Or, go see the movie Super Size Me - you might just give up McDonald's
entirely, reducing your risk of burns from their overheated coffee. :)
Haven't been in one on over 2 years - and not through any great principal, I
just stopped. Odd how our tastes change with age ;-)
Peter
- Original Message -
From: Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jonathan Nichols [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: Points on your Internet driver's license (was RE: Even you can be hacked)
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
while i
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004, David Schwartz wrote:
Take some responsibility.
How does a person with a DSL line at home take responsibilty if he's away
for a month? Is he supposed to hire someone?
The same way I did it when I went on holiday.
I turned off the DSL router.
Adrian
--
It all depends upon what the agreement between the customer and the ISP
says. It's no unreasonable for the ISP to 'insure' the customer against
risks he isn't able to mitigate which the ISP is, even if that means
shutting off his service.
True, to some extent, but...
If someone
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
Why do I have to get two and three copies of each of these?
Because you havn't set a Reply-To header? Eg with the list as
address?
I'm on the list folks, if you send it to the list I'll get it. I
don't need a copy to the list and Cc:'s until
Paul Jakma wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
Why do I have to get two and three copies of each of these?
Because you havn't set a Reply-To header? Eg with the list as address?
I'm on the list folks, if you send it to the list I'll get it. I
don't need a copy to the
Andy Dills wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
Jeff Shultz wrote:
But ultimately, _you_ are responsible for your own systems.
Even if the water company is sending me 85% TriChlorEthane?
Right. Got it. The victim is always responsible.
There you have it folks.
Change
reply-to: headers are bad. the replier can be sending to the
list when they intended to reply privately. hence, many of us
have our MTAs strip them before we even get the mail.
again, procmail is your friend
# prevent dupes
#
:0 Wh: msgid.lock
| formail -D 65536 msgid.cache
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:50:26 CDT, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. said:
Where is RFC 2821 is this requirement, by the way? RFC 2822
says it is optional but seems to be less than useful in the
context here.
2821 is about the SMTP side of things. By the time the MTA is handed
a list of RCPT TO's,
Paul Jakma wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
Really? My responsibility to make sure you control your outbound
mail. Got it.
You really think everyone on this list should remember the preference of
every other poster as to whether they do or do not want a direct copy?
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Randy Bush wrote:
reply-to: headers are bad.
Oh, on that I agree.
There are draft RFCs to specify these things better, eg seperating
the concept of 'Reply-to' into one policy for list related replies
and another for personal, mutt supports these drafts already[1], but
there
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
Really? My responsibility to make sure you control your outbound
mail. Got it.
You really think everyone on this list should remember the preference
of every other poster as to whether they do or do not want a direct
copy? Maybe we could
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
Or the document a little out-dated and replaced. But not your
responsibility huh?
822 might have been superceded, yes, however no newer standards track
RFC has made Reply-to obsolete. My point was that Reply-to isnt
something new, it's
At 7:07 PM -0700 2004-06-10, David Schwartz wrote:
Most of the people on this list see things from the ISP's
perspective.
However, step back a bit and see it from the user's perspective. Do you
expect to pay for phone calls you didn't make or do you expect
the person
whose
I suspect most of us who are failing to feel Mr. Sheldon's pain on this
just fail to understand the burden that's been placed on him by this
problem.
As an occasional poster to this and other lists, I sometimes get a few
duplicate replies, which, being sent directly to me, end up in my regular
a quick duplicate elimination in procmail is something like:
:0 Whc: msgid.lock
| formail -D 16384 msgid.cache
:0 a:
/dev/null
for me it's a substantial lifestyle improvement.
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Steve Gibbard wrote:
I suspect most of us who are failing to feel Mr. Sheldon's pain on this
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 10:52:40 PDT, Steve Gibbard said:
As an occasional poster to this and other lists, I sometimes get a few
duplicate replies, which, being sent directly to me, end up in my regular
mailbox instead of my NANOG folder, and thus require me to actively delete
or sort through
Here are a list of very active ports that attempt to
hack into peoples systesm from various parts of the
world China in particular.
I think unassigned ports should be dropped from
routing
tables unless they are registered with the host and or
providers as to their legitimate use
Henry Linneweh wrote:
Here are a list of very active ports that attempt to
hack into peoples systesm from various parts of the
world China in particular.
Thank you.
I think unassigned ports should be dropped from
routing
tables unless they are registered with the host and or
providers as to
Henry Linneweh wrote:
Here are a list of very active ports that attempt to
hack into peoples systesm from various parts of the
world China in particular.
I think unassigned ports should be dropped from
routing
tables unless they are registered with the host and or
providers as to their
I think unassigned ports should be dropped from
routing tables
your wish is the internet's comman. ports are no longer
in routing tables.
Randy Bush wrote:
I think unassigned ports should be dropped from
routing tables
your wish is the internet's comman. ports are no longer
in routing tables.
Thank you
--
Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
http://members.cox.net/larrysheldon/
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Henry Linneweh wrote:
Here are a list of very active ports that attempt to
hack into peoples systesm from various parts of the
world China in particular.
I think unassigned ports should be dropped from
routing
tables unless they are registered with the host and or
This thread is quite amusing and interesting at the same time. If I read
the original post right, Mr. Mike Bierstock was informed that he was
generating an unusual amount of traffic, traffic he would have to pay for.
He got the bill and had to deal with the consequences. What is wrong with
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Andy Dills wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Henry Linneweh wrote:
Here are a list of very active ports that attempt to
hack into peoples systesm from various parts of the
world China in particular.
I think unassigned ports should be dropped from
routing
tables
Coupled with a Flux Capacitor for the ultimate in message delivery :)
- Original Message -
From: Scott Stursa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: Even you can be hacked
Ah. A tunneling implementation.
You'll need a cold fusion
Now you are just getting silly, we know Flux Capacitors don't work on
earth.
Mike Walter
-Original Message-
From: Matthew McGehrin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 5:00 PM
To: nanog
Subject: was: Even you can be hacked
Coupled with a Flux Capacitor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 6/11/04 3:02:42 PM
Now you are just getting silly, we know Flux Capacitors don't work on
earth.
Sure they do, at least the ones made since 1985. I believe I remember a
DeLorean that used one.
John
--
Hmm, so your on earth?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Mike Walter
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 5:03 PM
To: nanog
Subject: RE: Even you can be hacked
Now you are just getting silly, we know Flux Capacitors don't work on
earth.
Mike Walter
the bottom line
o if you want the internet to continue to innovate, then
the end-to-end model is critical. it means that it
takes only X colluding end-poits to deploy an new
application which might be the next killer ap which
drives your business. remember, email was not part
Title: [OT] common list sense (Re: Even you can be hacked)
Paul Jamka [PJ] wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. [LFSJ] wrote:
LFSJ I'm on the list folks, if you send it to the list I'll get it. I don't need a copy to the list and Cc:'s until the end of time.
PJ Then set
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Sean Donelan wrote:
:Did your computer have a power switch? Did you turn it off? Or did you
:continue to let it run up the bill? Yes, even the complete computer
:novice can stop a computer room. Turn off your computer. If you don't
:know how to fix it, take it to a
That is true, but only if they are placed in DeLorean because they
filled with drugs.
Mike
-Original Message-
From: John Neiberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 5:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Even you can be hacked
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 6/11/04 3:02
We'll agree to disagree on the majority of your post and your interpretation
of the facts... However, this tidbit attracted my attention...
Maybe the only bandwidth simile that could be appropriate
would be to a car in the 1950's, one which was unsafe at
any speed.
Yes... I have long felt that
] Behalf Of
Mike Walter
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 5:03 PM
To: nanog
Subject: RE: Even you can be hacked
Now you are just getting silly, we know Flux Capacitors don't work on
earth.
Mike Walter
-Original Message-
From: Matthew McGehrin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday
Of course, except in this case, the phone company can't
easily tell the
legitimate calls from the illegitimate ones and block only the
illegitimate ones. Every analogy will break down, so don't expect to be
able to convince people with analogies that seem so obviously right to
This thread is quite amusing and interesting at the same time. If I read
the original post right, Mr. Mike Bierstock was informed that he was
generating an unusual amount of traffic, traffic he would have to
pay for.
He got the bill and had to deal with the consequences. What is wrong with
Henry,
from the email address I'm assuming youre not trolling and are therefore
missing a few facts,
IP!=IPX, that is.. ports arent in the routing table
It is not the ports below that cause the security issues, it is the applications
which are using them, you need to either fix the apps or
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:51:00 -0400 (EDT) Scott McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But wouldn't an interocitor with electron sorter option give you much more
reliable packet delivery...
that works fine until someone reverse the polarity of the neutron flow.
richard
--
Richard Welty
** Reply to message from Richard Welty [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri,
11 Jun 2004 18:33:00 -0400 (EDT)
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:51:00 -0400 (EDT) Scott McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But wouldn't an interocitor with electron sorter option give you much more
reliable packet delivery...
that
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Randy Bush writes:
the bottom line
o if you want the internet to continue to innovate, then
the end-to-end model is critical.
What Randy said. (And all the rest of the post that I deleted to
save a bit of bandwidth.)
--Steve Bellovin,
Richard Welty wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:51:00 -0400 (EDT) Scott McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But wouldn't an interocitor with electron sorter option give you much more
reliable packet delivery...
that works fine until someone reverse the polarity of the neutron flow.
And for heaven's
--On 11 June 2004 14:18 -0700 Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the bottom line
o if you want the internet to continue to innovate, then
the end-to-end model is critical. it means that it
If there is a lesson here, seems to me it's that those innovative protocols
should be designed such
I can agree with that and Randy pointed out when these
idea's were created and writen, security was not part
of the overall plan because there were trusted parties
on either end of the spectrum.
I think that my intent was noble and I am glad I
started a controversy, because this is an issue
yes, we're gonna hack desperately for a decade to make up
for asecure (innocent of, as contrasted with devoid of,
security) application protocols and implementations. it'll
take half that time for the ivtf and the vendors to realize
how deeply complexity is our enemy. and until then we'll
hack
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, David Schwartz wrote:
generated by a worm. The ISP had an obligation to stop this traffic with
filters or customer disconnection. They may or may not have complied with
their obligation. Either way, it's hard to see why the customer should pay
for traffic the ISP did not
we americans do not readily accept responsibility for our
[in]actions. we sue for being hit by a baseball while
attending a game. we sue for spilling hot coffee on
ourselves. we sue when we walki into open trenches and
manholes. and we self-righteously torture, commit war
crimes, and murder,
If your child borrows your credit card, and makes lots of unathorized
charges, you may not have to pay more than $50; but the bank can go after
your son or daughter for the money. Most parents end up paying, even if
they didn't authorize their children to use the credit card.
So the credit
Scalable bandwidth is not new and is charged for, what
is the issue about that?
If the network is compromised and it is on the client
end, that is what business insurance is for, so that
everyone gets their's (payments, otherwise other types
of arrangements need to be made, according to the
attending a game. we sue for spilling hot coffee on
ourselves.
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
Interesting reading on that whole woman sues for spilling hot coffee on
herself story. Sometimes there's a LOT more to the tale. :)
This will be my last post on this issue.
In this case:
1) Almost certainly the traffic was due to a worm.
2) Almost certainly the ISP knew (or strongly suspected) the traffic was
due to a worm.
3) Quite likely, the ISP never carried most of the traffic
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
while i am no fan of macdonalds, and a good case is made for
their negligence, perhaps you should follow the advice at the
bottom of that web page
The most important message this case has for you, the
consumer, is to be aware of the potential danger
Randy Bush wrote:
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
while i am no fan of macdonalds, and a good case is made for
their negligence, perhaps you should follow the advice at the
bottom of that web page
The most important message this case has for you, the
consumer, is to be aware of the
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, David Schwartz wrote:
So why does everyone think the ISP is almost certainly entitled to be paid?
Is it because they're ISPs? Is it because it's easy to blame someone else?
I notice that Webmaster's license agreement includes this clause:
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY.
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, David Schwartz wrote:
This will be my last post on this issue.
In this case:
1) Almost certainly the traffic was due to a worm.
2) Almost certainly the ISP knew (or strongly suspected) the traffic was
due to a worm.
3) Quite
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer; consult yours before relying on advice from
any layperson, including me.
Thus spake Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Should the ISP have shut the customer off? Probably. I certainly would
have. Are there ISPs that don't? You bet... Some because they are afraid
Why does Webmaster put the entire risk on the customer, including warning
that the security mechanism has inherent limitations? Shouldn't Webmaster
be responsible if their customer suffer a loss whatsover the cause, even
if it wasn't due to any negligence on the part of Webmaster?
Does the water company fix your toilet if it leaks water? Or do you call
a plumber?
Every consumer computer has a power switch. How to stop a virus, turn off
the power switch and take your computer to a repair shop.
Sean Donelan wrote:
Does the water company fix your toilet if it leaks water? Or do you call
a plumber?
On the other hand, if the water company was sending pollutants in the
water you bought, there was a perceived responsibility upon the water
company.
Now, which broken metaphor (leaky toilet,
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
Does the water company fix your toilet if it leaks water? Or do you call
a plumber?
On the other hand, if the water company was sending pollutants in the
water you bought, there was a perceived responsibility upon the water
company.
** Reply to message from Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:39:41 -0500
Sean Donelan wrote:
Does the water company fix your toilet if it leaks water? Or do you call
a plumber?
On the other hand, if the water company was sending pollutants in the
water
Jeff Shultz wrote:
But ultimately, _you_ are responsible for your own systems.
Even if the water company is sending me 85% TriChlorEthane?
Right. Got it. The victim is always responsible.
There you have it folks.
But ultimately, _you_ are responsible for your own systems.
When I detect abusive behavior coming from a customer site then
it is my responsibility to make sure that doesn't affect the
rest of the world.
Also, if I know how to fix it at source and the customer doesn't know
then it's my
On Jun 10, 2004, at 2:06 PM, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
Jeff Shultz wrote:
But ultimately, _you_ are responsible for your own systems.
Even if the water company is sending me 85% TriChlorEthane?
Right. Got it. The victim is always responsible.
There you have it folks.
The victim in the
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
But ultimately, _you_ are responsible for your own systems.
Even if the water company is sending me 85% TriChlorEthane?
Which water company is sending you 85% TriChlorEthane? More than likely
its your next door neighbor with a defective
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 01:06:43PM -0500, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
Jeff Shultz wrote:
But ultimately, _you_ are responsible for your own systems.
Even if the water company is sending me 85% TriChlorEthane?
Right. Got it. The victim is always responsible.
There you have it
** Reply to message from Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:06:43 -0500
Jeff Shultz wrote:
But ultimately, _you_ are responsible for your own systems.
Even if the water company is sending me 85% TriChlorEthane?
Right. Got it. The victim is always
Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
Even if the water company is sending me 85% TriChlorEthane?
Right. Got it. The victim is always responsible.
There you have it folks.
Ok.
Being resposible as network manager, if I think something is strange and I nor my staff
can fix it. I call for help.
Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
Even if the water company is sending me 85% TriChlorEthane?
Right. Got it. The victim is always responsible.
There you have it folks.
Are they really a victim though? In Sean's post the person had fair
warning. The problem in this day in age is the terrible
Sean Donelan wrote:
If you leave your lights on, the electric company will send you a bill.
If the neighbor taps into your power lines after the meter...?
If you leave your faucets running, the water company will send you a bill.
If you leave your computer infected, ???
If you lose your credit
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Crist Clark wrote:
Sean Donelan wrote:
If you leave your lights on, the electric company will send you a bill.
If the neighbor taps into your power lines after the meter...?
That will be a criminal matter between you and your neighbour.
If you leave your
Sean Donelan wrote:
If you leave your lights on, the electric company will send you a bill.
If the neighbor taps into your power lines after the meter...?
Not a reasonable argument. It is expected that unpatched hosts will get
infected
and it has been well reported on how users should
I think we're drifting from the original point here..
What it boils down to is this: If I have a DS3 to a provider in my
office and my provider notifies me that I have a worm, is it my
provider's responsibility to fly someone out here to help me fix my
systems? No. I'm the guy controlling them
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
Jeff Shultz wrote:
But ultimately, _you_ are responsible for your own systems.
Even if the water company is sending me 85% TriChlorEthane?
Right. Got it. The victim is always responsible.
There you have it folks.
Change the word
Look at it from this perspective: it's the responsibility of the various
Departments of Transportation (and other Governmental and Private
authorities) to upkeep roads, but it's not their job to fix your car. If
your car is broken, you may be stopped by a police officer, but he's not
going
Your contract with the water company is for them to deliver you water.
They make a best effort to do just that, but, inherently, there's stuff
besides dihydrogen-oxide in your water. In most parts of the US, for
the most part, the other stuff isn't significant and nobody worries about
it.
--On Thursday, June 10, 2004 11:11 -0700 Mark Kent
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But ultimately, _you_ are responsible for your own systems.
When I detect abusive behavior coming from a customer site then
it is my responsibility to make sure that doesn't affect the
rest of the world.
To some
Andy Dills wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
Jeff Shultz wrote:
But ultimately, _you_ are responsible for your own systems.
Even if the water company is sending me 85% TriChlorEthane?
Right. Got it. The victim is always responsible.
There you have it folks.
Change
--On Thursday, June 10, 2004 16:31 -0400 Alex Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Crist Clark wrote:
Sean Donelan wrote:
If you leave your lights on, the electric company will send you a bill.
If the neighbor taps into your power lines after the meter...?
That will be a
It would be great if there always was a negligent party, but there is
not always one. If Widgets Inc.'s otherwise ultra-secure web server gets
0wn3d by a 0-day, there is no negligence[0]. Who eats it, Widgets Inc.
or the ISP?
1. In Sean's example, clearly the customer was a negligent party.
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Crist Clark wrote:
Change the word victim to negligent party and you're correct.
It would be great if there always was a negligent party, but there is
not always one. If Widgets Inc.'s otherwise ultra-secure web server gets
0wn3d by a 0-day, there is no negligence[0].
I completely agree that the customers in these cases should be held
responsible for the services they purchased from their ISPs.
Let's all try to keep in mind that the two customers mentioned in the
article as being on the receiving end of large bills were businesses,
not consumers.
In the
** Reply to message from Crist Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] on
Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:54:07 -0700
It would be great if there always was a negligent party, but there is
not always one. If Widgets Inc.'s otherwise ultra-secure web server gets
0wn3d by a 0-day, there is no negligence[0]. Who eats it,
Andy Dills wrote:
Keep in mind, this guy's ISP, like many (most?) ISPs would do, gave the
guy a serious break on the first jaw-dropping bill.
Why do I have to get two and three copies of each of these? I'm on
the list folks, if you send it to the list I'll get it. I don't need
a copy to the list
It would be great if there always was a negligent party, but there is
not always one. If Widgets Inc.'s otherwise ultra-secure web server
gets
0wn3d by a 0-day, there is no negligence[0]. Who eats it, Widgets Inc.
or the ISP?
Widget Inc is still negligent. It is their server. They could have
james edwards wrote:
Sean Donelan wrote:
If you leave your lights on, the electric company will send you a bill.
If the neighbor taps into your power lines after the meter...?
Not a reasonable argument. It is expected that unpatched hosts will
get infected and it has been well reported on how
Thus spake Crist Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It would be great if there always was a negligent party, but there is
not always one. If Widgets Inc.'s otherwise ultra-secure web server gets
0wn3d by a 0-day, there is no negligence[0]. Who eats it, Widgets Inc.
or the ISP?
Until a patch was
On Jun 10, 2004, at 2:06 PM, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
The victim in the case Sean posted knew he had a worm, got some of
his first bill forgiven, yet did nothing to correct it and acts
surprised when the same thing happens the next month. YES, he is at
fault. Anyone who thinks
David Schwartz wrote:
On Jun 10, 2004, at 2:06 PM, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
The victim in the case Sean posted knew he had a worm, got some of
his first bill forgiven, yet did nothing to correct it and acts
surprised when the same thing happens the next month. YES, he is at
fault.
On Jun 10, 2004, at 10:21 PM, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
David Schwartz wrote:
On Jun 10, 2004, at 2:06 PM, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
The victim in the case Sean posted knew he had a worm, got some of
his first bill forgiven, yet did nothing to correct it and acts
surprised when the
Ahhh, here is it... :)
On Jun 10, 2004, at 10:07 PM, David Schwartz wrote:
On Jun 10, 2004, at 2:06 PM, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
Uh, no, I wrote this part. :)
The victim in the case Sean posted knew he had a worm, got some of
his first bill forgiven, yet did nothing to correct it and acts
On Jun 10, 2004, at 11:49 PM, David Krikorian wrote:
Sometimes the provider shares the responsibility with the offender.
For example, I can't get my telephone demark inside my house, so it
is unlocked, and open to all comers. This is not, nor has ever been
within my control. Since I'm not
On Jun 10, 2004, at 10:07 PM, David Schwartz wrote:
It all depends upon what the agreement between the customer and the
ISP
says. It's no unreasonable for the ISP to 'insure' the customer against
risks he isn't able to mitigate which the ISP is, even if that means
shutting off his
93 matches
Mail list logo
