Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #264965 > unrolled thread

lists

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-20 14:00 +0100
    Re: lists Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2023-12-20 14:10 +0100
      Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-20 14:40 +0100
        Re: lists Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2023-12-20 14:50 +0100
        Re: lists <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-12-20 14:50 +0100
        Re: lists Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2023-12-20 16:10 +0100
        Re: lists Christoph Brinkhaus <c.brinkhaus@t-online.de> - 2023-12-20 16:20 +0100
          Re: lists Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2023-12-20 16:20 +0100
            Re: lists Christoph Brinkhaus <c.brinkhaus@t-online.de> - 2023-12-20 16:30 +0100
            Re: lists Michael Kjörling <2695bd53d63c@ewoof.net> - 2023-12-20 16:50 +0100
          Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-20 16:30 +0100
            Re: lists Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2023-12-20 16:40 +0100
              Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-20 16:50 +0100
                Re: lists Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2023-12-20 17:00 +0100
                Re: lists Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2023-12-20 17:00 +0100
            Re: lists "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2023-12-20 17:30 +0100
              Re: lists Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2023-12-20 17:40 +0100
          Re: lists Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2023-12-20 17:00 +0100
            Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-20 17:10 +0100
              Re: lists Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2023-12-20 17:20 +0100
                Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-20 17:20 +0100
                  Re: lists <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-12-20 17:30 +0100
                    Re: lists Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2023-12-20 17:40 +0100
                    Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-20 17:40 +0100
                      Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-20 17:50 +0100
                        Re: lists <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-12-20 17:50 +0100
                        Re: lists Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2023-12-20 17:50 +0100
                        Re: lists Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2023-12-20 18:00 +0100
                          Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-20 18:10 +0100
                            Re: lists Michael Kjörling <2695bd53d63c@ewoof.net> - 2023-12-20 19:30 +0100
                      Re: lists Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2023-12-20 17:50 +0100
                  Re: lists Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2023-12-20 17:40 +0100
                    Re: lists <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-12-20 17:50 +0100
                      Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-20 18:10 +0100
                    Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-20 17:50 +0100
                  Re: lists Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2023-12-20 19:30 +0100
              Re: lists Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2023-12-20 17:40 +0100
                Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-20 17:40 +0100
          Re: lists Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2023-12-20 17:00 +0100
            Re: lists Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2023-12-20 17:20 +0100
              Re: lists <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-12-20 17:30 +0100
              Re: lists Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2023-12-20 17:50 +0100
                Re: lists Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2023-12-20 18:00 +0100
                  Re: lists Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2023-12-20 18:00 +0100
        Re: lists gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2023-12-20 18:00 +0100
          Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-20 18:10 +0100
            Re: lists Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2023-12-20 19:20 +0100
              Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-20 19:30 +0100
                Re: lists Hanno 'Rince' Wagner <wagner@debian.org> - 2023-12-20 19:50 +0100
                  Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-20 20:10 +0100
                    Re: lists Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2023-12-20 20:20 +0100
                      Re: lists Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2023-12-20 21:00 +0100
                      Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-20 21:10 +0100
                        Re: lists Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2023-12-20 21:30 +0100
                          Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-20 21:50 +0100
                      Re: lists gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2023-12-21 00:00 +0100
                        Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-21 00:20 +0100
                          Re: lists John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2023-12-21 00:50 +0100
                            Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-21 01:00 +0100
                              Could we please cease this thread now? [WAS Re: lists] "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2023-12-21 11:40 +0100
                                Re: Could we please cease this thread now? [WAS Re: lists] Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-21 11:50 +0100
                                  Re: Could we please cease this thread now? [WAS Re: lists] Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2023-12-21 12:40 +0100
                                    Re: Could we please cease this thread now? [WAS Re: lists] Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-21 13:40 +0100
                                      Re: Could we please cease this thread now? [WAS Re: lists] Byung-Hee HWANG <soyeomul@doraji.xyz> - 2023-12-21 14:20 +0100
                                      Re: Could we please cease this thread now? [WAS Re: lists] Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2023-12-21 14:50 +0100
                                        Re: Could we please cease this thread now? [WAS Re: lists] Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-21 15:00 +0100
                                          Re: Could we please cease this thread now? [WAS Re: lists] Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2023-12-21 15:10 +0100
                                          Re: Could we please cease this thread now? [WAS Re: lists] Hanno 'Rince' Wagner <wagner@debian.org> - 2023-12-21 15:20 +0100
                                            Re: Could we please cease this thread now? [WAS Re: lists] Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-21 15:30 +0100
            Re: lists gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2023-12-20 23:40 +0100
              Re: lists Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-21 00:00 +0100
                Re: lists Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2023-12-21 00:10 +0100
                Re: wireless broadband providers exist (was: lists) Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2023-12-21 01:50 +0100
                  Re: wireless broadband providers exist The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2023-12-21 01:50 +0100
                    Re: wireless broadband providers exist Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-21 02:10 +0100
                      Re: wireless broadband providers exist Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2023-12-21 02:50 +0100
                        Re: wireless broadband providers exist Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-21 03:30 +0100
                        Re: wireless broadband providers exist John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2023-12-21 05:30 +0100
                      Re: wireless broadband providers exist John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2023-12-21 05:20 +0100
                  Re: wireless broadband providers exist Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-21 02:00 +0100
                    Re: wireless broadband providers exist Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2023-12-21 02:30 +0100
                      Re: wireless broadband providers exist Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-21 02:40 +0100

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

#264992

On 12/20/23 11:12, Marco Moock wrote:
> Am 20.12.2023 um 11:07:16 Uhr schrieb Pocket:
>
>> Spectrum limits the number of concurrent connections from a sender,
>> as well as the total number of connections allowed. Limits vary based
>> on the reputation of the IP address. Reduce your number of
>> connections and try again later.
> You can't fix that until you make your mail provider change those
> policies.


Ok I will twist their arms and complain to the cops or maybe I should 
comtact the DOJ,

maybe that will get it fixed


>
> The operator of the sending MTA for the Debian lists can limit the
> amount of connections to spectrum, talk to the postmasters there if you
> think the might implement that.


Why is the user list the only one that has this issue?


-- 
Hindi madali ang maging ako

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#264996

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 11:16:02AM -0500, Pocket wrote:

[...]

> Why is the user list the only one that has this issue?

It is the busiest list, thus the bounce probability might
be the highest.

And yes, yell to your provider. Everyone and her dog coming
up with random policies is what's killing email.

Cheers
-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#264998

Am 20.12.2023 um 11:30:24 Uhr schrieb Pocket:

> On 12/20/23 11:26, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 11:16:02AM -0500, Pocket wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >  
> >> Why is the user list the only one that has this issue?  
> > It is the busiest list, thus the bounce probability might
> > be the highest.
> >
> > And yes, yell to your provider. Everyone and her dog coming
> > up with random policies is what's killing email.  
> 
> I am sure the will be quaking in their boots if I call them to demand 
> them to fix this,  ROLLS EYES

Then choose another one.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265001

On 12/20/23 11:26, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 11:16:02AM -0500, Pocket wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Why is the user list the only one that has this issue?
> It is the busiest list, thus the bounce probability might
> be the highest.
>
> And yes, yell to your provider. Everyone and her dog coming
> up with random policies is what's killing email.

I am sure the will be quaking in their boots if I call them to demand 
them to fix this,  ROLLS EYES


>
> Cheers

-- 
Hindi madali ang maging ako

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265005

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 12/20/23 11:42, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 11:30:24AM -0500, Pocket wrote:
>> On 12/20/23 11:26,tomas@tuxteam.de  wrote:
>>> And yes, yell to your provider. Everyone and her dog coming
>>> up with random policies is what's killing email.
>> I am sure the will be quaking in their boots if I call them to demand them
>> to fix this,  ROLLS EYES
> Okay, this is my last attempt to ask you to be constructive: if your
> email provider rejects Debian's emails to you because there are too
> many of them, what do you propose happens to solve that issue?
>
> The most disruptive symptom of that issue for you is that Debian's
> mailing list manager automatically unsubscribes you. I don't think
> that Debian will spend effort making that not happen, because in
> general it is the right thing to do for persistently undeliverable
> addresses like yours. But even if they did, it would not fix the
> root problem for you as you'd still be missing a lot of Debian email.
>
> Thanks,
> Andy

Does one email constitute "persistently undeliverable"?


-- 
Hindi madali ang maging ako

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265007

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 11:44:42AM -0500, Pocket wrote:

[...]

> Does one email constitute "persistently undeliverable"?

If *your* provider says so...

Cheers
-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265008

Am 20.12.2023 um 11:44:42 Uhr schrieb Pocket:

> Does one email constitute "persistently undeliverable"?

5xx error indicate that, read the SMTP RFCs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265012

Hello,

On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 11:44:42AM -0500, Pocket wrote:
> Does one email constitute "persistently undeliverable"?

I hope that the Debian listmasters get back to you with more
details, but I interpret Spectrum's reject message to mean that all
mails from Debian's IP from that time forward will be rejected. It
is likely a lot more than one email.

Again, you have evidence that Spectrum is rejecting Debian's email
to you just because there is a lot of it. What do you expect anyone
here or at Debian to do about that?

Thanks,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265014

On 12/20/23 11:51, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 11:44:42AM -0500, Pocket wrote:
>> Does one email constitute "persistently undeliverable"?
> I hope that the Debian listmasters get back to you with more
> details, but I interpret Spectrum's reject message to mean that all
> mails from Debian's IP from that time forward will be rejected. It
> is likely a lot more than one email.


I have only one email that was rejected.

The SMTP server on bendel.debian.org should have resent?  No?


>
> Again, you have evidence that Spectrum is rejecting Debian's email
> to you just because there is a lot of it. What do you expect anyone
> here or at Debian to do about that?

I have no evidence of that, the error from spectrum only occured that 
one time and bendel.debian.org did not resend or try again as far as I 
can determine.  Then it appears I was booted.

How many emails at that time did bendel.debian.org send?

I have no answer for that as I am not the one that can answer that.

How many connections did bendel.debian.org have?

I have no answer for that as I am not the one that can answer that.

-- 

Hindi madali ang maging ako

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265022

On 20 Dec 2023 12:00 -0500, from pocket@columbus.rr.com (Pocket):
> The SMTP server on bendel.debian.org should have resent?  No?

In one word: No.

Because the mail in question was rejected by the recipient MTA
(pkvw-mx.msg.pkvw.co.charter.net) with a PERMANENT error. This is
clearly shown in your message-ID <43410a14-1689-418a-8152-d734e3d81c94@columbus.rr.com>.

SMTP 5xx response codes are _permanent errors_. They indicate that the
_sender_ needs to fix something about the message for delivery to be
possible; the situation will not resolve itself. This has been
specified since the original SMTP standard in 1982; see RFC 821
appendix E (page 48-49). https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc821#page-48

In the current standard, the same thing is specified (using almost
exactly the same wording, even) in RFC 5321 section 4.2.1.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5321#section-4.2.1

If your ISP had done the right thing and rejected with a 4xx response,
as is customary in for example overload conditions, then the sending
MTA would have kept that message in its outbound queue and retried
later, and we wouldn't have this long meta-discussion.

If your ISP's mail servers can't even speak proper SMTP, please don't
expect that everyone else on the Internet will bend over backwards to
cater to a non-standard implementation.

-- 
Michael Kjörling                     🔗 https://michael.kjorling.se
“Remember when, on the Internet, nobody cared that you were a dog?”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265009

Hello,

On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 11:30:24AM -0500, Pocket wrote:
> On 12/20/23 11:26, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > And yes, yell to your provider. Everyone and her dog coming
> > up with random policies is what's killing email.
> 
> I am sure the will be quaking in their boots if I call them to demand them
> to fix this,  ROLLS EYES

Okay, this is my last attempt to ask you to be constructive: if your
email provider rejects Debian's emails to you because there are too
many of them, what do you propose happens to solve that issue?

The most disruptive symptom of that issue for you is that Debian's
mailing list manager automatically unsubscribes you. I don't think
that Debian will spend effort making that not happen, because in
general it is the right thing to do for persistently undeliverable
addresses like yours. But even if they did, it would not fix the
root problem for you as you'd still be missing a lot of Debian email.

Thanks,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#264997

Hello,

On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 11:16:02AM -0500, Pocket wrote:
> On 12/20/23 11:12, Marco Moock wrote:
> > Am 20.12.2023 um 11:07:16 Uhr schrieb Pocket:
> > > Spectrum limits the number of concurrent connections from a sender,
> > > as well as the total number of connections allowed. Limits vary based
> > > on the reputation of the IP address. Reduce your number of
> > > connections and try again later.
> > You can't fix that until you make your mail provider change those
> > policies.
> 
> Ok I will twist their arms and complain to the cops or maybe I should
> comtact the DOJ,
> 
> maybe that will get it fixed

We are just trying to help you with the strange policies of your
email provider that make it hard for you to participate in Internet
mailing lists. It's not our fault and if you are going to go from
bombarding us with pointless admin commands to snarky responses then
why should we bother? At least we are getting somewhere now, instead
of just leaving you to howl into the void.

> > The operator of the sending MTA for the Debian lists can limit the
> > amount of connections to spectrum, talk to the postmasters there if you
> > think the might implement that.
> 
> Why is the user list the only one that has this issue?

I can see how it will bias against debian-user if debian-user
happens to be the busiest Debian list that you are on. A greater
percentage of debian-user's emails will be rejected by Spectrum.

Thanks,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265003

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 11:40:38AM -0500, Pocket wrote:

[...]

> Still doesn't provide and answer for why I was kicked after one email
> bounced.

You have seen just one bounce. Do you know your provider has shown you
all of them? Perhaps they bounced the other missing ones...

Cheers
-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265016

On 12/20/23 11:48, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 11:40:38AM -0500, Pocket wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Still doesn't provide and answer for why I was kicked after one email
>> bounced.
> You have seen just one bounce. Do you know your provider has shown you
> all of them? Perhaps they bounced the other missing ones...
>
> Cheers


The kick score was 2% as stated in the bounce email from debian, that 
tells me it was < 10 emails and from reading the bounce email from 
debian it was only one.



-- 
Hindi madali ang maging ako

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265006

On 12/20/23 11:37, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 11:16:02AM -0500, Pocket wrote:
>> On 12/20/23 11:12, Marco Moock wrote:
>>> Am 20.12.2023 um 11:07:16 Uhr schrieb Pocket:
>>>> Spectrum limits the number of concurrent connections from a sender,
>>>> as well as the total number of connections allowed. Limits vary based
>>>> on the reputation of the IP address. Reduce your number of
>>>> connections and try again later.
>>> You can't fix that until you make your mail provider change those
>>> policies.
>> Ok I will twist their arms and complain to the cops or maybe I should
>> comtact the DOJ,
>>
>> maybe that will get it fixed
> We are just trying to help you with the strange policies of your
> email provider that make it hard for you to participate in Internet
> mailing lists. It's not our fault and if you are going to go from
> bombarding us with pointless admin commands to snarky responses then
> why should we bother? At least we are getting somewhere now, instead
> of just leaving you to howl into the void.
>
>>> The operator of the sending MTA for the Debian lists can limit the
>>> amount of connections to spectrum, talk to the postmasters there if you
>>> think the might implement that.
>> Why is the user list the only one that has this issue?
> I can see how it will bias against debian-user if debian-user
> happens to be the busiest Debian list that you are on. A greater
> percentage of debian-user's emails will be rejected by Spectrum.
>
> Thanks,
> Andy

Still doesn't provide and answer for why I was kicked after one email 
bounced.

at 2% I had a long way to go before I hit the 76% death ray



>
-- 
Hindi madali ang maging ako

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265019

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Pocket (12023-12-20):
> Ok I will twist their arms and complain to the cops or maybe I should
> comtact the DOJ,

This kind of sarcasm is not constructive.

You send a mail or open a ticket.

If they do not fix the issue and do not give a good explanation, you
take your mail archives and you move to a mail operator that respects
you.

If you cannot do that easily, all the more reason to do it.

-- 
  Nicolas George

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#264999

Hello,

On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 11:07:16AM -0500, Pocket wrote:
> Spectrum limits the number of concurrent connections from a sender, as well
> as the total number of connections allowed. Limits vary based on the
> reputation of the IP address. Reduce your number of connections and try
> again later.

They ask Debian to try again later, but they do it with a
permanent reject code.

I think you need a new email provider.

Thanks,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265002

On 12/20/23 11:31, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 11:07:16AM -0500, Pocket wrote:
>> Spectrum limits the number of concurrent connections from a sender, as well
>> as the total number of connections allowed. Limits vary based on the
>> reputation of the IP address. Reduce your number of connections and try
>> again later.
> They ask Debian to try again later, but they do it with a
> permanent reject code.
>
> I think you need a new email provider.

It's the only one that I have


>
> Thanks,
> Andy
>
-- 
Hindi madali ang maging ako

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#264988

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 16:11:05 +0100
Christoph Brinkhaus <c.brinkhaus@t-online.de> wrote:


> 
> I have heard that there is a countermeasure against spam run be big
> mail providers by rejecting the first contact by SMTP and accepting
> the next contact. Most spammers seem to try just once.
> 
> I am not sure if this is 100% true 

For many years my SMTP server has requested an ident (TCP port 113)
from outside sending servers. Since nobody now runs ident servers,
there will be no reply, and my server waits for a timeout of thirty
seconds before continuing. All legitimate mail servers will wait that
long, spambots won't.

But a failure by these mechanisms would be reasonably repeatable.

My server has occasionally rejected Debian list posts for lack of DNS
information, presumably when the DNS server is very busy. This is not
repeatable, and is quite rare. It never happens multiple times, so my
score never gets anywhere near unsubscription.

I was once kicked off because my phone line died for several days. I'm
not sure a temporary server failure is a good reason for unsubscribing
someone.

-- 
Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#264993

Am 20.12.2023 um 15:58:48 Uhr schrieb Joe:

> For many years my SMTP server has requested an ident (TCP port 113)
> from outside sending servers. Since nobody now runs ident servers,
> there will be no reply, and my server waits for a timeout of thirty
> seconds before continuing.

Good admins don't use DROP in firewalls, so either you get a TCP RST
(because no application listens on that port) or a ICMP administratively
prohibited, so your server knows that no identd runs there and can
continue.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web