On Jul 26, 2006, at 12:11 PM, Jean-frederic Clere wrote:
Hi,
I have started to write a generic health-checker for mod_proxy. I
would like to change the macro PROXY_WORKER_IS_USABLE() to a
routine in proxy_util.c.
Why? We're simply checking bits... I can't see bothering
with the
Turk wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
There are lots of things to backport. IMHO its the entire HEAD,
and spread over the multiple svn commits.
How we should deal with that?
Having multiple backports or a single one?
we should simply update STATUS as usually... most
:)
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
On Jul 28, 2006, at 12:34 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: jfclere
Date: Fri Jul 28 09:33:58 2006
New Revision: 426604
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=426604view=rev
Log:
First try to put togother an external health checker for mod_proxy.
Just coming back from OSCON, I haven't
On Jul 28, 2006, at 1:54 PM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
Hi,
I have committed the code to get comments on some points:
- Does it make sense to include from support objects from modules/
proxy?
- Does the mod_proxy_health_checker is the right way to go? - I
mean: one part is storing the
On Jul 28, 2006, at 4:03 PM, Jean-frederic Clere wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Jul 28, 2006, at 1:54 PM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
Hi,
I have committed the code to get comments on some points:
- Does it make sense to include from support objects from
modules/ proxy?
- Does
Many compile warnings when compiling with maint-mode:
mod_proxy.c: In function 'add_pass':
mod_proxy.c:1176: warning: implicit declaration of function
'proxy_checkstorage_add_entry'
mod_proxy.c: In function 'proxy_post_config':
mod_proxy.c:1870: warning: implicit declaration of function
Apache HTTP Server is (mostly) a web server.
Let's call it 'parker'
(I'll let the Spider Man fans explain it... :) )
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
If you can
and build...
I'll try to look more over the weekend or next week, but I
want to make sure to get my cluster-set patch in trunk
soonish and start proposing some backports to 2.2.x :)
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL
Jean-frederic Clere wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
A quick check shows that various worker stats are not shared...
doing a reload of the balancer-manager shows the I/O/Elected
values flopping all over the place. So they seem in this
impl process specific and not shared at all. Did nothing
On Jul 29, 2006, at 7:43 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: jfclere
Date: Sat Jul 29 04:43:25 2006
New Revision: 426781
Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/httpd-proxy-scoreboard/support/
proxymonitor.c
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/httpd-proxy-
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the directory location (proxy)
and the names (checker|comarea) being hardcoded... And
creating the directory is also somewhat unsettling as well
since it's a normal directory that should exist. It would
be like Apache pre-creating the logs directory... :/
On Jul 29, 2006, at 7:43 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
fname = ap_server_root_relative(pool, name);
+dir = apr_pstrdup(pool, name);
+sep = strrchr(dir, '/');
+if (sep != NULL) {
+*sep++ = '\0';
+dname = ap_server_root_relative(pool, dir);
+
Brian Akins wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I thought that this was about abstracting out scoreboard
so that other modules could have scoreboard-like
access without mucking around with the real scoreboard...
+1. The proxy could just use this mechanism. We need to separate the
two
I'm trying to figure out which impl of the the
LB cluster set makes the most sense and would appreciate
the feedback.
Basically, I see 2 different methods:
1. Members in all cluster sets which have the same or
lower set numbers are checked
2. Only members is a specific set number
On Jul 31, 2006, at 10:51 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF EITO wrote:
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
In other words, lets assume members a, b and c are in
set 0 and d, e and f are in set 1 and g, h and i are in
set 2. We check a, b and c and they are not usable, so
we now
On Jul 31, 2006, at 10:29 AM, Guy Hulbert wrote:
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 10:08 -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'm trying to figure out which impl of the the
LB cluster set makes the most sense and would appreciate
the feedback.
snip
Comments?
Are you implementing load balancing/clustering
Guy Hulbert wrote:
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 11:18 -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Why ?
People want it.
Thought so :-(
Why :-( ??
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com
that's a bad thing
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
then.
But, I suppose, if people want it ...
People want to simplify things.
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
.
Will it remove the need for others? Not at all.
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
scoreboard would be to help make
perchild easier, since we could store the passed fd's in this
location alleviating some of the current problems.
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com
it... Check out the elements
above that and you'll see that after some longer ones were pushed
to the right, we forgot to reset to the left.
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com
set is 3 and the max is 3, we want to stop.
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
Let me double check...
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
Good catch by Ruediger. Fixed.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Let me double check...
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
was/is.
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
Mladen Turk wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I guess we've all agreed that checking hot standbys 1st before
checking other sets is what makes the most sense, so I've gone
ahead and enabled that. -trunk is now complete (except for
the docs)...
Right.
In all other cases it really does
??
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
, erschreckt? -- Markus Becker in mpdsh
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
=?iso-8859-1?q?Andr=E9_Malo?= wrote:
* Jim Jagielski wrote:
Wah happened? Has the process for updating docs changed?
cd docs/manual
cd build
./build.sh
that should be ok. The process hasn't been changed for months...
Is the build directory up to date? Is it really under
On Aug 17, 2006, at 3:56 PM, André Malo wrote:
* Jim Jagielski wrote:
No, it's there. And 'svn up'ed ... There were no errors during the
processing.
Hrm. What OS, perl and java version do you use? (Can't imagine,
that it has
to do with it, but...)
% java -version
java version
On Aug 17, 2006, at 6:17 PM, André Malo wrote:
That is all strange. Can you try the following patch in the build-
directory:
Index: lib/DocUtil.pm
===
--- lib/DocUtil.pm (revision 432356)
+++ lib/DocUtil.pm (working
I'm +0 about it, but I agree that I'd like to see
the package 1st :)
I've never been a fan of mod_define, seeing mod_macro (as
Jorge seems to think as well) as much more useful... check
out some of my OLD Apache PPTs from the 1st ApacheCons ;)
My main issue with mod_define is that there always
On Aug 25, 2006, at 9:35 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
On Friday 25 August 2006 14:05, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I've never been a fan of mod_define, seeing mod_macro (as
Jorge seems to think as well) as much more useful...
Agreed, mod_macro is *the* configuration module:-)
:)
check
out some of my
On Aug 26, 2006, at 8:29 AM, Joachim Zobel wrote:
Am Freitag, den 25.08.2006, 23:22 +0200 schrieb Ruediger Pluem:
c-aborted is set to 1 in this case. Just check for it once you
return from ap_pass_brigade.
Thx. For the convienience of those who google:
rv = ap_pass_brigade(f-next,
Joe Orton wrote:
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 06:57:09PM -, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Author: jim
Date: Mon Aug 28 11:57:09 2006
New Revision: 437781
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=437781view=rev
Log:
Merge r437768 from trunk:
Minor nit: why make the logic more complex than
Joe Orton wrote:
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 06:57:09PM -, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Author: jim
Date: Mon Aug 28 11:57:09 2006
New Revision: 437781
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=437781view=rev
Log:
Merge r437768 from trunk:
Minor nit: why make the logic more
On Sep 1, 2006, at 3:25 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Project Committee Members...
Adopt [EMAIL PROTECTED],
+1
seeded from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
current subscribers,
-1 (we shouldn't just blindly move 'em over)
The RC tarballs for 1.3.32 are available for review and feedback:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
1.3.32 is *not* yet released; these are simply the release
candidate tarballs.
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL
. That delay just doesn't make
sense anymore. Heck, we have people scanning
/dev/dist :)
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
There 10 types of people: those who read binary
There is currently one showstopper holding up release of 1.3.33.
It has 2 votes for and none against, and it's for backing out
a patch recently applied in mod_rewrite... Please look it
over, otherwise I'll assume a lazy consensus (I know, I know)
and apply it.
10.3.5 and Sol8... The patch, IMO,
should be back out of both trees
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
There 10 types of people: those who read binary and everyone else.
With the singular showstopper resolved, I will be backing
out the mod_rewrite patch and tagging 1.3.33 today.
and
upload it there so that it doesn't fall through the cracks. Extending
the support for filters in the authorisation phase is a definite win.
+1
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http
Tarballs for Apache HTTP Server 1.3.33 are available for review.
This does not constitute a release, but the opportunity to
review these tarballs in anticipation of one :)
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
--
===
Jim
this:
require filter (objectclass=specialPerson)
or
require filter (host=somehost.com)
This supports more complicated stuff, like this:
require filter ((objectclass=specialPerson)(host=somehost.com))
Regards,
Graham
--
--
===
Jim Jagielski
at adding a require ldap-filter directive as well for Apache
2.1/2.2.
+1
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
There 10 types of people: those who read binary and everyone else.
to verify this. You'd have better luck either on
the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list or by submitting a bug to the bug database.
Joshua.
Interesting point... We should look into assert - ap_assert
--
===
Jim Jagielski
Let's not forget the 1.3 docs, unless we can somehow combine
the 2. When you checkout/export apache-1.3, a subset of
htdocs in httpd-docs-1.3 comes along for the ride
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Nov 16, 2004, at 3:16 PM, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
We had a good discussion over lunch today on our release processes and
how to have stable releases while making new feature development as
fun and easy for the geeks as possible.
The is a purely personal POV, and I'm wishing I was at the
, bb's and
the dependency may be stumbling blocks.
admin:
1. They are used to it.
2. Smaller footprint.
At least, this is the feedback I get from people.
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Nov 17, 2004, at 4:45 PM, Sander Striker wrote:
Hi again,
The actual load seems to be working now (save the documentation...).
Given that this wasn't a smooth ride, we've loaded things in the
test repository. Please take a look at it:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/test/httpd/
If noone raises
Let's look at it this way. 2.1 is CTR whereas 2.0
is RTC. This applies to backports. However,
the Review for most backports is already
done within the 2.1 CTR cycle. If the original
has been in 2.1 for a significant amount of
time, it implies review. So the required review
for that backport in 2.0
On Nov 20, 2004, at 12:03 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I don't believe that Allen would be able to complete his changes in a
reasonable timeframe. I'm tired of holding things up for a 'major'
rewrite that'll come any day now (TM). Sorry. I'd be willing to give
him a week or two to make the
Bill Stoddard wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 08:23 AM 11/20/2004, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Nov 20, 2004, at 12:03 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
So, my opinion is that we let Allen branch apr off now and let him go at
it at a measured pace, but we shouldn't intend to hold
One thing I was hoping is that, if bundled it, people can
add the kind of features they need. It was designed for a
simple and clear purpose, but there is more that it
can, and should, do :)
Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Jim Jagielski wrote:
http://www.apache.org/~jim
.
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
There 10 types of people: those who read binary and everyone else.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:54 PM -0500 Jim Jagielski [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
wrote:
One thing I was hoping is that, if bundled it, people can
add the kind of features they need. It was designed for a
simple and clear purpose, but there is more that it
can
=?iso-8859-1?q?Andr=E9_Malo?= wrote:
* Jim Jagielski wrote:
The feedback I rec'd regarding mod_dumpio was that it looked
like a useful module and that the best fit would be
in the (new) debug subdir... I'd like to commit the module,
so please speak up now :)
mod_bucketeer would fit
On Dec 6, 2004, at 5:28 PM, Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Same location as mod_log_forensic? If you want to move them
both into a modules/debug/ location, ++1.
mod_bucketeer would be classified as a debugging module, also. It's
currently under modules/test.
Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Dang vi auto-tabbing :)
set expandtab
I just *hate* ^V-TAB to get real tabs though :)
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http
Right now, the 2nd parameter for Require is case sensitive
(ie: Require group not Require Group)... Any issues with
making it case insensitive? We already have a missmatch
in 2.0 with mod_auth_digest.c allowing User/Group but
not simple mod_auth.
?? :/
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
There 10 types of people: those who read binary and everyone else.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/debug/.deps
httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/debug/Makefile
I thought these should both be generated, not checked into svn?
Yep, but how does one tell SVN to ignore them
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: nd
Date: Tue Dec 14 15:01:47 2004
New Revision: 111895
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?view=revrev=111895
Log:
svn:eol-style = native
Thanks!!
--
===
Jim Jagielski
IMO the current setting for how proxy_balancer handles
lbfactor isn't intuitive... For example, if I
setup 2 members, one with a lbfactor of 1 and another
with 2 (eg: a lbfactor=1 ; b lbfactor=2) then one
would expect 'b' handle twice the amount of traffic
than 'a'. Now if set to 33 and 66, then
:)
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
There 10 types of people: those who read binary and everyone else.
Mladen Turk wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Why did you remove the algorithm comment from the source code?
The algorithm still behaves as before, only the setup is normalized.
I didn't remove it, just simplified the comment as well... Look
for the '+' lines :)
OK, but just don't do
:)
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
There 10 types of people: those who read binary and everyone else.
:)
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
There 10 types of people: those who read binary and everyone else.
On Dec 21, 2004, at 9:27 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
see patch
forensicpatch.txt
+1
On Jan 4, 2005, at 2:40 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Incident http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31443
offers a solution which we should consider adopting. As I was
asking for some offline feedback - Graham mentioned that some
implementations use the URL to specify that STARTTLS
I'm currently working on code that extended the lb method
within the 2.1/2.2 proxy from what is basically a
weighted request count to also be a weighted
traffic count (as measured by bytes transferred)
and a weighted load count (as measured by response
time). The former is further along and the
On Jan 11, 2005, at 4:20 AM, Ben Laurie wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Saturday, January 8, 2005 10:43 PM + Ben Laurie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Errr... mod_backhand?
mod_backhand doesn't support Apache 2.x:
http://www.backhand.org/mod_backhand/FAQ.shtml#question0
Port it?
I think that
as mod_backhand.
Just that just because you *can* implement something in the
web server, doesn't mean you *should* or *must*. A web server
is part of one's web infrastructure, not its entirety.
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL
thought about that as well... having Apache simply
make the generic APR calls and having APR decide the best
method... an intelligent multicast.
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com
, but it should
not stop the basic lb capability within mod_proxy.
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
There 10 types of people: those who read binary and everyone else.
It is a trivial change to make mod_backhand not can about
announcements as well as not make them.
Even more so if it was integrated with mod_proxy more extensively.
From what I recall, that was my impression as well.
But my comment wasn't directed towards m_b or any other module
specifically,
On Jan 23, 2005, at 9:28 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Hi all,
There has been an ongoing problem with httpd and system package build
scripts. Over time, changes have been backported to the build system
(autoconf, etc) which breaks packaging scripts and files such as the
RPM spec file.
The
days (what
ever your schedule best provides) and then commit. If folks
object they will speak up - if not - then you aren't hampered.
Seems reasonable.
+1.
Agreed. But I was also +1 on the original.
--
===
Jim
On Jan 27, 2005, at 12:07 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Mads Toftum said:
Simple:
SSLOptions +FakeBasicAuth
And then turn on basic auth as you would for plain passwords.
FakeBasicAuth will then act as if the user entered the certificate DN
as
user and password as password.
There's an example in my
Any errors in the error log (info level at least), like:
Encountered FakeBasicAuth spoof:...
Faking HTTP Basic Auth header: ...
??
On Feb 1, 2005, at 7:18 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
A while ago, Neil Hillard posted about a problem with a reverse proxy
setup:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=apache-httpd-
usersm=110373067819763w=2
The problem is with ProxyPassReverse:
(1) ProxyPassReverse is documented as working inside Location
for the above.
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
There 10 types of people: those who read binary and everyone else.
:)
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
There 10 types of people: those who read binary and everyone else.
situation for 2.2.
Sander
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
There 10 types of people: those who read binary and everyone else.
On Feb 1, 2005, at 2:23 PM, Sander Striker wrote:
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 8:03 PM
It's been on my table to attack the FIX_15207 fooishness, but neither
keeping the define nor commenting it out results in expected, correct
behavior
+1
There are now tests for both PR 32459 and PR 15207 in httpd-test's
t/modules/proxy.t; the former fails at the moment in 2.1 and the
latter
should fail instead if you flip the silly #define.
sorry - the PR 32459 test is in t/modules/rewrite.t not proxy.t
The below results in corrected behavior...
of proxy request. I can provide that
if there's interest...
On Feb 2, 2005, at 9:22 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
There are now tests for both PR 32459 and PR 15207 in httpd-test's
t/modules/proxy.t; the former fails at the moment in 2.1 and the
latter
should fail instead if you flip the silly #define.
sorry
Does not include the required removal of the unused FIX_15207
code snippets...
Index: modules/proxy/proxy_ajp.c
===
--- modules/proxy/proxy_ajp.c (revision 149512)
+++ modules/proxy/proxy_ajp.c (working copy)
@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@
Any reason why we don't enable reporting of Req? I have
a 2.1 patch ready to go, but I don't know why we don't
do this
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
There 10 types of people
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Wednesday, February 2, 2005 1:43 PM -0500 Jim Jagielski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any reason why we don't enable reporting of Req? I have
a 2.1 patch ready to go, but I don't know why we don't
do this
I have no earthly idea what you are talking
Stas Bekman wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Wednesday, February 2, 2005 1:43 PM -0500 Jim Jagielski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any reason why we don't enable reporting of Req? I have
a 2.1 patch ready to go, but I don't know why we don't
do this
I
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
There 10 types of people: those who read binary and everyone else.
On Feb 3, 2005, at 12:33 PM, Sander Striker wrote:
Hi,
Anyone object to me renaming proxy_[ajp|balancer|connect|ftp|http].c to
mod_proxy_[ajp|balancer|connect|ftp|http].c?
Reason:
IfModule mod_proxy_http.c
...
/IfModule
I had to look a few times to figure out I had to leave out the
mod_ part.
:)
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
There 10 types of people: those who read binary and everyone else.
...
[Sat Feb 05 18:59:23 2005] [alert] Child 12332 returned a Fatal
error...\nApache is exiting!
(I had Group directive set to bad value, causing this failure)
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http
different on
other platforms, such as Solaris?)
Yes, there is little differences under Linux, but substantial ones
under other OSs such as AIX, Solaris, HP-UX...
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http
801 - 900 of 4498 matches
Mail list logo
