- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 2:46 PM
Subject: Fw: Does Size Really MatterWGXP
In a recent survey conducted by Durex condoms, 67% of
women said thatthey are unhappy with the size of their lovers. Proof that
size doe
II think any email containing an executable is spam.
Windows executables can have extensions other than
*.exe, for example *.bat, *.scr, and whatnot. Those
executables are very dangerous because the reader
might not recognize them as an executable.
Can someone post a rule for such emails?
Arne
> 1. I'm invoking SA from /etc/procmailrc, which works well. But I'm
> trying to keep a copy of everything that SA tags as spam, using the
> following:
At sometime I used:
FILESPAM=/var/maildump/$LOGNAME.spam
DUMMY=`test -f $FILESPAM || touch $FILESPAM`
:0 c:
* ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
| /usr/local
Hi,
Running masscheck I got the following errors:
Premature end of base64 data at
/home/java/on/CVS/spamassassin/masses/../lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/PerMsgStatus.pm line
1875, line 15606.
Premature end of base64 data at
/home/java/on/CVS/spamassassin/masses/../lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/PerMsgStatus.
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 07:29:00PM -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote:
| On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
|
| > On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 02:20:17PM -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote:
| > | All these spams carry between 1 and 12 GIF or JPEG images (photos of
| > | their products, or photos of pap
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 01:13:26PM +0100, Sean Rima wrote:
| On Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Derrick Hudson uttered the following:
| >| This is very true, 99% of the time spamd sits there waiting for
| >| something to happen and then suddenly the poop hits the fan and
| >| everything goes haywire.
| >|
| >
On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 02:20:17PM -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> | All these spams carry between 1 and 12 GIF or JPEG images (photos of
> | their products, or photos of paper catalog pages), ranging in size
> | from 20k to 300k each; the message
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 02:20:17PM -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote:
| On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
|
| > On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 10:51:07AM -0800, Pete Hanson wrote:
| > | Not true. We're starting to see spam mail with huge attachments.
| >
| > What sort of attachments? What ar
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 07:17:05PM -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
| On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 04:02:24PM -0500, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
| > spamd would be the one giving the output, but it doesn't _have_ to
| > output the whole message, just the headers that have changed. spamc
| > wouldn't cha
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 04:02:24PM -0500, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> spamd would be the one giving the output, but it doesn't _have_ to
> output the whole message, just the headers that have changed. spamc
> wouldn't change in that respect.
You're assuming the body isn't getting mangled. Wh
Greetings -
So far, Spam Assassin has been working really well. On mysetup, I think
that it's ignoring the whitelist in /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf and
tagging mail from allowed domains anyway.
I only whitelisted domains that I get daily/weekly mailings from. The daily
headlines email fro
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 02:11:31PM -0500, Shane Williams wrote:
> I think Dinty Moore is just a sub-brand now owned by hormel, but
> Hormel products might not be bad. In the same line of thought...
>
> I noticed there are a lot of Spam recipes on the Internet (including
> Hormel's Spam page). M
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 02:34:54PM +0200, Michael Stauber wrote:
> Hi Craig,
>
> > The -S flag to spamd should also help greatly in constrained hardware
> > situations.
>
> Yes, I know. It sure is a great way to cut back the load, but the scoring gets
> a little less effective and I noticed a f
On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 the voices made Rob Mangiafico write:
> Thanks for any clarification on this issue :)
The AWL is actually more like an automated scorekepper, acting both ways (ie
negative and postives scores).
/Tony
--
# Per scientiam ad libertatem! // Through knowledge towards f
On Monday 10 June 2002 07:42 am, Vivek Khera wrote:
> > "MC" == Matthew Cline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> MC> automatically compile Perl down to machine instructions for improved
> MC> performance. So it probably wouldn't be worth it to re-write SA in C.
> I doubt that will help anyway.
On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Don Bivens wrote:
> Just block China in your mail program. Or if you find
> my methods too agressive just block this one guy in
> your mail server, drop the route to him, or firewall
> him.
Unfortunately brasslantern.com is just a virtual domain hosted at a small
ISP. I do
Hello:
If using the autowhitelist feature with spamd (-a), I thought that it
would only add a negative score value based on the number of emails sent
and their average score. I have seen the AWL score be positive though, and
it tagged a completely blank email as spam based on past emails havin
Just block China in your mail program. Or if you find
my methods too agressive just block this one guy in
your mail server, drop the route to him, or firewall
him.
___
Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference
A
On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 10:51:07AM -0800, Pete Hanson wrote:
> | Not true. We're starting to see spam mail with huge attachments.
>
> What sort of attachments? What are the main identifying marks on the
> messages?
I've been repeatedly spamm
On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 08:04:45AM +1200, Simon Lyall wrote:
| Over the last couple of days I've received a few (about 5) emails to this
| list which end in:
|
|[Error: Formatting error: Non-hexadecimal character in QP encoding]
|
| and the rest of the email is cut off. Checking with the onl
Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> > Hormel's Spam page). Maybe each release could be a different Spam
> > dish (Spam a L'orange, Spam Fettucine Primavera, Spam Cheese Torte,
But doesn't that sound like SA is *serving* spam?
Bryan
--
I struggle in vain. My foot slips. My life is still
a poet's existenc
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 10:51:07AM -0800, Pete Hanson wrote:
| At 06/10/2002 10:43, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
| >| However, wouldn't it make some sense to try passing at least
| >| the first max_size bytes of the message to spamd for processing?
| >
| >Well, the idea is that spammers aren't se
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 02:51:13PM -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
| On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 01:43:02PM -0500, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
| > That does sound like a good idea, though. You can use your MTA to
| > limit the processing of over-large messages and spamc can limit
| > spamd's processin
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 09:58:36PM +0200, Jakub Wasielewski wrote:
> This is default config.
> But 25_body_tests_pl.cf is used while test! Everything is ok when I
> remove the 25_body_tests_pl.cf file from /usr/share/spamassassin. So I
> supose this bug is there.
After changing my locale arou
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 02:11:31PM -0500, Shane Williams wrote:
>
> I noticed there are a lot of Spam recipes on the Internet (including
> Hormel's Spam page). Maybe each release could be a different Spam
> dish (Spam a L'orange, Spam Fettucine Primavera, Spam Cheese Torte,
> etc.) Hormel provi
Brad Koehn wrote:
> Don,
>
> Thanks for your message. What I'm doing is trying to do is filter all mail for my
>site (not just my account) that SA tags as spam into a folder, so I can analyze it
>later. That's why I'm using /etc/procmailrc instead of ~/.procmailrc to manage
>delivering my mai
It looks like this has been reported a couple of times, but I could find
no resolution in the archives ... version 2.20 of SA, version 2.1 of
Mail::Audit. When I call rewrite_mail(), I get the following error message
(some of the time):
you cannot use body() to set the encoded contents
at /usr
Over the last couple of days I've received a few (about 5) emails to this
list which end in:
[Error: Formatting error: Non-hexadecimal character in QP encoding]
and the rest of the email is cut off. Checking with the online archive the
emails seem okay and if I check my raw mbox file the the
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 09:44:23PM +0200, Jakub Wasielewski wrote:
> I have just discovered that the bug is somewhere in 25_body_te?
> sts_pl.cf file. When I remove it the SA runs without any problem. Did
> you test my mesg with this tests set?
I did a fresh install of SA and ran spamassa
I'm running Postfix/SpamAssassin/SpamPD on an OpenBSD system. Everything
appears to
be working except rules that I've added to /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf.
I have sent myself
a test spam message including one of the words from my rules then examine
the header lines
that spamassassin adds. No
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 08:54:23PM +0200, Jakub Wasielewski wrote:
> I have check this on 3 server, everywhere the same situation.
> Really don't know what is wrong 8-(
What kind of server do you have? I just tried your message on a brand
new install on my MacOSX box and it returned in just unde
On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Pete Hanson wrote:
> At 06/10/2002 09:47, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
> >> > On Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Craig R. Hughes said:
> >> >
> >> >> Anyone have any thoughts for a cool release name for 2.30?
>
> Howabout various Hormel products? This release could be DINTY MOORE.
I think Di
At 06/10/2002 10:43, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
>>That does sound like a good idea, though. You can use your MTA to
>>limit the processing of over-large messages and spamc can limit
>>spamd's processing to just the first nK of not-quite-as-large
>>messages. In addition, spamc could simply outp
At 06/10/2002 10:43, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
>| Looking at the source for spamc, it looks to me like a message that
>| exceeds the maximum message size is simply skipped entirely, which
>| actually requires reading in most of the message first - fair
>| enough, as it's hard to determine the s
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 01:43:02PM -0500, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> That does sound like a good idea, though. You can use your MTA to
> limit the processing of over-large messages and spamc can limit
> spamd's processing to just the first nK of not-quite-as-large
> messages. In addition, sp
It looks like this has been reported a couple of times, but I could find
no resolution in the archives ... version 2.20 of SA, version 2.1 of
Mail::Audit. When I call rewrite_mail(), I get the following error message
(some of the time):
you cannot use body() to set the encoded contents
at /usr
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 10:18:51AM -0800, Pete Hanson wrote:
| Looking at the source for spamc, it looks to me like a message that
| exceeds the maximum message size is simply skipped entirely, which
| actually requires reading in most of the message first - fair
| enough, as it's hard to determi
Just tried upgrading my system to SA 2.30pre, but spamd isn't behaving well.
All of a sudden, I'm getting the following message in my maillog during
startup:
Jun 10 14:23:50 blazing spamd[981]: Use of uninitialized value in scalar
chomp at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.1/Mail/SpamAssassin.pm
Forgive me if this has been asked in the past.
Looking at the source for spamc, it looks to me like a message that exceeds the
maximum message size is simply skipped entirely, which actually requires reading in
most of the message first - fair enough, as it's hard to determine the size when it'
Brad, I'll tell you how I've done it and I'll leave it up to you
if you think this answers your question.
I am using procmail to deliver messages to a Maildir format
instead of mbox (with all of its locking
and performance issues). Then I deliver SA-flagged spam to a
.SPAM subfolder of my Inbox
At 06/10/2002 09:47, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
>> > On Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Craig R. Hughes said:
>> >
>> >> Anyone have any thoughts for a cool release name for 2.30?
Howabout various Hormel products? This release could be DINTY MOORE.
Pete `-_-'
Although we modern persons tend to take our elect
> > On Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Craig R. Hughes said:
> >
> >> Anyone have any thoughts for a cool release name for 2.30?
Ratbert.
/Tony
--
# Per scientiam ad libertatem! // Through knowledge towards freedom! #
# Genom kunskap mot frihet! =*= (c) 1999-2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] =*= #
-- Random UR
hi there,
actually I'm pretty happy w/ SpamAssassin, but strange things are
happening from time to time...
I'm getting bounced mails like the one below. The Mail from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] has been tagged as spam from SA - that's OK,
but something sends a reply... Does SA do this ?
I'm using sp
Actually, I think I found the problem. The program we were sending the mail
w/was not putting <>'s around the message id, which by looking @ the regex,
I believe SpamAssassin is looking for. The problems w/the <>'s has been
fixed, so hopefully our mails will not trigger that rule anymore :)
tha
Hey all,
I'm running into two interesting problems with my SA configuration, that
others may have run into also:
1. I'm invoking SA from /etc/procmailrc, which works well. But I'm
trying to keep a copy of everything that SA tags as spam, using the
following:
:0fw
| /usr/local/bin/spamas
> On Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Craig R. Hughes said:
>
>> Anyone have any thoughts for a cool release name for 2.30?
"Chinese Dentist"?
You know... the old joke:
Q. What time does a chinaman go to the dentist?
A. Tooth-hurty.
rOD.
(non-PC)
--
Before Stonehenge, there was Woodhenge and Strawhenge.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Derrick Hudson uttered the following:
>| >| Yeah the spam[c/d] setup. My average is around 15 seconds, well it
>| >| is an old p133 the slowest appears to be 93 seconds. I am a dialup
>| >| user and when I go online off peak for t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Craig R. Hughes said:
> Anyone have any thoughts for a cool release name for 2.30?
>
A) BanShee Screamer
or
B) Corundulla
Sean
- --
Sean Rimahttp://www.tcob1.net
Linux User: 231986
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Craig R. Hughes said:
> Sean Rima wrote:
>
> SR> I thought it would not affect me too much but even with a -m 2 and
> SR> a -s 61440 I reach a load average of over 15 which cripples my
> SR> poor old mail box :)
>
> Hmm, my unde
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Craig R. Hughes spake thusly:
> The -S flag to spamd should also help greatly in constrained hardware
> situations.
>
Never thought of that, thanks Craig.
Sean
- --
Sean Rimahttp://www.tcob1.n
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Craig R. Hughes said:
> Sean Rima wrote:
>
> SR> But if I disable spamc in Exim (I used your example config) and
> SR> leave dcc only I never get above a load average of 2.3 and dccd is
> SR> flooding with remote servers as well,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Jeremy Zawodny uttered the following:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 12:33:13AM +0100, Sean Rima wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 12:19:20AM +0100, Sean Rima wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > It's going to be a rather long wait, I think.
Here's some errors I got with SpamAssassin.pm when starting today's CVS
Jun 10 11:56:30 dalton spamd[23422]: Use of uninitialized value in scalar
chomp at /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.0/Mail/SpamAssassin.pm line 233.
Jun 10 11:56:30 dalton spamd[23422]: Use of uninitialized value in
substitutio
Vivek Khera wrote:
>> "r" == rOD writes:
>
> r> Vivek Khera wrote:
>>> But how many of those were scoring 5 or more to be flagged as spam
>>> as well?
>
> r> [rod@blazing masses]$ cat nonspam-rODbegbie.log | grep ^Y | grep
> PORN | wc r> 197 788 40835
>
> r> So, about 4% of my non-
> "KK" == Kjetil Kjernsmo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
KK> Hehe, well, it isn't really about the bandwidth, but about my time...
KK> Whereas rejected messages is likely to cause another bounce and I may
KK> have to look into what was rejected, a devnulled message will be
KK> forgotten forev
> "r" == rOD writes:
r> Vivek Khera wrote:
>> But how many of those were scoring 5 or more to be flagged as spam as
>> well?
r> [rod@blazing masses]$ cat nonspam-rODbegbie.log | grep ^Y | grep PORN | wc
r> 197 788 40835
r> So, about 4% of my non-spam matches a PRON rule.
And SA
On Monday 10 June 2002 18:12, David T-G wrote:
> Any particular reason to accept the worst messages and yet bounce
> back the not-so-bad? It seems to me that you'd want to refuse both,
> especially since you provide a contact address.
Hehe, well, it isn't really about the bandwidth, but about m
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 09:03:07AM -0700, Richard J. Sears wrote:
| On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:50:18 -0400 Theo Van Dinter wrote:
| >
| > You can fix the display problem by adding "defang_mime 1" to you
| > user_prefs or local.cf file. It tells SA to rewrite the Content-Type
| > header to be text/pla
Vivek Khera wrote:
> But how many of those were scoring 5 or more to be flagged as spam as
> well?
[rod@blazing masses]$ cat nonspam-rODbegbie.log | grep ^Y | grep PORN | wc
197 788 40835
So, about 4% of my non-spam matches a PRON rule.
rOD.
--
Before Stonehenge, there was Woodhenge
Kjetil --
...and then Kjetil Kjernsmo said...
%
% Hi there!
Hello!
%
...
% 1. Highest Threshold: The message is forwarded to Dave Null and
% forgotten.
% 2. Medium Threshold: The message is rejected and a bounce message is
% returned to the sender, saying "contact postmaster if this i
> "r" == rOD writes:
r> Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
>> Right, his rule would only trigger if SA had already decided it was
>> SPAM. So it's not *that* bad. I wonder how often you'd see PORN
>> rules triggered in non-porn spam. That's the only problem, right?
r> Quite often, I'm afraid.POR
> "KK" == Kjetil Kjernsmo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> That said, I use 7 as the return to sender threshhold, and 4 as the
>> mark for manual inspection level.
KK> OK... I thought about using 50 for devnulling
25 or 30 should be good enough for that.
KK> incoming spamtrap/trollbox ad
Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> Right, his rule would only trigger if SA had already decided it was
> SPAM. So it's not *that* bad. I wonder how often you'd see PORN
> rules triggered in non-porn spam. That's the only problem, right?
Quite often, I'm afraid.PORN_* matches 753/4129 of my nonspam co
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 09:03:07AM -0700, Richard J.Sears wrote:
> I tried this, as I recall it stripped out all my attachments, even when
> the message was not identified as spam.
If this is true, you either have some whacked out version of SA installed,
or one of the supporting modules is f'ed
I tried this, as I recall it stripped out all my attachments, even when
the message was not identified as spam.
On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:50:18 -0400
Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 07:40:56AM -0800, Pete Hanson wrote:
> > I've seen the former problem, but this
On Monday 10 June 2002 16:58, Vivek Khera wrote:
> > "KK" == Kjetil Kjernsmo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> KK> The scoring systems seems like a very nice feature, and I figured
> it KK> would be nice to use it with several different thresholds:
>
> Personally, I'd never bit-bucket a message.
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 07:40:56AM -0800, Pete Hanson wrote:
> I've seen the former problem, but this seems to be an issue with only some mail
>clients - the actual report is present, but isn't displayed properly. This is most
>likely to happen with pure HTML mail.
You can fix the display prob
Thanks Pete,
I am running Becky as my mail program, the problem exists before
delivery to the mail client.
I have been watching the problem by cat'ing my mail file on the server
before imap/pop gets to them and they are being delivered to the users
mail file without the attached spam message.
At 06/10/2002 07:21, Richard J.Sears wrote:
>Hello Everyone,
>
>I have been run SpamAssassin for about 3 months now. I am running 2.20
>with the MySQL database option. The server utilizes Postfix and I am
>running spamd/spamc with it. What a great program!
>
>I have noticed a problem where I will
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 08:21:08AM -0700, Richard J. Sears wrote:
| I have noticed a problem where I will get a fair number of spam messages
| correctly identified as spam, but without the Spam report being attached
| to the top of the e-mail message.
Are those MIME messages? If so, then the re
Hello Everyone,
I have been run SpamAssassin for about 3 months now. I am running 2.20
with the MySQL database option. The server utilizes Postfix and I am
running spamd/spamc with it. What a great program!
I have noticed a problem where I will get a fair number of spam messages
correctly identi
> "KK" == Kjetil Kjernsmo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
KK> The scoring systems seems like a very nice feature, and I figured it
KK> would be nice to use it with several different thresholds:
Personally, I'd never bit-bucket a message. Always return to sender,
even if that means double-bounc
> "MC" == Matthew Cline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MC> automatically compile Perl down to machine instructions for improved
MC> performance. So it probably wouldn't be worth it to re-write SA in C.
I doubt that will help anyway. The majority of the time spent in SA
is in the pattern matc
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 01:03:30PM +0200, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
| Hi there!
|
| I'm just setting up my first mail system, and I'm coming over to
| SpamAssasin. I've been using Junkfilter for many years, and I've also
| spent a lot of time in NANAE, but for the first time, I'm configuring
| sp
Working with the latest CVS as of 6/10 and using auto-whitelists
/usr/local/bin/spamd -u smmsp -a -d -x
Running "cat sample-spam.txt | spamc" first time seems to work OK.
Running "cat sample-spam.txt | spamc" 2nd time has problems.
Seems the auto-whitelist.lock in ~smmsp/.spamassasin never gets
Craig --
...and then Craig R Hughes said...
%
% Matthew Cline wrote:
%
...
% MC> Why just the nonspam.log?
%
% Cos I have plenty of spam to generate a very good spam.log -- all I need is lots
% of "real mail" logs.
Do you still? I have lots and lots of mailing list messages which are
nice an
Hi Craig,
> The -S flag to spamd should also help greatly in constrained hardware
> situations.
Yes, I know. It sure is a great way to cut back the load, but the scoring gets
a little less effective and I noticed a few more false positives. Can't be
avoided the way -S works, sure. So I usually
Matthew Cline wrote:
MC> On Sunday 09 June 2002 11:09 pm, Craig R Hughes wrote:
MC>
MC> > you are a nonspam.log submitter, please check out that tag from CVS using:
MC>
MC> Why just the nonspam.log?
Cos I have plenty of spam to generate a very good spam.log -- all I need is lots
of "real mail" l
Hi there!
I'm just setting up my first mail system, and I'm coming over to
SpamAssasin. I've been using Junkfilter for many years, and I've also
spent a lot of time in NANAE, but for the first time, I'm configuring
spam filters for an entire site. I'm hooking it into Exim on a small
box runni
Matthew Cline wrote:
> On Sunday 09 June 2002 03:06 pm, Sean Rima wrote:
>
>
>>My ISP is also looking at SA but performance maybe a problem.
>
>
> When Perl 6 comes out, it will have a Just In Time (JIT) compiler, which will
> automatically compile Perl down to machine instructions for improv
On Sunday 09 June 2002 11:09 pm, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> you are a nonspam.log submitter, please check out that tag from CVS using:
Why just the nonspam.log?
--
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on
fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
ICQ: 132152059
81 matches
Mail list logo
