Polytropon free...@edvax.de writes:
When Bill G. arrives at the pearly gate, ol' Pete won't ask
him what he did do, instead send him to MICROS~1 C:\HELL.EXE
with the advice to click on the devil to start the everlasting
pain. :-)
Brilliant!!
atb
Glyn
Daniel Underwood wrote:
How did The question of moving vi to /bin end up as two different
conversations for me in gmail?
Hello Daniel,
When I did a 'Reply to All', the moderator blocked the posting claiming
too high a number of recipients. I cancelled the posting, and resent it
using
-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: The question of moving vi to /bin
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:15:12 -0500
Gary Gatten ggat...@waddell.com wrote:
I like M$ Notepad - is there a version of that for FBSD?
Actually, there is. Wine implements it's own version of notepad
Of RW
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 10:21 PM
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: The question of moving vi to /bin
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:15:12 -0500
Gary Gatten ggat...@waddell.com wrote:
I like M$ Notepad - is there a version of that for FBSD?
Actually, there is. Wine implements it's
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:15:12 -0500, Gary Gatten ggat...@waddell.com wrote:
I like M$ Notepad - is there a version of that for FBSD?
You are on the wrong list. Correct your inner state of mind and
try again. :-)
No, seriously: Maybe gnotepad+ appeals to you?
Actually the old edit from dos is
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:23:17 -0700, Gary Kline kl...@thought.org wrote:
what about j, k [down, up]. and h,l [left, right]?
why reach over for the arrow keys! oh, and o, and O
[open line below/Above], and
\search
and that's 97 and 44/100ths of what you'll
Hi,
On 26 June 2009 pm 14:01:02 Polytropon wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:23:17 -0700, Gary Kline
kl...@thought.org wrote:
have a vi keyboard reference in my extremely important
documentation folder - and yes, it is a real folder, not a
directory. :-) So if everything fails, there's still vi
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 08:01:02AM +0200, Polytropon wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:23:17 -0700, Gary Kline kl...@thought.org wrote:
what about j, k [down, up]. and h,l [left, right]?
why reach over for the arrow keys! oh, and o, and O
[open line below/Above], and
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:15:12 -0500
Gary Gatten ggat...@waddell.com wrote:
I like M$ Notepad - is there a version of that for FBSD?
Actually, there is. Wine implements it's own version of notepad.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
Hi,
I agree that vi is nowhere as easy to use as ee. Since a lot of people seem to
be happy with ee, why not make it available under /bin so that that there is an
easy-to-use, readily-working editor always available, even if you are in
single-user mode ?
That in fact was the essence of
2009/6/25 Gary Gatten ggat...@waddell.com:
I like M$ Notepad - is there a version of that for FBSD? Actually the old
edit from dos is sweet too
I'll humour you... gedit is similar and better than notepad for BSD,
but there's nothing like 'edit' (actually a stripped down QBasic)
AFAIK.
(although
/rescue/vi is currently slightly broken itself due to the termcap issue which
is being fixed in -CURRENT and I hope will be MFC'd).
Anyone who wants /usr/bin/vi available in single-user mode can install FreeBSD
with one large partition; or mount /usr once in single-user mode
in single-user
mode even when something horrible happens and libraries are broken (although
/rescue/vi is currently slightly broken itself due to the termcap issue which
is being fixed in -CURRENT and I hope will be MFC'd).
Anyone who wants /usr/bin/vi available in single-user mode can install
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:40:50 +0800, Erich Dollansky er...@apsara.com.sg wrote:
On 26 June 2009 pm 14:01:02 Polytropon wrote:
Maybe this is because vi scared me when using WEGA (which is
the GDR's equivalent of UNIX System III, run on the P8000
was this the russian PDP-11?
I'm not sure if
Hi,
On 27 June 2009 am 07:08:01 Polytropon wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:40:50 +0800, Erich Dollansky
er...@apsara.com.sg wrote:
On 26 June 2009 pm 14:01:02 Polytropon wrote:
Maybe this is because vi scared me when using WEGA (which
is the GDR's equivalent of UNIX System III, run on the
That's a very good suggestion. But let's take into mind that we
do need the most advanced and modern MICROS~1 technology, so
FreeBSD should include a pirated copy of Windows 7 in order
to run the latest and most expensive pirated copy of Office,
programmed in Java, running through Flash. With
one reason. Secondly,
how many times does an average commandline user even think of
using ed when he needs to edit a file, even in the extreme case
where there are no alternatives ?
isn't there ee in the base system?
Till the improvements are in place, we need the alternative of
having vi
ed is an interactive program, and it has always been considered as
such, at least since BSD 4.2. Way back then there were three main
editors, ex, vi, and ed.
ed goes back at least as far as the Bell Labs 6th Edition (PDP-11),
where it was the only editor in the distribution. ex and vi (and
for newbies.
ed is an interactive program because the user interacts with it. You
give it command, it does something, you give it some more commands, it
does more stuff, etc. Interactive does not mean screen based.
Till the improvements are in place, we need the alternative of having vi
under
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:36:31AM -0400, John L. Templer typed:
ed is an interactive program, and it has always been considered as such,
at least since BSD 4.2. Way back then there were three main editors,
ex, vi, and ed. If you had a nice video terminal then you used vi. But
if you were
the alternative of having vi
under /bin rather than /usr/bin.
Actually, it surprises me to what extent the core of the FreeBSD community is
enamoured with this idea of a micro-minimalistic base, in which it is
practically impossible to do anything except run fsck. Matters don't stop
there. Seeing
Ruben de Groot wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:36:31AM -0400, John L. Templer typed:
ed is an interactive program, and it has always been considered as such,
at least since BSD 4.2. Way back then there were three main editors,
ex, vi, and ed. If you had a nice video terminal then you used
2009/6/24 Manish Jain invalid.poin...@gmail.com:
everyone has hundreds of GB's
on the disk
No. No they don't. Please hang up and try again. If you need
to make a collect call, please dial zero to speak with an oper-
ator.
--
--
___
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:20:42 -0400, ill...@gmail.com ill...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/24 Manish Jain invalid.poin...@gmail.com:
everyone has hundreds of GB's
on the disk
No. No they don't. Please hang up and try again. If you need
to make a collect call, please dial zero to speak with an
?
ee is in /usr/bin, just like vi.
Till the improvements are in place, we need the alternative of
having vi under /bin rather than /usr/bin.
I do not see any reason to have a monster like vi there.
I agree, but for different reasons.
Though I love vi(m), I realize that not everyone does
it was mentioned, but the OP seems to have ignored or
refused to acknowledge /rescue/vi which is in the / partition as it's
defaulted partitioned. Why are we still talking about /usr/bin/vi
(dynamically linked) when /rescue/vi (statically linked) is both in /
and would work for us
...@googlemail.com
bf1...@googlemail.com; FreeBSD Mailing List freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Sent: Thu Jun 25 15:50:01 2009
Subject: Re: The question of moving vi to /bin
snip
20 years ago, I've written and edited voluminous fortran code on a silly
rs232 terminal using ed. So, it is possible
Hi,
On 25 June 2009 pm 19:13:14 Konrad Heuer wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Manish Jain wrote:
Maybe you're right, maybe not.
20 years ago, I've written and edited voluminous fortran code
on a silly rs232 terminal using ed. So, it is possible, and one
I do not believe you. This must have been
Ho,
On 26 June 2009 am 04:32:31 Erik Osterholm wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:28:54PM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
On 25 June 2009 pm 13:03:01 Manish Jain wrote:
If you want to make a case for replacing ed(1), you're
isn't there ee in the base system?
ee is in /usr/bin, just like
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ruben de Groot wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:36:31AM -0400, John L. Templer typed:
ed is an interactive program, and it has always been considered as such,
at least since BSD 4.2. Way back then there were three main editors,
ex, vi, and ed.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:20:19 +0800, Erich Dollansky er...@apsara.com.sg wrote:
On 25 June 2009 pm 19:13:14 Konrad Heuer wrote:
Maybe you're right, maybe not.
20 years ago, I've written and edited voluminous fortran code
on a silly rs232 terminal using ed. So, it is possible, and one
I do not
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:24:13 +0800, Erich Dollansky er...@apsara.com.sg wrote:
To be honest, I never have had a problem with /usr since disks are
large enough to have all on only one.
Mostly, partitioning according to directory structures has nothing
to do with disk space, but with intention.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
ed is an interactive program, and it has always been considered as
such, at least since BSD 4.2. Way back then there were three main
editors, ex, vi, and ed.
ed goes back at least as far as the Bell Labs 6th Edition
Hi,
On 26 June 2009 am 09:06:49 Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:20:19 +0800, Erich Dollansky
er...@apsara.com.sg wrote:
On 25 June 2009 pm 19:13:14 Konrad Heuer wrote:
Maybe you're right, maybe not.
20 years ago, I've written and edited voluminous fortran
code on a
Hi,
On 26 June 2009 am 09:07:00 Polytropon wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:24:13 +0800, Erich Dollansky
er...@apsara.com.sg wrote:
To be honest, I never have had a problem with /usr since
disks are large enough to have all on only one.
Mostly, partitioning according to directory structures
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:50:31 +0800, Erich Dollansky er...@apsara.com.sg wrote:
On 26 June 2009 am 09:06:49 Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
As far as 16 years back, VT220/VT320 terminals were in wide use
in universities. Some of us learned our first regexp stuff by
not only there, but ed was not the
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:55:48 +0800, Erich Dollansky er...@apsara.com.sg wrote:
this is not what I mean. I wanted to say, as long as the boot disk
come up, I also have /usr available when I have the space to have
it all on the same disk.
I see. The fact that /usr isn't available after booting
Hi,
On 26 June 2009 am 10:02:30 Polytropon wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:55:48 +0800, Erich Dollansky
er...@apsara.com.sg wrote:
this is not what I mean. I wanted to say, as long as the boot
disk come up, I also have /usr available when I have the
space to have it all on the same disk.
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 09:50:31AM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
Hi,
On 26 June 2009 am 09:06:49 Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:20:19 +0800, Erich Dollansky
er...@apsara.com.sg wrote:
On 25 June 2009 pm 19:13:14 Konrad Heuer wrote:
Maybe you're right, maybe not.
Hi,
On 26 June 2009 pm 12:19:32 Gary Kline wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 09:50:31AM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
On 26 June 2009 am 09:06:49 Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:20:19 +0800, Erich Dollansky
er...@apsara.com.sg wrote:
On 25 June 2009 pm 19:13:14 Konrad
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 09:09:56PM -0400, John L. Templer wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
ed is an interactive program, and it has always been considered as
such, at least since BSD 4.2. Way back then there were three main
editors, ex,
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 12:31:37PM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
Hi,
On 26 June 2009 pm 12:19:32 Gary Kline wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 09:50:31AM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
On 26 June 2009 am 09:06:49 Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:20:19 +0800, Erich
On Tuesday 23 June 2009 15:41:48 Manish Jain wrote:
I hope the next release will address these problems, as well as a pretty
reasonable request from me much earlier to move vi from /usr/bin to
/bin. Even in single-user mode, you almost always need an editor.
Which is why you have ed(1
On Tuesday 23 June 2009 15:41:48 Manish Jain wrote:
...
About ed first. I might annoy a few people (which would gladden me in
this particular case), but ed was just one of Ken Thompson's nightmares
which he managed to reproduce in Unix with great precision. By no
stretch of imagination would it
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:13:49AM -0700, b. f. wrote:
On Tuesday 23 June 2009 15:41:48 Manish Jain wrote:
About ed first. I might annoy a few people (which would gladden me in
this particular case), but ed was just one of Ken Thompson's nightmares
which he managed to reproduce in Unix with
2009/6/24 cpghost cpgh...@cordula.ws:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:13:49AM -0700, b. f. wrote:
On Tuesday 23 June 2009 15:41:48 Manish Jain wrote:
About ed first. I might annoy a few people (which would gladden me in
this particular case), but ed was just one of Ken Thompson's nightmares
On Wednesday 24 June 2009 12:59:13 Manish Jain wrote:
About ed first. I might annoy a few people (which would gladden me in
this particular case), but ed was just one of Ken Thompson's nightmares
which he managed to reproduce in Unix with great precision. By no
stretch of imagination would it
through
the implications.
I think the intent was to do away with /bin/ed and /rescue/vi in favor of
/bin/vi -- not to do away with /bin/ed and /rescue/vi and replace them
with nothing.
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
Quoth Alan Kay: I invented the term
and computational effort
are still important, and will remain so for a while. Please don't
encourage bloat.
I sympathize with the desire to keep bloat down for the minimal default
case. Embedded systems were the first examples that came to mind for
cases where having vi in /bin might not be ideal
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 06:13:49 -0700
b. f. bf1...@googlemail.com wrote:
??? Who is giving them that credit? This isn't new. You already have
some control over swapping via several oids:
vm.swap_enabled
vm.disable_swapspace_pageouts
vm.defer_swapspace_pageouts
vm.swap_idle_enabled
there are no
alternatives ?
There have been some recent changes:
http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/194628
http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/194628
that suggest that this problem is being addressed.
Till the improvements are in place, we need the alternative of having vi
under /bin
.
ed is an interactive program because the user interacts with it. You
give it command, it does something, you give it some more commands, it
does more stuff, etc. Interactive does not mean screen based.
Till the improvements are in place, we need the alternative of having vi
under /bin rather
2009/5/14 Mel Flynn mel.flynn+fbsd.questi...@mailing.thruhere.net:
On Thursday 14 May 2009 12:38:30 Chris Rees wrote:
2009/5/13 Mel Flynn mel.flynn+fbsd.questi...@mailing.thruhere.net:
On Wednesday 13 May 2009 11:34:43 Michael Powell wrote:
Kind of like how those coming over from a
Linux
Mel Flynn wrote:
On Wednesday 13 May 2009 09:21:46 manish jain wrote:
I want to move vi to /bin so that I have an editor available in
single-user mode.
The only reason to need an editor and not have /usr and /var available is to
edit /etc/fstab. It is trivial to spot errors with /rescue/cat
Manish Jain wrote:
Mel Flynn wrote:
On Wednesday 13 May 2009 09:21:46 manish jain wrote:
I want to move vi to /bin so that I have an editor available in
single-user mode.
The only reason to need an editor and not have /usr and /var available
is to edit /etc/fstab. It is trivial to spot
.
Having to use the workarounds suggested in place of vi is not
so good, and manually moving vi to /bin is not simply a matter
of 'mv /usr/bin/vi /bin/'.
One of the things I would dearly like to see in a future release
is vi being placed under /bin.
Maybe put something like this [untested
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:03:58PM -0700, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
Chris Rees googlemail.com!utis...@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
2009/5/14 Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:38:30AM +0100, Chris Rees wrote:
I think the problem with that is he meant changing the
On Friday 15 May 2009 08:46:46 Manish Jain wrote:
Mel Flynn wrote:
On Wednesday 13 May 2009 09:21:46 manish jain wrote:
I want to move vi to /bin so that I have an editor available in
single-user mode.
The only reason to need an editor and not have /usr and /var available is
to edit
Manish Jain wrote:
Mel Flynn wrote:
On Wednesday 13 May 2009 09:21:46 manish jain wrote:
I want to move vi to /bin so that I have an editor available in
single-user mode.
[snip]
From all the discussion I have walked through on the issue of where to
place vi, it does appear FreeBSD has
2009/5/13 Mel Flynn mel.flynn+fbsd.questi...@mailing.thruhere.net:
On Wednesday 13 May 2009 11:34:43 Michael Powell wrote:
Kind of like how those coming over from a
Linux environment all seem to want to change root's shell to bash, it
serves no purpose except foot-shooting.
- csh cannot
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:38:30AM +0100, Chris Rees wrote:
2009/5/13 Mel Flynn mel.flynn+fbsd.questi...@mailing.thruhere.net:
On Wednesday 13 May 2009 11:34:43 Michael Powell wrote:
Kind of like how those coming over from a
Linux environment all seem to want to change root's shell to
2009/5/14 Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:38:30AM +0100, Chris Rees wrote:
2009/5/13 Mel Flynn mel.flynn+fbsd.questi...@mailing.thruhere.net:
On Wednesday 13 May 2009 11:34:43 Michael Powell wrote:
Kind of like how those coming over from a
Linux environment
On Thursday 14 May 2009 12:38:30 Chris Rees wrote:
2009/5/13 Mel Flynn mel.flynn+fbsd.questi...@mailing.thruhere.net:
On Wednesday 13 May 2009 11:34:43 Michael Powell wrote:
Kind of like how those coming over from a
Linux environment all seem to want to change root's shell to bash, it
On Wednesday 13 May 2009 09:21:46 manish jain wrote:
I want to move vi to /bin so that I have an editor available in
single-user mode.
The only reason to need an editor and not have /usr and /var available is to
edit /etc/fstab. It is trivial to spot errors with /rescue/cat and fix
On Thu, 14 May 2009 20:13:02 +0200, Mel Flynn
mel.flynn+fbsd.questi...@mailing.thruhere.net wrote:
sh is worse then csh.
But sufficient for administration tasks in maintenance mode.
It's not that you spend hours of dialog sessions in SUM.
Remember: It's a worst case scenario. If everything
Chris Rees googlemail.com!utis...@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
2009/5/14 Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:38:30AM +0100, Chris Rees wrote:
I think the problem with that is he meant changing the root
shell to /usr/local/bin/bash. You're better off using /bin/sh
if you
Hi,
I want to move vi to /bin so that I have an editor available in
single-user mode. This sounds simple (and should be if all you have is
a single partition), but there are problems. For starters, terminfo
can't locate its database in single-user mode.
Could anyone please tell me how to go
On Wed 2009-05-13 12:51:46 UTC+0530, manish jain (invalid.poin...@gmail.com)
wrote:
I want to move vi to /bin so that I have an editor available in
single-user mode.
You may be able to use /rescue/vi.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:51:46PM +0530, manish jain wrote:
I want to move vi to /bin so that I have an editor available in
single-user mode. This sounds simple (and should be if all you have is
a single partition), but there are problems. For starters, terminfo
can't locate its database
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:51:46PM +0530, manish jain wrote:
I want to move vi to /bin so that I have an editor available in
single-user mode. This sounds simple (and should be if all you have is
a single partition), but there are problems. For starters, terminfo
can't locate its database
El miércoles 13 de mayo a las 09:21:46 CEST, manish jain escribió:
Hi,
I want to move vi to /bin so that I have an editor available in
single-user mode. This sounds simple (and should be if all you have is
a single partition), but there are problems. For starters, terminfo
can't locate its
Chris Rees wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:51:46PM +0530, manish jain wrote:
I want to move vi to /bin so that I have an editor available in
single-user mode. This sounds simple (and should be if all you have is
a single partition), but there are problems. For starters, terminfo
can't
On Wednesday 13 May 2009 11:34:43 Michael Powell wrote:
Kind of like how those coming over from a
Linux environment all seem to want to change root's shell to bash, it
serves no purpose except foot-shooting.
- csh cannot redirect stderr seperately from stdout
- on pipes the exit status from
On Wed, 13 May 2009 05:34:43 -0400, Michael Powell nightre...@verizon.net
wrote:
Yes - use the /rescue/vi as it has been statically compiled so it does not
rely on dynamic libraries which may not be available. The purpose here is
have a fallback position for repairing a damage/problem which
Assuming you have the object files from a buildworld hanging around, then
cd /usr/obj/usr/src/usr.bin/vi
cc -O -pipe -o vi *.o -lncurses -static strip vi mv vi /bin/
should probably supply you with what you want.
When using VI in such a situation I usually also use rc.diskless2 to
create
On Sat, 25 Jan 2003, Paul Hoffman wrote:
- As pointed out off-line, you also need to get it the termcap library. Doing
cp /usr/share/misc/termcap.db /root/.termcap.db
You propably want to strip that bugger down to its bones; they weight in
at around 2Mb including the un-db-ed version.
I'm kinda surprised this isn't in the FAQ (or at least not in a place
that I could find it). It is really impossible to build a vi with no
external dependencies that can be installed in /bin? All I want is
something that knows how to full-screen edit on the console, nothing
else. I dread the
...)
Assuming you have the object files from a buildworld hanging around, then
cd /usr/obj/usr/src/usr.bin/vi
cc -O -pipe -o vi *.o -lncurses -static strip vi mv vi /bin/
should probably supply you with what you want.
Petersen
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd
it was impossible?
The book FreeBSD by Anderson (which was highly recommended by some)
says so on page 371. I'm glad to hear that's wrong.
Assuming you have the object files from a buildworld hanging around, then
cd /usr/obj/usr/src/usr.bin/vi
cc -O -pipe -o vi *.o -lncurses -static strip vi mv vi /bin
In the last episode (Jan 25), Paul Hoffman said:
At 1:36 AM + 1/26/03, Petersen wrote:
Paul Hoffman wrote:
I'm kinda surprised this isn't in the FAQ (or at least not in a
place that I could find it). It is really impossible to build a vi
with no external dependencies that can be
At 1:36 AM + 1/26/03, Petersen wrote:
Assuming you have the object files from a buildworld hanging around, then
cd /usr/obj/usr/src/usr.bin/vi
cc -O -pipe -o vi *.o -lncurses -static strip vi mv vi /bin/
should probably supply you with what you want.
Two modifications made this work fine
In the last episode (Jan 25), Paul Hoffman said:
Nice! e3 built from the ports collection linked statically
automatically. e3 didn't work correctly on my console (it didn't
recognize the Alt key), but e3vi worked fine and felt just like vi.
Alt key support requires you to modify yur syscons
On 2003-01-25 19:22, Paul Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 1:36 AM + 1/26/03, Petersen wrote:
Assuming you have the object files from a buildworld hanging around, then
cd /usr/obj/usr/src/usr.bin/vi
cc -O -pipe -o vi *.o -lncurses -static strip vi mv vi /bin/
should probably supply
83 matches
Mail list logo
