-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Heimir Eidskrem
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 7:16 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Disk pattern 0xDF in
files -> Microsoft confirms KB920958 bug!
Andy,
Not sure if you saw it but this issue was brought up on
Slashdot yesterday, so it got some exposure.
Heimir
Andy Schmidt wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I finally was able to get a confirmation from Microsoft Support
> yesterday afternoon (case: SRZ060911001854)
>
> "We are aware the issue you are experiencing. A
corresponding bugcheck
> request is currently open, and the develop team is working
on this issue.
> However, the hotfix for this issue is not ready.
>
> 0xDF is the data pattern that NTFS returns when it has problem to
> decompress the file (eg. the compression fragments are
corrupted and
> can't be decompressed). Based on my research, the actual
raw data on
> the disk is not changed, it shows as 0xDF because the system cannot
> decompress the file and display the data correctly. So the
corrupt is not permanent.
>
> Further more, the issue only occurs on files which containing
> Hexadecimal codes."
>
> Apparently, Microsoft decided not to warn people about this
problem -
> no comment has been added to KF920958 warning people which system
> configurations will cause data loss (who cares if it's not
permanent
> if you can't use your data for a few months).
>
> Best Regards
> Andy Schmidt
>
> Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business)
> Fax: +1 201 934-9206
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Heimir Eidskrem
> Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 03:21 PM
> To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
> Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Disk pattern 0xDF in files ->
> KB920958 may be bad!
>
> Answers below.
>
> Andy Schmidt wrote:
>
>> Hi Heimir:
>>
>> I've been running a number of tests, am in contact with a third
>> Microsoft customer and some pattern seems to emerge. I also have a
>> "lead" to a questionable Hotfix, but I'm trying to qualify
that first.
>>
>> Can we first compare your systems to see what's the same
(and may be
>> relevant) and what's different:
>>
>> A) Disks are defined as "dynamic"
>>
>>
> Dynamic
>
>> B) Disks are software mirrored using Win2k Disk Administration
>>
>>
> no
>
>> C) The folders with the "problem" files have the "compression"
>> attribute set!
>>
>>
> yes.
>
>> D) Did the problem occur at some point after KB920958 was
installed?
>>
>>
> yes, I think so.
>
>> E) Do the corrupted files have a content of all 0xDF (it looks a
>> little like an uppercase "B", the German special "s", or like the
>> Beta
>> character)
>>
>>
> Yes
>
>> F) Does it appear as if only NEW files are effected?
>>
>>
> no, old files as well. BUT I think defrag ran this weekend and that
> would have moved some files - if that matters.
>
>> G) Does it appear as if only files are effected that are
close to a
>> multiple of 4K?
>>
>>
> Yes.
>
>> I broke the mirrors on my effected two servers and ran
ChkDsk /F. On
>> one server, ONE disk ChkDsk reported errors (including the
files that
>> I knew were corrupted) - virtually all of them were image
file types.
>> I reran the ChkDsk and it did NOT find errors. I then tried the
>> second disk of the mirror and it found no errors at all. I then
>> restablished the mirrors and my client continues to have
problems with new files.
>>
>> On the second server, I broke the mirror, again, the ChcDsk /F
>> repaired a long list of errors. I did NOT reestablish the
mirror and
>> did not put that disk back in service.
>>
>>
>> Please contribute to the thread in the Microsoft newsgroup:
>>
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/newsgroups/dgbrowser/en-us
>> /
>> defaul
>>
t.mspx?dg=microsoft.public.win2000.file_system&mid=d826afe9-2ab1-4b2f
>> -
>> ae11-c
>> c27702f574a
>>
>> Best Regards
>> Andy Schmidt
>>
>> Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business)
>> Fax: +1 201 934-9206
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of
>> Heimir Eidskrem
>> Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:29 PM
>> To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
>> Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Disk pattern 0xDF in files
>>
>> Follow up:
>> During the day I did run chkdks with no switch to check the hard
>> drive, it reported errors and could not continue. Last night I did
>> run chkdsk /f on the partition and it did not find any
errors this time.
>>
>> i did process a few thumbnails and they worked fine at
12:30am today.
>> At 8:00am they still worked but now 11:27 they dont. This was old
>> photos that I did reprocess again. A couple of new photos that was
>> uploaded yesterday and processed yesterday is still working fine.
>>
>> I can't make much sense out of this. Not sure what to next.
>> I dont think its hardware and I am certain its not our software.
>> So that leaves OS.
>>
>>
>> Heimir Eidskrem wrote:
>>
>>
>>> we are having the exact problem on one of our servers.
>>> We create small thumbnail pictures about 4k in size.
>>> They work fine at first but later they are corrupted.
>>>
>>> Windows 2000 server.
>>>
>>> I have no clue what it could be at this time.
>>> It started around this weekend I think.
>>>
>>> Please keep me posted if you find something.
>>>
>>> H.
>>>
>>>
>>> Andy Schmidt wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I have two older servers (but not same models or same purchase
>>>> years) running Windows 2000 with mirrored disks
(software Raid-1).
>>>>
>>>> Two days ago a customer noticed that they uploaded files
to their
>>>> FTP space, and initially they see the files on the
browser - but a
>>>> while later the data is corrupted.
>>>>
>>>> I investigated - and oddly enough the problem so far
always seems
>>>> to appear with small thumbnail graphics files that
occupy less than
>>>> 4095 bytes.
>>>> When I
>>>> inspect the files I may see the "correct" data through a
share, but
>>>> if I access the files through some other method, I
always see the
>>>> byte pattern of 0xDF.
>>>>
>>>> I ran a standalone checkdisk a day ago against the first server,
>>>> sure enough, it reported and fixed several problems "Windows
>>>> replaced bad clusters in file xxxx". But, the problem
recurred the
>>>> next
>>>>
> day.
>
>>>> Now, my first instinct was that ONE of the two mirrored
disks was
>>>> truly on its way out and depending on which drive was
being used to
>>>> read the data it would either get good or bad data.
>>>>
>>>> However, a day later a second customer had the same
complaint but
>>>> on an entirely different machine. In this case, the error occurs
>>>> with a set of relatively new SCSI drives (not even a year old).
>>>>
>>>> So now that I'm looking at two totally different server models,
>>>> from entirely different years, one with fairly new disks
- what are
>>>> the chances that the SAME problem and symptom would show at the
>>>> same time. Both on software mirrored disks, in both cases files
>>>> that are less than 4 MB large.
>>>>
>>>> Now I'm wondering if this is some "software" issue.
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards
>>>> Andy Schmidt
>>>>
>>>> Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business)
>>>> Fax: +1 201 934-9206
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of
>>>> David Barker
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 03:53 PM
>>>> To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
>>>> Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Trying to install Declude 3.1.20
>>>> anew
>>>>
>>>> When the decludeproc services start under your windows
services and
>>>> the first email is processed. A file call diags.txt is
created in
>>>> your \Declude directory.
>>>> This should contain the version and diagnostics. The
valid options
>>>> on decludeproc from the cmd prompt are:
>>>>
>>>> Decludeproc -v displays the version and build
>>>>
>>>> Decludeproc -i installs the decludeproc service
>>>>
>>>> Decludeproc -u uninstalls the decludeproc service
>>>>
>>>> David B
>>>> www.declude.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of
>>>> Andy Schmidt
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 3:43 PM
>>>> To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
>>>> Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Trying to install Declude 3.1.20
>>>> anew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dave -
>>>> That's what I call catch 22:
>>>>
>>>> D:\IMail>decludeproc -diag
>>>> Invalid command line parameter:
>>>> -install Install Declude
>>>> -diag Print diagnostics
>>>>
>>>> Hm - so let's see, after "-install", I used "-diag" to
figure out
>>>> what's wrong. But, "-diag" is invalid. The ony valid
parameters are...
>>>> "-install"
>>>> and "-diag"?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards
>>>> Andy Schmidt
>>>>
>>>> Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business)
>>>> Fax: +1 201 934-9206
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of
>>>> Andy Schmidt
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 03:09 PM
>>>> To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
>>>> Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Trying to install Declude 3.1.20
>>>> anew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Dave,
>>>>
>>>> thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Next question:
>>>>
>>>> I noticed that your Virus.CFG is missing two options
from Version 2:
>>>>
>>>> AUTOFORGE ON
>>>>
>>>> BANEZIPEXTS ON
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If I recall correctly, the idea was that:
>>>> BANZIPEXTS OFF
>>>> # BANEXT EZIP
>>>> BANEZIPEXTS ON
>>>>
>>>> would PERMIT banned extensions inside zipped files (where they
>>>> could be scanned), but DENY banned extensions if they were
>>>> contained inside encrypted zipped files.
>>>>
>>>> Where those options forgotten in your config file - or
are they no
>>>> longer available in Version 3?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards
>>>> Andy Schmidt
>>>>
>>>> Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business)
>>>> Fax: +1 201 934-9206
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of
>>>> David Barker
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 02:43 PM
>>>> To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
>>>> Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Trying to install Declude 3.1.20
>>>> anew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Program Files\Declude is a temp directory that can
be deleted
>>>> after the install. The original purpose of this directory was to
>>>> make available the latest configs as we do not overwrite your
>>>> configs. This has since been removed in version 4.x
where you will
>>>> find a \Declude\Resources directory which has the same purpose.
>>>>
>>>> David B
>>>> www.declude.com
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of
>>>> Andy Schmidt
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 2:36 PM
>>>> To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
>>>> Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Trying to install Declude 3.1.20 anew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I'm trying to set up a server from scratch and thus
downloaded and ran:
>>>>
>>>> Declude_IM_N310.exe
>>>>
>>>> and chose the option to let it do its install (rather than the
>>>> option for "experienced" admins). PS - that screen has a typo!
>>>>
>>>> The setup created a
>>>> C:\Program Files\Declude
>>>> folder that contains just the 5 config files it also created the
>>>> SAME files
>>>> in:
>>>>
>>>> D:\Imail\Declude
>>>>
>>>> together with binaries and the various other Declude files.
>>>>
>>>> I'm at loss!
>>>> Which location is the "right" one for the config files (I'm
>>>> assuming the D:\Imail\Declude)?
>>>>
>>>> What's the point of creating a "dummy" Folder in the C:\Program
>>>> Files\ that contains no programs and that contains files
that are
>>>> not being used at all (assuming that being the case)?
>>>>
>>>> Should I be deleting this Program Files folder to avoid
confusion
>>>> when someone else maintains this server?
>>>>
>>>> Come on, the cold war has been over since Reagan - are we still
>>>> trying to confuse the Russians?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards
>>>> Andy Schmidt
>>>>
>>>> Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business)
>>>> Fax: +1 201 934-9206
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 03:25 PM
>>>> To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Experience with 4.x
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Andrew,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your notes and their history.
>>>>
>>>> I'm using the following settings right now:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> THREADS 30
>>>> WAITFORMAIL 500
>>>> WAITFORTHREADS 200
>>>> WAITBETWEENTHREADS 100
>>>> WINSOCKCLEANUP OFF
>>>> INVITEFIX ON
>>>> AUTOREVIEW ON
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are a few reasons for trying these values.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> THREADS 30 - I'm pretty confident that dual 3.2 Ghz
Xeons and
>>>> RAID can only handle 30 threads with average messages.
In reality,
>>>> one single message can spike the system to 100%, but these are
>>>> uncommon. I figure that if I open this up too wide and I am
>>>> dealing with a backup or something, launching more
threads when at
>>>> 100% CPU utilization will actually slow the system down.
This was
>>>> the same with 2.x and before. There is added overhead
to managing
>>>> threads and you don't want that to happen on top of 100% CPU
>>>> utilization. I am going to back up my server later
tonight to see
>>>> if I can't find what the magic number is since I don't
want to be
>>>> below that magic number, and it would probably be best to be a
>>>> little above it.
>>>>
>>>> WAITFORMAIL 500 - On my server, this never kicks in,
but if it
>>>> did, it wouldn't make sense to delay for too long
because I could
>>>> build up messages. A half second seems good.
>>>>
>>>> WAITFORTHREADS 200 - This apparently kicks in only
when I reach
>>>> my thread limit; sort of like a throttle. I don't want it to be
>>>> too long because this should only happen when I am
hammered, but it
>>>> is wise not to keep hammering when you are at 100%. Sort of a
>>>> mixed bag choice here.
>>>>
>>>> WAITBETWEENTHREADS 100 - I see this setting as being the
>>>> biggest issue with sizing a server. Setting it at 100 ms means
>>>> that I can only handle 10 messages per second, and this
establishes
>>>> an upper limit for what
>>>> the server can do. I currently average about 5
messages per second
>>>> coming
>>>> from my gateways at peak hours, so I figured that to be safe, I
>>>> should double that value.
>>>>
>>>> INVITEFIX ON - I have it on because it comes on by
default and
>>>> I don't know any better. I know nothing about the cause for
>>>> needing this outside of brief comments. It seems
strange that my
>>>> Declude setup could ruin an invitation unless I was
using footers.
>>>> If this is only triggered by footer use, I would like to know so
>>>> that I could turn it off. I would imagine that this
causes extra
>>>> load to do the check.
>>>>
>>>> AUTOREVIEW ON - I have this on for the same reason
that Andrew
>>>> pointed out. When I restart Decludeproc, messages land in my
>>>> review folder, and I don't wish to keep manually fishing things
>>>> out. If there is an issue with looping, it would be wise for
>>>> Declude to make this only trigger say every 15 minutes
instead of
>>>> more regularly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Feel free to add to this if you want.
>>>>
>>>> Matt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Colbeck, Andrew wrote:
>>>> I'd second that... on both the observed behaviour and the
>>>> request for documentation.
>>>> I'm attaching my highly commented declude.cfg as a
>>>> reasonable sample.
>>>> Andrew 8)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 10:36 AM
>>>> To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Experience with 4.x
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David,
>>>>
>>>> That did the trick. I can't even see any messages in my
>>>> proc folder any more. I might suggest adding your
explanation to
>>>> the comments in the file just in case others feel the
need to turn
>>>> this on like I did. I recalled the issues from the list and I
>>>> turned it on because I didn't want the possibility of
DNS crapping
>>>> out and the leakage that this would cause.
>>>>
>>>> Here's a screen cap of what my processor graph looks like
>>>> now:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Matt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David Barker wrote:
>>>> The purpose of WINSOCKCLEANUP ON is to reset
>>>> the winsock, what
>>>> happens when using this setting is that when
the \proc
>>>> directory hit 0
>>>> decludeproc will finish processing all the
messages in
>>>> the \work before
>>>> checking the \proc again. As WINSOCKCLEANUP is to be
>>>> used only by those who
>>>> experience DNS issues I would suggest running your
>>>> tests again with
>>>> WINSOCKCLEANUP commented out and see how the
behavior
>>>> differs. Also having
>>>> the WAITFORMAIL to low can cause the CPU to process
>>>> very high as it is
>>>> constantly checking the \proc I would
suggest a minimum
>>>> of 500-1000
>>>>
>>>> David B
>>>> www.declude.com
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
>>>> Of Matt
>>>> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 8:12 PM
>>>> To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Experience with 4.x
>>>>
>>>> Darrell,
>>>>
>>>> I put up two Windows Explorer windows side-by-side
>>>> under normal volume and the pattern was
consistent where
>>>> the proc folder
>>>> grows while the work folder shrinks until
the work folder
>>>> hits zero
>>>> at which point the proc folder empties out
and everything
>>>> lands in work
>>>> and then the pattern repeats with proc
growing while work
>>>> shrinks.
>>>>
>>>> My settings are as follows:
>>>>
>>>> THREADS 50
>>>> WAITFORMAIL 100
>>>> WAITFORTHREADS 10
>>>> WAITBETWEENTHREADS 50
>>>> WINSOCKCLEANUP ON
>>>> AUTOREVIEW ON
>>>> INVITEFIX ON
>>>>
>>>> Matt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Darrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's a faulty design that leaves
>>>> more than half a server's CPU
capacity unused due
>>>> to the mere fact
>>>> that they wait for all threads to
complete before
>>>> moving in a new
>>>> batch.
>>>>
>>>> I can't speak to what you see on your
>>>> server, but that is not how it is running on my
>>>> server. I just double
>>>> checked again to make sure I am not
crazy, but as I
>>>> watch the thread
>>>> count on my server (decludeproc) the threads
>>>> fluctuate between
>>>> 7 - 30 ( threads currently set to 50).
It is not
>>>> uncommon to see the
>>>> threads move as follow:
11,8,10,7,15,.... While I
>>>> was watching it I
>>>> never seen a case where it went down low
enough for
>>>> the WAITFORMAIL
>>>> setting to kick in. Watching the
proc/work directory
>>>> you can see
>>>> files moving in and out, but never
really emptying
>>>> out. Its possible
>>>> what I am seeing is an anomaly or maybe I am
>>>> interpreting it wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe David can comment on this.
>>>>
>>>> Darrell
>>>>
>>>>
--------------------------------------------------------------
----------
>>>> invURIBL - Intelligent URI filtering plug-in
>>>> for Declude, mxGuard, and ORF. Stop spam at the
>>>> source the
>>>> spamvertised domain. More effective
than traditional
>>>> RBL's. Try it today -
>>>> http://www.invariantsystems.com
>>>> ---
>>>> This E-mail came from the
Declude.JunkMail mailing
>>>> list. To
>>>> unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
>>>> type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail".
The archives
>>>> can be found
>>>> at http://www.mail-archive.com.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing
>>>> list. To
>>>> unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
>>>> type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The
archives can
>>>> be found
>>>> at http://www.mail-archive.com.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing
>>>> list. To
>>>> unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
>>>> type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The
archives can
>>>> be found
>>>> at http://www.mail-archive.com.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
>>>> unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED], and type
>>>> "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at
>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
>>>> unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED], and type
>>>> "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at
>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
>>>> unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED], and type
>>>> "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at
>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
>>>> unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED], and type
>>>> "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at
>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
>>>> unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED], and type
>>>> "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at
>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
>>>> unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED], and type
>>>> "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at
>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ---
>>> This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
>>> unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
and type
>>> "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at
>>> http://www.mail-archive.com.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---
>> This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
>> unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type
>> "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at
>> http://www.mail-archive.com.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
>> unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type
>> "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at
>> http://www.mail-archive.com.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ---
> This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
> unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type
> "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at
> http://www.mail-archive.com.
>
>
>
>
> ---
> This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
> unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type
> "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at
> http://www.mail-archive.com.
>
>
>
>
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be
found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
