Yes, attacking spammers is wrong. You know this, you shouldn't be doing it.
Your IP address and request have been logged and will be reported to your
ISP for further action.
And some of you people want to play nice, be careful, be polite with people
who have the above attitude? The spammer
Well, I guess this makes my last two posts pointless. However I still feel
that although participating by running a BOT.Scr could be a rewarding
feeling, I still feel that it could end up being unleashed when it's not
really necessary on innocent web hosts, causing their services to be
degraded
Subscriber network operators whose subscribers' machines are infected but
refuse to block port 25 egress are the Taliban harboring al Quaida
terrorists blowing up innocent MXs. I say nuke em.
That much I totally agree with and as indicated elsewhere be sure that the
entity hosting the
You will be singing a different tune Len if someone from your ISP has a site
that hires a spam company and you are on the receiving end of this
misdirected attack.
No, I won't. I will be disconnecting the someone as having violated their
ToS.
Or say someone gets mad at you and hires someone to
Len Said:
*
So, Ted, having thought harder, you don't want Lycos or anybody else to
counter-attack with DDoS against spamvertiser sites? You thoughtful
position is that the status quo where spamvertizers can hire untouchable
criminals and their wide-open ,compromised networks of
Jeff,
You mention that you still need to use declude to scan for all email
that is delivered locally (i.e. from one IMail user to another on the
same box) We have got a similar situation sending emails to messagelabs
to be scanned for viruses etc.
Does anyone know of a way to get IMail to send
Scott said:
*
It's like receiving junk mail and calling the 800# that is listed. Doing
so once to complain can be justified. Calling them 100 times a day cannot
be justified (other than you trying to cost them money).
-Scott
Good point, this could be making money for the bad guys!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Barker
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 1:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Lycos screensaver tackles spam websites
Boy, if
Or they could just email the web hosting company saying they are going to do
it if the site is still online in 2 days :) If it is, blast them 100% until
it's offline :)
Most web hosting companies host many sites, often on the same IP address.
Attacking one of them effects them all, what about the
You mention that you still need to use declude to scan for all email
that is delivered locally (i.e. from one IMail user to another on the
same box) We have got a similar situation sending emails to messagelabs
to be scanned for viruses etc.
Does anyone know of a way to get IMail to send all
Does anyone know of a way to get IMail to send all emails
through a gateway host rather than just remote emails?
Maybe: http://support.ipswitch.com/kb/IM-19980116-DM01.htm
Or:
Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
~Rick
As usual Scott - Good point.
A slightly amended question then is does anyone know how to route all
emails - except those from the gateway host - via an external gateway.
I am assuming from your reply Scott the answer is as I thought, no.
BTW Ipswitch - this is some functionality that Exchange
HI Rick,
Thanks for the reply but that is how to set up Imail as a Gateway for
other email servers to use. I need to route all emails from Imail via an
external gateway.
Pat
-Original Message-
From: Rick Klinge [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 01 December 2004 12:18
To: [EMAIL
Then it would require and exchange CAL for everyone would it not?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darin Cox
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 5:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] OT: Mail Config Issue
That works...only
Right. Everyone that has an Exchange account so they can use the groupware
features. For small businesses you can cover a lot of users quickly with
the MS Action Pack subscription.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 01,
Let's separate the method from the goal. Saying that just because someone
thinks a certain method is wrong means that they don't want the same goal is
twisting the logic. We all want to stop the spammers...but we have to
realize that the way that we do it is important. Two wrongs do not make a
It's all fine and good until it happens to you...
And if it happens to you, you'll make darn sure to get it fixed quick and
darn sure to minimize possibilities of CD to you in the future. The whole
idea that we can't counter-attack spammers in self-defense because of
hypothetical CD is bogus.
Not self-defense...see other posts.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Len Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 12:39 PM
Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Lycos screensaver tackles spam websites
I know revenge is a terrible sin
jeez, drop the
Morality is not involved. Our MXs cheeks have been getting slapped silly
for years.
Everything we do is defined by our morality/ethics. To do otherwise is to
essentially have no morality/ethics... and they have a word for that:
Sociopath.
vigilantism in self-defense makes sense, is
Hard to tell though... but I feel (a bad word to use when discussing
legality!) confident that as an end-user of the app, we're not as likely
to
be directly involved in the legal battle beyond maybe a cease-and-desist
order of some kind (a false sense of security on my part?? :)
Whether or
Whether or not any legal action will be taken against us is not
justification for performing the action. If a mob kills a murderer, would
not the mob be guilty of murder?
Darin.
No, not if it was in self defense. If that murderer was attacking the
mobster everyday threatening his very
This cost is the reason we went the way the way we did. We have one
domain that spans both an exchange server and Imail, BTW we have
multiple other domains running on both boxes it is just this one that
spans both.
I have 95% of my users in that domain remote and they use Imail
mailboxes and
Let's separate the method from the goal.
ok, you can try.
Saying that just because someone thinks a certain method is wrong means
that they don't want the same goal is twisting the logic.
agreed
We all want to stop the spammers...
ie, the goal.
but we have to realize that the way that we do it
Ok then. By that definition, logs would have to be examined to prove that
the spammer had indeed been spamming each person participating in the
counterattack. Those that had not received spam from the spammer would then
be prosecuted.
However, juries/judges give someone the benefit of the doubt
Not self-defense...see other posts.
COUNTER-attacking spamvertizers' websites that are attacking our MXs is
ABSOLUTELY self-defense, and thereby justifiable and not immoral.
Len
_
http://IMGate.MEIway.com : free anti-spam
Ok then. By that definition, logs would have to be examined to prove that
the spammer had indeed been spamming each person participating in the
counterattack. Those that had not received spam from the spammer would
then
be prosecuted.
However, juries/judges give someone the benefit of the
Hmmmsome good points.
There is a bit of difference between blacklists and a DDoS against spammers,
though. Blacklists come with all sorts of caveats... knowing that there can
be false positives, and that it is the responsibility of the user of the
blacklist to adjust for any false positives
Darin,
Morality and Ethics are molded by what we can and cannot do or get away
with. It's a sad fact of humanity.
There is a reason why fighting back is a popular option. Governments do a
very poor job of policing technology. Spammers spam because they get away
with it and it is profitable.
Everything we do is defined by our morality/ethics.
I just drank some coffee, took a shower, ate breakfast. Is conventional
morality/ethics involved?
vigilantism in self-defense makes sense, is defensible in the absence of
enforced laws.
Vigilantism is NOT self-defense
Drop vigilante from the
Ok then. By that definition, logs would have to be examined to prove that
the spammer had indeed been spamming each person participating in the
counterattack. Those that had not received spam from the spammer would then
be prosecuted.
huh? prosecuted by whom? for doing what? why are the
Hmmm...while we all know the legal system is not doing enough, they are
doing something...several spammers have been brought to trial and sentenced
over the past yearso we can't say that nothing is being done. However,
perhaps more effective lobbying would be in order to keep pushing for
ok, let's stop with the politics and get back to Imail issues. We're all
big kids now so we can make our own decisions regarding Lycos.
Respectfully,
Bill
Len Conrad wrote:
Everything we do is defined by our morality/ethics.
I just drank some coffee, took a shower, ate breakfast. Is
I am pretty sure that Ipswitch is going to stick to this bad decision to
dump Imail, for whatever bizarre reason. Personally, I think that the
company should be put on suicide watch, but that's what they've decided to
do. For anyone who doubts this, just try going to http://www.imail.com . I
think
- Original Message -
From: Len Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Lycos screensaver tackles spam websites
Ok then. By that definition, logs would have to be examined to prove that
the spammer had indeed
BRNNNGGG!
-Original Message-
From: Len Conrad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 10:30 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Lycos screensaver tackles spam websites
Ok then. By that definition, logs would have to be examined to
There is a bit of difference between blacklists and a DDoS against spammers
Not at all. Do you subscribe to RBLs? Have you qualified that every IP
that you are blocking with a RBL query has specifically attacked your MXs?
though. Blacklists come with all sorts of caveats... knowing that there
Drop vigilante from the conversation. It seems to have a very heavy
baggage for you, and by your Wild West definition, immoral.
No baggage... I don't think I can psychoanalyzed by a few posts here.
(btw, when the USA decided that the world governing body, UN, was not
effective, the USA, as a
Hmmm...while we all know the legal system is not doing enough, they are
doing something.
Going through the motions, a few show cases, out of the many 1000's of
spammers world-wide, and have you noticed how spam, phishing, spyware, has
all gone down as a result? didn't thing so.
..several
What about CAN-SPAM and the spammers that have been put in jail.
totally ineffective, from my POV as MX admin
IMGate for one.
IMGate doesn't stop spam, it rejects spam.
not attacking, but defensively COUNTER-attacking.
Counter-attacking is not defense. It's offense.
jeez, I have been/am/will be
And what about laws/police outside of the USA where so many spam
gangs/virus writers/spyware operate? How are you going to address that
from within the USA? Send in the Marines?
Len
Maybe we should send in the Marines, they like to go to new and exotic
places, meet new and exotic peoples,
Until WORLDWIDE laws and penalties with EVERY connected nation in agreement
is passed and offenders prosecuted all this haggling about what is and isnt'
is just WAG. And any and all comparisons are pointless.
Mike
To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
List Archive:
Um...dude...imail.com never worked. I've typed it in accidentally when
trying to go to the ipswitch site. Ipswitch.com is the correct site.
Sam
William Van Hefner wrote:
I am pretty sure that Ipswitch is going to stick to this bad decision to
dump Imail, for whatever bizarre reason.
actually, it very much used to work. I can remember entering that
address and being taken to ipswitch promo pages for imail. Unless I've
totally lost it...
m
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of
S.J.StanaitisSent: Wednesday,
Must have been before my time then...cos I"ve gone there a couple times
in the past few months/year and it never worked...ah well
shrug. Maybe that lycos screensaver was pointed at it :)
Sam
Marc Funaro wrote:
actually, it very much used to work. I can
remember entering that address
On Tuesday, November 30, 2004, 09:15:05, Ted Galerneau wrote:
Two wrongs have never added up to equal one right :)
Perhaps... but three lefts do :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] The avalanche has already started, it is too
Rod Dorman late for the pebbles to vote. Ambassador Kosh
I have an alternate idea...involving the data this Lycos project uses...
A Blacklist Proxy.
Here's how it works. A spammer sends SPAM out from an IP, it gets
blacklisted, as well as the IP of the server which is hosting any
websites advertised in the SPAM. This Blacklist Proxy is integrated
Too funny...ROFL...
Darin.
William Van Hefner wrote:
I am pretty sure that Ipswitch is going to stick to this bad decision to
dump Imail, for whatever bizarre reason. Personally, I think that the
company should be put on suicide watch, but that's what they've decided to
do. For anyone who
It appears as thought Outlook (at least Outlook 2002) is setup by default to
download headers only. I am Pretty Sure the tech doing the testing hadn't
modified the default settings. When the test machine was returned to me, I
verified that only the headers should have been downloaded.
And yet,
On Wednesday, December 1, 2004, 13:26:04, Marc Funaro wrote:
actually, it very much used to work. I can remember entering that address
and being taken to ipswitch promo pages for imail. Unless I've totally lost
it...
No offence but I think you've lost it :-)
A comparison of the whois info
actually, it very much used to work. I can remember entering that address
and being taken to ipswitch promo pages for imail. Unless I've totally
lost it...
You've lost it. :)
Go to http://www.archive.org and you'll see that as far back as 1998,
www.imail.com wasn't associated with Ipswitch.
It's interesting that Easylink owns imail.com. Not sure why that would be
since Easylink is a fax service provider.
- Original Message -
From: Rod Dorman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 14:03
Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] some misconceptions
I have an alternate idea...involving the data this Lycos project uses...
There are also other servers that already provide lists of URLs to be
blocked by content-scanning.
This Blacklist Proxy is integrated into Internet Providers, businesses,
etc...
just won't happen in subscriber access
Yes I have lost it. I was thinking of the Serv-U/Rhinosoft.Com
relationship... sorry. Serv-U is their FTP server product, and it does in
fact have it's own domain and redirect, but it's by RhinoSoft, that also has
its own website. Sorry for the confusion.
-Original Message-
From:
On Wednesday, December 1, 2004, 1:43:19 PM, Rod wrote:
RD On Tuesday, November 30, 2004, 09:15:05, Ted Galerneau wrote:
Two wrongs have never added up to equal one right :)
RD Perhaps... but three lefts do :-)
That's two dimensional thinking for you...
_M
To Unsubscribe:
Please lets not get into Quantum physics...it's too early (or late, take
your pick) for that.
- Original Message -
From: Pete McNeil [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Rod Dorman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 3:43 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [IMail Forum] Lycos screensaver tackles spam
Probably a superposition of the late early states...impossible to
determine until we wake up and observe it.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Chris Moody [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [IMail Forum] Lycos
That is like saying since someone on a bus shot at you, it's ok to blow up
the bus and kill innocent people.
Web sites are normally on shared servers with many other web sites,
blatantly and blindly attacking one of them is essentially attacking them
all. This is just not a good idea INHO, this
The legal system hasn't been able to stop murderers, rapists and drug
dealers either. But does this mean we start punishing all citizens so we
will be sure to get the ones that are doing the crimes? Absolutely not, we
just need to have a better plan that what Lycos is doing. They need to at
least
That is like saying since someone on a bus shot at you, it's ok to blow up
the bus and kill innocent people.
Yes. That's exactly what we are saying. Since the bus driver/bus company
will not do ANYTHING to stop the shooter. It is currently too profitable
for the Bus company to keep people
We need to go after the ISP companies that allow them to do it. That is the
only logical way to stop it. If they move it to other countries, block that
country until they also submit. If they are unable to do legitimate
international trade and communications via email, they will be forced to
adopt
That was funny, thanks for the smile :) I sincerely don't wish them any
misfortune or bad luck. However I think what goes around comes around and
they are in for a reality check by their own hand. But who knows what the
future will bring?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That is like saying since someone on a bus shot at you, it's ok to blow up
the bus and kill innocent people.
We aren't talking about murder or any kind of bodily, personal violence. We
talking about a DDoS of a stupid machine. Please try to see the difference.
Web sites are normally on shared
On Wednesday, December 1, 2004, 4:19:25 PM, Darin wrote:
DC Probably a superposition of the late early states...impossible to
DC determine until we wake up and observe it.
Seems that the wave function enveloping the meaning of Don't get into quantum
physics has been collapsed and we were lucky.
On Wednesday, December 1, 2004, 5:50:13 PM, Ted wrote:
TG The legal system hasn't been able to stop murderers, rapists and drug
TG dealers either. But does this mean we start punishing all citizens so we
TG will be sure to get the ones that are doing the crimes? Absolutely not, we
TG just need to
will be sure to get the ones that are doing the crimes? Absolutely not, we
just need to have a better plan that what Lycos is doing. They need to at
least notify the web hosting company they plan to attack and give them a
chance to make things right before they do it!
Why do you assume the DDoS
At 03:46 PM 12/1/2004, you wrote:
That is like saying since someone on a bus shot at you, it's ok to blow up
the bus and kill innocent people.
Your analogy is entirely wrong. The better comparison to what Lycos is
trying to do would be to force the bus to drive very slowly until the bus
driver
I agree and will try to stop commenting on this :) What we have here is a
difference of opinion. What the pro Lycos supporters are doing is much like
the KKK mentality. Narrow minded thinking with misguided thoughts about the
logical carriage of justice. This whole thread is starting to get
will be sure to get the ones that are doing the crimes? Absolutely not, we
just need to have a better plan that what Lycos is doing. They need to at
least notify the web hosting company they plan to attack and give them a
chance to make things right before they do it!
If Lycos was seeking to DoS
Can anybody actually get to this (www.makelovenotspam.com) website anymore?
According to some people on slashdot,
http://it.slashdot.org/it/04/12/01/0250244.shtml?tid=111tid=218
it has been down since last night, and I haven't been able to hit it or get
the screensaver to connect since yesterday.
On Wednesday, December 1, 2004, 6:05:05 PM, Dave wrote:
DR At 03:46 PM 12/1/2004, you wrote:
That is like saying since someone on a bus shot at you, it's ok to blow up
the bus and kill innocent people.
DR Your analogy is entirely wrong. The better comparison to what Lycos is
DR trying to do
Just got this from it:
Yes, attacking spammers is wrong, you know this, you shouldn't be doing it.
Your ip address and request have been logged and will be reported to your ISP
for further action.
Also, note: This machine is not hacked, this page is returned for EVERY
request. Thanks for
At 04:14 PM 12/1/2004, you wrote:
I agree and will try to stop commenting on this :) What we have here is a
difference of opinion. What the pro Lycos supporters are doing is much like
the KKK mentality. Narrow minded thinking with misguided thoughts about the
You sir are an ASS. Yes, we have a
(83.241.136.230) but nolonger. Think they are being ddos'ed or did their
lawyers shut 'em down?
I think as was reported earlier they are being DDoS'd. The spam gangs
certainly control enough zombie machines to flood Lycos's site to death.
To Unsubscribe:
Hi Doug,
It works fine. After following this thread, i played a bit with this site. I
can't believe
it, it's really true, useless and a big nonsense.
Am Donnerstag, 2. Dezember 2004 um 00:24 schrieben Sie:
Can anybody actually get to this
I can get to it just fine.
Kevin
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Doug Traylor
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 3:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Lycos screensaver tackles spam websites
Can anybody actually
If Lycos was seeking to DoS the site to the point of taking it down I
would agree. However, their flooding the site to 85% of it's bandwidth
capacity would certainly get the Admin's attention that you mean business
RIGHT NOW without completely compromising his operations.
There will be wide
At 05:24 PM 12/1/2004, you wrote:
Can anybody actually get to this (www.makelovenotspam.com) website anymore?
According to some people on slashdot,
http://it.slashdot.org/it/04/12/01/0250244.shtml?tid=111tid=218
it has been down since last night, and I haven't been able to hit it or get
the
If the spammers succeed in shutting Lycos down then I fear that few
would join in to help out. If this is their response then I think this
justifies helping Lycos even if it's the wrong thing to do.
Dave Riddle wrote:
(83.241.136.230) but nolonger. Think they are being ddos'ed or did
their
On Wednesday, December 1, 2004, 6:43:20 PM, Len wrote:
snip/
LC Is the reason that people here want to play nice with these
LC criminals/gangs/thieves is that you run a web hosting service yourself and
LC have no way to validate that your customers are strictly legit?
This might be part of it.
Noticed a typo in this. I meant to say the more of us should download
the scr to help Lycos get this off the ground. I don't think we should
let the spammers set a precedant where no one will actively do anything
to really slow them down. Spam is getting out of hand and it's costing
us all.
Now that I think of it this was the best marketing idea of seen in quite
a while!
Bill Foresman wrote:
If the spammers succeed in shutting Lycos down then I fear that few
would join in to help out. If this is their response then I think this
justifies helping Lycos even if it's the wrong thing
Does someone know how to stop loging users loging in and out of the email
server?
The file is called sys%date%.txt in the spool folder and it's
completely useless for me, it's just using CPU time unnecessarily. It
could be useful for troubleshooting purposes, but I don't need this data
in
We monitor our customers religiously to avoid any one customer jeopardizing
service for everyone else. We also turn potential customers down all of the
time because their business would violate our terms of service.
Reports are run every night and inspected every morning to let us know of
any
Well...he said Quantum Physics, but he meant Spacetime... so I figured it
was OK grin
I'm still trying to figure out where you were going with something other
than lefts and rights in more than 2 dimension...
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Pete McNeil [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Darin
Ok, if you are talking about attacking the spammers bus I fully agree. But
attacking a web host without first giving them a chance to boot the
spamvertizer is like attacking a bus driver that didn't know what one of his
passengers was going to do so he couldn't have stopped it. All the other
MIS Dept wrote:
Does someone know how to stop loging users loging in and out of the
email server?
Sure. Change their mail password or delete their mail account. Of
course, at that point the mail server isn't much use. The snippet of
log file you posted is very likely someone's mail program
Hi,
I was wondering if there was anyway to make so Domain admins
can unlock an account that has been suspended by too many password tries. Right
now I have to go into the windows interface and do it.
Ttyl,
Allen Armstrong
I think he wanted to stop the Logging of POP logins, not to stop users from
logging in.
I think in IMail 8 and higher you can set the POP and SMTP traffic for
separate log files, at least then separating the two, but it may require a
reg tweak if IMail was upgraded from 6 or 7.
Or perhaps just
Are there any better looking icons for KWM? The ones that come with it
are pretty weak.
To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
snip
Len Said:
**
Is the reason that people here want to play nice with these
criminals/gangs/thieves is that you run a web hosting service yourself and
have no way to validate that your customers are strictly legit?
Len
**
I run a web hosting service, and I can
Least I know someone is reading these :) Sorry, I didn't mean to yank
anyone's chain and I am really not the other word for a mule as you
indicated. I am an honest hardworking kind of guy.
I was merely making a comparison of where people take the law into their own
hands, which is not right. KKK
A prime example of why this is not a logical approach. Not only are they
flooding Lycos they are flooding every router between them and their target,
along with everyone on their backbone, the same way Lycos was going to do to
them.
We all need to put on our thinking caps and find another
Just out of curiosity.
people take the law into their own hands
Which law would you be referring to?
At 10:14 PM 12/1/2004, you wrote:
Least I know someone is reading these :) Sorry, I didn't mean to yank
anyone's chain and I am really not the other word for a mule as you
indicated. I am an
I run a web hosting service, and I can validate that no spam is being sent
from our servers
Sourcing spam isn't what we're talking about.
Are you sure none of your customers are running phishing operations?
selling counterfeit viagra/cialis? counterfeit rolex watches? hosting
warez or selling
A prime example of why this is not a logical approach. Not only are they
flooding Lycos they are flooding every router between them and their target,
along with everyone on their backbone, the same way Lycos was going to do to
them.
wrong. It doesn't take very much to shut down an HTTP service
There are laws against spammers, Lycos and anyone that helps them is being
judge, jury and hangman. That is all I meant.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 8:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE:
On the contrary, we do police our own servers as much as we can and view
every site often. We even scan our servers for compressed files to verify
out clients are not offering pirated software for downloads and more. We do
everything we can to run a clean legitimate business. So far we've had two
97 matches
Mail list logo
