I've been trying to filter some SPAM that is using a false FROM domain. Stuff is coming from overseas ( spammachine.spamsite.spammer.pl [99.99.99.99] ), but is using a false from domain, such as ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ).
This stuff would fail, except DECLUDE shows it as coming from a .edu, and clears it ( assigns the appropriate negative value, I should say ). Now, for reasons I won't go into here, I HAVE to allow all mail from .edu domains, as well as .gov, and .us... I can't bounce it, and I have no other way to pre-allow email from some junior college in upper southern north Dakota... Any help on this ? Karl Drugge -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Colbeck, Andrew Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 12:33 PM To: declude.junkmail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Disk pattern 0xDF in files -> Microsoft confirms KB920958 bug! And it made its appearance over at the SANS Internet Storm Center handler's log: http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?storyid=1711 In short, Microsoft has admitted that there is a problem and updated their advisory and also provided a hotfix. Andrew. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Heimir Eidskrem > Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 7:16 AM > To: declude.junkmail@declude.com > Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Disk pattern 0xDF in > files -> Microsoft confirms KB920958 bug! > > Andy, > > Not sure if you saw it but this issue was brought up on > Slashdot yesterday, so it got some exposure. > > Heimir > > > Andy Schmidt wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I finally was able to get a confirmation from Microsoft Support > > yesterday afternoon (case: SRZ060911001854) > > > > "We are aware the issue you are experiencing. A > corresponding bugcheck > > request is currently open, and the develop team is working > on this issue. > > However, the hotfix for this issue is not ready. > > > > 0xDF is the data pattern that NTFS returns when it has problem to > > decompress the file (eg. the compression fragments are > corrupted and > > can't be decompressed). Based on my research, the actual > raw data on > > the disk is not changed, it shows as 0xDF because the system cannot > > decompress the file and display the data correctly. So the > corrupt is not permanent. > > > > Further more, the issue only occurs on files which containing > > Hexadecimal codes." > > > > Apparently, Microsoft decided not to warn people about this > problem - > > no comment has been added to KF920958 warning people which system > > configurations will cause data loss (who cares if it's not > permanent > > if you can't use your data for a few months). > > > > Best Regards > > Andy Schmidt > > > > Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) > > Fax: +1 201 934-9206 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > Heimir Eidskrem > > Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 03:21 PM > > To: declude.junkmail@declude.com > > Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Disk pattern 0xDF in files -> > > KB920958 may be bad! > > > > Answers below. > > > > Andy Schmidt wrote: > > > >> Hi Heimir: > >> > >> I've been running a number of tests, am in contact with a third > >> Microsoft customer and some pattern seems to emerge. I also have a > >> "lead" to a questionable Hotfix, but I'm trying to qualify > that first. > >> > >> Can we first compare your systems to see what's the same > (and may be > >> relevant) and what's different: > >> > >> A) Disks are defined as "dynamic" > >> > >> > > Dynamic > > > >> B) Disks are software mirrored using Win2k Disk Administration > >> > >> > > no > > > >> C) The folders with the "problem" files have the "compression" > >> attribute set! > >> > >> > > yes. > > > >> D) Did the problem occur at some point after KB920958 was > installed? > >> > >> > > yes, I think so. > > > >> E) Do the corrupted files have a content of all 0xDF (it looks a > >> little like an uppercase "B", the German special "s", or like the > >> Beta > >> character) > >> > >> > > Yes > > > >> F) Does it appear as if only NEW files are effected? > >> > >> > > no, old files as well. BUT I think defrag ran this weekend and that > > would have moved some files - if that matters. > > > >> G) Does it appear as if only files are effected that are > close to a > >> multiple of 4K? > >> > >> > > Yes. > > > >> I broke the mirrors on my effected two servers and ran > ChkDsk /F. On > >> one server, ONE disk ChkDsk reported errors (including the > files that > >> I knew were corrupted) - virtually all of them were image > file types. > >> I reran the ChkDsk and it did NOT find errors. I then tried the > >> second disk of the mirror and it found no errors at all. I then > >> restablished the mirrors and my client continues to have > problems with new files. > >> > >> On the second server, I broke the mirror, again, the ChcDsk /F > >> repaired a long list of errors. I did NOT reestablish the > mirror and > >> did not put that disk back in service. > >> > >> > >> Please contribute to the thread in the Microsoft newsgroup: > >> > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/newsgroups/dgbrowser/en-us > >> / > >> defaul > >> > t.mspx?dg=microsoft.public.win2000.file_system&mid=d826afe9-2ab1-4b2f > >> - > >> ae11-c > >> c27702f574a > >> > >> Best Regards > >> Andy Schmidt > >> > >> Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) > >> Fax: +1 201 934-9206 > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > >> Heimir Eidskrem > >> Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:29 PM > >> To: declude.junkmail@declude.com > >> Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Disk pattern 0xDF in files > >> > >> Follow up: > >> During the day I did run chkdks with no switch to check the hard > >> drive, it reported errors and could not continue. Last night I did > >> run chkdsk /f on the partition and it did not find any > errors this time. > >> > >> i did process a few thumbnails and they worked fine at > 12:30am today. > >> At 8:00am they still worked but now 11:27 they dont. This was old > >> photos that I did reprocess again. A couple of new photos that was > >> uploaded yesterday and processed yesterday is still working fine. > >> > >> I can't make much sense out of this. Not sure what to next. > >> I dont think its hardware and I am certain its not our software. > >> So that leaves OS. > >> > >> > >> Heimir Eidskrem wrote: > >> > >> > >>> we are having the exact problem on one of our servers. > >>> We create small thumbnail pictures about 4k in size. > >>> They work fine at first but later they are corrupted. > >>> > >>> Windows 2000 server. > >>> > >>> I have no clue what it could be at this time. > >>> It started around this weekend I think. > >>> > >>> Please keep me posted if you find something. > >>> > >>> H. > >>> > >>> > >>> Andy Schmidt wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> I have two older servers (but not same models or same purchase > >>>> years) running Windows 2000 with mirrored disks > (software Raid-1). > >>>> > >>>> Two days ago a customer noticed that they uploaded files > to their > >>>> FTP space, and initially they see the files on the > browser - but a > >>>> while later the data is corrupted. > >>>> > >>>> I investigated - and oddly enough the problem so far > always seems > >>>> to appear with small thumbnail graphics files that > occupy less than > >>>> 4095 bytes. > >>>> When I > >>>> inspect the files I may see the "correct" data through a > share, but > >>>> if I access the files through some other method, I > always see the > >>>> byte pattern of 0xDF. > >>>> > >>>> I ran a standalone checkdisk a day ago against the first server, > >>>> sure enough, it reported and fixed several problems "Windows > >>>> replaced bad clusters in file xxxx". But, the problem > recurred the > >>>> next > >>>> > > day. > > > >>>> Now, my first instinct was that ONE of the two mirrored > disks was > >>>> truly on its way out and depending on which drive was > being used to > >>>> read the data it would either get good or bad data. > >>>> > >>>> However, a day later a second customer had the same > complaint but > >>>> on an entirely different machine. In this case, the error occurs > >>>> with a set of relatively new SCSI drives (not even a year old). > >>>> > >>>> So now that I'm looking at two totally different server models, > >>>> from entirely different years, one with fairly new disks > - what are > >>>> the chances that the SAME problem and symptom would show at the > >>>> same time. Both on software mirrored disks, in both cases files > >>>> that are less than 4 MB large. > >>>> > >>>> Now I'm wondering if this is some "software" issue. > >>>> > >>>> Best Regards > >>>> Andy Schmidt > >>>> > >>>> Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) > >>>> Fax: +1 201 934-9206 > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of > >>>> David Barker > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 03:53 PM > >>>> To: declude.junkmail@declude.com > >>>> Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Trying to install Declude 3.1.20 > >>>> anew > >>>> > >>>> When the decludeproc services start under your windows > services and > >>>> the first email is processed. A file call diags.txt is > created in > >>>> your \Declude directory. > >>>> This should contain the version and diagnostics. The > valid options > >>>> on decludeproc from the cmd prompt are: > >>>> > >>>> Decludeproc -v displays the version and build > >>>> > >>>> Decludeproc -i installs the decludeproc service > >>>> > >>>> Decludeproc -u uninstalls the decludeproc service > >>>> > >>>> David B > >>>> www.declude.com > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of > >>>> Andy Schmidt > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 3:43 PM > >>>> To: declude.junkmail@declude.com > >>>> Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Trying to install Declude 3.1.20 > >>>> anew > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Dave - > >>>> That's what I call catch 22: > >>>> > >>>> D:\IMail>decludeproc -diag > >>>> Invalid command line parameter: > >>>> -install Install Declude > >>>> -diag Print diagnostics > >>>> > >>>> Hm - so let's see, after "-install", I used "-diag" to > figure out > >>>> what's wrong. But, "-diag" is invalid. The ony valid > parameters are... > >>>> "-install" > >>>> and "-diag"? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Best Regards > >>>> Andy Schmidt > >>>> > >>>> Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) > >>>> Fax: +1 201 934-9206 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ________________________________ > >>>> > >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of > >>>> Andy Schmidt > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 03:09 PM > >>>> To: declude.junkmail@declude.com > >>>> Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Trying to install Declude 3.1.20 > >>>> anew > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Hi Dave, > >>>> > >>>> thanks. > >>>> > >>>> Next question: > >>>> > >>>> I noticed that your Virus.CFG is missing two options > from Version 2: > >>>> > >>>> AUTOFORGE ON > >>>> > >>>> BANEZIPEXTS ON > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> If I recall correctly, the idea was that: > >>>> BANZIPEXTS OFF > >>>> # BANEXT EZIP > >>>> BANEZIPEXTS ON > >>>> > >>>> would PERMIT banned extensions inside zipped files (where they > >>>> could be scanned), but DENY banned extensions if they were > >>>> contained inside encrypted zipped files. > >>>> > >>>> Where those options forgotten in your config file - or > are they no > >>>> longer available in Version 3? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Best Regards > >>>> Andy Schmidt > >>>> > >>>> Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) > >>>> Fax: +1 201 934-9206 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ________________________________ > >>>> > >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of > >>>> David Barker > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 02:43 PM > >>>> To: declude.junkmail@declude.com > >>>> Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Trying to install Declude 3.1.20 > >>>> anew > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The Program Files\Declude is a temp directory that can > be deleted > >>>> after the install. The original purpose of this directory was to > >>>> make available the latest configs as we do not overwrite your > >>>> configs. This has since been removed in version 4.x > where you will > >>>> find a \Declude\Resources directory which has the same purpose. > >>>> > >>>> David B > >>>> www.declude.com > >>>> > >>>> ________________________________ > >>>> > >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of > >>>> Andy Schmidt > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 2:36 PM > >>>> To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com > >>>> Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Trying to install Declude 3.1.20 anew > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> I'm trying to set up a server from scratch and thus > downloaded and ran: > >>>> > >>>> Declude_IM_N310.exe > >>>> > >>>> and chose the option to let it do its install (rather than the > >>>> option for "experienced" admins). PS - that screen has a typo! > >>>> > >>>> The setup created a > >>>> C:\Program Files\Declude > >>>> folder that contains just the 5 config files it also created the > >>>> SAME files > >>>> in: > >>>> > >>>> D:\Imail\Declude > >>>> > >>>> together with binaries and the various other Declude files. > >>>> > >>>> I'm at loss! > >>>> Which location is the "right" one for the config files (I'm > >>>> assuming the D:\Imail\Declude)? > >>>> > >>>> What's the point of creating a "dummy" Folder in the C:\Program > >>>> Files\ that contains no programs and that contains files > that are > >>>> not being used at all (assuming that being the case)? > >>>> > >>>> Should I be deleting this Program Files folder to avoid > confusion > >>>> when someone else maintains this server? > >>>> > >>>> Come on, the cold war has been over since Reagan - are we still > >>>> trying to confuse the Russians? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Best Regards > >>>> Andy Schmidt > >>>> > >>>> Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) > >>>> Fax: +1 201 934-9206 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ________________________________ > >>>> > >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 03:25 PM > >>>> To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com > >>>> Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Experience with 4.x > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Andrew, > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for your notes and their history. > >>>> > >>>> I'm using the following settings right now: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> THREADS 30 > >>>> WAITFORMAIL 500 > >>>> WAITFORTHREADS 200 > >>>> WAITBETWEENTHREADS 100 > >>>> WINSOCKCLEANUP OFF > >>>> INVITEFIX ON > >>>> AUTOREVIEW ON > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> There are a few reasons for trying these values. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> THREADS 30 - I'm pretty confident that dual 3.2 Ghz > Xeons and > >>>> RAID can only handle 30 threads with average messages. > In reality, > >>>> one single message can spike the system to 100%, but these are > >>>> uncommon. I figure that if I open this up too wide and I am > >>>> dealing with a backup or something, launching more > threads when at > >>>> 100% CPU utilization will actually slow the system down. > This was > >>>> the same with 2.x and before. There is added overhead > to managing > >>>> threads and you don't want that to happen on top of 100% CPU > >>>> utilization. I am going to back up my server later > tonight to see > >>>> if I can't find what the magic number is since I don't > want to be > >>>> below that magic number, and it would probably be best to be a > >>>> little above it. > >>>> > >>>> WAITFORMAIL 500 - On my server, this never kicks in, > but if it > >>>> did, it wouldn't make sense to delay for too long > because I could > >>>> build up messages. A half second seems good. > >>>> > >>>> WAITFORTHREADS 200 - This apparently kicks in only > when I reach > >>>> my thread limit; sort of like a throttle. I don't want it to be > >>>> too long because this should only happen when I am > hammered, but it > >>>> is wise not to keep hammering when you are at 100%. Sort of a > >>>> mixed bag choice here. > >>>> > >>>> WAITBETWEENTHREADS 100 - I see this setting as being the > >>>> biggest issue with sizing a server. Setting it at 100 ms means > >>>> that I can only handle 10 messages per second, and this > establishes > >>>> an upper limit for what > >>>> the server can do. I currently average about 5 > messages per second > >>>> coming > >>>> from my gateways at peak hours, so I figured that to be safe, I > >>>> should double that value. > >>>> > >>>> INVITEFIX ON - I have it on because it comes on by > default and > >>>> I don't know any better. I know nothing about the cause for > >>>> needing this outside of brief comments. It seems > strange that my > >>>> Declude setup could ruin an invitation unless I was > using footers. > >>>> If this is only triggered by footer use, I would like to know so > >>>> that I could turn it off. I would imagine that this > causes extra > >>>> load to do the check. > >>>> > >>>> AUTOREVIEW ON - I have this on for the same reason > that Andrew > >>>> pointed out. When I restart Decludeproc, messages land in my > >>>> review folder, and I don't wish to keep manually fishing things > >>>> out. If there is an issue with looping, it would be wise for > >>>> Declude to make this only trigger say every 15 minutes > instead of > >>>> more regularly. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Feel free to add to this if you want. > >>>> > >>>> Matt > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Colbeck, Andrew wrote: > >>>> I'd second that... on both the observed behaviour and the > >>>> request for documentation. > >>>> I'm attaching my highly commented declude.cfg as a > >>>> reasonable sample. > >>>> Andrew 8) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ________________________________ > >>>> > >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 10:36 AM > >>>> To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com > >>>> Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Experience with 4.x > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> David, > >>>> > >>>> That did the trick. I can't even see any messages in my > >>>> proc folder any more. I might suggest adding your > explanation to > >>>> the comments in the file just in case others feel the > need to turn > >>>> this on like I did. I recalled the issues from the list and I > >>>> turned it on because I didn't want the possibility of > DNS crapping > >>>> out and the leakage that this would cause. > >>>> > >>>> Here's a screen cap of what my processor graph looks like > >>>> now: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> > >>>> Matt > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> David Barker wrote: > >>>> The purpose of WINSOCKCLEANUP ON is to reset > >>>> the winsock, what > >>>> happens when using this setting is that when > the \proc > >>>> directory hit 0 > >>>> decludeproc will finish processing all the > messages in > >>>> the \work before > >>>> checking the \proc again. As WINSOCKCLEANUP is to be > >>>> used only by those who > >>>> experience DNS issues I would suggest running your > >>>> tests again with > >>>> WINSOCKCLEANUP commented out and see how the > behavior > >>>> differs. Also having > >>>> the WAITFORMAIL to low can cause the CPU to process > >>>> very high as it is > >>>> constantly checking the \proc I would > suggest a minimum > >>>> of 500-1000 > >>>> > >>>> David B > >>>> www.declude.com > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf > >>>> Of Matt > >>>> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 8:12 PM > >>>> To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com > >>>> Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Experience with 4.x > >>>> > >>>> Darrell, > >>>> > >>>> I put up two Windows Explorer windows side-by-side > >>>> under normal volume and the pattern was > consistent where > >>>> the proc folder > >>>> grows while the work folder shrinks until > the work folder > >>>> hits zero > >>>> at which point the proc folder empties out > and everything > >>>> lands in work > >>>> and then the pattern repeats with proc > growing while work > >>>> shrinks. > >>>> > >>>> My settings are as follows: > >>>> > >>>> THREADS 50 > >>>> WAITFORMAIL 100 > >>>> WAITFORTHREADS 10 > >>>> WAITBETWEENTHREADS 50 > >>>> WINSOCKCLEANUP ON > >>>> AUTOREVIEW ON > >>>> INVITEFIX ON > >>>> > >>>> Matt > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Darrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> It's a faulty design that leaves > >>>> more than half a server's CPU > capacity unused due > >>>> to the mere fact > >>>> that they wait for all threads to > complete before > >>>> moving in a new > >>>> batch. > >>>> > >>>> I can't speak to what you see on your > >>>> server, but that is not how it is running on my > >>>> server. I just double > >>>> checked again to make sure I am not > crazy, but as I > >>>> watch the thread > >>>> count on my server (decludeproc) the threads > >>>> fluctuate between > >>>> 7 - 30 ( threads currently set to 50). > It is not > >>>> uncommon to see the > >>>> threads move as follow: > 11,8,10,7,15,.... While I > >>>> was watching it I > >>>> never seen a case where it went down low > enough for > >>>> the WAITFORMAIL > >>>> setting to kick in. Watching the > proc/work directory > >>>> you can see > >>>> files moving in and out, but never > really emptying > >>>> out. Its possible > >>>> what I am seeing is an anomaly or maybe I am > >>>> interpreting it wrong. > >>>> > >>>> Maybe David can comment on this. > >>>> > >>>> Darrell > >>>> > >>>> > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > >>>> invURIBL - Intelligent URI filtering plug-in > >>>> for Declude, mxGuard, and ORF. Stop spam at the > >>>> source the > >>>> spamvertised domain. More effective > than traditional > >>>> RBL's. Try it today - > >>>> http://www.invariantsystems.com > >>>> --- > >>>> This E-mail came from the > Declude.JunkMail mailing > >>>> list. To > >>>> unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to > >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED], and > >>>> type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". > The archives > >>>> can be found > >>>> at http://www.mail-archive.com. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> --- > >>>> This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing > >>>> list. To > >>>> unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to > >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED], and > >>>> type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The > archives can > >>>> be found > >>>> at http://www.mail-archive.com. > >>>> > >>>> --- > >>>> This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing > >>>> list. To > >>>> unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to > >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED], and > >>>> type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The > archives can > >>>> be found > >>>> at http://www.mail-archive.com. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> --- > >>>> This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To > >>>> unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type > >>>> "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at > >>>> http://www.mail-archive.com. > >>>> > >>>> --- > >>>> This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To > >>>> unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type > >>>> "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at > >>>> http://www.mail-archive.com. > >>>> > >>>> --- > >>>> This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To > >>>> unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type > >>>> "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at > >>>> http://www.mail-archive.com. > >>>> > >>>> --- > >>>> This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To > >>>> unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type > >>>> "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at > >>>> http://www.mail-archive.com. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> --- > >>>> This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To > >>>> unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type > >>>> "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at > >>>> http://www.mail-archive.com. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> --- > >>>> This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To > >>>> unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type > >>>> "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at > >>>> http://www.mail-archive.com. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> --- > >>> This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To > >>> unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], > and type > >>> "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at > >>> http://www.mail-archive.com. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> --- > >> This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To > >> unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type > >> "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at > >> http://www.mail-archive.com. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> --- > >> This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To > >> unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type > >> "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at > >> http://www.mail-archive.com. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > --- > > This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To > > unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type > > "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at > > http://www.mail-archive.com. > > > > > > > > > > --- > > This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To > > unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type > > "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at > > http://www.mail-archive.com. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To > unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and > type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be > found at http://www.mail-archive.com. > > --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
