Re: Had an idea - looking for a math buff to tell me if it's possible with today's technology.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On May 18, 2011, at 4:03 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > Bah, you should include the solution, it's so trivial. > > Generate all possible files and then do an index lookup on the MD5. > It's a little CPU heavy, but darn simple to code. Isn't this essentially what Dropbox has been doing in many cases? Chris - -- - ----- Chris Owen - Garden City (620) 275-1900 - Lottery (noun): President - Wichita (316) 858-3000 -A stupidity tax Hubris Communications Inc www.hubris.net - - -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin) Comment: Public Key: http://home.hubris.net/owenc/pgpkey.txt Comment: Public Key ID: 0xB513D9DD iEYEARECAAYFAk3UOKIACgkQElUlCLUT2d3YoQCfee38nKuXD5O4C2w5VXUWszF1 EjcAmwfyytDgwmQDpJsQZSpl03ddGbVv =3sX9 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: quietly....
On Feb 3, 2011, at 9:00 AM, Jack Bates wrote: > The concept of v4 to v6 addressing scale doesn't match the pricing scale, > though. Generally, I expect to see most ISPs find themselves 1 rank higher in > the v6 model compared to v4, which effectively doubles your price anyways. :) Not sure I understand that one. /19 = 500 /29s /32 = 64,000 /48s Shouldn't the v6 blocks be a lot bigger? Chris -- ----- Chris Owen - Garden City (620) 275-1900 - Lottery (noun): President - Wichita (316) 858-3000 -A stupidity tax Hubris Communications Inc www.hubris.net -
Re: quietly....
On Feb 2, 2011, at 8:38 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote: > From the main section on https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html: > > "... ISPs with both IPv4 resources and IPv6 resources pay the larger of the > two fees." > > It is not mentioned anywhere in the waiver stuff. Actually it is in the waiver stuff but I didn't see it at the top too. That's much more reasonable. Chris -- ----- Chris Owen - Garden City (620) 275-1900 - Lottery (noun): President - Wichita (316) 858-3000 -A stupidity tax Hubris Communications Inc www.hubris.net -
Re: quietly....
On Feb 2, 2011, at 7:22 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote: > And, even if you are an ISP, you only pay the larger of the two fees if you > have both v4 and v6. I'm not sure if that is permanent or not, though. I thought that was part of the "waiver" stuff that expires this year. Chris -- ----- Chris Owen - Garden City (620) 275-1900 - Lottery (noun): President - Wichita (316) 858-3000 -A stupidity tax Hubris Communications Inc www.hubris.net -
Re: quietly....
On Feb 2, 2011, at 3:09 PM, david raistrick wrote: > At least in ARIN territory, if you're multihomed, and you can show in-1-year > use of 50% of a (v4) /24, you qualify for a PI v6 /48. One of the things I find frustrating about this is the cost of the space. We're a very small shop and to add IPv6 addresses for testing now we're looking at paying another $2,200 a year ($1,700 in the first year) when it will probably be some time before we actually _need_ the addresses. The waivers a few years were a nice start but why does the cost need to double ever? It isn't like ARIN needs the money, they have more than they can spend. Once we are a "member" and have IPv4 space, the marginal cost to ARIN of assigning the equivalent in IPv6 space is pretty close to zero. Maybe some sort of NRC but doubling the annual cost just doesn't make sense. At least with IPv4 you can make the argument that the cost is artificially high to control usage but with IPv6 there are no more scarcity issues. I'd love to add IPv6 to the network but it just rubs me the wrong way to have to pay $2,220 a year to do so for something that essentially has no cost. I can't imagine having to justify it to a bean counter. Chris -- ----- Chris Owen - Garden City (620) 275-1900 - Lottery (noun): President - Wichita (316) 858-3000 -A stupidity tax Hubris Communications Inc www.hubris.net -
Re: Request Spamhaus contact
On Jan 17, 2011, at 6:42 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote: > I fat fingered the netmask, try now. I've asked privately but would it really be too much to take this off NANOG? Spammer complaining he is on a RBL is hardly relevant. Chris -- ----- Chris Owen - Garden City (620) 275-1900 - Lottery (noun): President - Wichita (316) 858-3000 -A stupidity tax Hubris Communications Inc www.hubris.net -
Re: Tracking down reverse for ip
On Apr 15, 2010, at 3:07 PM, Dennis Burgess wrote: > I have a customer that has an IP of 12.43.95.126. Currently, I can not > get any reverse on this IP. > > What is the best way to find out the responciable servers for this? > Thanx in advance. > > --- > Dennis Burgess, CCNA, Mikrotik Certified Trainer, MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, > MTCTCE, MTCUME Don't forget WTF. Chris ----- Chris Owen - Garden City (620) 275-1900 - Lottery (noun): President - Wichita (316) 858-3000 -A stupidity tax Hubris Communications Inc www.hubris.net -
Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact?
On Dec 3, 2009, at 12:42 AM, John Levine wrote: > I also agree that any domain with live users (as opposed to mail > cannons sending ads or transaction confirmations) is likely to > experience pain with -all from all the overenthusiastic little MTAs > whose managers imagine that "stopping forgery" will lessen their spam > load rather than losing mail from roaming users. Again I guess I don't understand. How are these MTA managers being "overenthusiastic"? Publishing a SPF (with -all) is essentially me requesting that they reject any mail from my domain not coming from one of the approved hosts. I'm the one making the decision to ask them to bounce such mail. Seems to me they are only being responsible in actually enforcing a policy that I set for the domain. Chris ----- Chris Owen - Garden City (620) 275-1900 - Lottery (noun): President - Wichita (316) 858-3000 -A stupidity tax Hubris Communications Inc www.hubris.net -
Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact?
On Dec 2, 2009, at 9:52 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > It only stops forgery if the SPF record has a -all in it (as hubris.net does). > However, a lot of domains (mine included) have a ~all instead. I guess I've never really seen the point of publishing a SPF record if it ends in ~all. What are people supposed to do with that info? Spamassassin assigns it a score of 0.6 but that is low enough it really doesn't have much since it doesn't assign any negative points for SPF_PASS. > (And before anybody asks, yes ~all is what we want, and no you can't ask us > to try -all instead, unless we're allowed to send you all the helpdesk calls > about misconfigured migratory laptops".. ;) I certainly understand that you may not be able to lock down your domain. We don't even try for customers for instance.However, if you can't, I guess I don't really see what good publishing a SPF record is if you tell people not to enforce it. Chris ----- Chris Owen - Garden City (620) 275-1900 - Lottery (noun): President - Wichita (316) 858-3000 -A stupidity tax Hubris Communications Inc www.hubris.net -
Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact?
On Dec 2, 2009, at 12:31 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > Because SenderID and SPF have no anti-spam value, and almost no > anti-forgery value. Not that this stops a *lot* of people who've drunk > the kool-aid from trying to use them anyway, OK, I'll bite--How exactly do you go about forging email from my domain name if the host receiving it is checking SPF? Chris ----- Chris Owen - Garden City (620) 275-1900 - Lottery (noun): President - Wichita (316) 858-3000 -A stupidity tax Hubris Communications Inc www.hubris.net -
Re: ISP customer assignments
On Oct 5, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote: Whenever you declare something to be "inexhasutable" all you do is increase demand. Eventually you reach a point where you realize that there is, in fact, a limit to the inexhaustable resource. This is where I think there is a major disconnect on IPv6. The size of the pool is just so large that people just can't wrap their heads around it. 2^128 is enough space for every man, woman and child on the planet to have around 4 billion /64s to themselves. Even if we assume everyone might possibly need say 10 /64s per person that still means we are covered until the population hits around 2,600,000,000,000,000,000. Chris ----- Chris Owen - Garden City (620) 275-1900 - Lottery (noun): President - Wichita (316) 858-3000 -A stupidity tax Hubris Communications Inc www.hubris.net -
Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Apr 21, 2009, at 4:42 PM, Shane Ronan wrote: C) Are ARIN's books open for public inspection? If so, it might be interesting for the group to see where all our money is going, since it's obviously not going to outreach and solution planning. Perhaps it is being spent in a reasonable manner, and the fees are where they need to be to sustain the organizations reasonable operations, but perhaps not. It is a little out of date and not terribly detailed but they did post the 2008 budget at: https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/budget.html Budget is just over 13M. About 1/2 of that is salaries/benefits (maybe more if you add in 'legal fees'). A couple of interesting notes when looking at it: 12+M divided by the 3300 "members" is just shy of $4,000 per customer. Payroll is $5,707,134 for 47 full time employees. That is an average salary of $121,428 across all employees. Internet Research and Support is $164,500 Travel (which includes travel for board members, etc) is $1,315,349. There is more detail but older data at: https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/annual/2007_audited_financials.pdf Chris - ------ Chris Owen - Garden City (620) 275-1900 - Lottery (noun): President - Wichita (316) 858-3000 -A stupidity tax Hubris Communications Inc www.hubris.net - -- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Public Key: http://home.hubris.net/owenc/pgpkey.txt Comment: Public Key ID: 0xB513D9DD iEYEARECAAYFAknuQOUACgkQElUlCLUT2d3YDACgswR2sqikAunbbgVdRKrlQBeE a1cAoJPkHf25ZKua73NVEWg0wz+ZYQLY =6Ceo -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Apr 21, 2009, at 11:01 AM, John Curran wrote: C) We've routinely lowered fees since inception, not raised them. Well I'm not sure what your definitely of "routinely" is, but we've not seen in decrease in our fees any time in the past 8 years. Chris - ------ Chris Owen - Garden City (620) 275-1900 - Lottery (noun): President - Wichita (316) 858-3000 -A stupidity tax Hubris Communications Inc www.hubris.net - -- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Public Key: http://home.hubris.net/owenc/pgpkey.txt Comment: Public Key ID: 0xB513D9DD iEYEARECAAYFAknt/dEACgkQElUlCLUT2d1gZgCfeMxGeY2sH2wEzjgqn+l6Ybnh E74An3shoRmt27XCTKUqYNbF8TriwAWG =SY6H -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Apr 21, 2009, at 5:49 AM, Frank Bulk - iName.com wrote: It appears that ARIN wants to raise the IP addressing space issue to the CxO level -- if it was interested in honesty, ARIN would have required a notarized statement by the person submitting the request. If ARIN really wants to get the interest of CEOs, raise the price! And punish those that do play by the rules? ARIN's prices are already crazy high for what they actually do. Chris - -- Chris Owen - Garden City (620) 275-1900 - Lottery (noun): President - Wichita (316) 858-3000 -A stupidity tax Hubris Communications Inc www.hubris.net - -- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Public Key: http://home.hubris.net/owenc/pgpkey.txt Comment: Public Key ID: 0xB513D9DD iEYEARECAAYFAknt5BAACgkQElUlCLUT2d2fNACguc5HUFm7iutmdPPEMXVNpgJG UPsAmQFzuLQ5JdCOjWUALIvfIUZuLcPu =t813 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Apr 20, 2009, at 9:04 PM, David Andersen wrote: Just a thought: A technical person might be very happy to lie to a toothless organization that holds no real sway over him or her, won't revoke the address space once granted, and for whom the benefit of lots of address space in which to play exceeds any potential pain from being caught, er, exaggerating their need for address space. That same technical person might be less inclined to lie to a director of their company who asks: "Are you asking me to attest, publicly and perhaps legally, that this information is correct? If you're wrong and you make an ass of me, it's going to be yours that goes out the door." Seems like a reasonable experiment to try, at least. I agree there is no harm in the idea but as I was reading the announcement this morning I couldn't help but think "Too little, too late". Chris - ------ Chris Owen - Garden City (620) 275-1900 - Lottery (noun): President - Wichita (316) 858-3000 -A stupidity tax Hubris Communications Inc www.hubris.net - -- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Public Key: http://home.hubris.net/owenc/pgpkey.txt Comment: Public Key ID: 0xB513D9DD iEYEARECAAYFAkntKl0ACgkQElUlCLUT2d0engCgk3EJW7uu0j9p0ArLjRmZHseP cLMAnRqYov8CwxkF1E1pxP4zktUhA+HS =i5o1 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Managing CE eBGP details & common/accepted CE-facing BGP practices
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Dec 20, 2008, at 8:11 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 6:52 AM, Justin Shore wrote: Does anyone have any preferred ways to manage their customer-facing BGP details? I'm thinking about the customer's ASN (SP assigned private ASN or RIR assigned ASN), permitted prefixes, etc? While I'm sure this could be easily stored in a spreadsheet I'm not sure if there is any merit to storing Heck, you could store all that in Rancid .. even cvs/svn http://homepage.mac.com/duling/halfdozen/RANCID-Howto.htm http://homepage.mac.com/duling/halfdozen/RANCID-Howto.html Chris - ------ Chris Owen - Garden City (620) 275-1900 - Lottery (noun): President - Wichita (316) 858-3000 -A stupidity tax Hubris Communications Inc www.hubris.net - -- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Public Key: http://home.hubris.net/owenc/pgpkey.txt Comment: Public Key ID: 0xB513D9DD iEYEARECAAYFAklNqBIACgkQElUlCLUT2d3QtQCfeqvhtuvT2XtgmspuulvYnaTR NpUAn1KB9raSH/sXdCJ72wYh7LlqkKPX =1ZCh -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: hat tip to .gov hostmasters
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sep 22, 2008, at 9:59 AM, Simon Vallet wrote: On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:52:42 -0400 "Jason Frisvold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm not much up on DNSSEC, but don't you need to be using a resolver that recognizes DNSSEC in order for this to be useful? You do -- and last time I checked few native resolvers actually did : glibc doesn't, and I'd be surprised if the Windows resolver does Chicken, meet egg. I think the point of the original post is that one end or the other has to start things. At least we have one US zone doing something on the server end of things. Chris ~~~~ Chris Owen ~ Garden City (620) 275-1900 ~ Lottery (noun): President ~ Wichita (316) 858-3000 ~A stupidity tax Hubris Communications Inc www.hubris.net -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Public Key: http://home.hubris.net/owenc/pgpkey.txt Comment: Public Key ID: 0xB513D9DD iEYEARECAAYFAkjXs30ACgkQElUlCLUT2d0SfwCbB8FQ4izN061GoQQMl3fkq+NT ga0AoJnwGG8PfBs5PaziRB6m0NQBuZwc =68dm -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: REJECT-ON-SMTP-DATA (Re: Mail Server best practices - was: Pandora's Box of new TLDs)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Jul 1, 2008, at 4:54 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: Chris Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote I did not write this FYI. It is because, if someone reports (by telephone, IRC or IRL) that he sent an email and I did not receive it, I regard as VERY IMPORTANT to be able to check the spam folder (with a search tool, not by hand) and go back to him saying "No, we really did not receive it". The magic keyword: REJECT-ON-SMTP-DATA. Aka during the "DATA" phase of the email, also directly scan it, then when the spam/virus tool thinks it is spam/virus, you just reject it. This solves a couple of things in one go: - No more 'spam' folder, as the stuff that is spam is already rejected. You might get a few mails through that are actually spam, but this is mostly marginal. The lack of a spam folder is one of the problems with such a solution. Having a middle ground quarantine is actually quite nice. However, the biggest problem is these solutions are global in nature. We let individual customers considerable control over the process. They can each set their own block and quarantine levels, configure their own white and blacklists and even turn the spam controls completely off. For various reasons none of that would be possible with this solution and all the implementations you link to all run with a single global configuration. Chris ~~~~ Chris Owen ~ Garden City (620) 275-1900 ~ Lottery (noun): President ~ Wichita (316) 858-3000 ~A stupidity tax Hubris Communications Inc www.hubris.net -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Public Key: http://home.hubris.net/owenc/pgpkey.txt Comment: Public Key ID: 0xB513D9DD iEYEARECAAYFAkhqPvIACgkQElUlCLUT2d2nTQCfVq/dXvpBSVZnbgMyblgwhSp2 hD8AoIBxoz9UupxznPpZ9cC4FJ6fMc1y =Ze+j -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Mail Server best practices - was: Pandora's Box of new TLDs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Jun 28, 2008, at 4:56 PM, Jean-François Mezei wrote: The biggest problem however are outfits like microsoft whose hotmail/ msn properties have undocumented logic which confirm reception of the message at the SMTP/821 level but then proceed to discard the email instead of delivering it to the person's inbox (or spam folder). At some point what is the difference between putting the mail into a spam folder and sending them to /dev/null? Yesterday I received 4,932 emails. 294 of those went into my inbox. 36 of those went info my quarantine folder. The other 4,602 went straight to /dev/null (actually many of them went through various blacklist building scripts first). Had I put the full 4,638 into a "spam folder" that would have been completely worthless. It would be impossible for me to actually review all those emails. Ultimately, there wouldn't be any difference between that and /dev/null. The only difference is I would have deleted them later rather than when they came in. So should I have bounced all 4,602? Since ninety some percent of them came from forged addresses that would not only be pointless but would be contributing to the problem (and get us into bl.spamcop.com). The size of the problem presented by spam is just enormous. Before we started selective greylisting, we used to accept a million messages a day. Of those we only delivered about 50,000. And that's for a system only handling about 5,000 email accounts. I can't even imagine having to do that on the scale hotmail is talking about. Chris ~~~~~~~~ Chris Owen ~ Garden City (620) 275-1900 ~ Lottery (noun): President ~ Wichita (316) 858-3000 ~A stupidity tax Hubris Communications Inc www.hubris.net -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Public Key: http://home.hubris.net/owenc/pgpkey.txt Comment: Public Key ID: 0xB513D9DD iEYEARECAAYFAkhmukwACgkQElUlCLUT2d0yNgCfRhVBqk3lo3X4p6pVJ8i32c4F MIEAn18tJAhIhgvWtIbuqLxFR7TKJB/q =Cump -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [NANOG] Level3 not honoring Broadwing contracts?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Apr 29, 2008, at 10:43 AM, Edward B. DREGER wrote: > But the facility Chris referenced is half-full -- at best. Not only > is > space plentiful, but cooling and electrical have plenty of reserve. > The > price still would be reasonable at a higher rate. We would disagree. In fact, if we had not done so already this would have convinced us to take the previous poster's advice and built our own facility (just across the hall). Chris ~~~~ Chris Owen ~ Garden City (620) 275-1900 ~ Lottery (noun): President ~ Wichita (316) 858-3000 ~A stupidity tax Hubris Communications Inc www.hubris.net -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Public Key: http://home.hubris.net/owenc/pgpkey.txt Comment: Public Key ID: 0xB513D9DD iEYEARECAAYFAkgXSVAACgkQElUlCLUT2d3jPwCglycZnjBKI7SoJnDpTkkzjAPK +b4An1VTV7biLcpiF6F1lgfjisEyZY8L =N0Rn -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [NANOG] Level3 not honoring Broadwing contracts?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Apr 29, 2008, at 7:17 AM, Deepak Jain wrote: > But if you are looking for Level 3 to make any sense, you are going to > be waiting a long, long, long time with the rest of us. > > They have never successfully "sold" much in their brief history. They > have successfully acquired lots, and lots, and lots of revenue and > then > burned it off fabulously quickly. Yea, we were a Telcove customer and recently talked to our new Level3 salesperson (200 miles away). He basically told us they wouldn't be selling us anything new in the future (at any price) but it probably wouldn't matter because they would also be "rerating" our colo charges too. This in a datacenter that is at least 1/2 empty. It was clear from the conversation that he never considered for a moment that we might actually pay the new rate. He just assumed we were gone as soon as it happened. Obviously I don't have a business degree because I don't understand the business model of buying up business and then going out of your way to chase off their customers. The Level3 higher ups must see something I don't. Chris ~~~~~~~~ Chris Owen ~ Garden City (620) 275-1900 ~ Lottery (noun): President ~ Wichita (316) 858-3000 ~A stupidity tax Hubris Communications Inc www.hubris.net -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Public Key: http://home.hubris.net/owenc/pgpkey.txt Comment: Public Key ID: 0xB513D9DD iEYEARECAAYFAkgXLCwACgkQElUlCLUT2d3G7wCfWsTDKzqh3GqQZ/8StrFc1ZKc OoQAn0c/PA3s942QyHzQd3aSX+Of74yI =sJSy -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: Problems sending mail to yahoo?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Apr 10, 2008, at 1:35 PM, Jeff Shultz wrote: This thread got me checking logs and I just spotted several of those "deferred due to user complaints" tags. And compared to them, we're tiny. Don't know if it's widespread, but it appears you are not the only one so blessed. We've seen this before too but this week it has been different. Every single host that relays email on our network has these in the queue. Now a couple of them do mailing lists and such so I could see it happening but a couple of them don't do anything high volume at all. For some of them some mail goes through but only some of the time. It seems like if we hit the right MX machine it works and other times it does not. We tried going around them by sending mail over to an employee's personal mail server (which does nearly no volume at all) but even it is blocked probably 1/2 the time. I'm not sure what is going on but given all this I can't believe it is just "normal". We filled out one of those forms but just got back a response that said it wasn't happening but if it was we should see their "best practices" URL. Only problem is we actually do everything on their list (including both DomainKeys and DKIM). Chris Chris Owen ~ Garden City (620) 275-1900 ~ Lottery (noun): President ~ Wichita (316) 858-3000 ~A stupidity tax Hubris Communications Inc www.hubris.net -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Public Key: http://home.hubris.net/owenc/pgpkey.txt Comment: Public Key ID: 0xB513D9DD iEYEARECAAYFAkf+bTQACgkQElUlCLUT2d3lPACeLoNzc790rnHxNAtPEdnpFDpX yAoAoKkMZlw4zX/yzgRsiiJOdD6wCbph =YXy4 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
