip]
> Mar 4 23:21:33 mailserver postfix/smtpd[20964]: warning: proxy
> inet:192.168.0.10:225 rejected "DATA": "250 2.1.5 Ok"
This is the thing to look at. did the proxy send "5xx 250 2.1.5 Ok"?
> Mar 4 23:21:33 mailserver postfix/smtpd[20964]: warning: non-SMTP
Paweł Leśniak a écrit :
> W dniu 2009-03-05 06:30, Mihira Fernando pisze:
>> Have you ever tried sending an e-greeting to someone via
>> 123greeting.com or
>> some other similar site ?
>>
> You're definitely right - I didn't use that one before.
> Look what I get in logs:
> Mar 5 09:41:50 lola
LuKreme a écrit :
> On 4-Mar-2009, at 15:18, Robert A. Ober wrote:
>> Thanks to Brian and others for hanging in there with me!
>
> I think you owe everyone on this thread (which I was not part of, so no
> self-interest) a beer. :)
>
I wasn't either, but I want a Franziskaner ;-p
for OP:
sasl
Dear,
I want/need to change the FROM part of the e-mails if they are
forwarded to the (sub-)domains (sub.)xxx.tld
Where in the documentation should I look for a solution?
Thanks,
Yves
Carlos Williams a écrit :
> Thanks for that info. Can someone also comment on this? I asked a
> friend via email and this was his response to the same issue:
>
> **
>
> "I used nslookup to verify the address your queue is showing, and it
> does correspond to je.jfcom.m
OK - here's what I see now using telnet. First, connecting directly to
the ASSP listener via telnet:
r...@mailserver:/etc/postfix# telnet 192.168.0.10 225
Trying 192.168.0.10...
Connected to 192.168.0.10.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 Postfix-ASSP.amfeslan.local ESMTP Postfix (Ubuntu)
helo abc.
Daniel L. Miller wrote:
OK - here's what I see now using telnet. First, connecting directly
to the ASSP listener via telnet:
r...@mailserver:/etc/postfix# telnet 192.168.0.10 225
Trying 192.168.0.10...
Connected to 192.168.0.10.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 Postfix-ASSP.amfeslan.local ESMTP P
Noel Jones a écrit :
> [snip]
> Looking at the headers of the message you sent to the list:
>
> Received: from neskowin.linfield.edu (neskowin.linfield.edu
> [192.147.171.21])
> by russian-caravan.cloud9.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 55D0AFD9F3
> for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 14:33:37 -0500 (EST)
>
Thomas Ledbetter a écrit :
>
> OK.. How about this one:
>
> I have had good luck blocking SPAM email which has a MAIL FROM: address
> in my own domain, by blocking all email from my domain in an access map
> on 'smtpd_sender_restrictions', and then listing 'permit_mynetworks' and
> 'permit_sasl
Daniel L. Miller:
> Mar 4 23:21:33 mailserver postfix/smtpd[20964]: warning: proxy
> inet:192.168.0.10:225 rejected "DATA": "250 2.1.5 Ok"
Your proxy replies with "250 2.1.5 Ok" to the "DATA" command.
250 Is an incorrect reply. It should be "354" for success,
5xx or 4xx for failure.
And becaus
Hi,
I have a client that I have set up the submission port and 465 (for
submission over raw SSL). They use many different internet connections,
and a few of them (Panera Bread in particular) have their IP on
blacklists. Because the IP gets included in the first Received header from
Postfix, s
Nate Carlson:
> Hi,
>
> I have a client that I have set up the submission port and 465 (for
> submission over raw SSL). They use many different internet connections,
> and a few of them (Panera Bread in particular) have their IP on
> blacklists. Because the IP gets included in the first Receive
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, Wietse Venema wrote:
I've found tricks to remove or edit Received headers for specific IP's via
'header_checks'; however, what I'd like to be able to do is either remove
the header altogether or modify the IP to one of the IP's that we own for
all authenticated users that subm
Wietse Venema wrote:
Daniel L. Miller:
Mar 4 23:21:33 mailserver postfix/smtpd[20964]: warning: proxy
inet:192.168.0.10:225 rejected "DATA": "250 2.1.5 Ok"
Your proxy replies with "250 2.1.5 Ok" to the "DATA" command.
250 Is an incorrect reply. It should be "354" for success,
5xx or
Nate Carlson wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, Wietse Venema wrote:
I've found tricks to remove or edit Received headers for specific
IP's via
'header_checks'; however, what I'd like to be able to do is either
remove
the header altogether or modify the IP to one of the IP's that we
own for
all authe
Daniel L. Miller:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Daniel L. Miller:
> >
> >> Mar 4 23:21:33 mailserver postfix/smtpd[20964]: warning: proxy
> >> inet:192.168.0.10:225 rejected "DATA": "250 2.1.5 Ok"
> >>
> >
> > Your proxy replies with "250 2.1
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 05:35:11PM -0800, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
>> I suppose I could do something like 'no_header_body_checks' on the main
>> SMTP process, but it'd be nice to be able to do some checks there in the
>> future too.
> You can make the change in master.cf. Find the "submission" l
Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Nate Carlson wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, Wietse Venema wrote:
I've found tricks to remove or edit Received headers for specific
IP's via
'header_checks'; however, what I'd like to be able to do is either
remove
the header altogether or modify the IP to one of the IP's th
Noel Jones wrote:
Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Nate Carlson wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, Wietse Venema wrote:
I've found tricks to remove or edit Received headers for specific
IP's via
'header_checks'; however, what I'd like to be able to do is either
remove
the header altogether or modify the IP to
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 12:32:53AM +0100, Yves Kreis wrote:
> Dear,
>
> I want/need to change the FROM part of the e-mails if they are forwarded to
> the (sub-)domains (sub.)xxx.tld
> Where in the documentation should I look for a solution?
generic(5)
transport(5)
master(
Wietse Venema wrote:
Daniel L. Miller:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
Wietse Venema wrote:
Daniel L. Miller:
Mar 4 23:21:33 mailserver postfix/smtpd[20964]: warning: proxy
inet:192.168.0.10:225 rejected "DATA": "250 2.1.5 Ok"
Your proxy repl
Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Wietse Venema wrote:
Daniel L. Miller:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
Wietse Venema wrote:
Daniel L. Miller:
Mar 4 23:21:33 mailserver postfix/smtpd[20964]: warning: proxy
inet:192.168.0.10:225 rejected "DATA": "250 2.1.5 Ok"
On 5-Mar-2009, at 19:15, Noel Jones wrote:
Oh, and recent postfix marks authenticated headers; note the
ESTMPSA. S = StartTLS, A = Authenticated
Received: from [192.168.5.108] (adsl-19-247-14.bna.bellsouth.net
[68.19.247.14])
by mgate2.vbhcs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BAF4A797A
Daniel L. Miller:
> > You can log the conversation between SMTP client, Postfix and the
> > proxy filter by adding one -v option on the smtpd command line in
> > master.cf, or by using debug_peer_list and debug_peer_level in
> > main.cf.
> >
> I tried the -v option (wow - lot of stuff goes on be
Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Here's the other weird thing. If, after I enter the DATA command and
get that bogus 2.1.5, if I enter a second DATA command - it works.
smtpd -v log excerpt - with the first "DATA":
Mar 5 18:54:01 mailserver local/smtpd[25237]: <
smtp-local.amfeslan.local[192.168.0.1
Daniel L. Miller:
> Here's the other weird thing. If, after I enter the DATA command and
> get that bogus 2.1.5, if I enter a second DATA command - it works.
It does not matter. What matters is that the PROXY filter gives
the wrong reply to the first DATA command.
Wietse
> smtpd -v log
Daniel L. Miller:
> On a whim, I tried something else. I tried telnet'ing to the two
> listeners - but used the EHLO command to see what was reported. I do
> get different responses. Does this mean anything significant? I notice
The only thing that matters is that the proxy replies with 2xx
Wietse Venema wrote:
Daniel L. Miller:
You can log the conversation between SMTP client, Postfix and the
proxy filter by adding one -v option on the smtpd command line in
master.cf, or by using debug_peer_list and debug_peer_level in
main.cf.
I tried the -v option (wow - lot of stuf
Wietse Venema wrote:
Daniel L. Miller:
On a whim, I tried something else. I tried telnet'ing to the two
listeners - but used the EHLO command to see what was reported. I do
get different responses. Does this mean anything significant? I notice
The only thing that matters is that
85 matches
Mail list logo
