Jump to content

[Resolved] Gutsy spammer


postmaster-Tim
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ok,

Awhile back, I started blocking a particular IP (205.234.132.30) as I noticed a steady flood of what appeared to be spam, being sent to at least one user on our mail server.

The guy who is on this IP (which he appears to be locally addressed to us), actually phoned us to ask why he's being blocked. So I have his name, phone #, you name it. Funny thing is, I have not seen any attempt at legit email from this person's domains in our mail logs. Only entries for spammy emails.

This guy has some balls to be calling us! The IP above when reported through Spamcop, goes into open relay testing. Lets say he has an open relay and does not know, then I can understand him asking why he's being blocked. However, with seeing no legit email attempts from this person, I'd say that the guy is lying through his teeth. :rolleyes:

Tim

Update: Hmm, seems when submitted for testing as open relay:

The host you submitted at ORDB.org (205.234.132.30), has been thoroughly

checked, and does not seem to permit relaying.

It comes back as not open relay.

Edited by postmaster-Tim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That IP ties back to http://hostforweb.com/ .. however, the only e-mail server they have identified for themselves is;

hfw1.hostforweb.net reports the following MX records:

Preference Host Name IP Address

10 hostforweb.com 66.225.229.175

But there is a mail server running at the IP you list

220-host01.doctor-pc.com ESMTP Exim 4.52 #1 Fri, 26 Aug 2005 15:36:05 -0400

220-We do not authorize the use of this system to transport unsolicited,

220 and/or bulk e-mail.

I don't follow your "when the IP is reported through SpamCop" remark ... at best, guessing that you may mean you kicked that IP into the single-line entry mode of the paste-your-spam-in-the-box web-form that does a simple look-up for an associated reporting address ...???? Your description of "looks like spam ... to at least one user..." also seems a bit questionable. Is there a question there or not? Did you do this blocking on your own or at the request of a user? Was the phone call perhaps driven by a subscriber complaining about not receiving something subscribed to?

http://www.senderbase.org/?searchBy=ipaddr...=205.234.132.30 shows a large reduction in traffic, perhaps the spam issue had been resolved?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posting of the tracking URL for your report would help in the investigation.

The IP above when reported through Spamcop, goes into open relay testing.

Incorrect phrase being used here. You reported the spam message which showed the spam was relayed through (apparently legitimately) this IP address. Any relay seen by spamcop is submitted for open relay testing. Spamcop determined the actual source of this message to be: 72.11.147.31

Report history only shows one spam being reported on that IP address and that would appear to be yours that submitted for relay testing:

Report History:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted: Friday, August 26, 2005 1:56:09 PM -0400:

Be the First to Get the New Playstation3!

1496252086 ( 72.11.147.31 ) To: spamcop<at>imaphost.com

1496252082 ( http://www.exceldyn.com/CHEV11700_4/6319/hpdqdt... ) To: abuse<at>teleglobe.net

1496252080 ( http://exceldyn.com ) To: abuse<at>teleglobe.net

1496252079 ( 72.11.147.31 ) To: abuse<at>teleglobe.net

1496252078 ( 205.234.132.30 ) To: relays<at>admin.spamcop.net

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You could manually report him. Reports would go to: abuse<at>hostforweb.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, yes, I reported the whole email in question. I mis-interpreted the reference to relay that the Spamcop system stated.

It was definitely spam, no question on that. I have only seen one customer of ours targeted by this spam and sender IP however.

I was stating that it appeared to be spam, as the person who is on that IP is in Ontario, Canada, and the spam all points to Tulsa, Oklahoma. As I am not the actual recipient of the message, I can't speak for their opinion on what it is. It was along the lines of "win a Sony Playstation".

The person in question at 205.234.132.30 has not legitimately sent email from his own email address(es) through to our mail server. Each entry associated with this IP, is attempting to reach our one particular customer. I am blocking the IP, by my choice, server side. I allowed for it just to see what was going to come through, and sure enough it is spam.

I reported it via my usual methods, and flagged this person as a permanent IP blacklisting. I just find it funny that he physically called us (no customer complaint on our end) to ask why we are blocking him.

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, yes, I reported the whole email in question. ...

...As I am not the actual recipient of the message, I can't speak for their opinion on what it is. It was along the lines of "win a Sony Playstation".

32067[/snapback]

Right there, you may be breaking the rules you agreed to when signing up with spamcop. You should only be reporting spam sent to you (or at that which you are authorized to report). spam is in the eye of the recipient. Did the intended recipient tell you they were receiving this spam and ask you to stop it?

I am blocking the IP, by my choice, server side. I allowed for it just to see what was going to come through, and sure enough it is spam.

32067[/snapback]

I do the same thing for virus infected machines sending email through to us. But again, it is up to the receiver to decide if it is spam. I have a couple of people at work who want to receive this type of thing (Win this...). I have explained to them that replying to these offeres will increase the junk they receive and that I can not get the amount of spam reduced if they continue. They are fine with it.

I am blocking the IP, by my

I reported it via my usual methods, and flagged this person as a permanent IP blacklisting. I just find it funny that he physically called us (no customer complaint on our end) to ask why we are blocking him.

32067[/snapback]

I do the same thing for virus infected machines sending email through to us. Perhaps, he is getting the bounces back and wondering why. By the report results I posted earlier, the message was sent from another IP through this server, but would need the Tracking URL to get a better idea whether this is a legitimate rely or not. Perhaps there is a new trick that the relay testing is not finding or perhaps this legitimate email server is also infected with a virus allowing control by the spammers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer clean and simple, it is my job here (part of my job) to prevent what I saw, getting to the customer. B)

So no worries there, I know for a fact that it was spam, especially with the indicators of the actual sender being hidden etc..

Not sure about going against Spamcop rules, as I report spam as I see it, I'm not going to turn away from reporting child porn just because I see it and one of my customers does not see it. Just my opinion I guess, but I always attempt to better the fight against spam, and if it helps others in not receiving it.

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer clean and simple, it is my job here (part of my job) to prevent what I saw, getting to the customer.  B)

So no worries there, I know for a fact that it was spam, especially with the indicators of the actual sender being hidden etc..

Not sure about going against Spamcop rules, as I report spam as I see it, I'm not going to turn away from reporting child porn just because I see it and one of my customers does not see it. Just my opinion I guess, but I always attempt to better the fight against spam, and if it helps others in not receiving it.

32070[/snapback]

What is the ISP that you work for?

Right there, you may be breaking the rules you agreed to when signing up with spamcop. You should only be reporting spam sent to you (or at that which you are authorized to report). spam is in the eye of the recipient. Did the intended recipient tell you they were receiving this spam and ask you to stop it?

I agree, you are not authorized to report e-mail as spam that is not intended for you.

You can, regaurdless of the recipient, report all illegal porn. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have yet to provide a tracking URL for your "problem" so I am not taking this any further.

I do not know your situation, but I do hope your customers are aware of your "job function" and approve of it. I would not stand (and have not) for someone interfering my email without my knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snip>

I do not know your situation, but I do hope your customers are aware of your "job function" and approve of it.  I would not stand (and have not) for someone interfering my email without my knowledge.

32073[/snapback]

...Note that some "ISP"s are really employer network managers; if Tim (the OP) falls into this category, then it is not the "customer"'s mail, it is the employer's mail, and therefore what Tim is doing is justified, even if the "customer"s (employees) do not approve (unless their employment contract states differently).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Note that some "ISP"s are really employer network managers; if Tim (the OP) falls into this category, then it is not the "customer"'s mail, it is the employer's mail, and therefore what Tim is doing is justified, even if the "customer"s (employees) do not approve (unless their employment contract states differently).

32077[/snapback]

That is actually the position I am in, but CFO has stated "thou shalt lose no email" so Postin stores all questionalbe messages for the individual employee to check.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is actually the position I am in, but CFO has stated "thou shalt lose no email" so Postin stores all questionalbe messages for the individual employee to check.

32087[/snapback]

Given your CFO's position, it would be interesting to know how long that person is willing to pay Postini to store such questionable messages. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given your CFO's position, it would be interesting to know how long that person is willing to pay Postini to store such questionable messages.  :)

32091[/snapback]

Postini stores for 14 days. It is employees responsibility not to lose important messages. I advocated bl's but he did not want the responsibilty on the sender.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was definitely spam, no question on that. I have only seen one customer of ours targeted by this spam and sender IP however.

I was stating that it appeared to be spam, as the person who is on that IP is in Ontario, Canada, and the spam all points to Tulsa, Oklahoma. As I am not the actual recipient of the message, I can't speak for their opinion on what it is. It was along the lines of "win a Sony Playstation".

The person in question at 205.234.132.30 has not legitimately sent email from his own email address(es) through to our mail server. Each entry associated with this IP, is attempting to reach our one particular customer. I am blocking the IP, by my choice, server side. I allowed for it just to see what was going to come through, and sure enough it is spam.

I reported it via my usual methods, and flagged this person as a permanent IP blacklisting. I just find it funny that he physically called us (no customer complaint on our end) to ask why we are blocking him.

Tim

32067[/snapback]

Well, now I know why my calls to NetAccess Systems have not been answered. It is funny that one has to google one's own IP Address to get an answer. And quite a bit less funny when one discovers the things being said behind one's back. I think "Gutsy Spammer" with "a lot of balls" borders on libel or slander, however, I am not a lawyer, so I will have to let him (my lawyer) decide.

The user in question has set up an email address on our system to send (forward) any spam she receives there. Because spam is in such great supply, she would not realize that some of the spam were not reaching its destination (her). However, I have noticed that several of our clients who have nas.net email addresses have not received their email from us (usually involving invoices and domain renewal notices) because Tim (admittedly) believes that they are not important enough for him to let through.

BTW, there are at least three nas.net destinations and at least three users of our system whereby mail was blocked. I was going to say legitimate mail, but actually even the spam that was stopped was legitimate insofar as the customer has asked for it to be forwarded.

I don't believe that it should be Tim's business to stop all mail from our system from reaching his. And I further don't believe that pseudo-Rambo style tactics are necessary. Just because Tim doesn't want spam, does not mean his customers do not.

Is there any way to prevent such tactics from being executed by self-proclaimed gods who know what's best for everybody else?

Thank you

Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snip>

I think "Gutsy Spammer" with "a lot of balls" borders on libel or slander, however, I am not a lawyer, so I will have to let him (my lawyer) decide.

The user in question has set up an email address on our system to send (forward) any spam she receives there.

<snip>

32353[/snapback]

...Something's missing, here ... In the first paragraph, you indicate that you are the spammer but in the second you indicate that one of your system's customers has set up something to forward spam. Are you saying that spam from you? If so, you get an award for being the first self-identified spammer in our fora.
BTW, there are at least three nas.net destinations and at least three users of our system whereby mail was blocked. I was going to say legitimate mail, but actually even the spam that was stopped was legitimate insofar as the customer has asked for it to be forwarded.

I don't believe that it should be Tim's business to stop all mail from our system from reaching his. And I further don't believe that pseudo-Rambo style tactics are necessary. Just because Tim doesn't want spam, does not mean his customers do not.

Is there any way to prevent such tactics from being executed by self-proclaimed gods who know what's best for everybody else?

32353[/snapback]

...Sorry, you and your customers don't get to decide what is and is not appropriate to be accepted on the e-mail network for which Tim is the postmaster; that is for the owner [the person who pays] of Tim's network (and, by delegation, for Tim). If one or more of Tim's customers wants spam, they must contract with a provider who permits spam to come in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Something's missing, here ... In the first paragraph, you indicate that you are the spammer but in the second you indicate that one of your system's customers has set up something to forward spam.  Are you saying that spam from you?  If so, you get an award for being the first self-identified spammer in our fora....Sorry, you and your customers don't get to decide what is and is not appropriate to be accepted on the e-mail network for which Tim is the postmaster; that is for the owner [the person who pays] of Tim's network (and, by delegation, for Tim).  If one or more of Tim's customers wants spam, they must contract with a provider who permits spam to come in.

32354[/snapback]

Where do I state that I am a spammer?

My customer set up a forwarder to forward all of her email; not just the spam that comes from various sources. If she (who is also a customer of the company Tim represents) has actually asked for this mail and doesn't mind receiving it, it is Tim's option to not let her receive it? I have yet to see an ISP that decides what is spam and what isn't. They usually allow the user some options. And I would find it hard to believe that one option is completely denying any legitimate email from a given ISP to be allowed in.

Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, now I know why my calls to NetAccess Systems have not been answered. It is funny that one has to google one's own IP Address to get an answer.

Actually, a bit confusing there ... your posting IP appears to have nothing to do with anything in this discussion.

And quite a bit less funny when one discovers the things being said behind one's back. I think "Gutsy Spammer" with "a lot of balls" borders on libel or slander, however, I am not a lawyer, so I will have to let him (my lawyer) decide.

Opinions are opinions, some justified, some irrational ... but before things get out of hand ... this will not turn into some playground for a disagreement between two (apparent) hosts ... there are better battlefields ...

The user in question has set up an email address on our system to send (forward) any spam she receives there. Because spam is in such great supply, she would not realize that some of the spam were not reaching its destination (her).

There must be more to that story. I don't see anywhere on http://www.doctorpc.ca/ that one can "set up a forwarding e-mail address" .. one could make an assumption that this may have been done under a hosted account, but that would be quite an assumption ....

However, I have noticed that several of our clients who have nas.net email addresses have not received their email from us (usually involving invoices and domain renewal notices) because Tim (admittedly) believes that they are not important enough for him to let through.

I don't believe that it should be Tim's business to stop all mail from our system from reaching his. And I further don't believe that pseudo-Rambo style tactics are necessary. Just because Tim doesn't want spam, does not mean his customers do not.

Actually, pretty much neither here nor there .... the premise of "my server - my rules" seem to be in play .... reminder that the "net" was otiginally an experiment to contrive a means of maintaining comminications between U.S. Government offices even after the "craters where towns used to be" appeared on the landscape. E-mail was not a sure thing then when the whole thing operated in a "trusting" world .. and it sure doesn't work 100% now that the spammers have abused all that openness, virus/trojan writers exploiting things not taken into account from that "trusted" environment, and idiot-savants that had some extra money one day and decided that a computer with net access was exactly what they needed .... There are many ISPs that do crazy things to 'protect' their custoners. That you decided to include a sentence about contacting your lawyer may have been enough to get you added to a few blocking lists alone.

Is there any way to prevent such tactics from being executed by self-proclaimed gods who know what's best for everybody else?

32353[/snapback]

Actually, in the tone that this question appears to be framed, I don't think an answer is available in this forum. As both parties seem to be in agreement that spam has been passed, it sounds like there is some common ground to work from, but again, that's between the hosting parties. There may be some whitelisting capabilities, there may be something else, but ... perhaps one of the network abuse newsgroups?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim and Brian, since you appear to have a grand total of three customers in common, would it be that unreasonable for you to poll those three customers, asking if they are willing to deal with both the baby (ham) and the bathwater (spam), throw out both, or forward to a different account? Of course, any agreement you do come to should be reported (if only by way of summary) in this Topic.

Edited by Jeff G.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, a bit confusing there ... your posting IP appears to have nothing to do with anything in this discussion.

I am not sure why you would find that confusing. I am not posting from my webserver. I am posting from my workstation in my office.

There must be more to that story.  I don't see anywhere on http://www.doctorpc.ca/ that one can "set up a forwarding e-mail address" .. one could make an assumption that this may have been done under a hosted account, but that would be quite an assumption ....

What more do you want to know? Incidentally, that domain was also not mentioned anywhere in this discussion.

Actually, pretty much neither here nor there .... the premise of "my server - my rules" seem to be in play ....

OK... I guess, then, that there is nothing I can do about it.

.... There are many ISPs that do crazy things to 'protect' their custoners.  That you decided to include a sentence about contacting your lawyer may have been enough to get you added to a few blocking lists alone.

I would contact my lawyer before getting into any 'fight' over what's right & wrong and who's right or wrong. I would respectfully advise anybody to do the same.

Actually, in the tone that this question appears to be framed, I don't think an answer is available in this forum.

I am sorry that my tone is not apparent through the words I wrote. It was a question that I would have liked answered (That is to say, I would have preferred the answer had been different).

As both parties seem to be in agreement that spam has been passed, ...

32361[/snapback]

No such agreement here. While I wouldn't necessarily disagree that it was spam, it has been verified as being welcome by the end recipient. I haven't seen the agreement between her and them, but I would tend to think that StevenUnderwood's opinion is more likely in this scenario: That ISP's must state up front that they are going to disallow their users from receiving spam based on their opinion, not the end user's, of what constitutes spam.

And I don't believe that any of the mail that I have had bounce would have been considered spam by anybody other than Tim. I may be wrong. I could (privately) send you some headers if you wish.

Thanks

Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on some PM communication, it appears that Doctor PC has some legitimate paying domain registration/hosting customers who are also NetAccess Systems customers and prefer receiving their email (including email from Doctor PC's billing system) at their legitimate paying nas.net email accounts. The domain registration/hosting of those customers in common is now in jeopardy because Tim has mistakenly and too hastily determined that all email from Doctor PC's mailserver is spam. I respectfully request Tim to reconsider his hasty decision and to disclose his blocking policies to his customers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure why you would find that confusing. I am not posting from my webserver. I am posting from my workstation in my office.

Other than tossing up some alleged inside data, you made no notice of your affilation, positions, status with anyone/anything listed.

What more do you want to know? Incidentally, that domain was also not mentioned anywhere in this discussion.

Not that I need/want to know anything else, just making note that it didn't appear that a free e-mail forwarder was listed in the services/products on the web-site. One of my previous posts included the IP involved also running an e-mail server, based on a TELNET query ... the additional data derived in looking up your posting IP, then your registration data, trying to figure out just where you fit into things.

OK... I guess, then, that there is nothing I can do about it.

I would contact my lawyer before getting into any 'fight' over what's right & wrong and who's right or wrong. I would respectfully advise anybody to do the same.

and I just pointed out the ramifications of bringing up legal scenarios in a discussion such as this. Again, based on spammer actions in the past, there are many spoiled wells in the world.

I am sorry that my tone is not apparent through the words I wrote. It was a question that I would have liked answered (That is to say, I would have preferred the answer had been different).

As this is primarily a forum to support the SpamCop tool-set, and none of this involves SpamCop .... Even though SpamCop provides a BL, it is recommended to use it only in a Tagging mode (or as a decision process in conjunction with other tools) a lot of ISPs use it in a Blocking mode. Even though "we" get the "SpamCop blocked my e-mail" complaints all the time, it's not for "us" to dictate how an ISP configures his/her system.

No such agreement here. While I wouldn't necessarily disagree that it was spam, it has been verified as being welcome by the end recipient. I haven't seen the agreement between her and them, but I would tend to think that StevenUnderwood's opinion is more likely in this scenario: That ISP's must state up front that they are going to disallow their users from receiving spam based on their opinion, not the end user's, of what constitutes spam.

As any/all TOS/AUPs are unknown at this time (and actually not interested in persuing that data) .. another reason to suggest that this probably isn't the place to argue things out. Some folks (users) don't want to know, wouldn't understand all that technical talk, etc. Got a system here that the lady wanted me to do up a Lightening Strike statement, stating that the thing quit working during a storm a couple of weeks back. My problem ... the thing was so screwed up with scumware, somebody put the wrong drivers in place (only 640x480 16 color allowed running an NVIDIA AGP 8Meg video card ..??) on and on ... finally got the thing to actually make a connection and pull down e-mail dating back to May ...???? You would explain spam filtering/blocking how ...????

And I don't believe that any of the mail that I have had bounce would have been considered spam by anybody other than Tim. I may be wrong. I could (privately) send you some headers if you wish.

32366[/snapback]

Unfortunately true, the definition of spam is what nightmares are made of ... the old "I know it when I see it" thing for sure. But, yes, there are still people that get excited when they get "anything" in their InBox .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see that a major issue here is the opinion as to who has the right to do what with whomever's email.

Whom do you trust when experts disagree?

It seems that StevenUnderwood is the only other person to have posted in this thread that sees things the way I do. That is: If I am paying an ISP (or any such entity) for email service, I should be allowed to dictate what makes it to my inbox. If I choose not to utilize the tools available to fight/stop/slow spam, then it is my bandwidth being used and as long as I stay within the allotted bandwidth/disk space/whatever other resources (Remember, I am paying the ISP for these resources), I should have control. If my ISP decides to unilaterally block all mail coming from a second ISP, with no evidence that the second ISP has sent even one piece of spam, that should be spelled out to me at the outset.

My clients are not permitted to send spam. Nada. Zip. Zilch. If they do, even one, they will be suspended in the time it takes to say "Click!". But I'll be d***ed if I am going to say what a client is permitted to receive.

Obviously, most of you do not see it that way. I wonder why.

Just my 2 cents (Canadian).

Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously, most of you do not see it that way. I wonder why.

32372[/snapback]

And my responses have been posed that most users don't have a clue. Wondering why/how you missed that, but noting that you slipped over the mention of a domain name ...???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see that a major issue here is the opinion as to who has the right to do what with whomever's email.

32372[/snapback]

...No, the issue is who does the e-mail belong to -- the subscriber or the provider? I claim that it is the provider. If a subscriber does not like what a provider is doing, said subscriber is more than welcome to take her/his business to another provider.
<snip>

But I'll be d***ed if I am going to say what a client is permitted to receive.

32372[/snapback]

...That's your view and you are completely entitled to it, provided it applies only to your network.
Obviously, most of you do not see it that way. I wonder why.

32372[/snapback]

...Because you are NOT entitled to decide for another provider what s/he must accept on her/his network. That's between the provider and her/his subscribers (or employer if Tim is supporting an internal e-mail system for a business enterprise). Edited by turetzsr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snip>

I think "Gutsy Spammer" with "a lot of balls" borders on libel or slander, however, I am not a lawyer, so I will have to let him (my lawyer) decide.

Where do I state that I am a spammer?

32356[/snapback]

...When you indicated that you would let your lawyer decide whether calling you a "Gutsy Spammer" with "a lot of balls" is libel or slander. Perhaps I misunderstood....
My customer set up a forwarder to forward all of her email; not just the spam that comes from various sources. If she (who is also a customer of the company Tim represents) has actually asked for this mail and doesn't mind receiving it, it is Tim's option to not let her receive it?

32356[/snapback]

...Absolutely (unless the contract he has with your mutual customer indicates he will deliver all e-mail to said customer)!!!!
I have yet to see an ISP that decides what is spam and what isn't. They usually allow the user some options. And I would find it hard to believe that one option is completely denying any legitimate email from a given ISP to be allowed in.

32356[/snapback]

...What other ISPs do is of no moment to our (philosophical) discussion. My employer has a policy against certain types of e-mail content and I would therefore not expect an e-mail that violates that policy to be delivered to "my" Inbox (although too much of it does, but that's another story and an issue between my employer's network admins and me), even if I "agreed" to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...When you indicated that you would let your lawyer decide whether calling you a "Gutsy Spammer" with "a lot of balls" is libel or slander.  Perhaps I misunderstood.......

32381[/snapback]

Perhaps. I still don't understand how challenging somebody's false claims is tantamount to admitting them. Does libel or slander only apply if the allegations are true?

Let's get some things straight (for the record).

1. I never sent any spam, nor was any spam sent from my server.

2. When I tried to talk to Tim, (not Tim specifically, but the company he works for), I was categorically dismissed. Then Tim made public statements (on this forum) that I was (am?) a "gutsy spammer"; that I have "some balls" trying to contact him to discuss this like human beings; and I was "lying through [my] teeth".

3. Even when asked (more than once) about the spam, Tim refused to answer the friendly people at SpamCop.

4. Tim acted without a single complaint from his clients. He blocked my IP without any valid reason. OK, that may be his right, but it certainly isn't the way to make the internet a more friendly & functional place.

I am just glad that my ISP allows me to receive whatever I deem appropriate.

Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...