- Discuss - Mailman 3

{Spam?} RE: [SURBL-Discuss] RE: Pesky Pron Spam
by Rob McEwen 11 Aug '04

11 Aug '04

Raymond said: >>But obviously is doesn't work.... The ones you >>mentioned are listed in 3 SURBL lists... you >>should be able to catch them up pretty easily. Yes, I am able to catch these easily now! Whenever I try to RESEND this through my filter, YES YES YES, they ARE easily caught by my SURBL filtering. My SURBL filter is working GREAT and the fact that these are NOW caught by SURBL is completely irrelevant to my original question. The problem is that this particular spammer is very, very proliferate and I keep getting the razer's edge of his first new spams using new domains that are not yet blocked by SURBL. These particular spams are also very sneaky about not allowing "pron keywords" into the body of the message. The fact that they are blocked by SURBL soon afterwards is besides the point. I'm simply looking for any suggestions or pointers for rules-based filtering which might catch this particular "series" of spam. Rob McEwen

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] RE: Pesky Pron Spam
by Rob McEwen 11 Aug '04

11 Aug '04

(I sent this again because I discovered that my original message when only to Raymond and not to the list) Raymond, Recall that I mentioned that I'm NOT a SpamAssassin user. Also, I am currently NOT using any Bayesian filtering... (although I do have plans to eventually add this as an additional layer of filtering). (Before you laugh, I would say that the filtering that I do use is very comparable to SpamAssassin when looking at what how effective it is against those e-mails which make it past SURBL and RBL.) Nevertheless, I can't answer your two questions because they are not applicable. Thanks for trying to help! :) Any other thoughts/suggestions? Rob McEwen PowerView Systems rob(a)PowerViewSystems.com (478) 475-9032 -----Original Message----- From: Raymond Dijkxhoorn [mailto:raymond@prolocation.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 9:08 AM To: rob(a)pvsys.com; SURBL Discussion list Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] RE: Pesky Pron Spam Importance: High Hi! > I have noticed some patterns in the e-mails. For example, they all > have three images stacked vertically. Therefore, I think that I should > be able to catch these with the right formulation of rules within my > linguistic filter. > > You can find the raw contents of my most recent two of these as > follows: > > http://www.pvsys.com/pn01.txt > > http://www.pvsys.com/pn02.txt What are the SA scores you got on these? Might tell much more. Could be your bayesian filters are doing this. Bye, Raymond.

2 1

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] RE: Pesky Pron Spam
by Raymond Dijkxhoorn 11 Aug '04

11 Aug '04

Hi! > Recall that I mentioned that I'm NOT a SpamAssassin user. Also, I am > currently NOT using any Bayesian filtering... (although I do have plans to > eventually add this as an additional layer of filtering). Ok, i overlooked that i think. :) > (Before you laugh, I would say that the filtering that I do use is very > comparable to SpamAssassin when looking at what how effective it is against > those e-mails which make it past SURBL and RBL.) But obviously is doesnt work. I have a lot of those, with different txt, but the same URLs. The ones you mentioned are listed in 3 SURBL lists, do you should be able to catch them up pretty easilly. > > http://www.pvsys.com/pn01.txt > > http://www.pvsys.com/pn02.txt We only provide the lists, i guess you have to look on the 'thing' you are using whats going wrong. ;) Bye, Raymond.

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] mimedefang + spamcopuri = "timeout before dataread" in syslog
by Jason M. Burnett 11 Aug '04

11 Aug '04

> -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] > > > My hunch is that it could be intermittent DNS timeouts. > > We're trying to get all the public name servers switched > over to rbldnsd, since it's much faster than BIND. That > may help. > > Can someone look through the sources and see how this > message comes up: "timeout before data read" ? I *think* it happens when a scanner run by Mimedefang (spamassassin, in this case) takes too long to return. I get the impression from the man page that this timeout is ten seconds, but I'm not sure. Anyone confirm? I took a shot at bumping that to 30, so I'll know in a couple days if that fixed it. -- Jason This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.

1 0

[SURBL-Discuss] mimedefang + spamcopuri = "timeout before data read" in syslog
by Jason M. Burnett 11 Aug '04

11 Aug '04

Every time that happens (it's not every email, but 100 to 300 a day out of a total of 10,000), the email goes on to be delivered without being tagged by spamassassin. I wasn't getting that message in syslog at all before setting up spamcopuri. Is there a known fix to this weirdness? -- Jason This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.

2 1

bravejournal.com FP on OB.
by Patrik Nilsson 10 Aug '04

10 Aug '04

bravejournal.com is listed on OB. One single NANAS report that mention bravejournal.com found when searching Google Groups. 399 non-NANAS postings that mention bravejournal.com found when searching Google Groups... bravejournal.com is blogging/journaling community run by bravenet.com which claims millions of members. bravenet.com mail servers send out a newsletter with a monthly senderbase magnitued of 5.4. Those servers are not listed on any major RBL. Patrik

2 1

Questionable listing?
by Bill Landry 10 Aug '04

10 Aug '04

Found this URI listed in a lockergnome list mail: www.desktoppipeline.com and it was tagged by OB. However, it seems like a legit TechWeb site that provides newsletter services. Bill

2 1

RFC: Lowering TTLs
by Jeff Chan 10 Aug '04

10 Aug '04

We would like to drop the TTL on the SURBL zone files that had 6 and 8 hour TTLs down to 1 hour in order to get new entries active sooner. We have not tested this to see what effect it would have on name server traffic. Does anyone have any comments or concerns about this? One hour would still be longer than the default 35 minute TTL that rbldnsd uses. (We would still like to separately experiment with range of different TTLs to see where lowering them causes traffic to increase a lot. We would then pick values longer than that. That optimization can probably be done independently.) Comments? Jeff C.

1 0

SA 2.64 and SURBL issues...
by Robert Leonard 10 Aug '04

10 Aug '04

Since upgrading my spamcopuri to version .22 I haven't seen any spam's getting tagged by it.. SA 2.63 lints fine... But when I try to 'upgrade' to 2.64 I get the following, which makes me think something isn't right, either with SA or with spamcopuri.. -------Here is what I get.. And I get it many times... Syntax error at /etc/mail/spamassassin/spamcop_uri.cf, rule WS_URI_RBL, line 6, near ") )") t/rule_tests.....ok 44/62Failed to com;ile URI SpamAssassin tests, skipping:(syntax error at /etc/mail/spamassassin/spamcop_uri.cf, rule OB_URI_RBL, line 1, near "eval:" -------------- and so on.. Any idea what might be causing this? I've tried re-install spamcopuri and restarting SA.. I still see nothing getting caught by the URI tests.. And everytime I try to install/upgrade SA 2.64 I get the above errros during the installation... Thanks!!!!!!1 -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 1:42 PM To: SURBL Discussion list Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] your-tradetool dot com On Monday, August 9, 2004, 1:16:47 PM, Lindsay Snider wrote: > Looking into it further, I found this link on google > http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:EzOFwrN5SrYJ:www.wholesale411.com > /bbs/search.php%3Fsearch_author%3DFeye+your-tradetool&hl=en > The domains listed have the same bogus yahoo information. Unless I > hear otherwise, I'll blacklist them in ws for now. Multiple domains with the same fake yahoo or hotmail address or frequently occurring fake postal address can be a good indicator of fraudsters/spammers. However the best evidence of spamming is a spam. Has anyone gotten one with these domains? Jeff C. > On Monday 09 August 2004 03:57 pm, Lindsay Snider wrote: >> We received what looks to be a phishing scam involving your-tradetool >> dot com. Their site is newly registered and various things don't match up. >> Although their domain is so new, they claim to have been in business >> since 1997-2004. The whois records show what looks to be fake yahoo information. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss(a)lists.surbl.org http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

2 1

your-tradetool dot com
by Lindsay Snider 09 Aug '04

09 Aug '04

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 We received what looks to be a phishing scam involving your-tradetool dot com. Their site is newly registered and various things don't match up. Although their domain is so new, they claim to have been in business since 1997-2004. The whois records show what looks to be fake yahoo information. Any thoughts on this one? - -lindsay -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBF9cVNWvCHVPDSuERAoKYAJ0aFIsHGLWKYQ02SR9NTLrUVlvuXQCeIblr Ls/mca02E28MOIoU6ew5HLI= =eUJ7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 3

Will this get added right?
by Chris Santerre 09 Aug '04

09 Aug '04

wam.co.za I want to add that to the list, but I'm not sure it will be added correctly? Chris Santerre System Admin and SARE Ninja http://www.rulesemporium.com http://www.surbl.org 'It is not the strongest of the species that survives, not the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.' Charles Darwin

2 1

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: quickinspirations.com
by Chris Santerre 09 Aug '04

09 Aug '04

Wasn't in my stuff. But I have seen this and bigfishgamer both submitted to me. It was in the older 6dos data files. --Chris >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 6:55 PM >To: SURBL Discuss >Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: quickinspirations.com > > >On Friday, July 30, 2004, 5:17:43 PM, Bitz wrote: >> quickinspirations.com > >I went ahead and whitelisted quickinspirations.com . > >The site has potential for spam since it allows anyone >to send their messages to anyone else, but it also >probably has some legitimate uses so it probably should >be whitelisted. I am writing to them about it. > >Looks like it was on WS. > >They do not look like a big time spammer, so the WS data >folks should check how it got on. > >Jeff C. >-- >Jeff Chan >mailto:jeffc@surbl.org >http://www.surbl.org/ > >_______________________________________________ >Discuss mailing list >Discuss(a)lists.surbl.org >http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] statcounter.com FP on WS.
by Chris Santerre 09 Aug '04

09 Aug '04

Then perhaps he should implement checking SURBL on future customers? --Chris >-----Original Message----- >From: Michele Neylon : Blacknight Solutions >[mailto:michele@blacknightsolutions.com] >Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 8:08 AM >To: SURBL Discussion list >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] statcounter.com FP on WS. > > >On Sat, 2004-08-07 at 12:31, Patrik Nilsson wrote: >> statcounter.com is listed on WS. >> >> It's a service used for hit tracking, primarily for web stats. >> It also shows up in emails, sometimes in spam from >main-sleaze spammers. >> >> Having it listed means quite a lot of collateral damage though. >> Just do a search for statcounter.com on Google Groups and >check the recent >> ratio of legit postings vs. NANAS reports actually involving >potential >> abuse from statcounter.com: >> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=statcounter.com&scoring=d> >> >I know the guy who runs that site and he is legit. If there are any >issues with spammers abusing the service I'm sure I could get him to >take action against their accounts. > >Michele >-- >Mr. Michele Neylon >Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd >http://www.blacknight.ie/ >+353 59 913 7101 > >_______________________________________________ >Discuss mailing list >Discuss(a)lists.surbl.org >http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] Whitelisted: clickbank.net
by Chris Santerre 09 Aug '04

09 Aug '04

Perhaps they should use SURBL to check their customers then. I have only seen them in spams. --Chris >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 5:08 PM >To: SURBL Discuss >Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] Whitelisted: clickbank.net > > >I've whitelisted clickbank.net . They were on BE and WS before. > >This appears to be a site with legitimate uses which occasionally >gets abused. They seem to shut down abusers. > >Jeff C. > >_______________________________________________ >Discuss mailing list >Discuss(a)lists.surbl.org >http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >

1 0

Whitelisted: clickbank.net
by Jeff Chan 08 Aug '04

08 Aug '04

I've whitelisted clickbank.net . They were on BE and WS before. This appears to be a site with legitimate uses which occasionally gets abused. They seem to shut down abusers. Jeff C.

1 0

PH list question
by Bill Landry 08 Aug '04

08 Aug '04

I have been running multi test since the release of SpamCopURI-0.20, however, in spite of the fact that I have seen several phishing e-mail from US Bank and E-Bay, and others, I have never gotten a hit on ph.surbl.org. Here are my test entries: ========== uri SC_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0/2') describe SC_URI_RBL URI's domain appears in SC database at sc.surbl.org tflags SC_URI_RBL net score SC_URI_RBL 17.0 uri WS_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0/4') describe WS_URI_RBL URI's domain appears in WS database at ws.surbl.org tflags WS_URI_RBL net score WS_URI_RBL 17.0 uri PH_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0/8') describe PH_URI_RBL URI's domain appears in PH database at ph.surbl.org tflags PH_URI_RBL net score PH_URI_RBL 27.0 uri OB_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0/16') describe OB_URI_RBL URI's domain appears in OB database at ob.surbl.org tflags OB_URI_RBL net score OB_URI_RBL 17.0 uri AB_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0/32') describe AB_URI_RBL URI's domain appears in AB database at ab.surbl.org tflags AB_URI_RBL net score AB_URI_RBL 17.0 uri DS_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('ds.surbl.org','127.0.0.2') describe DS_URI_RBL URI's domain appears in DS database at ds.surbl.org tflags DS_URI_RBL net score DS_URI_RBL 12.0 ========== I get lots of hits on all of the other test. Can someone post a munged URI that should hit on the PH list so I can test with it. Thanks, Bill

4 8

statcounter.com FP on WS.
by Patrik Nilsson 07 Aug '04

07 Aug '04

statcounter.com is listed on WS. It's a service used for hit tracking, primarily for web stats. It also shows up in emails, sometimes in spam from main-sleaze spammers. Having it listed means quite a lot of collateral damage though. Just do a search for statcounter.com on Google Groups and check the recent ratio of legit postings vs. NANAS reports actually involving potential abuse from statcounter.com: <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=statcounter.com&scoring=d> Patrik

3 2

bigfishgames.com FP on WS.
by Patrik Nilsson 07 Aug '04

07 Aug '04

bigfishgames.com is listed on WS. Apart from consistent reports from one single individual, there are very few NANAS reports, especially considering that they send out a news letter with a Senderbase monthly magnitude of 5.4. Their outgoing mail server, 63.251.10.170, is not listed on any major RBL. Patrik

1 0

Redirection service - rg3.net, listed in WS.
by Patrik Nilsson 07 Aug '04

07 Aug '04

Hi, rg3.net is listed in WS. It is a redirection service, redirecting third level domains like polimidia.rg3.net. They might have spammy third level domains, but they do have non-spammy ones as well. Not sure whitelisting the second level domains is the best way to handle these kind of redirection services though. If they are whitelisted, we can't blacklist third levels below those domains that are spammy, right? Wouldn't it be better if we could treat these kind of third level redirectors similarly to the way we treat subdelegated country domains - checking the third level domain rather than the second? Extending what is done in RegistrarBoundaries.pm for URIDNSBL would probably be easier than doing something similar in SpamCopURI though. Patrik

3 4

Errors with spamassassin --lint
by Mailing List 07 Aug '04

07 Aug '04

RHEL 3.0 + SpamAssassin 2.63 + SpamCopURI 0.20 or 0.21 Using the spamcop_uri.cf file from the package at http://www.fsl.com/support/index.html Here is the output: [root@mailgw spamassassin]# spamassassin --lint Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin configuration, skipping: open_redirect_list_spamcop_uri snurl.com *.snurl.com Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin configuration, skipping: open_redirect_list_spamcop_uri snipurl.com *.snipurl.com Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin configuration, skipping: open_redirect_list_spamcop_uri tinyclick.com *.tinyclick.com Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin configuration, skipping: open_redirect_list_spamcop_uri babyurl.com *.babyurl.com Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin configuration, skipping: open_redirect_list_spamcop_uri lin.kz *.lin.kz Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin configuration, skipping: open_redirect_list_spamcop_uri *.v3.net Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin configuration, skipping: open_redirect_list_spamcop_uri shorl.com *.shorl.com Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin configuration, skipping: open_redirect_list_spamcop_uri tinyurl.com *.tinyurl.com Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin configuration, skipping: open_redirect_list_spamcop_uri xurl.us Failed to compile URI SpamAssassin tests, skipping: (syntax error at /etc/mail/spamassassin/spamcop_uri.cf, rule SPAMCOP_URI_RBL, line 1, near "eval:" syntax error at /etc/mail/spamassassin/spamcop_uri.cf, rule OB_URI_RBL, line 1, near "eval:" syntax error at /etc/mail/spamassassin/spamcop_uri.cf, rule OB_URI_RBL, line 6, near "} }" ) When I use the spamcop_uri.cf file that comes with the 0.21 distribution I get the following output: [root@mailgw spamassassin]# spamassassin --lint Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin configuration, skipping: open_redirect_list_spamcop_uri snurl.com *.snurl.com Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin configuration, skipping: open_redirect_list_spamcop_uri snipurl.com *.snipurl.com Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin configuration, skipping: open_redirect_list_spamcop_uri tinyclick.com *.tinyclick.com Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin configuration, skipping: open_redirect_list_spamcop_uri babyurl.com *.babyurl.com Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin configuration, skipping: open_redirect_list_spamcop_uri lin.kz *.lin.kz Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin configuration, skipping: open_redirect_list_spamcop_uri *.v3.net Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin configuration, skipping: open_redirect_list_spamcop_uri shorl.com *.shorl.com Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin configuration, skipping: open_redirect_list_spamcop_uri tinyurl.com *.tinyurl.com Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin configuration, skipping: open_redirect_list_spamcop_uri xurl.us Failed to compile URI SpamAssassin tests, skipping: (syntax error at /etc/mail/spamassassin/spamcop_uri.cf, rule SPAMCOP_URI_RBL, line 1, near "eval:" syntax error at /usr/share/spamassassin/20_uri_tests.cf, rule URI_OFFERS, line 215, near "; }" ) If I remove the spamcop_uri.cf file, spamassassin --lint goes well. I have fairly the same setup on other boxes and don't have the problem. Kindest regards, Guy

4 4

Re: quickinspirations.com
by Jeff Chan 07 Aug '04

07 Aug '04

On Friday, July 30, 2004, 5:17:43 PM, Bitz wrote: > quickinspirations.com I went ahead and whitelisted quickinspirations.com . The site has potential for spam since it allows anyone to send their messages to anyone else, but it also probably has some legitimate uses so it probably should be whitelisted. I am writing to them about it. Looks like it was on WS. They do not look like a big time spammer, so the WS data folks should check how it got on. Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:jeffc@surbl.org http://www.surbl.org/

1 0

rsync access
by Andy Dills 07 Aug '04

07 Aug '04

Let me start by thanking everybody for their efforts with surbl...we just recently added it in to our filtering, and it's improved spamassassin dramatically. I'm a bit skeptical of the long term value, because I already see an increase of one-run-only domains. Just another $10 they have to pay to send out their spam. But regardless, it's kicking some ass right now, and every tool helps. We get a good bit of mail though (2-3mm), and would like rsync access so we can serve the zones ourselves. I filled out a request, but no luck. Somebody on vacation or something? :) So, if somebody who can enable that could contact me offlist, it would be much appreciated. Thanks, Andy --- Andy Dills Xecunet, Inc. www.xecu.net 301-682-9972 ---

2 1

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] ANNOUNCE: Mail::SpamAssassin::SpamCopURI 0.22
by Chris Santerre 06 Aug '04

06 Aug '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Eric Kolve [mailto:ekolve@comcast.net] >Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 4:24 PM >To: discuss(a)lists.surbl.org; announce(a)lists.surbl.org >Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] ANNOUNCE: Mail::SpamAssassin::SpamCopURI 0.22 > > >SpamCopURI 0.22 has been released. > >This fixes any incompatibilities 2.64 users may have seen when >trying to install. > >0.22 Thu Aug 5 13:09:15 PDT 2004 > - Updated Makefile.pl to support 2.64 and including > PerMsgStatus.pm from 2.64 release. Install > process now figures out what version you have > and installs correct patched version of PerMsgStatus.pm. > >SpamCopURI now supports both 2.63 and 2.64 version of SA. > >Package is on both sourceforge and CPAN: > >http://sourceforge.net/projects/spamcopuri/ > I'm contimplating trying to look at the source and seeing if it will work with SA 2.43 just for fun! I'm still running it, and getting great results. :) --Chris

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] Errors with spamassassin --lint
by Mailing List 06 Aug '04

06 Aug '04

OK thanks, operationnal. Have a great day! -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces(a)lists.surbl.org [mailto:discuss-bounces@lists.surbl.org] On Behalf Of Eric Kolve Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 11:50 To: SURBL Discussion list Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Errors with spamassassin --lint That should work. I would also clear out any copies of SpamCopURI.pm and then re-install. --eric

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] ya.com likely FP in WS
by Chris Santerre 06 Aug '04

06 Aug '04

Don't see it in my submissions. Just a few other domains ending like that. shaveyaMUNGED.com and such. --Chris >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 7:46 AM >To: SURBL Discussion list >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] ya.com likely FP in WS > > >On Friday, August 6, 2004, 4:36:33 AM, Patrik Nilsson wrote: >> ya.com is listed in WS. > >> I can't find any recent NANAS reports where the domain is >used in uri's. >> They seem to be an ISP, with the domain showing up in >footers in legit mail >> when their webmail service is used. > >Thanks for the heads up. Looks like a legitimate, old (1995) ISP. >I've whitelisted it. > >WS folks, please find a way to keep ones like this off the list. > >Thanks, > >Jeff C. > >_______________________________________________ >Discuss mailing list >Discuss(a)lists.surbl.org >http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss