Please carefully review the error message. It has been telling you
precisely what is wrong each time, though it does require some
understanding which I think you now have.
This time the lot is not matching exactly.
-0.20778508 BTC, cost=CostSpec(number_per=Decimal('18078.87' ... USD
You can see the balance it's trying to match against in the same error:
0.20778508 BTC {18078.68014392563700916350683 USD, 2020-11-28},
An exact match is required. I have a pull request open
<https://github.com/beancount/beancount/pull/589> that would've made this
work as you expected it to. Note, I don't know if Martin agrees with me
that lot matching should accept small variations, so that pull request
might not be merged.
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 9:44 PM Ghanashyam Prabhu <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Hi Ben, Thanks for pointing out that we'd need {} at a minimum.
> Note that adding this to both the postings shows an error when I run
> bean-check
>
> Error message is here
> Failed to categorize posting 2
>
> 2021-01-04 * "CoinbasePro" "Tranfer BTC from Coinbase to CoinbasePro"
> #transfer
> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC -0.29738506 BTC {}
> Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC 0.29738506 BTC {}
>
> In order to fix this. instead of using #transfer and the transfer plugin I
> used the below transaction with individual cost basis added to each
> transaction
>
> 2021-01-04 * "Tranfer BTC from Coinbase to CoinbasePro"
> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC -0.20778508 BTC {18078.87 USD,
> 2020-11-28}
> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC -0.02109060 BTC {23707.24 USD,
> 2020-12-17}
> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC -0.01977443 BTC {25285.18 USD,
> 2020-12-26}
> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC -0.01741186 BTC {28716.06 USD,
> 2020-12-30}
> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC -0.01667888 BTC {29978.03 USD,
> 2021-01-01}
> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC -0.01464422 BTC {34143.16 USD,
> 2021-01-03}
> Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC 0.20778508 BTC {18078.87 USD,
> 2020-11-28}
> Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC 0.02109060 BTC {23707.24 USD,
> 2020-12-17}
> Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC 0.01977443 BTC {25285.18 USD,
> 2020-12-26}
> Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC 0.01741186 BTC {28716.06 USD,
> 2020-12-30}
> Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC 0.01667888 BTC {29978.03 USD,
> 2021-01-01}
> Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC 0.01464422 BTC {34143.16 USD,
> 2021-01-03}
>
> Using this too shows another error when I run bean-check
> Error message indicates
> No position matches "Posting(account='Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC',
> units=-0.20778508 BTC, cost=CostSpec(number_per=Decimal('18078.87'),
> number_total=None, currency='USD', date=datetime.date(2020, 11, 28),
> label=None, merge=False), price=None, flag=None, meta={'filename':
> '<filename>', 'lineno': 112})" against balance (0.20778508 BTC
> {18078.68014392563700916350683 USD, 2020-11-28}, 0.02109060 BTC
> {23707.24398547220088570263530 USD, 2020-12-17}, 0.01977443 BTC
> {25285.17889011212965430609125 USD, 2020-12-26}, 0.01741186 BTC
> {28716.05905400112337223019252 USD, 2020-12-30}, 0.01667888 BTC
> {29978.03209807852805464155867 USD, 2021-01-01}, 0.01464422 BTC
> {34143.16365091483192686261201 USD, 2021-01-03})
>
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 21:14, Ben Blount <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Beancount has two ways to track any kind of currency/commodity: at cost,
>> or not at cost.
>> Generally, currency like USD, EUR, etc are not tracked at cost. Stock,
>> securities etc are tracked at cost so you can report capital gains.
>> Beancounts infers what mode you are working in by the presence of a
>> CostSpec { } when working with that lot (both for reducing and augmenting
>> lots).
>> It's actually possible for the same account to hold a commodity both at
>> cost, and not at cost. This is *strongly *not recommended, and
>> beancount.plugins.coherent_cost can be used to verify you don't do it.
>> That plugin would show you what is wrong here. It's:
>> 2021-01-04 * "Transfer BTC from Coinbase to CoinbasePro" #transfer
>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC -0.29738506 BTC
>> Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC 0.29738506 BTC
>>
>> You are trying to work with the BTC in the non-cost-tracking mode. You
>> should at minimum add {}
>> 2021-01-04 * "Transfer BTC from Coinbase to CoinbasePro" #transfer
>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC -0.29738506 BTC {}
>> Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC 0.29738506 BTC {}
>>
>> But really what you likely actually want is to recreate all the original
>> lots, just in a new account. That's the original subject of this thread.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 9:00 PM Ghanashyam Prabhu <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Martin, Apologies if this was confusing. Can you elaborate on what is
>>> wrong?
>>> I have added comments to my transactions for your reference - Note the
>>> points till which bean-check shows no errors.
>>>
>>> Let me comment the individual transactions.
>>>
>>> ;; This transaction purchases BTC at Coinbase from Cash existing in
>>> Coinbase account
>>> ;; The $3500 already existed and is correct from from the previous
>>> transactions.
>>> ;; Also this transaction requires additional $256.48 which is used from
>>> my Checking account
>>> ;; There are previous transactions
>>> ;; which I have not listed here.. For our discussion, consider that the
>>> transaction starts here with
>>>
>>> 2020-11-28 * "Coinbase" "Buy BTC at Coinbase"
>>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC 0.20778508 BTC {} @ 18078.87
>>> USD
>>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:Cash -3500.00 USD
>>> Assets:US:BofA:Checking -256.48 USD
>>>
>>> ;; All the below transactions are purchases by using cash from the
>>> checking account
>>> 2020-12-17 * "Coinbase" "Buy BTC at Coinbase"
>>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC 0.02109060 BTC {} @ 23707.24
>>> USD
>>> Assets:US:BofA:Checking -500.00 USD
>>>
>>> 2020-12-26 * "Coinbase" "Buy BTC at Coinbase"
>>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC 0.01977443 BTC {} @ 25285.18
>>> USD
>>> Assets:US:BofA:Checking -500.00 USD
>>>
>>> 2020-12-30 * "Coinbase" "Buy BTC at Coinbase"
>>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC 0.01741186 BTC {} @ 28716.06
>>> USD
>>> Assets:US:BofA:Checking -500.00 USD
>>>
>>> 2021-01-01 * "Coinbase" "Buy BTC at Coinbase"
>>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC 0.01667888 BTC {} @ 29978.03
>>> USD
>>> Assets:US:BofA:Checking -500.00 USD
>>>
>>> 2021-01-03 * "Coinbase" "Buy BTC at Coinbase"
>>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC 0.01464422 BTC {} @ 34143.16
>>> USD
>>> Assets:US:BofA:Checking -500.00 USD
>>>
>>> ;; I've added a balance assertion here to sum up the BTC accumulated
>>> ;; because of the above purchases
>>> ;; A bean-check until this transaction inclusive of the balance
>>> assertion
>>> ;; does NOT show any errors.
>>> 2021-01-04 balance Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC 0.29738506 BTC
>>>
>>> ;; The next transaction I want is a transfer transaction from Coinbase
>>> to CoinbasePro
>>> ;; I initially added the below
>>> 2021-01-04 * "Transfer BTC from Coinbase to CoinbasePro" #transfer
>>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC -0.29738506 BTC
>>> Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC 0.29738506 BTC
>>>
>>> ;; I now added a balance assertion again to check if the transfer is
>>> complete
>>> ;; and if the balance in CoinbasePro is correct
>>> 2021-01-05 balance Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC 0.29738506 BTC ;; to
>>> check transfer complete from Coinbase to CoinbasePro
>>>
>>> ;; bean-check runs without any error until this point
>>> ;; which means the transfer check is correct even at CoinbasePro account
>>>
>>> Now, at this point I want to add a sell transaction
>>> 2021-01-08 * "" "Coinbase dummy sell"
>>> Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC -0.20295107 BTC {} @ 34860.28
>>> USD
>>> Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:Cash 7074.93 USD
>>> Expenses:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:Fees 35.37 USD
>>> Income:Capital-gains
>>>
>>> When I added the above sell transaction and run bean-check I get the
>>> following error
>>> No position matches "Posting(account='Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC',
>>> units=-0.20295107 BTC, cost=CostSpec(number_per=<class
>>> 'beancount.core.number.MISSING'>, number_total=None, currency='USD',
>>> date=None, label=None, merge=False), price=34860.28 USD, flag=None,
>>> meta={file} against balance (0.29738506 BTC)
>>>
>>> Ghanashyam
>>>
>>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 18:57, Martin Blais <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This looks all wrong, see other thread.
>>>> To buy BTC at Coinbase, the money all comes from your Coinbase:Cash
>>>> account.
>>>> Transfers from your bank are separate transactions.
>>>> Reflect what's actually going on in the account
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 8:35 PM Ghanashyam Prabhu <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I had a similar use case here and ended up using the plugin to report
>>>>> the transactions and then copied them manually into the transfer posting
>>>>> This is my entries list. However I see that when I run bean-check
>>>>> (v2), it errors out with an error
>>>>> No position matches "Posting(account='Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC',
>>>>> units=-0.20778508 BTC, cost=CostSpec(number_per=Decimal('18078.87'),
>>>>> number_total=None, currency='USD', date=datetime.date(2020, 11, 28),
>>>>> label=None, merge=False), price=None, flag=None, meta={
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you know why it complains on No Matching position when the Cost
>>>>> basis are exactly the same?
>>>>>
>>>>> 2020-11-28 * "Coinbase" "Buy BTC at Coinbase"
>>>>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC 0.20778508 BTC {} @ 18078.87
>>>>> USD
>>>>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:Cash -3500.00 USD
>>>>> Assets:US:BofA:Checking -256.48 USD
>>>>>
>>>>> 2020-12-17 * "Coinbase" "Buy BTC at Coinbase"
>>>>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC 0.02109060 BTC {} @ 23707.24
>>>>> USD
>>>>> Assets:US:BofA:Checking -500.00 USD
>>>>>
>>>>> 2020-12-26 * "Coinbase" "Buy BTC at Coinbase"
>>>>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC 0.01977443 BTC {} @
>>>>> 25285.18 USD
>>>>> Assets:US:BofA:Checking -500.00 USD
>>>>>
>>>>> 2020-12-30 * "Coinbase" "Buy BTC at Coinbase"
>>>>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC 0.01741186 BTC {} @
>>>>> 28716.06 USD
>>>>> Assets:US:BofA:Checking -500.00 USD
>>>>>
>>>>> 2021-01-01 * "Coinbase" "Buy BTC at Coinbase"
>>>>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC 0.01667888 BTC {} @
>>>>> 29978.03 USD
>>>>> Assets:US:BofA:Checking -500.00 USD
>>>>>
>>>>> 2021-01-03 * "Coinbase" "Buy BTC at Coinbase"
>>>>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC 0.01464422 BTC {} @
>>>>> 34143.16 USD
>>>>> Assets:US:BofA:Checking -500.00 USD
>>>>>
>>>>> 2021-01-04 balance Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC 0.29738506 BTC
>>>>>
>>>>> 2021-01-04 * "Transfer BTC from Coinbase to CoinbasePro"
>>>>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC -0.20778508 BTC {18078.87
>>>>> USD, 2020-11-28}
>>>>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC -0.02109060 BTC {23707.24
>>>>> USD, 2020-12-17}
>>>>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC -0.01977443 BTC {25285.18
>>>>> USD, 2020-12-26}
>>>>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC -0.01741186 BTC {28716.06
>>>>> USD, 2020-12-30}
>>>>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC -0.01667888 BTC {29978.03
>>>>> USD, 2021-01-01}
>>>>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC -0.01464422 BTC {34143.16
>>>>> USD, 2021-01-03}
>>>>>
>>>>> Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC 0.20778508 BTC {18078.87
>>>>> USD, 2020-11-28}
>>>>> Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC 0.02109060 BTC {23707.24
>>>>> USD, 2020-12-17}
>>>>> Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC 0.01977443 BTC {25285.18
>>>>> USD, 2020-12-26}
>>>>> Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC 0.01741186 BTC {28716.06
>>>>> USD, 2020-12-30}
>>>>> Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC 0.01667888 BTC {29978.03
>>>>> USD, 2021-01-01}
>>>>> Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC 0.01464422 BTC {34143.16
>>>>> USD, 2021-01-03}
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, 2 January 2021 at 03:10:52 UTC-8 David Terry wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the detailed answers!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > BTW, David: as you can see, transfers work fine when fully
>>>>>> specified, so this is a matter of convenience. I personally have a vim
>>>>>> plugin that uses bean-doctor context to insert the lots.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems to me that it's more than a matter of convenience. If the
>>>>>> reductions / augmentations are explicitly specified, the booking will be
>>>>>> potentially incorrect (i.e. no longer respect FIFO) if transactions that
>>>>>> change the state of the inventory are subsequently added to the ledger
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> a date before that of the transfer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Curious: is there anything specific to crypto that makes these
>>>>>> transfers common?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Transferring funds between institutions / accounts is very common
>>>>>> when working with crypto. For example, it is not generally considered
>>>>>> prudent to leave crypto custodied at a centralised exchange, so many
>>>>>> users
>>>>>> will transfer their assets into their own custody directly after having
>>>>>> made a trade. As another example, users of DeFi applications will often
>>>>>> move their assets between many different institutions (smart contracts)
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> the yields offered to depositors change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > If this is the defining/key feature that enables working with
>>>>>> crypto currencies, we could consider supporting this explicitly in the
>>>>>> core
>>>>>> booking algos (in v3, not touching v2 much anymore)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As mentioned above, these workflows are very common. I would
>>>>>> certainly be very happy if these workflows were supported in the core
>>>>>> booking algorithms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Also: I'd love to gather a set of features that are key to making
>>>>>> Beancount more usable for cryptocurrency trading.
>>>>>> > Here's a doc where you can insert ideas:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1taN9lbcNDf8bKgDwprWOhuaOsOgALZzmsfvec-rdaSk/edit#
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Very happy to hear that you're interested in working to make
>>>>>> beancount more friendly for crypto users. I'll keep playing around and
>>>>>> see
>>>>>> if I can find some other pain points :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 30, 2020 at 8:22:33 PM UTC+1 [email protected]
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 1:39 AM [email protected] <
>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, December 29, 2020 at 10:02:15 PM UTC-8 [email protected]
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 12:55 AM [email protected] <
>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That makes sense. I was thinking of a system where
>>>>>>>>>> plugin/booking/interpolation iterate over the same entries until no
>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>> modifications occur. This would involve some thought to prove (a)
>>>>>>>>>> commutativity (order doesn't matter), and (b) convergence (no
>>>>>>>>>> infinite
>>>>>>>>>> iterations).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Iterate over the same entry until no more modification occurs"
>>>>>>>>> seems error prone to me, and a potential nightmare for debugging.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Agreed. Although I've seen it work very well in systems where the
>>>>>>>> key was to identify the constraints to make it work predictably.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Reg. the other approach -- i.e., supporting this in core booking
>>>>>>>>>> algos: even outside crypto, isn't the philosophy you've put forth
>>>>>>>>>> "works on
>>>>>>>>>> unambiguous source"? Given that, is there a syntax that removes
>>>>>>>>>> ambiguity?
>>>>>>>>>> For example:
>>>>>>>>>> *2020-01-01 * "Transfer"*
>>>>>>>>>> * Asset:BrokerageA -10 HOOLI {}*
>>>>>>>>>> * Asset:BrokerageB: 10 HOOLI {}*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> might be unambiguous for FIFO, LIFO, and STRICT, and arguably for
>>>>>>>>>> NONE (and AVG in the future). I.e., identical CostSpec after
>>>>>>>>>> inverting the
>>>>>>>>>> sign of one. I haven't thought deeply about all cases, and anyway,
>>>>>>>>>> not the
>>>>>>>>>> most important thing for v3.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "works on unambiguous
>>>>>>>>> source",
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What I mean is: even if a CostSpec if incompletely specified, as
>>>>>>>> long as it is unambiguous beancount will process it correctly. For
>>>>>>>> example:
>>>>>>>> there's no need to specify date in a cost specification as long as the
>>>>>>>> price is adequate to uniquely identify the lot. Along those lines, I
>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> making the argument that the transaction above is unambiguous in saying
>>>>>>>> "transfer all lots from BrokerageA to BrokerageB," and thus, it would
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> nice for the core booking algos to handle it correctly rather than
>>>>>>>> depend
>>>>>>>> on a plugin.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes
>>>>>>> The challenge is to design those things to be general. I think in
>>>>>>> this case the addition could be as simple as honoring a special flag on
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>> interpolation posting, telling the interpolation code not to convert to
>>>>>>> cost.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>> Groups "Beancount" group.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>>>> an email to [email protected].
>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/bd63fee9-2635-4a7f-9d2f-c6be0ab723edn%40googlegroups.com
>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/bd63fee9-2635-4a7f-9d2f-c6be0ab723edn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups "Beancount" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>>> an email to [email protected].
>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/CAK21%2BhOOPwB%3DbQe5GHdtiaZpEUYpYSZsp_Z1D124r0k47eSXZA%40mail.gmail.com
>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/CAK21%2BhOOPwB%3DbQe5GHdtiaZpEUYpYSZsp_Z1D124r0k47eSXZA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Beancount" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to [email protected].
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/CABieCET5KOR5H2LqXBELTWnz4UiD0FEb%3DOYJ8uR6BqOM%2BGT%2BCA%40mail.gmail.com
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/CABieCET5KOR5H2LqXBELTWnz4UiD0FEb%3DOYJ8uR6BqOM%2BGT%2BCA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>> .
>>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Beancount" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to [email protected].
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/CACGEkZsLWdkMLC0LTHy6HuFkfDzGzv2MHwJP0AX6Aje%2B-7Te0w%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/CACGEkZsLWdkMLC0LTHy6HuFkfDzGzv2MHwJP0AX6Aje%2B-7Te0w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Beancount" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/CABieCES1xujaP%2BqZbMFHBXAMnknOpYcOJkGgdcBf3VGFPW8vDg%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/CABieCES1xujaP%2BqZbMFHBXAMnknOpYcOJkGgdcBf3VGFPW8vDg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Beancount" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/CACGEkZudwq%2BUoHdakU3F1w56Z-pY2bifzv26qRmUtFoomZnVNg%40mail.gmail.com.
