bayes_toks.expire26661
bayes_toks.expire31998
bayes_toks.expire4343
Best regards - Jon
because I know that some users puts HAM in their ReportSpam folder
Best Regards - Jon
to maintain your sanity and your systems stability, unless your
running a bone stock system. That or you could build the rpm from the
tarball, as suggested earlier in another post.
Regards,
Jon
A eventually before
entering our internal mail system. Works great.
--
Jon Trulson
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
#include
"No Kill I" -Horta
would speculate that was the reason your messages started tagging as spam.
One such list I remember was ordb.org.
Yes, ordb. Knew it was something like that. It may be true that
they posted something to a list - unfortunately, I was not
subscribed.
Nonetheless, we won't do that ag
yway, it is unwise to pin pass/fail on RBL's. They can be
wrong, or go away.
--
Jon Trulson
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
#include
"No Kill I" -Horta
there any chance we can get a moderator on this, please? This is clearly not
a SA topic and I'm weary of insults, flames, and advertisements from Marc.
FWIW, +1
--
Jon Trulson
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
#include
"No Kill I" -Horta
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Luis Hernán Otegui wrote:
2007/9/12, Jon Trulson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Jason Bertoch wrote:
On Tuesday, September 11, 2007 7:07 PM Marc Perkel wrote:
The details are a little to complex for this forum ...
OK - had quite a few trolls here wh
ure!) spam.
I definitely love my spamassassins :)
--
Happy cheese in fear | Jon Trulson
against oppressor, rebel!| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brocolli, hostage. -Unknown| #include
o the count there.
Has anyone done anything like this?
Any suggestions on how to do it?
Any other way to get the count?
man mailstats
--
Happy cheese in fear | Jon Trulson
against oppressor, rebel!| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brocolli, hostage. -Unknown| #include
Justin Mason wrote:
sorry Marc, you weren't the first to come up with that idea.
He didn't say that he was, just that he was the first to raise it on the
list.
Jon
ndary which reduced spam
through it by about 99% :) The secondary does not do spam
scanning, it's simply store and forward. Greylisting really
helps in these cases.
--
Jon Trulson
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://radscan.com/~jon
#include
"No Kill I" -Horta
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Rob McEwen (PowerView Systems) wrote:
Jon Trulson said:
Hehe, that is an old spammer trick... Our secondary MX is
pretty much 100% spam.
I implemented greylisting on the secondary which reduced spam
through it by about 99% :) The secondary does not do spam
scanning, it&#
I have SA 3.1.4 and FuzzyOCR 2.3b installed…I keep
getting these messages in the log whenever I test any gif and png samples…
[2006-10-03 11:24:33] Unexpected error in pipe to external
programs.
Please check that all helper programs are installed and in the correc
27;s
definitely on the rise from where I sit.
At home, I've also seen an increase - approx 150 a
day from around 80-90 previously.
--
Jon Trulson
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
#include
"No Kill I" -Horta
aught with bayes 99
as well :)
I guess YMMV of course, but it's worked well here w/o the need
to come up with custom rules every time some new spammer trick
rolls around.
--
Jon Trulson
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
#include
"No Kill I" -Horta
0.0001 3.5 3.5
I would second that definitely. I only upped the bayes 95 and
99 rules to the pre3.0 scores - didn't mess with the others.
--
Jon Trulson
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
#include
"No Kill I" -Horta
ee the previous threads
about bumping up the scores for bayes 95 and 99. YMMV of
course, but it has been *extremely* successful at work and at
home in the few years we've been using spamassassin.
Expect them to adapt. It's their job after all. Use a
99) is
still catching every one for me. There may be something else
going wrong with your setup - no idea what offhand though,
sorry.
--
Jon Trulson
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
#include
"No Kill I" -Horta
day's
stock onslaught. Without hard data available at the moment,
I'd guess we are seeing a less than a third of what we were
getting 24hrs ago.
--
Jon Trulson
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
#include
"No Kill I" -Horta
returned different
SAmaxbody is left at the default (250KB) in sa-exim.conf.
I cannot see any corresponding entries from spamd in the Exim log.
Do I have a configuration issue, or is something else amiss?
Jon
Jon Armitage
Web Infrastructure Support
365 Media Group
I have found the related Exim message...
2006-12-19 11:47:02 1GwdM9-0006Pd-35 local_scan() function timed out -
message temporarily rejected (size 320896)
... so maybe I've posted this to the wrong list. Sorry.
Jon
Sietse van Zanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have found the related Exim message...
> >
> > 2006-12-19 11:47:02 1GwdM9-0006Pd-35 local_scan() function timed out -
> > message temporarily rejected (size 320896)
>
> > ... so maybe I've posted this to the wrong list. Sorry.
>
>Unfortuna
agree. I think it is more likely to be my config than a
bug in local_scan(), but you never know. I have posted to the sa-exim list.
Jon
> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Ribbens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I solved the problem by simply making my filter not bother passing the
> message to spamc at all if it was over 200k.
>
Yes, as I understand sa-exim, messages over 250K (the default in my case)
sh
Jon Armitage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I solved the problem by simply making my filter not bother passing the
> > message to spamc at all if it was over 200k.
>
> Yes, as I understand sa-exim, messages over 250K (the default in my case)
> should not be passed to S
x27; mailbox
from approximately 3,000 a day to more like 10, so it's being very
helpful in that respect ;-)
Cheers
Jon
nd beside the point of my
question, which is: should I change our emails, and if so, in what
way - or do SpamAssassin's default settings as provided on
updates.spamassassin.org need changing?
Cheers
Jon
"John D. Hardin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...sign up with a service like Habeas or Bonded Sender and put their
> headers in your messages?
I suppose we could do. Does anyone know how much that costs?
It still seems wrong to me though that SpamAssassin is penalising mail
that doesn't look like
Noel Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So why not find which rules are triggered by your message
I already did - see my original post at the start of this thread.
> Can't be too hard, spammers do it all the time.
That's my point - why should I have to behave like a spammer in order
to avoid get
Loren Wilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Taking a look at that and offering my opinions:
Thanks for taking the time to have a look at it. Apart from inline
images though, the other points either don't apply to our emails, or
don't appear to be contributing to the SpamAssassin score.
> In all hon
from a bot-net vs. a 'lone wolf'?
--
"I drank what?" | Jon Trulson
-Socrates | mailto:j...@radscan.com
| A828 C19D A087 F20B DFED
| 67C9 6F32 31AB E647 B345
SpamAssassin 3.1.0 on FreeBSD 4. It's working great for me 99% of the
time, but there is one common type of spam that it lets through. I
can't seem to train it to ignore it, and what's worse, it has begun
hitting BAYES_00 and AWL so it's autolearning all these bad messages as
ham! Argh!
Th
-Original Message-
From: Martin Hepworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 8:43 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: home owner
Jean-Paul
If can put the full email on a web page (headers and all)...
I can run it over my system, and let you know which
-Original Message-
From: Brian Moses [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon 6/5/2006 9:55 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Cc:
Subject:Pyzor Issues
Everyone,
I'm pretty new to Spamassassin, so if I ask a dumb question please bear
with me a bit.
I'm trying to set
ail: Program failure (-25) of "/usr/bin/spamassassin"
procmail: Rescue of unfiltered data succeeded
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri May 30 09:09:45 2008
Subject: RE: Customize the email list for you - 498485
Folder: /var/mail/jon1332
sometime
cut your server load.
I'm also providing a public server to harvest fake MX info to help build my
blacklist. You can use this host for your fake high numbered MX. (Not a low
numbered MX though)
Que the spamvertising...
mail.yourdomain.com 10
tarbaby.junkemailfilter.
about a year ago. They were only
hitting on SPAM emails and pushing them into the FN range.
I second that - habeas stopped being useful a long time ago (IMO of
course :). Just zero them out.
--
Happy cheese in fear | Jon Trulson
against oppressor, rebel!| mai
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Jon Trulson wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Anthony Peacock wrote:
I zeroed the scores for all of these rules about a year ago. They were
only hitting on SPAM emails and pushing them into the FN range.
I second that - habeas
I highly recommend it. But again, not the low MX. You'd be playing
with fire there.
--
Jon Trulson | A828 C19D A087 F20B DFED
mailto:j...@radscan.com | 67C9 6F32 31AB E647 B345
"What can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed
w
I'm getting a lot of spams slipping thru the net lately. They hit
BAYES_99 and nothing else, usually, because they contain almost no
content other than a URL:
http://uk.geocities.com/Robt_Bright/?M0v=Make.your.day_enjoyable.without
URIDNSBL is apparently skipping that due to it being geocitie
Thomas Deliduka wrote:
Ah, Gotcha. So, how can I simply empty out the AWL? I want it reverted to
nothing so I can start fresh.
rm $HOME/.spamassassin/auto-whitelist*
t received mail that makes spamassassin do this in debug
mode:
debug: received-header: unknown format: from 15.65.160.36 for EQR.44.k..[snip]
try spamassassin -D on one of your and see what it says.
--
Jon Kvebaek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mobil: +47 992 19 829
Unanimiter et constanter Oslo
) if anyone needs it.
Jon
iting for a complaint
from one of our users.
Jon Armitage
re Exim to call SA twice.
-Jon
Hi,
we get quite a few messages that have no Received: headers. These seem
to cause ALL_TRUSTED to fire (with a negative score of course), which
isn't exactly what I want. Any idea on how I should deal with this
correctly?
--
Jon Kvebaek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mobil: +47 992 19 829
Un
Quoting Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Jon Kvebaek wrote:
> > Hi,
> > we get quite a few messages that have no Received: headers. These
> seem
> > to cause ALL_TRUSTED to fire (with a negative score of course),
> which
> > isn't exactly what I w
eing a lot of them as well, and now with other URLs than
geocities.
They all have one thing in common - they look like normal forwarded mail
with an URL in it. Not easy to stay ahead of this kind of trash.
--
Jon Kvebaek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mobil: +47 992 19 829
Unanimiter et constanter Oslo
. However, I don't know which other MTAs would be
able to do this, or even if this blanket approach would suit you.
Jon
.
>
> If you are not running sa-update you are only updating a
> small section of your rules.
I believe there a way to use sa-update to get the SARE rules from
saupdates.openprotect.com.
Jon
ill do
what you want.
http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.1.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Conf.txt
Jon
ve a score of 10.0, but as you can
> see this email only received a score of 3.5 on that rule.
Steve,
I think the syntax is
score SARE_ADULT2_BODY 8.0
If that's what you've actually got I suggest you run spamassassin -D --lint
and look for any errors/problems in your setup.
Jon
> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Ingraham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I will add the "score SARE_ADULT2 BODY 10.0" line to local.cf
Steve,
I've just checked for you. It's
score SARE_ADULT2 10.0
Ignore my earlier suggestion about adding an underscore.
Jon
ores -100, the default
from the rules in /var/lib/sa.
Jon
ve had one bounce from them---an email from a mailing list that we run.
I alerted the recipient, and he sorted it out at his end. I hope.
Jon
n with further details of your setup if you're not sure how to do
this, and I'm sure someone will explain.
BTW Doing this is a big win for us---we reject around half of all incoming
mail because the recipient is invalid. This saves SA an awful lot of work.
Jon
of local host.
>
Sushma,
The answer is probably, but please tell us which mail transport agent (Exim?
Sendmail? something else?) you are using.
Then someone on the list, possibly even me :), will be able to help you.
Jon
e find it much more productive to have our MTA (Exim) check whether the
incoming email address is valid and reject invalid ones at the RCPT stage.
Then you don't need to pass them to SpamAssassin at all.
Further details on request---there have been other similar threads as well.
Jon
_CAPS,
X_MSMAIL_PRIORITY_HIGH,X_PRIORITY_HIGH autolearn=no
version=3.0.1
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on
dhgsrv17.deltahealthgroup.com
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Mar 2005 13:54:46.0084 (UTC)
FILETIME=[648D6840:01C51F2F]
Thanks,
.jon
being tagged. The
only thing that seemed different about it was that it was flagged as
"Urgent".
Thanks,
.jon
> -Original Message-
> From: Evan Platt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 10:19 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Why w
> At 11:25 AM 3/2/2005, Jon Dossey wrote:
> >I apologize, I was in a rush. System is redhat fc2, sendmail 8.13.1,
> >spamassassin 3.0.1 and spamass-milter 0.2.0 (updated for SA 3.0,
haven't
> >switched to 0.3.0 yet).
> >
> >Here's (most
configuration is parsed by spamassassin, god only knows how a mistake
like that would end up assigned to some int somewhere.
I'll take it out and see how it goes. Thanks guys.
.jon
all kinds of options like From =~ /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/i
And variations of the above but nothing is working
If I change that to rawbody it works, but the reason I am trying to use the
>From field so that it will not trigger off of the To field. Any help would
be greatly appreciated
Jon McGreevy
PROTECTED]/I
Alternatively
whitelist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is generally not considered a good idea tho, because these headers
are very easy to forge. (viruses tend to masquarade as
internal->internal mail)
R
-Original Message-
From: Jon McGreevy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
IP won't really work since most people webmail from all over
-Original Message-
From: Martin Hepworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 10:09 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Problem with a Rule
Jon
doing it this way
:51 AM 3/3/2005, Jon McGreevy wrote:
>I am running SA 2.64 and trying to create a rule so that peoples email
>inside the organization will not be marked as spam
>
>I am trying to use the header option and it is not working
>
>Here is what I have so far
>
> From =~ /[
r-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on
I throw my self at the mery of the SA mailing list :)
Thanks,
.jon
ow my self at the mery of the SA mailing list :)
Ok, I changed the required_hits to required_score (even though it
shouldn't matter) and its still not tagging the messages. What am I
missing? Is there any other place this could be defined (or not
defined)?
Thanks,
.jon
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 5:04 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Spamassassin Tagging
>
> Jon Dossey wrote:
> >> Still having problems.
> >>
> &g
> Jon Dossey wrote:
> >> -Original Message-----
> >> Jon Dossey wrote:
> >>>> Still having problems.
> >>>>
> >>>> Redhat FC2, sendmail 8.31.1, spamassassin 3.0.1 (with
> >>>> spamass-milter).
> >>>&
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, Jon Dossey wrote:
>
> > > Sounds like a spamass-milter bug... have you checked their site:
> > > http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?group=spamass-milt
> >
> > I don't think it's a milter problem, because the messages are b
I made a few custom rules for SA
I did a rawbody test for /jpg/i
Also another rawbody for /gif/i
And then gave these two point values just above the value of spam like I
have mine set at 8 and gave each of these a 30. The emails that I have been
getting in were just a weblink and some text. My
--
Note that I've scored up RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET to 5.0.
I know that the other local scores work OK becuause I can sent GTUBE in for a
pretty large score
Cheers
Jon Gerdes
*** Disclaimer ***
The information contained in this E-Mail and any subsequent correspondence may
be subj
+ -1.096 + 0.703 = 4.607 which is exactly what I got!!!
Gosh it's all working just as it says on the tin 8)
Very sorry for wasting your time.
Cheers
Jon Gerdes
>>> "Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/08/05 11:57am >>>
BAYES_40 will slightly l
t; problems went away. It's chuffing along happily now.
>
> Memory leak, maybe?
What kind of hardware? Are you scanning zips? I had to just start
blocking zip attachments all together until these virii settle down a
bit.
.jon
> From: Thomas Cameron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: spamassassin-users
> Subject: RE: [SOLVED] Re: Suddenly load average of 15-18???
>
> On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 11:46 -0500, Jon Dossey wrote:
> > > From: Thomas Cameron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent
they are being trapped...
--
Jon Trulsonmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ID: 1A9A2B09, FP: C23F328A721264E7 B6188192EC733962
PGP keys at http://radscan.com/~jon/PGPKeys.txt
#include
"I am Nomad." -Nomad
t sort of problem?
Yours faithfully,
Valery
--
Jon Trulsonmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ID: 1A9A2B09, FP: C23F328A721264E7 B6188192EC733962
PGP keys at http://radscan.com/~jon/PGPKeys.txt
#include
"I am Nomad." -Nomad
fault setup, running spamd/spamass-milter, SA 3.0.1, RedHat
FC2, and sendmail 8.13.1. I haven't checked in a while (since I updated SA,
the milter, and sendmail), but I have a good feeling most of my processing time
was spent waiting for DNS responses.
Any input into my situation would be appreciated. I'd love to be able to get
down to 2-3 seconds, basically cutting my processing time in half!
.jon
Can anyone recommend a good logfile analyzer for Spamassassin?
ange server on the LAN.
Don't forget to re-make the mailertable file:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mail]# makemap hash mailertable.db < mailertable
Hopefully I understood your problem correctly :)
Thanks,
Jon Dossey
DELTA HEALTH GROUP
>
Or, if you wanted to watch, just skip the -D (daemonize option). It'll
just sit in the foreground and you can watch it do its thing.
.jon
olver. This gives SA a lot of control over queries, but doesn't
take
> > advantage of things like /etc/hosts, and only uses your primary DNS.
>
> ahhh ok
> anyway i can hack it??
> *goes off to read CPAN*...
You'd "hack" SA instead of just installing bind, and letting it just
cache the response?
Talk about wagging the dog ...
.jon
out into a useable format that
sa-learn will understand? Saving messages out of Outlook (for me
anyway) into a txt file removes all the internet headers.
So how else do you handle getting your messages back out of
exchange/outlook, and sa-learn'ed?
.jon
> > Jon Dossey wrote:
> > > I'm sure a lot of us have a similar setup, linux/bsd mx gateways
> > > (running SA) relaying mail to Exchange, and Outlook clients. I'm
just
> > > curious how everyone handles learning?
> > >
> > > It seem
) examined).
ham messages:
Learned from 2667 message(s) (3288 message(s) examined).
But nham and nspam is still well under 200 each. What can I do?
Thanks,
Jon
use of
this?
Thanks,
Shane
--
Shane Hickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Network/System Consultant
GPG KeyID: 777CBF3F
Key fingerprint: 254F B2AC 9939 C715 278C DA95 4109 9F69 777C BF3F
Listening to: The Courtship of Birdy Numnum - The
Parapalegic-Homoerotic Episode
--
Shane Hickey <[EMAIL PROTECTE
processes instead of as a daemon. The load time was never terribly
bad, and they certainly can't leak.
See my response in a previous thread on this problem. For kicks,
try --max-conn-per-child=1 to spamd see and see if your machine will last
longer :) Mine did...
--
Jon Trulson
ing memory... Seems
pretty much strange to me...
Same thing I saw, except in my case, it was 320MB. Once a child
had it, it never let it go until terminated (or hit the default 200
connection limit).
[...]
--
Jon Trulsonmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ID: 1A9A2B09, FP: C23F328A721264E7 B6188192EC
mewhat more beefy host.
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 15:09:50 -0500, Doug Block <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I had this problem till I set the max per child option to = 1
This caused spamd to kill the process used to scan every msg once it's
done.
Not the best answer I know but it keeps it in check
ipped through
since I enabled it Sunday.
OTOH, SA 3.0 seems to be doing a *much* better job at catching
spam. Big improvement over 2.6x, so I'll keep it :)
Thanks,
Michael
--
Jon Trulsonmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ID: 1A9A2B09, FP: C23F328A721264E7 B6188192EC733962
PGP keys at http://radsca
even after finishing a message). We do
use AWL and bayes.
Michael
--
Jon Trulsonmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ID: 1A9A2B09, FP: C23F328A721264E7 B6188192EC733962
PGP keys at http://radscan.com/~jon/PGPKeys.txt
#include
"I am Nomad." -Nomad
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Michael Parker wrote:
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 10:53:30AM -0600, Jon Trulson wrote:
FWIW, in our case a child would go to 320MB and just stay there
until the child was terminated (even after finishing a message). We do
use AWL and bayes.
Is it possible to try and find the
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Jon Trulson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Michael Parker wrote:
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 10:53:30AM -0600, Jon Trulson wrote:
FWIW, in our case a child would go to 320MB and just stay there
until the child was terminated (even after finishing a message). We do
use AWL and
on a whitelist
or bayes database maintenance event of some sort.
Better question.
Of all the folks seeing memory issues, are you using ok_languages in
your config somewhere? If not, please speak up as well.
I am using 'ok_locales en'.
--
Jon Trulsonmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ID: 1A
er at catching spam than 2.63 was (out of the box).
With 2.64, we avaraged about 10 or so spams below threshold (5.0).
Now it's about 1, and some days, none :) Worth the upgrade IMO.
--
Jon Trulsonmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ID: 1A9A2B09, FP: C23F328A721264E7 B6188192EC733962
PGP ke
that do not get through 2.6x are
generally (a) those that match BAYES_99, which by itself in the
default configuration is no longer a large enough score to make me
happy, or
True. Some spam we get is soley BAYES_99. I've bumped it back up
to 5.2 (like in 2.6x).
--
Jon Trulsonmailto:[EMA
no custom rulesets with v3 currently. At least on my
system, the memory issues had nothing to do with a custom ruleset or 3.
The --max-children=1 flag to spamd has 'solved' the issue for
me... Average child size is around 19-20MB, until 'the event' happens, at
which point it j
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Jon Trulson wrote:
On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Justin Mason wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The --max-children=1 flag to spamd has 'solved' the issue for me...
Sorry, that should be '--max-conn-per-child=1'.
--
Jon Trulsonmailto:
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
