On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, Matt Kettler wrote:
At 07:13 PM 9/15/2004, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
For example, my father's wife peggy has the domain peggytaggart.com, she
ONLY gives out the peggy@ email address for this.
For some unknown reason, the whole domain is popular with spammers. I've
ad
Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
(What's really annoying is that sendmail doesn't log the ip of the
remote connection until it's done (if you're blocking them) -- I'd love
to be able to create an RBL on this and nip it in the bud).
We use a variation of rumplekiller.pl for exactly this purpose:
h
At 07:13 PM 9/15/2004, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
For example, my father's wife peggy has the domain peggytaggart.com, she
ONLY gives out the peggy@ email address for this.
For some unknown reason, the whole domain is popular with spammers. I've
added a global rule in my virtusertable to
Guys,
Given that some spammers like to just slam mail at everyone at an entire
domain, is there an option to "greylist" these addresses?
For example, my father's wife peggy has the domain peggytaggart.com, she
ONLY gives out the peggy@ email address for this.
For some unknown reason, the whole
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:00:01 -0400
Vivek Khera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sep 15, 2004, at 12:14 PM, Chris Santerre wrote:
>
> > So for anyone who knows what I'm talking about on this page,
> > feel free to
> > spam it to all your friends and family! ;)
> >
>
> On my desk at gradual scho
At 05:00 PM 9/15/2004, Vivek Khera wrote:
On my desk at gradual school,
Hmm... gradual school.. Is this the opposite of "crash course"?
Sorry Vivek, couldn't resist that :)
On Sep 15, 2004, at 12:14 PM, Chris Santerre wrote:
So for anyone who knows what I'm talking about on this page, feel free
to
spam it to all your friends and family! ;)
On my desk at gradual school, I had a rather nice little sign that read
"What to do I look like, an answer booth?". It at least
Hi,
Every time I run rules_du_jour (latest version) I get a warning/error
message, but I cannot tell where it is. I changed perl to
/usr/bin/perl -w and this is what it displays:
# /root/bin/rules_du_jour
/root/bin/rules_du_jour: [: too many arguments
\1 better written as $1 at -e line 1.
The l
Quoting "Dan Mahoney, System Admin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello all. Ive been lurking for a week or two hoping to learn something,
but I think my starting knowledge is too far behind!
I have a Redhat server running sendmail 8.12 that can pre-installed w
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, scohen wrote:
Yup. Fat-fingers strike again.
-Dan
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
If it's a system-wide install, then you should find your config file (on a
default install of spamassassin it's /etc/mail/spamassassin/local/cf I
believe -- but DOUBLE CHEC
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
> If it's a system-wide install, then you should find your config file (on a
> default install of spamassassin it's /etc/mail/spamassassin/local/cf I
> believe -- but DOUBLE CHECK).
>
I believe it is /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf not local/cf
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello all. Ive been lurking for a week or two hoping to learn something,
but I think my starting knowledge is too far behind!
I have a Redhat server running sendmail 8.12 that can pre-installed with
spamassassin. Ive never used spamassassin before, an
>-Original Message-
>From: Dan Mahoney, System Admin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 4:06 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Spammers Bypassing Whitelists
>
>
>I'm seeing spammers bypass whitelists by appending a few
>characters to my
>own username and us
At 04:05 PM 9/15/2004, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
I'm seeing spammers bypass whitelists by appending a few characters to my
own username and using it as their own.
Rule #1.. Never whitelist_from your own domain.. It doesn't work. Spammers
always forge From: addresses and frequently forge yo
Hello all. Ive been lurking for a week or two hoping to learn something,
but I think my starting knowledge is too far behind!
I have a Redhat server running sendmail 8.12 that can pre-installed with
spamassassin. Ive never used spamassassin before, and Im a sysadmin who
going by the trial by fir
At 01:12 PM 9/15/2004, you wrote:
I'm an idiot, that was an incomplete post.
Here's an example to show what I mean.
Am I whitelisting wrong? Or should this not trigger this kind of whitelist?
Is this something fixed in 3.0?
Ahh.. Ok, makes sense now with the headers. I can't help you here since my
At 01:05 PM 9/15/2004, you wrote:
I'm seeing spammers bypass whitelists by appending a few characters to my
own username and using it as their own.
I'm confused. What address is whitelested (from? to?) and who is receiving
the spam? Are they sending say other users on your system spam, and your
I'm an idiot, that was an incomplete post.
Here's an example to show what I mean.
Am I whitelisting wrong? Or should this not trigger this kind of
whitelist?
Is this something fixed in 3.0?
-Dan
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from 65.125.228.130 ([165.194.14.146])
by prime.gushi.
I'm seeing spammers bypass whitelists by appending a few characters to my
own username and using it as their own.
--
"This Is Not Goodbye!"
-DM, August 11th 2001, 10 PMish Chicago Time
Dan Mahoney
Techie, Sysadmin, WebGeek
Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC
ICQ: 13735144 AIM: LarpGM
Quoting Michael Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
"I see!" said the blind man as he picked up his hammer and saw...
I forgot the word "Subject" in that line.
Not only that, but the line above it
rewrite_subject 1
should be removed as it does nothing anymore.
-Jim
"I see!" said the blind man as he picked up his hammer and saw...
I forgot the word "Subject" in that line.
Thanx!
-Michael
>>> Michael Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 09/15/04 02:41PM >>>
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 02:27:29PM -0500, Michael Weber wrote:
> I just installed SA 3.0 RC5 on my test server.
Michael Weber wrote:
{You know, if you send them the headers it might be helpful!}
Sorry.
always_add_headers 1
report_safe 0
rewrite_subject 1
rewrite_header %%SPAM%%% (_SCORE_)
dns_available yes
subject_tag %%SPAM%%% (_SCORE_)
use_terse_rep
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 02:27:29PM -0500, Michael Weber wrote:
> I just installed SA 3.0 RC5 on my test server. The problem is, the
> subject line is not being modified even though all the other headers are
> there.
>
> What did I miss?
>
> Here's the lines from my local.cf.
>
> Thanx!
>
> -
{You know, if you send them the headers it might be helpful!}
Sorry.
Received: from fw-3.alliednational.com
([172.16.30.253])
by alliednational.com; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:22:03 -0500
Received: by fw-3.alliednational.com (Postfix, from userid 500)
id 8624975321; Wed, 15 Sep 2
I just installed SA 3.0 RC5 on my test server. The problem is, the
subject line is not being modified even though all the other headers are
there.
What did I miss?
Here's the lines from my local.cf.
Thanx!
-Michael
always_add_headers 1
report_safe 0
rewrite_subject
At the November ApacheCon US 2004 in Las Vegas, for two days prior to
the conference, the SpamAssassin development team is going to be getting
together and hacking on SpamAssassin. It'll be one of the best chances
yet for most of us to get together in person (I think the most we've
managed before
> -Original Message-
> From: Kenneth Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 4:51 PM
> To: SpamAssassin Discussion
> Subject: RE: Subject line
>
>
> --On Tuesday, September 14, 2004 2:14 PM -0700 Bret Miller
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I use Outlook
Please let us all know if your test was successful...
- Original Message -
From: "Michele Neylon : Blacknight Solutions"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 11:01 AM
Subject: test
> Test.
>
>
> --
> Email scanned
>-Original Message-
>From: Michele Neylon : Blacknight Solutions
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 2:02 PM
>To: Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail)
>Subject: test
>
>
>Test.
C- at best.
You failed to fill out the extra credit. You didn't completely fill in the
circ
Test.
--
Email scanned by Blacknight for viruses and dangerous content.
Visit http://www.blacknight.ie for more information
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Santerre writes:
> >-Original Message-
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 1:05 PM
> >To: Jeff Chan
> >Cc: SURBL Discussion list (E-mail); Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail)
> >Subject: Re: St
Quoting Chris Santerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I lost my freakin mind last night. I was about to drive to someone's house
and stick the phone someplace they didn't want it ;) Rather then just rant
about it, I figured I would take my anger and put it towards something
constructive.
So for anyone who kn
yup - what the man said...although I usually make it clear I charge for
this after 5 minutes...
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
Chris Santerre wrote:
I lost my freakin mind last night. I was about to drive to someone's house
and stick the pho
I lost my freakin mind last night. I was about to drive to someone's house
and stick the phone someplace they didn't want it ;) Rather then just rant
about it, I figured I would take my anger and put it towards something
constructive.
So for anyone who knows what I'm talking about on this page, fe
> Even worse:
> http://123.456.78.90/page";>https://example.com/page
>
> You can throw in a few extra points for an onMouseOver clause
> that sets the status bar to https ... :)
Would you believe that there is no reasonable way to detect that last one
currently with SA? Which is a shame, since it
Please visit http://phisher.com/path/to/page";>http://example.com/page
Those ones, indeed.
And, IMO easier to detect, and worthy of a higher score:
http://phisher.com/page";>https://example.com/page
Even worse:
http://123.456.78.90/page";>https://example.com/page
You can throw in a few extra points
All of a sudden my sa-stats program thinks it's tomorrow and thus showing no
ham and spam found.
The dates in the mail log are correct; the system date is correct; the date
returned by sar is correct. For the default 24-hr report, why would
sa-stats suddenly think it should look from 9/15 - 9/16
At 15:53 15/09/2004, John Wilcock wrote:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:03:02 -0400, Chris Santerre wrote:
> What about all those image caching services?
> They would all get tagged, which is a large amount of legit newsletters.
I suspect we're talking at cross purposes. I assumed that Julian's
original qu
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:03:02 -0400, Chris Santerre wrote:
> What about all those image caching services?
> They would all get tagged, which is a large amount of legit newsletters.
I suspect we're talking at cross purposes. I assumed that Julian's
original query was about cases where the text to b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Calum Mackay writes:
> Justin Mason wrote:
> > any idea why that had that effect?
>
> yup, SA, running as the user who was getting mail, was unable to move
> the existing journal file out of the way, since it didn't own it. The
> sticky bit means t
At 10:24 AM 9/15/2004, Tobin wrote:
Thanks for your response. I tried whitelisting the spoofed address. And
then yes the IP which I know is porposterous but Im desparate. Then I
whitelisted the SMTP DNS name which is also wrong. Im lost as to what I
should do.
whitelist_from 216.136.XX.XX
When I run the spamassassin --line command I receive
Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin configuration, skipping, :
Use_razor1 0
Only one error.
>>> Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 9/14/2004 7:02:59 PM >>>
At 05:11 PM 9/14/2004, Tobin wrote:
>If anyone can help I thank you. I run SA on wi
Lionel
MS 4.23 is very old - best to upgrade, latest stable version is 4.33.
Also best to ask this on the MS-users list as it's not a general SA
question...I'l see you there :-)
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
Lionel David wrote:
Hello,
I've
Matt,
Thanks for your response. I tried whitelisting the spoofed address. And
then yes the IP which I know is porposterous but Im desparate. Then I
whitelisted the SMTP DNS name which is also wrong. Im lost as to what I
should do.
whitelist_from 216.136.XX.XX
whitelist_from m
Hello,
I've recently installed SpamAssassin on my server under Solaris8 without
any problem. I use MailScanner-4.23.11 which is configured for to use
Sendmail-8.12.10 and SpamAssassin-2.64.
It works fine except for one point : The SA report doesn't appear in
the body of tagged spam mails.
The
>-Original Message-
>From: Chr. von Stuckrad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 5:41 AM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Phishing obfuscated url detection
>
>
>On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 02:17:15AM -0700, Jeff Chan wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September
In case people have been ignoring the Subject Line thread, I wanted to
really make sure people had a look at this post. I use the example below for
many things. When I write a particularly interesting SARE rule I am testing,
I will have procmail/formail tag the subject if the rule hits. This way I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Calum Mackay writes:
> Calum Mackay wrote:
> > Is it just me that gets loads of files bayes_toks.expire* filling up
> > /var/spool/spamassassin/nobody ?
> >
> > I seem to get a 10MB file of this form in there for every single email -
> > for every
At 03:07 AM 9/15/2004 -0700, Jeff Chan wrote:
Sounds like your server is being "dictionary attacked", i.e.
bad guys are looking for valid mail addresses by trying many
different common ones. In other words they try many and the ones
that don't result in the "unknown user" response, they add to
the
Calum Mackay wrote:
Is it just me that gets loads of files bayes_toks.expire* filling up
/var/spool/spamassassin/nobody ?
I seem to get a 10MB file of this form in there for every single email -
for every user - SA handles :(
I didn't get any replies, but for the archives: I fixed this by removi
Quoting Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
At 08:40 PM 9/14/2004, Jim Maul wrote:
> Good letter. Procmail is a wonder if we take the time to learn it.
>
Sure, great, i'd love to take the time to learn it...except that my
installation
doesnt use procmail at all. Any other ideas for all the people
Jim Maul wrote:
Quoting Ralf Hildebrandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
* Michele Neylon::Blacknight Solutions <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Why is List-Id not sufficient?
It's only visible if you examine the header. Something in the subject
line is a lot more visual
Pssst: "Subject:" is also a header.
I was non c
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 08:34:31 +0200, Marco Maske
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Montag, 13. September 2004 21:49 schrieb Al Sparks:
>
>
> > I noticed that the Mailing list ARChives (MARC) doesn't have any posts
> > for September, for spamassassin-users.
> >
> > The apache web page does advertise
Many thanks for the responses. Shame it can't be done easily. I already use
the SURBL ph domain.
At 13:30 15/09/2004, you wrote:
I'd written a test for this some time back, and it worked reasonably well,
except for newsletters from various legit sources (eg T-Mobile NL,
Microsoft, Gamespy daily)
I'd written a test for this some time back, and it worked reasonably well,
except for newsletters from various legit sources (eg T-Mobile NL,
Microsoft, Gamespy daily) which all use some click referencing script that
is located on the server of the company that actually does the emailing,
inste
> > In most phishing scams, the real address of a URL is unrelated to the
link
> > text that appears in the mail client. Is it possible to detect where
> > bar
> > and foo and bar are unrelated domains?
> >
> I guess the question boils down to "can backreferences be used in
> regexes for SA rules"?
On Wednesday, September 15, 2004, 3:07:03 AM, Jeff Chan wrote:
> If you can spot what IP address they are coming in from,
> perhaps you can block it at a networking layer.
You can also block some of these at the MTA layer by
using RBLs listing compromised addresses, etc.
Jeff C.
--
Jeff Chan
mai
Chris Stenton wrote:
The number of "unknown user" rejects has grown really fast over the
last 4 weeks. I am not sure what the spammers motives are as the success
rate must be near zero?
May be backscatter from a joe job. Someone using random addresses in
your domain as 'From:'-addresses in thei
On Wednesday 15 September 2004 11:01, Chris Stenton might have typed:
> I have been looking at my mail logs and wonder if this is now the norm
>
> Mail stats for last 24 hours
>
> 3020 Total mail messages
> 2143 reject "unknown user"
> 206 reject RBL
> 39 reject Virus
> 158 SPAM messages caught by
On Wednesday, September 15, 2004, 3:01:32 AM, Chris Stenton wrote:
> I have been looking at my mail logs and wonder if this is now the norm
> Mail stats for last 24 hours
> 3020 Total mail messages
> 2143 reject "unknown user"
> 206 reject RBL
> 39 reject Virus
> 158 SPAM messages caught by SA 3
I have been looking at my mail logs and wonder if this is now the norm
Mail stats for last 24 hours
3020 Total mail messages
2143 reject "unknown user"
206 reject RBL
39 reject Virus
158 SPAM messages caught by SA 3.0
474 genuine mail messages
The number of "unknown user" rejects has grown really
On Wednesday, September 15, 2004, 2:41:14 AM, Chr. Stuckrad wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 02:17:15AM -0700, Jeff Chan wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 15, 2004, 1:38:30 AM, Julian Field wrote:
>> > ... Is it possible to detect where
>> > bar
>> > and foo and bar are unrelated domains?
>>
>> Th
Yesterday I changed my list settings to Digest mode. I'm still getting
individual emails. Does anyone know how long it takes for the change to take
effect?
Dougie
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 02:17:15AM -0700, Jeff Chan wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 15, 2004, 1:38:30 AM, Julian Field wrote:
> > ... Is it possible to detect where
> > bar
> > and foo and bar are unrelated domains?
>
> That could be a good idea for a rule. It would be nice if it
> could be dete
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:38:30 +0100, Julian Field wrote:
> I have checked the archives, can't find anything directly related to this.
>
> In most phishing scams, the real address of a URL is unrelated to the link
> text that appears in the mail client. Is it possible to detect where
> bar
> and fo
On Wednesday, September 15, 2004, 1:38:30 AM, Julian Field wrote:
> I have checked the archives, can't find anything directly related to this.
> In most phishing scams, the real address of a URL is unrelated to the link
> text that appears in the mail client. Is it possible to detect where
> bar
I have checked the archives, can't find anything directly related to this.
In most phishing scams, the real address of a URL is unrelated to the link
text that appears in the mail client. Is it possible to detect where
bar
and foo and bar are unrelated domains?
Thanks folks.
--
Julian Field
Raquel Rice wrote on Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:02:39 -0700:
> I can't believe that every couple of weeks I'm adding another
> condition to check for this list! Like you, I check "List-Id:".
> Why can't it stay the same?
>
I filter by Subject = starting with [sa-talk] or "spamassassin" in a
from/to/e
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Rubin Bennett wrote:
> Is there a reason that the List-Id header keeps changing? I use
> procmail to filter my messages into mailboxes and I keep coming in to an
> Inbox full of SA messages because the header has changed again.
> Please... stop mucking with the headers, or at
--On Wednesday, September 15, 2004 00:34:41 -0400 Jeff Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Your response is exactly why I used the term. I, and apparently
a few others, do not want to pre-sort our mail into folders but
like to work with a list of mail as received and dispose of the
mail based upon the
Am Montag, 13. September 2004 21:49 schrieb Al Sparks:
> I noticed that the Mailing list ARChives (MARC) doesn't have any posts
> for September, for spamassassin-users.
>
> The apache web page does advertise that MARC is one of the archives
> that carries the list. Just wondering.
>=== Al
You
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 09:50:10PM +0200, Simon Gate wrote:
> I agree, i have done alot of changes to my procfile lately concerning
> the spamassassin mailinglist. And still i find messages in my inbox...
I've had this for ages, works great:
:0:
* 1^0 ^List-Id:.+spamassassin.apache.org
* 1^0 ^Mai
From: "Robert Menschel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Tuesday, September 14, 2004, 6:07:32 AM, I wrote:
>
> OH>> While were at it, could you have a look at 70_sare_ratware.cf and
> OH>> 70_sare_header.cf? I have got the feeling that some (all?) Ratware
> OH>> checks are duplicated in both rules. If it is
Tuesday, September 14, 2004, 6:07:32 AM, I wrote:
OH>> While were at it, could you have a look at 70_sare_ratware.cf and
OH>> 70_sare_header.cf? I have got the feeling that some (all?) Ratware
OH>> checks are duplicated in both rules. If it is, the
OH>> 70_sare_ratware.cf set should disappear from
Hey, it's legal for ISP's to read your email so why not filter it as well!
Just my $0.02.
From: mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 9/14/2004 7:05 PM
To: Satya
Cc: SpamAssassin list
Subject: Re: [SidePost] Re: [TopPost] RE: [SA-LIST] RE: Subject line
Hey, what is wrong with using rules to sort sa list mail? All my sa
mail goes to a spamassassin folder, done.
-Jim
-Original Message-
From: Jim Maul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 4:27 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Subject line
Quoting
Since this thread is so wack...
I was at volunteer call for the austin city limits festival and 6 or
seven people said that the emails from the coordinators were getting
caught in the isps spamfilters and they never recieved them. I asked if
they werent just in the spam bucket or whatever and they
to update...I just received bunch of these:
---
The original message was received at Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:18:59 -0500
from localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]
with id i8F1IxHE013563
- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(reason
Here is the deal. I just upgraded to Ensim 4.0.2 from 4.0.1. I have 76
domains and have catch-all on all of them set to forward to my own email
on the same server in order to see what spam is going through. What is
really weird is that since I upgraded I get not one spam message. Not
that I am
Who said necrophilia is dead? You wouldn't have to worry about her complaining
about all of the time that you spend on computers or the amount of spam she
gets when you don't (gotta love that double edged blade).
From: Jim Maul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
At 08:40 PM 9/14/2004, Jim Maul wrote:
> Good letter. Procmail is a wonder if we take the time to learn it.
>
Sure, great, i'd love to take the time to learn it...except that my
installation
doesnt use procmail at all. Any other ideas for all the people in the
same boat
as me?
What do you use f
Quoting Satya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
IDSPISPOPD (that's "no clipping" in Doom)
oh the good ole days...
(and remember, there's a side-post down there)
On Sep 14, 2004 at 16:16, Chris Santerre wrote:
I figured is you were gonna start another group flame war, we should do it
correctly.
You forgot >1
Quoting Raquel Rice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:15:21 -0400
Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You can choose to implement it in
procmail locally, it's quite easy.
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spamassassin.general/40735/match=subject+prefix+new+list
The fundamental
Quoting "Dan Mahoney, System Admin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Kelson wrote:
Trust me, I've dated a girl who liked anime and spoke in nothing but
leetspeak and broken japanese. It sounds cute until you get a PHONE CALL
asking "when will B teh Gushi home 4 dinn0rz".
Can i have her nu
84 matches
Mail list logo
