[discuss] Keep getting error: "personal settings are locked"
Every time I boot my machine and then start OpenOffice.org, I get an error message: "Either another instance of OpenOffice.org is accessing your personal settings or your personal settings are locked. [...] Do you really want to continue?" I didn't have this before. It started somewhere around my upgrade to 2.0.3, I think. But this may be unrelated. My configuration: - Windows 2000 Pro (English) - OpenOffice.org 2.0.3 (English) - My "My Documents" folder is on a network share and made available offline Any suggestions? Regards, Ernst - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Keep getting error: "personal settings are locked"
Ernst, Ernst de Haan wrote: Every time I boot my machine and then start OpenOffice.org, I get an error message: "Either another instance of OpenOffice.org is accessing your personal settings or your personal settings are locked. [...] Do you really want to continue?" I didn't have this before. It started somewhere around my upgrade to 2.0.3, I think. But this may be unrelated. My configuration: - Windows 2000 Pro (English) - OpenOffice.org 2.0.3 (English) - My "My Documents" folder is on a network share and made available offline Any suggestions? if I understand correctly, this message keeps popping up, with every start of OOo?! OOo checks for a running instance by looking for a .lock file in the user preferences (~/.openoffice.org2/user/) directory. You may want to look if such a file exists and why it can not be replaced. Regards, Hope that helps Ernst Kay - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Keep getting error: "personal settings are locked"
if I understand correctly, this message keeps popping up, with every start of OOo?! No, with every boot. And at boot time, OOo automatically starts the quickstarter. And then I get the error message. OOo checks for a running instance by looking for a .lock file in the user preferences (~/.openoffice.org2/user/) directory. You may want to look if such a file exists and why it can not be replaced. I found it at: C:\Documents and Settings\ernstdh\Application Data\OpenOffice.org2 Indeed there is a .lock file there. Note that this file is not shared, it's a local file on my machine. Perhaps OOo starts up twice during boot. Anyway, I'll see if I can find anything out when I reboot. Thanks for the help! Regards, Ernst - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Keep getting error: "personal settings are locked"
Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg wrote: Ernst, Ernst de Haan wrote: Every time I boot my machine and then start OpenOffice.org, I get an error message: "Either another instance of OpenOffice.org is accessing your personal settings or your personal settings are locked. [...] Do you really want to continue?" I didn't have this before. It started somewhere around my upgrade to 2.0.3, I think. But this may be unrelated. My configuration: - Windows 2000 Pro (English) - OpenOffice.org 2.0.3 (English) - My "My Documents" folder is on a network share and made available offline Any suggestions? if I understand correctly, this message keeps popping up, with every start of OOo?! OOo checks for a running instance by looking for a .lock file in the user preferences (~/.openoffice.org2/user/) directory. You may want to look if such a file exists and why it can not be replaced. There exists a bug inside OOo 2.0.3 regarding this lock file. Normaly it's removed on closing OOo. So next start of an office does not show this message. But if you dont close the office but logout from e.g. windows these lock files inst removed successfully. So you will get this message on next time you start the office. Workaround: Please shutdown the officer (even the quickstart module) before you logout from windows ... or ignore this message even it cames up .-) Because if you know that there is only one office instance running this message box means nothing dangerous. Regards, Hope that helps Ernst Kay - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards Andreas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Keep getting error: "personal settings are locked"
Andreas, There exists a bug inside OOo 2.0.3 regarding this lock file. Normaly it's removed on closing OOo. So next start of an office does not show this message. But if you dont close the office but logout from e.g. windows these lock files inst removed successfully. So you will get this message on next time you start the office. That really helps. That sounds exactly like my problem. Thanks a lot! Ernst - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Using OO with screen magnifier
Hi, Jens Gierke wrote: Hi! First of all I've to say that my English is not the best but I hope you will understand what I want to say^^ no problem, You know there is a german user list, too, at http://de.openoffice.org/ ? Because of a visually impairment I have to use a screen magnifier (ZoomText or Magic). These programs have a useful feature: when you're writing a document, the screen magnifier follows the cursor, at least in MS Word this works. I really miss this feature in OO because working is so very difficult for me. So my question: Would it be possible to integrate something like this into the next versions of OO? It really would make work easier for lots of visually handicapped people. this is already possible. Open Online Help, enter "accessibility" as index entry, double click the link about "assistive technology" to find the requirements and specifications. In short, you need to install Java Runtime Environment and the Java Access Bridge software, then you can use Zoomtext 7.11 or later. See also the OpenOffice.org Help Tips and Tricks blog at http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/oootnt?entry=accessibility_can_help_everyone Regards Uwe -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Technical Writer StarOffice - Sun Microsystems, Inc. - Hamburg, Germany http://www.sun.com/staroffice http://documentation.openoffice.org/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Free viewer for OpenDocument, TextMaker, Microsoft Word, and RTF
On 7/19/06, André Wyrwa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: But "microsoftoffice.com" is not "officesuites.com". That's the difference that makes it dodgy to me. I still don't see the difference, but you can see things as dodgy that you want to see as dodgy, as you said. So it's generic. So what? His viewer will view 5 formats that cover most of the major office suites, so what's wrong with calling it an office viewer? I mean, you throw a PDF viewer and a WP viewer on there, and you got your bases covered. Although, maybe "Word Processor viewer" may be more appropriate, since he didn't mention spreadsheets, emails, presentations, or databases. -- - Chad Smith http://www.gimpshop.net/ http://www.whatisopenoffice.org/ http://www.chadwsmith.com/
Re: [discuss] Anonymizing documents for QA & bug reporting
Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Is there a way to take an OO.o doc, get all letters replaced with X or x, > metadata stripped, embedded images replaced by blanks with the same sizes, > and every other names (variables, bookmarks, fields, references, > color/style names) anonymized? Replacing the text should be easy, also stripping the metadata. Replacing the images might be a bit harder, perhaps creating an empty image or metafile of the same size and replacing the embedded one is possible through direct file access. Another approach is replacing embedded images by links (to anywhere). I assume that the document should behave as before even with the broken links. The problem is: what else needs to be exchanged, what is really necessary and what's just paranoia? So we need a complete list and we need to dicuss what needs to be on it. As an example, why do you mean that color and style names need to be replaced? > As most bugs happen on complex documents, most complex documents are > created in corp-space and corporations don't like disseminating internal > info for debugging purposes I suppose I'm far from the only one with > knowledge of bugs but no way to report them. Yes, I totally agree. We could get much more (and better) bug documents and of course that would be fine. I thought about such a macro by myself some time ago but I just didn't have the time to write one. If we assembled a list together perhaps someone familiar with macros could do the job. It would be a very valuable contribution as it would help to improve the quality of OOo. Best regards, Mathias -- Mathias Bauer - OpenOffice.org Application Framework Project Lead Please reply to the list only, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a spam sink. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Anonymizing documents for QA & bug reporting
Mathias Bauer wrote: Nicolas Mailhot wrote: As most bugs happen on complex documents, most complex documents are created in corp-space and corporations don't like disseminating internal info for debugging purposes I suppose I'm far from the only one with knowledge of bugs but no way to report them. Yes, I totally agree. We could get much more (and better) bug documents and of course that would be fine. I thought about such a macro by myself some time ago but I just didn't have the time to write one. If we assembled a list together perhaps someone familiar with macros could do the job. It would be a very valuable contribution as it would help to improve the quality of OOo. Best regards, Mathias There is also the issue of better documents if there is a limit on file sizes that can be uploaded. If you have a complicated document that is over 1M, you cannot upload it (at least according to the issue page). You may have to remove some aspect of the document that fixes the bug or makes it harder to trace. I have run into this already. -- Robin Laing - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Anonymizing documents for QA & bug reporting
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 11:41:16 AM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Hi, > > I have several complex corp documents which make OO.o go crazy one > way or another. I'd like to report the bugs to get them fixed, but > OO.o devs will just ignore me without test documents and there's no > way I'll post internal company info in the wild. [...] hmmm... This same discussion happened here 2/3 years ago. I already pointed out, back then, that I had had to give up OO.o on the job because it would *not* exchange complex documents (patent applications, scientific papers...) with MS Office in any acceptable way, AND that I could not submit confidential company docs as test documents. > Is there a way to take an OO.o doc, get [everything]... anonymized? Afraid not, because basically it's not a technical problem. > corporations don't like disseminating internal info for debugging > purposes Exactly. The real problem is legal. In those same corporations, you are going to be fired or (badly) reported to your manager if you: * install and use any unhautorized software on company hardware * send out any company file, scrambled or not, without a reason related to your official assignment or job description * spend company time doing anything not related to your official etc.. * bring company files at home _not_ for work reasons, to "play" with them with unknown sw on a home PC which could contain trojans releasing the files on the net * etc Unless, of course, one managed to get an official company policy which authorizes and handles how employees can support for free, during work hours, some unused sw, after the same corporation outsorced all aspects of IT to 3rd parties since it's not "core business" The existence of an anonymizing macro wouldn't change this a bit: it just cannot be used in many workplaces, period, unless one goes through way more trouble and _risks_ than any potential benefit. Assuming, of course, that such a macro would be actually useful and usable: Submitter: "see, OO.o screws up the placement of all integral simbols in the equation on page 5" Developer: "which of these scrambled characters was the integral?" Answer A: "Gee, I can't figure it out anymorein this mess" Answer B: "Er, it's lowercase Z. Which has a completely different size and shape, so it causes different effects..." That's why, I believe, it wasn't written then and won't be written (or used) yet for another while. Which is a pity, I agree. For the record, back then I concluded suggesting that, rather than waiting until complex corporate files can be submitted, it could be much more effective if the filter developers stopped waiting for user input but: * systematically searched online *published* patent applications, research papers and so on * opened them in OpenOffice * patched it until the files look good. I don't know if this has ever been attempted at any scale. Luckily, in another year or two it will be Microsoft which will have to be able to render OpenDocument correctly, not the other way around. Then, at least for new documents, it won't be an OO.o problem anymore. Ciao, Marco -- Marco Fiorettimfioretti, at the server mclink.it Fedora Core 5 for low memory http://www.rule-project.org/ [Free SW should] give people with old computers the possibility of a modern system... Ubuntu's motto is Linux for Human Beings - but Human Beings mostly don`t have western incomes. adapted from a request on the "Ubuntu Lite" mailing list - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Anonymizing documents for QA & bug reporting
Le jeudi 20 juillet 2006 à 09:54 +0200, Mathias Bauer a écrit : > Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > > Is there a way to take an OO.o doc, get all letters replaced with X or x, > > metadata stripped, embedded images replaced by blanks with the same sizes, > > and every other names (variables, bookmarks, fields, references, > > color/style names) anonymized? > > Replacing the text should be easy, also stripping the metadata. > Replacing the images might be a bit harder, perhaps creating an empty > image or metafile of the same size and replacing the embedded one is > possible through direct file access. Another approach is replacing > embedded images by links (to anywhere). You need to replace images by blank images of the same size or you'll hide pagination bugs linked to image size (not a theorical concern - one of those things is why I initially wrote this) Also a 2-color black or white png compresses well, so that would help documents fall under the upload size limit. > I assume that the document > should behave as before even with the broken links. I fear in many times the pagination would change > The problem is: what else needs to be exchanged, what is really > necessary and what's just paranoia? > > So we need a complete list and we need to dicuss what needs to be on it. > As an example, why do you mean that color and style names need to be > replaced? because humans will choose descriptive names which may include company name, and paranoïd users won't upload documents which may link them to a particular employer (see the Sun foo colors in the default palette) > > As most bugs happen on complex documents, most complex documents are > > created in corp-space and corporations don't like disseminating internal > > info for debugging purposes I suppose I'm far from the only one with > > knowledge of bugs but no way to report them. > > Yes, I totally agree. We could get much more (and better) bug documents > and of course that would be fine. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: [discuss] Anonymizing documents for QA & bug reporting
M. Fioretti wrote: On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 11:41:16 AM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Hi, I have several complex corp documents which make OO.o go crazy one way or another. I'd like to report the bugs to get them fixed, but OO.o devs will just ignore me without test documents and there's no way I'll post internal company info in the wild. [...] hmmm... This same discussion happened here 2/3 years ago. I already pointed out, back then, that I had had to give up OO.o on the job because it would *not* exchange complex documents (patent applications, scientific papers...) with MS Office in any acceptable way, AND that I could not submit confidential company docs as test documents. Luckily, in another year or two it will be Microsoft which will have to be able to render OpenDocument correctly, not the other way around. Then, at least for new documents, it won't be an OO.o problem anymore. Ciao, Marco Well stated. This is the issue I have run into a few times. I manually changed the document to ensure it was clean. In some cases, I have created test documents to upload as I did yesterday. The legal issues are a major show stopper. With employee's even getting fired for making a post on a blog, it would be allot worse if you released company documents. There is one benefit to making the changes manually. You may find the part of the document that is causing the problem. I hate to bring up an old thread of Reveal Codes (issue 3395) like feature, but this is one place that they may actually be useful to a user. There can be some pretty awful formatting practices that could just create the problem. -- Robin Laing - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Anonymizing documents for QA & bug reporting
Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Le jeudi 20 juillet 2006 à 12:59 -0600, Robin Laing a écrit : There is one benefit to making the changes manually. You may find the part of the document that is causing the problem. And then 90% of testers won't finish the gruelling anonymizing work, the problem won't be reported, probably not fixed, and another user will restart the cycle months later You won't get any complaint from me on this. I have been stuck in the same situation myself. Lack of time or "I will do that later" and later just doesn't come. But even an anonymizer won't solve the situation if it corrupts the data and formatting enough to make it useless. Or the user still has to go through the document. This is a headache that I don't see any easy way out of. :( -- Robin Laing - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Anonymizing documents for QA & bug reporting
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 20:39:38 PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > For once we disagree No problem, it happens to outstanding minds :-) With respect to your remark that theory is greatly different from practice and that: > So as long as you don't get caught and don't crash your computer, > everyone is happy. I am perfectly aware that this is how things go in practice in mine, yours and most other workplaces. Two facts remain: 1) if you get caught downloading music or other, er, non business-oriented material, you can at least _try_ to say "everybody else in the office is doing it, can you fire/punish everybody?" Ditto for installing and running, say, computer games on the office PC. Both things _look_ (in PHBs perception, that is) much more independent, ie less bad, from dangers to company information than running a macro just on those files. 2) so far, nobody has ever tried to wrote this macro and, unlike reveal codes, ooo startup time, "please integrate an email client/calendar/coffee pot" and similar, _this_ particular issue pops up just once every 2/3 years... both facts seem to prove that yes, you are right, but in practice almost nobody wants to "bother" running this particular macro rather than OOO as is or mp3 players and so on, because he either doesn't imagine the possibility at all or reasons as I wrote in my earlier message. > > The existence of an anonymizing macro wouldn't change this a bit: > > it just cannot be used in many workplaces, period, unless one goes > > through way more trouble and _risks_ than any potential benefit. > > The potential benefit of course is you can report problems and get > them in a reasonable time here's another trap. _Whose_ potential benefit? Remember that here we are talking of big corporations (which often just outsorce IT and sw choices to 3rd parties, these days, so local offices CANNOT change anything). In a smaaall business it's very different, but what is the benefit for an employee of a big company to run such a macro? Bonuses? Career advances? FOSS and making the world a better place? The first two are just slightly more likely than a return of the dinosaurs. The third... can be accomplished much more effectively helping to install and support OO.o in the local schools, for example. Printing an OO.o manual for your kids school with the company printer or sending anonymized company files to OO.o developers are both illegal or forbidden. Given this, I'll bet that most pro-FOSS white collars will prefer to do the first in their lunch break. That, and the possibility for the developers to test themselves the tons of .doc files _already_ online, are why I and, I guess, most other users who have this problem simply end up _not_ wishing or bothering for anonymizer macros. Oh, and another reason why such a macro hasn't been developed yet and would probably remain irrelevant is the fact that the bug reporting interfaces at oo.o (and mozilla, evolution, whatever) are done and worded for developers in the first place, that is pretty scaring or confusing for end users. Notice how many people report a bug on the list and disappear when asked (rightly!) to file them in the bug tracking system... I'm not happy about it, but I'm pretty sure that things stand this way. Should I be wrong, great, all the better for OO.o. > The sad fact is there are so many problems independant of the actual > text written in the docs even if the macro wouldn't work every time, > it'd still catch a lot of things. You're right here. > I'm a user. I only provide user input. If I don't have the means to > do it safely, I won't. Same here. I just pointed out that probably for many people "safely" means "if they catch me sending out a company file, they'll eat my ass, without even checking if it had been anonymized, so why bother?" > (and since if I can't report problems I hit > easily there is a low > chance they'll get fixed, I might as well stop using OO.o) I agree. This exactly what I was forced to do in many occasions at my job. > The problem BTW is not limited to end-users. Before a corporation > decides to deploy OO.o, it needs a way for its support staff to > report bugs upstream safely. Absolutely right. My corporation, however, like many others, doesn't decide to deploy anything. We lease PCs and other HW with preinstalled sw through a company-level deal between us and a service company. In such a scenario (dealing not will your boss, but with external drones which will send _official_ reports, complaints and other papers to your boss's boss if they have to fix, remove or install anything outside the service contract) makes debugging OO.o with company files even less attractive. BTW, that's one of the reason why I was already saying almost 5 years ago (http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=discuss&msgNo=8757 and similar) that pressing our politicians to adopt oo.o formats would be a much better strategy th
Re: [discuss] Anonymizing documents for QA & bug reporting
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 23:38:37 PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Not surprising, it only reflects the tester/average user ratio. Do > you want to make tester life easier, because they are few and you > need to nurture them, or do you want to discriminate against them > because they're a minority? Hey, don't get me wrong, we're on the same side. What gave you the impression that I want to discriminate testers? I have nothing against them or the anonymizer macro. If somebody ever writes it, it will surely be a great thing. I have just explained why I believe that it's unlikely to happen, or to be widely used. > The benefit of a big corp employee to run such a macro is to get his > bugs fixed, to he can justify continued use of his tool of choice. I said that _personally_, I cannot justify it where I work and would not make any difference, and that I believe most "big corp employees" are in the same situation. If there are exceptions, I'm happy for it. > And why would he want to use OO.o? Of course PDF export is always a big plus. Defining a color palette... I've never had any reason to do anything like that in 12 years I've been working, but surely can be very useful in other careers/companies. > But there is absolutely zero immediate benefit for the user, and > even if altruism is satisfying small rewards always help. I'm not sure I got what you meant with this last sentence. In any case, I don't mean to discourage those who use and debug FOSS for altruism. I have summarized why I believe anonymizers wouldn't be practical as other alternatives. If OpenDocument wasn't advancing and if I had the time, for example, I'd do what I described earlier with public patents and research papers, and file bug against _them_, rather than sending company files. Apart from legal issues, the former would be much more interesting to read :-) > Who do you think writes the service contracts? The contractor or > your company? :-) This is not fair. You know I can't speak really openly with my real name on a public list... Seriously, a multinational company, especially one so... smart to outsorce its IT, has NO interest at all to specify "experiments" or support for unneeded software, just to keep working and using without wasting one minute years of older files. The contractor of a multinational is often another big company which sells integrated "solutions", ie very often has no interest at all to sell and support relatively untested desktop stuff. None of them will go towards FOSS unless forced by law. So, again, this is why personally I've always thought more interesting and effective to lobby for OpenDocument adoption rather than climb this particular hill. I'm grateful to all who do file bugs with any method against the .doc filters, of course, that's useful too. Ciao, Marco -- Marco Fiorettimfioretti, at the server mclink.it Fedora Core 5 for low memory http://www.rule-project.org/ It isn't easy being a Friday kind of person in a Monday kind of world. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] "Le ministère de la Défense met OpenOffice à l'index"
There has been comment in the media about a report on a French language website: "Le ministère de la Défense met OpenOffice à l'index" The ZDNet article [1] claims to describe the proceedings of a confidential meeting within the French public administration. It is not appropriate for the OpenOffice.org community to comment on a leak from a private meeting. However, one of the people mentioned in the article, Eric Filiol, has posted two replies to the online article clarifying the purpose of the research and correcting some of the incorrect conclusions in the original article. The OpenOffice.org office suite is being widely adopted within the French public administration, and the OpenOffice.org community has been working closely with the departments involved. OpenOffice.org is pleased that its source code is being scrutinised by the most important and respected department of security in France. If security vulnerabilities are suspected, there is a well defined procedure within the IT industry for reporting, analysing, and resolving any issues, which aims to minimise any public announcement (and the resulting creation of exploits) until fixes are available. The OpenOffice.org community confirms it regards security as of the highest importance and will react immediately to any security issues reported by the French public administration or other competent bodies or individuals. -The OpenOffice.org Team [1] http://www.zdnet.fr/actualites/informatique/ 0,39040745,39362096,00.htm See also, http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060718-7288.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discuss] Anonymizing documents for QA & bug reporting
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, very nice discussion, guys. Interesting. It's nice to see an actual rollout of the problems beyond pure idealistic enthusiasm. ;-) > Hey, don't get me wrong, we're on the same side. What gave you the > impression that I want to discriminate testers? I have nothing against > them or the anonymizer macro. If somebody ever writes it, it will > surely be a great thing. I have just explained why I believe that it's > unlikely to happen, or to be widely used. Well, while I think what you say about the corporate situation is very reasonable, this discussion started with at least one corporate user who would be willing to use the macro. That's a start, i guess. ;-) > Of course PDF export is always a big plus. Defining a color > palette... I've never had any reason to do anything like that in 12 > years I've been working, but surely can be very useful in other > careers/companies. Believe me, your corporate graphic designer, your marketing director and whoever else is concerned about your corporate id would like to slap your head for that remark. ;-) (I as one of them would even wish for OOo to remove every single way to do indiviual formatting and force the user to create or use a predefined style for every even just slightly different way of formatting. But of course this is not reality.) André. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) iD8DBQFEwEpmEOp8fsnyxsQRAnTkAKDSQLbD72oawG5MVDOTdiQD9U8dqACgtf0m 3jy/gOKXDw8fBJ+POrsXJck= =bHb9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
