Some thing else to consider here is the possibility of multiple indices within 
a given target technology.

For example, if I’m indexing data from a given sensor into, say solr, I may 
want it filtered differently into two different indices. This would enable me 
to create different ‘views’ which could have different security settings 
applied in that backend. This would be useful for multi-tenant installs, and 
for differing data privilege levels within an organisation. You could argue 
that this is more a concern for filtering of the results coming out of an 
index, but currently this is a lot harder than using something like the ranger 
solr authorisation plugin to control access at an index by index granularity. 

Essentially, the indexer topology then becomes a filter and router, which 
argues for it being a separate step, before the process which actually writes 
out to each platform. It may also make sense to have a concept of a routing key 
built up by earlier enrichment to allow shuffle control in storm, rather than a 
full stellar statement for routing, to avoid overhead.

Simon

> On 13 Jan 2017, at 07:44, Casey Stella <ceste...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I am suggesting that, yes.  The configs are essentially the same as yours,
> except there is an override specified at the top level.  Without that, in
> order to specify both HDFS and ES have batch sizes of 100, you have to
> explicitly configure each.  It's less that I'm trying to have backwards
> compatibility and more that I'm trying to make the majority case easy: both
> writers write everything to a specified index name with a specified batch
> size (which is what we have now).  Beyond that, I want to allow for
> specifying an override for the config on a writer-by-writer basis for those
> who need it.
> 
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org> wrote:
> 
>> Are you saying we support all of these variants?  I realize you are trying
>> to have some backwards compatibility, but this also makes it harder for a
>> user to grok (for me at least).
>> 
>> Personally I like my original example as there are fewer sub-structures,
>> like 'writerConfig', which makes the whole thing simpler and easier to
>> grok.  But maybe others will think your proposal is just as easy to grok.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Casey Stella <ceste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Ok, so here's what I'm thinking based on the discussion:
>>> 
>>>   - Keeping the configs that we have now (batchSize and index) as
>> defaults
>>>   for the unspecified writer-specific case
>>>   - Adding the config Nick suggested
>>> 
>>> *Base Case*:
>>> {
>>> }
>>> 
>>>   - all writers write all messages
>>>   - index named the same as the sensor for all writers
>>>   - batchSize of 1 for all writers
>>> 
>>> *Writer-non-specific case*:
>>> {
>>>  "index" : "foo"
>>> ,"batchSize" : 100
>>> }
>>> 
>>>   - All writers write all messages
>>>   - index is named "foo", different from the sensor for all writers
>>>   - batchSize is 100 for all writers
>>> 
>>> *Writer-specific case without filters*
>>> {
>>>  "index" : "foo"
>>> ,"batchSize" : 1
>>> , "writerConfig" :
>>>   {
>>>      "elasticsearch" : {
>>>                                   "batchSize" : 100
>>>                                 }
>>>   }
>>> }
>>> 
>>>   - All writers write all messages
>>>   - index is named "foo", different from the sensor for all writers
>>>   - batchSize is 1 for HDFS and 100 for elasticsearch writers
>>>   - NOTE: I could override the index name too
>>> 
>>> *Writer-specific case with filters*
>>> {
>>>  "index" : "foo"
>>> ,"batchSize" : 1
>>> , "writerConfig" :
>>>   {
>>>      "elasticsearch" : {
>>>                                   "batchSize" : 100,
>>>                                   "when" : "exists(field1)"
>>>                                 },
>>>      "hdfs" : {
>>>                     "when" : "false"
>>>                  }
>>>   }
>>> }
>>> 
>>>   - ES writer writes messages which have field1, HDFS doesn't
>>>   - index is named "foo", different from the sensor for all writers
>>>   - 100 for elasticsearch writers
>>> 
>>> Thoughts?
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Carolyn Duby <cd...@hortonworks.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> For larger installations you need to control what is indexed so you
>> don’t
>>>> end up with a nasty elastic search situation and so you can mine the
>> data
>>>> later for reports and training ml models.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Carolyn
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 1/13/17, 9:40 AM, "Casey Stella" <ceste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> OH that's a good idea!
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I like the "Index Filtering" option based on the flexibility that it
>>>>>> provides.  Should each output (HDFS, ES, etc) have its own
>>> configuration
>>>>>> settings?  For example, aren't things like batching handled
>> separately
>>>> for
>>>>>> HDFS versus Elasticsearch?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Something along the lines of...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>  "hdfs" : {
>>>>>>    "when": "exists(field1)",
>>>>>>    "batchSize": 100
>>>>>>  },
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  "elasticsearch" : {
>>>>>>    "when": "true",
>>>>>>    "batchSize": 1000,
>>>>>>    "index": "squid"
>>>>>>  }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Casey Stella <ceste...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Yeah, I tend to like the first option too.  Any opposition to that
>>>> from
>>>>>>> anyone?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The points brought up are good ones and I think that it may be
>>> worth a
>>>>>>> broader discussion of the requirements of indexing in a separate
>> dev
>>>> list
>>>>>>> thread.  Maybe a list of desires with coherent use-cases
>> justifying
>>>> them
>>>>>> so
>>>>>>> we can think about how this stuff should work and where the
>> natural
>>>>>>> extension points should be.  Afterall, we need to toe the line
>>> between
>>>>>>> engineering and overengineering for features nobody will want.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I'm not sure about the extensions to the standard fields.  I'm
>> torn
>>>>>> between
>>>>>>> the notions that we should have no standard fields vs we should
>>> have a
>>>>>>> boatload of standard fields (with most of them empty).  I exchange
>>>>>>> positions fairly regularly on that question. ;)  It may be worth a
>>> dev
>>>>>> list
>>>>>>> discussion to lay out how you imagine an extension of standard
>>> fields
>>>> and
>>>>>>> how it might look as implemented in Metron.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Casey
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Casey
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 9:58 PM, Kyle Richardson <
>>>>>>> kylerichards...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I'll second my preference for the first option. I think the
>>> ability
>>>> to
>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>> Stellar filters to customize indexing would be a big win.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I'm glad Matt brought up the point about data lake and CEP. I
>>> think
>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> a really important use case that we need to consider. Take a
>>> simple
>>>>>>>> example... If I have data coming in from 3 different firewall
>>>> vendors
>>>>>>> and 2
>>>>>>>> different web proxy/url filtering vendors and I want to be able
>> to
>>>>>>> analyze
>>>>>>>> that data set, I need the data to be indexed all together
>> (likely
>>> in
>>>>>>> HDFS)
>>>>>>>> and to have a normalized schema such that IP address, URL, and
>>> user
>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>> (to take a few) can be easily queried and aggregated. I can also
>>>>>> envision
>>>>>>>> scenarios where I would want to index data based on attributes
>>> other
>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>> sensor, business unit or subsidiary for example.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I've been wanted to propose extending our 7 standard fields to
>>>> include
>>>>>>>> things like URL and user. Is there community interest/support
>> for
>>>>>> moving
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> that direction? If so, I'll start a new thread.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -Kyle
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Matt Foley <ma...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Ah, I see.  If overriding the default index name allows using
>>> the
>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>> name for multiple sensors, then the goal can be achieved.
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> --Matt
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 1/12/17, 3:30 PM, "Casey Stella" <ceste...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>    Oh, you could!  Let's say you have a syslog parser with
>> data
>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> sources 1
>>>>>>>>>    2 and 3.  You'd end up with one kafka queue with 3 parsers
>>>>>> attached
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>    queue, each picking part the messages from source 1, 2 and
>>> 3.
>>>>>>> They'd
>>>>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>>>    through separate enrichment and into the indexing
>> topology.
>>>> In
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>    indexing topology, you could specify the same index name
>>>> "syslog"
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>    of the messages go into the same index for CEP querying if
>>> so
>>>>>>>> desired.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>    On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Matt Foley <
>>> ma...@apache.org
>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Syslog is hell on parsers – I know, I worked at LogLogic
>>> in
>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> previous
>>>>>>>>>> life.  It makes perfect sense to route different lines
>>> from
>>>>>>> syslog
>>>>>>>>> through
>>>>>>>>>> different appropriate parsers.  But a lot of what the
>>>> parsers
>>>>>> do
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> identify consistent subsets of metadata and annotate it
>> –
>>>> eg,
>>>>>>>>> src_ip_addr,
>>>>>>>>>> event timestamps, etc.  Once those metadata are
>> annotated
>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> available
>>>>>>>>>> with common field names, why doesn’t it make sense to
>>> index
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> messages
>>>>>>>>>> together, for CEP querying?  I think Splunk has
>>> illustrated
>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> model.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/12/17, 3:00 PM, "Casey Stella" <ceste...@gmail.com
>>> 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>    yeah, I mean, honestly, I think the approach that
>>> we've
>>>>>> taken
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> sources
>>>>>>>>>>    which aggregate different types of data is to
>> provide
>>>>>> filters
>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> parser
>>>>>>>>>>    level and have multiple parser topologies (with
>>>> different,
>>>>>>>>> possibly
>>>>>>>>>>    mutually exclusive filters) running.  This would be
>> a
>>>>>>>> completely
>>>>>>>>>> separate
>>>>>>>>>>    sensor.  Imagine a syslog data source that
>> aggregates
>>>> and
>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>>>> pick
>>>>>>>>>>    apart certain pieces of messages.  This is why the
>>>> initial
>>>>>>>>> thought and
>>>>>>>>>>    architecture was one index per sensor.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>    On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Matt Foley <
>>>>>>> ma...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I’m thinking that CEP (Complex Event Processing)
>> is
>>>>>>> contrary
>>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>>> idea
>>>>>>>>>>> of silo-ing data per sensor.
>>>>>>>>>>> Now it’s true that some of those sensors are
>> already
>>>>>>>>> aggregating
>>>>>>>>>> data from
>>>>>>>>>>> multiple sources, so maybe I’m wrong here.
>>>>>>>>>>> But it just seems to me that the “data lake”
>>> insights
>>>>>> come
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>> being able
>>>>>>>>>>> to make decisions over the whole mass of data
>> rather
>>>> than
>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>> vertical
>>>>>>>>>>> slices of it.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/12/17, 2:15 PM, "Casey Stella" <
>>>> ceste...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>    Hey Matt,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>    Thanks for the comment!
>>>>>>>>>>>    1. At the moment, we only have one index name,
>>> the
>>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> which is
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>    sensor name but that's entirely up to the
>> user.
>>>> This
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> sensor
>>>>>>>>>>> specific,
>>>>>>>>>>>    so it'd be a separate config for each sensor.
>>> If
>>>> we
>>>>>>> want
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>> multiple
>>>>>>>>>>>    indices per sensor, we'd have to think
>> carefully
>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>    would be a bigger undertaking.  I guess I can
>>> see
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> use,
>>>>>>>>> though
>>>>>>>>>>> (redirect
>>>>>>>>>>>    messages to one index vs another based on a
>>>> predicate
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> a given
>>>>>>>>>>> sensor).
>>>>>>>>>>>    Anyway, not where I was originally thinking
>> that
>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> discussion
>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>> go,
>>>>>>>>>>>    but it's an interesting point.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>    2. I hadn't thought through the implementation
>>>> quite
>>>>>>> yet,
>>>>>>>>> but we
>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>    actually have a splitter bolt in that
>> topology,
>>>> just
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> spout
>>>>>>>>>> that goes
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>    the elasticsearch writer and also to the hdfs
>>>> writer.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>    On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Matt Foley <
>>>>>>>>> ma...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Casey, good to have controls like this.
>>> Couple
>>>>>>>>> questions:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Regarding the “index” : “squid”
>> name/value
>>>> pair,
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> index name
>>>>>>>>>>>> expected to always be a sensor name?  Or is
>>> the
>>>>>> given
>>>>>>>>> json
>>>>>>>>>> structure
>>>>>>>>>>>> subordinate to a sensor name in zookeeper?
>> Or
>>>> can
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary
>>>>>>>>>>>> indexes with this new specification,
>>>> independent of
>>>>>>>>> sensor?
>>>>>>>>>> Should
>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>> actually be a list of “indexes”, ie
>>>>>>>>>>>> { “indexes” : [
>>>>>>>>>>>>        {“index” : “name1”,
>>>>>>>>>>>>                …
>>>>>>>>>>>>        },
>>>>>>>>>>>>        {“index” : “name2”,
>>>>>>>>>>>>                …
>>>>>>>>>>>>        } ]
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Would the filtering / writer selection
>>> logic
>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>> place in
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> indexing
>>>>>>>>>>>> topology splitter bolt?  Seems like that
>> would
>>>> have
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> smallest
>>>>>>>>>>> impact on
>>>>>>>>>>>> current implementation, no?
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry if these are already answered in
>>> PR-415, I
>>>>>>>> haven’t
>>>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>>>> time to
>>>>>>>>>>>> review that one yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>> --Matt
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/12/17, 12:55 PM, "Michael Miklavcic" <
>>>>>>>>>>> michael.miklav...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>    I like the flexibility and
>> expressibility
>>> of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>> Stellar
>>>>>>>>>>>>    filters.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>    M
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>    On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Casey
>>>> Stella <
>>>>>>>>>>> ceste...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As of METRON-652 <
>>>> https://github.com/apache/
>>>>>>>>>>>> incubator-metron/pull/415>, we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will have decoupled the indexing
>>>>>> configuration
>>>>>>>>> from the
>>>>>>>>>>> enrichment
>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration.  As an immediate
>>> follow-up
>>>> to
>>>>>>>> that,
>>>>>>>>> I'd
>>>>>>>>>> like to
>>>>>>>>>>>> provide the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ability to turn off and on writers via
>>> the
>>>>>>>>> configs.  I'd
>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>> to get
>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> community feedback on how the
>>>> functionality
>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>> work,
>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>> y'all are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> amenable. :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As of now, we have 3 possible writers
>>>> which
>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> indexing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> topology:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Solr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Elasticsearch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - HDFS
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> HDFS is always used, elasticsearch or
>>>> solr is
>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>> depending
>>>>>>>>>>> on how
>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> start the indexing topology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A couple of proposals come to mind
>>>>>> immediately:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Index Filtering*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You would be able to specify a filter
>> as
>>>>>>> defined
>>>>>>>>> by a
>>>>>>>>>> stellar
>>>>>>>>>>>> statement
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (likely a reuse of the StellarFilter
>>> that
>>>>>>> exists
>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>> Parsers)
>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would allow you to indicate on a
>>>>>>>>> message-by-message basis
>>>>>>>>>>> whether or
>>>>>>>>>>>> not to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> write the message.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The semantics of this would be as
>>> follows:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Default (i.e. unspecified) is to
>>> pass
>>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>>>> through
>>>>>>>>>>> (hence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   backwards compatible with the
>> current
>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>> config).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Messages which have the
>> associated
>>>>>> stellar
>>>>>>>>> statement
>>>>>>>>>>> evaluate
>>>>>>>>>>>> to true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   for the writer type will be
>> written,
>>>>>>> otherwise
>>>>>>>>> not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sample indexing config which would
>> write
>>>> out
>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>> messages
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> HDFS and
>>>>>>>>>>>> write
>>>>>>>>>>>>> out only messages containing a field
>>>> called
>>>>>>>>> "field1":
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   "index" : "squid"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  ,"batchSize" : 100
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  ,"filters" : {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>      "HDFS" : "false"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     ,"ES" : "exists(field1)"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Index On/Off Switch*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simpler solution would be to just
>>>> provide a
>>>>>>>> list
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> writers
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> write
>>>>>>>>>>>>> messages.  The semantics would be as
>>>> follows:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - If the list is unspecified, then
>>> the
>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>> is to
>>>>>>>>>> write
>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>> messages
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   for every writer in the indexing
>>>> topology
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - If the list is specified, then a
>>>> writer
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>> write
>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>> messages
>>>>>>>>>>>> if and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   only if it is named in the list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sample indexing config which turns off
>>>> HDFS
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> keeps on
>>>>>>>>>>>> Elasticsearch:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   "index" : "squid"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  ,"batchSize" : 100
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  ,"writers" : [ "ES" ]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks in advance for the feedback!
>>>> Also, if
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>> other,
>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas than the ones presented here,
>> let
>>> me
>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>> too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Casey
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org>
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org>
>> 

Reply via email to