In the business world, end users only care if the recipient received the
email they sent. They don't not know or care anything about RFC compliance.
I agree RFC compliance is important, but it should not trump the real world
concerns of end users.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
Regardless of the RFC, ignoring a trailing dot would be helpful for end
users. For example, a user might write My email address is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] When the recipient clients on [EMAIL PROTECTED], the dot
afterwards may be picked up as part of the mailto link. I realize this is a
customer
We've seen false positives with both spamhaus and njabl. I would not use
them due to the fact that they do block some legitimate email.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Francesco Vertova
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 11:17 AM
To:
Could you at least support the IMAP standard? It looks like the IMAP
standard is going to stick around. :)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Davide Libenzi
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 12:15 PM
To: xmail@xmailserver.org
Subject: [xmail]
If you are writing the PHP application, I strongly suggest using the class
from http://phpmailer.sourceforge.net/ instead of the native mail()
function. The native mail() is a simple and insecure mail sending function.
With the PHPMailer class, you can use SMTP AUTH to securely connect to your
Don't use the native PHP mail() function. Use a 3rd party library like
PHPMailer. http://phpmailer.sourceforge.net/
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 2:22 AM
To: xmail@xmailserver.org
Does XMail fully support RFC 2476?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We have clients that use the mail() command, but I would not recommend it.
You should use the PHPMailer class instead of the native mail() command.
Many of the popular PHP applications already do this.
http://phpmailer.sourceforge.net/
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That is what I figured. Would it be possible to implement some quota checks
into the SMAIL threads? The current behavior is confusing and frustrating
for end users. As an end user, the expectation is to not accept email into
a mailbox if the mailbox is over quota regardless of whether or not
I have found a situation with XMail where XMail ignores the mailbox quotas.
If there are two mailboxes on the same box and one forwards into the other,
XMail ignores the mailbox quota of the second mailbox when receiving
forwards from the first one.
For example, lets say we have two mailboxes
this occur between two users on the same domain? Ie. Is it a problem
between users of the same Xmail server, or between domains on the same Xmail
server only.
Rob :-)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Shiloh Jennings
Sent: Saturday, February 18
Using those RBLs to block the IP address of mail servers in those lists will
do a lot to reduce the amount of spam you see. However, it will also block
some legitimate email as well. What I would recommend is using the least
aggressive RBLs along with something like SpamAssassin or ASSP. For
SpamCop is blocking servers based on misdirected bounces. SpamCop wants
all legit email servers to suppress bounce messages. Is there any way to
prevent XMail from sending nondelivery messages? I realize this violates an
RFC, but SpamCop is blocking servers based on this issue and that means
Do you have any custom domains set up to relay mail? Do you have any
anti virus filters that send bounce messages?
I'm trying to understand why you'd be sending so many misdirected bounces?
We do not have custom domains set up. We are not currently sending bounces
from spam/virus filters.
When will XMail support IMAP?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Look into using monowall firewall. It has some really nice traffic shaping
functions built into it.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Liam
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 5:21 PM
To: xmail@xmailserver.org
Subject: [xmail] Traffic shaping
I really do not want to nag, but I am curious how the development of XMail
2.0 with IMAP support is coming. Any news?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to
We run XMail on Windows, but we use Bind on Windows instead of Microsoft
DNS. I do not think we have had any problems with yahoo and hotmail. Were
the people seeing this problem using Microsoft DNS or BIND?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf
In config.php in Uebimiau set the following:
$use_password_for_smtp = yes;
That will enable SMTP AUTH in your webmail.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jeff Buehler
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 11:33 AM
To: xmail@xmailserver.org
We have worked with Windows and SpamAssassin quite a bit. We finally =
gave
up on running SA on the Windows boxes and just move SA onto some old =
FreeBSD
boxes. Then we use a native Win32 build of SpamC on the Windows boxes =
to
communicate with SpamD on the FreeBSD boxes. Works like a champ.
That is because glst does not support a bypass option for SMTP AUTH yet.
For now, you can set up IP ranges that you would like glst to ignore. =
Once
glst supports a bypass option for SMTP AUTH, then we could actually =
start
using it. =20
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That is awesome! 1.21 is going to rock.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Davide Libenzi
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 12:19 PM
To: xmail@xmailserver.org
Subject: [xmail] Re: glst
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Jeffrey L. Conley wrote:
Over
.
Jason J Ellingson
Sr. Web Software Developer
=20
615.301.1682 : nashville
612.605.1132 : minneapolis
=20
www.ellingson.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=20
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] =
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of Shiloh Jennings
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 10
. Web Software Developer
615.301.1682 : nashville
612.605.1132 : minneapolis
www.ellingson.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] =
On
Behalf Of Shiloh Jennings
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 10:14 AM
To: xmail@xmailserver.org
Subject
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] =
On
Behalf Of Shiloh Jennings
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 12:00 PM
To: xmail@xmailserver.org
Subject: [xmail] Re: AV and SA
1) Most of the popular viruses are not very big. My main virus concern =
=3D
is
the fast spreading email worms. This solution is blocking
I would not even try using Access for a busy email server. Access works
awesome when you have one connection at a time. By the time you hit 5
simultaneous connections, Access is definitely not the best choice.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] =
On
Try 0.21 and the new --mnet option ...
http://www.xmailserver.org/glst-mod.html
Very cool. BTW, did you get a chance to add any options for SMTP AUTH
users? I need an option to whitelist the SMTP AUTH users.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in
the body of a
Previously, I had been running ClamAV and SpamC on each of my email =
servers.
SpamD was running on a cluster of FreeBSD boxes. I had always wanted a
solution to move ClamAV off of the email servers and onto the SA boxes. =
I
finally found a solution:
I do not plan to put that in 1.21, so ATM you can wrap GLST with a script,
or you can even modify its source to return 0 based on @@USERAUTH.
Ok. I definitely won't wrap it within another script, because I try to
reduce the number of processes I spawn since I run Windows. I realize
process
Dictionary attack detection is something I really wish XMail could =
natively
do. ModusMail was a package we used prior to XMail. It could detect =
and
temporarily ban an IP address for a set period of time. It actually =
helped
a lot. You do not want to permanently ban such IP addresses,
Wow, thanks. I have two quick questions about the greylisting pluggin. =
How
does that handle customers connecting with SMTP AUTH to send email? =
Also,
how does that handle the form to email scripts running on the same boxes
that are trusted for relaying (EX: when 127.0.0.1 is listed in the
The reason for needing SMTP SASL support is because some customers =
outside
of our class C will need to use our SMTP server when sending since our =
SMTP
will be listed as their authorized sending SMTP server within their SPF
data. However, their local ISPs ban outbound port 25. These customers
If this became widespread, then a lot of ISPs would need to set their =
SMTP
servers to retry a lot more often. Otherwise, customers would complain
about the email delays. Also, if it were widespread, spammers would =
simply
double tap each email. Sending the exact same email twice instead of =
get propagated on some of the black lists.
Shiloh Jennings wrote:
If this became widespread, then a lot of ISPs would need to set their =
SMTP
servers to retry a lot more often. Otherwise, customers would complain
about the email delays. Also, if it were widespread, spammers would =
simply
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] =
On
Behalf Of Shiloh Jennings
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 2:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [xmail] Re: [SPAM] RE: Re: Spam Filters
Cygwin for CLamAV and a native Win32 compile of SpamC.
Windows CLamAV:
http://clamav.or.id/
Windows SpamC
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] =
On
Behalf Of Shiloh Jennings
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 10:55 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [xmail] Re: [SPAM] RE: Re: Spam Filters
I admit some performance is currently lost on Cygwin. However, this is =
=3D
not
really what concerns me performance wise
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] =
On
Behalf Of Shiloh Jennings
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 5:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [xmail] Re: [SPAM] RE: Re: Spam Filters
Yes, there is a client called clamdscan that can call clamd. ClamD can =
=3D
stay
running. However, that does not reduce the number
SA3 returns a bit different header than SA2.6x. You need to rewrite the
perl filter to look for score= instead of hits=.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Riaz Oosman
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 1:02 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
There are filters available to do filtering with XMail based on SPF =
data.
However, there are two other important issues to fully supporting SPF. =
One
is SASL SMTP (allowing customers to send email on port 587, but only =
with
SMTP AUTH). You can easily bind XMail's SMTP service to both ports
in your DNS is step 1, and you do=20
not need to do anything else if you don't feel like it. This just makes=20
life easier for everyone who receives messages from your domains.
Shiloh Jennings wrote:
AUTH only. The other issue is SRS (Sender Rewriting Scheme). With =
SRS =3D
and
SASL SMTP
script to pass the
-u parameter. Maybe something with SA 3.0 changed with how that works. I
would run spamd in debug mode (-D) and check the output.
-Don
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Shiloh Jennings
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 11:49
Xmail has been running fine for months. Now all of the sudden, it crashes
after running for a few minutes. The error in the event log right now is
simply the following:
ErrCode = -15
ErrString = User profile file not found
Unable to load server configuration file
SMTP-Error = 417 Unable to
: User profile file not found
My guess is error in server.tab (missing or corupted) or any other TAB file
Matic
Shiloh Jennings pravi:
Xmail has been running fine for months. Now all of the sudden, it crashes
after running for a few minutes. The error in the event log right now is
simply
For performance reasons, I would really like to see this feature =
integrated
into XMail rather than doing it through an out of process filter. I =
realize
this is less of an issue on Linux, but spawning additional processes =
under
Windows does result in a performance hit. If the interface for
I see what you are trying to do. However, I think you will run into =
more
trouble if you could actually do that. XMail needs to call itself the =
name
the server's IP will reverse dns lookup to. That is the important check
done by those somewhat outdated spam filtering dns checks. I have
I would also really like to be able to do this.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] =
On
Behalf Of John Kielkopf
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 9:31 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [xmail] Re: Forced SMTP auth per port
Exactly what I'm trying to do.
If you do not want to require SMTP AUTH, you could list your local IP
addresses in the smtprelay.tab file. Then those IPs could relay without
authentication.
Personally, I think it is a better idea to require everybody to use SMTP
AUTH to relay. Trusting IPs opens the door to a lot of relaying,
That makes sense. Mabye we could address this issue from a different =
angle.
Would it be possible to extend the functionality of the MaxMessageSize =
to
automatically block messages that were larger than the mailbox quota? =
You
already have a server level MaxMessageSize, but end users also
Cool. That resolved the problem we were seeing. Thanks.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Kielkopf
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 9:55 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [xmail] Xmail Administrator 0.26
Xmail Administrator 0.26 is out
As I understand it, XMail is checking to see the mailbox is already over
quota before deciding whether or not to accept the new email. It does =
not
consider whether or not the new email will put the mailbox over. I have
received some complaints from end users about this, because they expect =
The XmailAdmin tool from http://www.webifi.com/xmail/ worked great with
XMail 1.17, but crashes with XMail 1.20. When I click on the server =
name to
bring up a list of domains, it says Run-time error '5': Invalid =
procedure
call or argument. Any idea what changed in XMail that causes
get =
into
the spool.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] =
On
Behalf Of Davide Libenzi
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 10:21 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [xmail] Re: XMail 1.19-pre3 crashing on Windows
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Shiloh Jennings wrote:
I've
I've seen the same thing happen with XMail 1.17 when I had no filters set
up. Running SpamAssassin definitely reduces the frequency of the problem.
As far as I can tell, certain spam messages seem to knock out XMail. Not
really sure exactly which ones, though. I usually clean out the spool as
Nobody is complaining. All everybody is doing is suggesting that XMail
should not ship as an open relay. The open relay issue is an extremely
obvious issue. No email server should ever ship as an open relay,
regardless if it is free or paid for. And it is a very easy fix. One line
of one tab
As maintainer of the XMail project I am afraid it is your duty to make it
a
'safe' server by default. The fact that '70% of the folks don't read docs'
only encourages a change in the defaults.
Make it a closed relay. Set up mailfilters for your inbox, deleting any
mail
with the subjects
I tried for countless hours to get XAV to work, and it is a huge pain. I
finally gave up on XAV and used the filter from the following website:
http://www.bnamed.net/nl/xmailfilter.asp
That worked extremely well with exception of one bug I found on line 107 of
filter.pl. The line should read as
I can see the point for worms, but spammers can simply register throw away
domains to spam from and set up SPF rules that allow all from that domain.
Many spammers already strictly use throwaway domains. I really see the
anti-spam war as very much like the anti-virus war, anything and
http://spf.pobox.com/intro.html
= SPF is developing support in Postfix, Exim, Qmail, and Sendmail
What about XMail?
I figured I would bring this topic back up. :) AOL is already publishing
SPF records for their domain. Any email server with SPF support is able to
automatically filtering
Then do an SPF filter in Perl. You don't need to do it inside XMail. You
have all the info inside the spool file XMail header. No?
Good point. SpamAssassin 2.70 is going to support SPF, so we could just
have SA do the SPF lookups instead of XMail. That is fair. What I am more
interested in
Yes, I am using a 5.
- Original Message -
From: Wim Verveen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 3:56 PM
Subject: [xmail] Re: AV Filtering Paths
Are you using the correct returncode in the filter.tab?
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Shiloh
I am having the same problem. I am using XAV, ripmime, and f-prot for dos.
According to the XAV.log file it appears to be catching the virus
attachments, but the virus messages are still passing through to the
mailboxes. I am not really sure how to debug this problem. Anybody have
any ideas?
That is fair. This is technology that will gain widespread support. Now it
is only a matter of waiting to see which of the three competing standards
(rmx, dmp, spf) is the one that actually gains widespread support.
Regardless of which ever standard gains support, you may need to make some
I think SA 2.70 does, but not SA 2.63. SA 2.70 is available but not
considered production ready.
- Original Message -
From: Charles Frolick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 8:56 AM
Subject: [xmail] Re: SPF
Spamassasin doesn't do SPF? The
We have seen this only when the email contained a foreign characterset, such
as KIO8-R or BIG5. Still don't know why, though.
- Original Message -
From: Don Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 10:04 AM
Subject: [xmail] Blank Emails
I've
Anybody else having problems supporting customers using KIO8-R with XMail
and SpamAssassin? I have a customer complaining that all of his emails with
the KIO8-R characterset are coming through blank? I don't know if the
problem is XMail or SpamAssassin, and I cannot seem to find anything on the
Maybe I'm in this Biz too long to believe in miracles introduced by new
technologies. There are major flaws in that proposal (link below) too.
First to mention our LRW. Does he really have to build a VPN tunnel to his
homeLAN just to be able to send mail ?
The LRW would use SMTP AUTH to send
Don't see that IP in there do you Fails the test Not good.
I agree. De-queued.
Understandable. What about implementing support for RMX? That is something
a lot of email servers will be moving toward in the near future, and it does
not cause any problems like the idea about simply
Of Shiloh Jennings
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 5:04 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [xmail] Re: accept mail from real MX
Don't see that IP in there do you Fails the test Not good.
I agree. De-queued.
Understandable. What about implementing support for RMX
- Original Message -
From: Davide Libenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: XMail mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 6:57 PM
Subject: [xmail] Re: accept mail from real MX
On Sun, 1 Feb 2004, Shiloh Jennings wrote:
Actually, I think SPF is a superset of both RMX
Anybody get XAV to work with F-Prot? I want to use F-Prot for DOS instead
of AVG.
- Original Message -
From: John Kielkopf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 2:14 PM
Subject: [xmail] Re: AV for windows
If you created a keep folder, you should see
I cleared that directory and restarted XMail. It did not resolve the
problem.
- Original Message -
From: Harald Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 2:03 AM
Subject: [xmail] AW: Re: AW: Re: XMail crashes on Windows 2003
I have not tried
-
From: Davide Libenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 4:35 PM
Subject: [xmail] Re: XMail crashes on Windows 2003
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Shiloh Jennings wrote:
XMail 1.17 has been very stable until today. It has starting crashing
several times per
, January 21, 2004 4:52 PM
Subject: [xmail] Re: XMail crashes on Windows 2003
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Shiloh Jennings wrote:
Sure, but I had not even thought to try that. I will go rebuild the
debug
version of XMail using VC++ 5.0 and then upload that exe to the server
that
has been having
and services
2nd:
- Stop XMail
- del MialRoot/tabindex/*
- Start XMail
--Harald
-Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Shiloh Jennings
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 21. Januar 2004 23:48
An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: [xmail] Re
this is the cure:
Disable windows automatic proxy service and restart XMail.
--Harald
-Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Shiloh Jennings
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 21. Januar 2004 23:48
An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: [xmail] Re
on Windows 2003
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Shiloh Jennings wrote:
I don't have VC++ 5.0 installed on the server, though. I just have it
on my
workstation. Is there anything I can do on the server without
installing
VC++ on the server?
You do not need the whole thing. you can install
PM
Subject: [xmail] Re: XMail crashes on Windows 2003
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Shiloh Jennings wrote:
I just installed it, but I don't know how to use it. What do I need to
do
in order to gather useful information with that tool?
You should build XMail in debug mode nad run windbg -I
]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 10:19 PM
Subject: [xmail] Re: XMail crashes on Windows 2003
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Shiloh Jennings wrote:
I just installed it, but I don't know how to use it. What do I need to
do
in order to gather useful information with that tool?
You should build XMail
crashes on Windows 2003
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Shiloh Jennings wrote:
The JIT loaded when XMail crashed. I saved the workspace to a file. Is
there any other information I need to save to a file and email to you?
All
I see is the assembly code where it apparently crashed.
Did you get
]
On
Behalf Of Shiloh Jennings
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 8:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [xmail] Re: SpamAssassin, XMail, Windows 2003
Shawn
Here is some sample log: (I replaced the real local user with
[EMAIL PROTECTED])
2003-11-30 19:29:23 Execute SpamAssassin Failed
I've got XMail 1.17 running on Windows 2003. I installed SpamAssassin v2.6,
and tested it at the command prompt to make sure it is working. However, I
cannot get SpamAssassin to work with XMail. I've tried
XMSpamAssassinFilterInstaller_1.1.2.msi and it appears to install properly.
However, it
away.
Shawn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of Shiloh Jennings
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 7:45 PM
To: XMail mailing list
Subject: [xmail] SpamAssassin, XMail, Windows 2003
I've got XMail 1.17 running on Windows
it -- will that work?
Shawn
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of Shiloh Jennings
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 6:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [xmail] xmcrypt.cpp in VB
Has anybody converted xmcrypt.cpp to visual basic code? I am
Has anybody converted xmcrypt.cpp to visual basic code? I am writing some
code to migrate some of our servers over to XMail and all I still need is a
way to convert the clear text password to the encrypted string from within
my VB code. Even an ActiveX dll would work. I just do not want to
Get the xmailadmin code from http://www.webifi.com/xmail/ it's in there
I believe.
Bill
--
From: Shiloh Jennings[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 3:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [xmail] xmcrypt.cpp in VB
Has anybody converted xmcrypt.cpp
85 matches
Mail list logo
