- Discuss - Mailman 3

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

06 Aug '04

Hi Erik, Ignoring the Conf.pm in my "download repository" and in "cpan's download repository /root/.cpan/build) I see the 2 following Conf.pm files: /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0/Mail/SpamAssassin/Conf.pm /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.3/Mail/SpamAssassin/Conf.pm So I guess I could nuke Conf.pm and PerMsgStatus.pm in 5.8.0 and it should be OK? Thanks Guy -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces(a)lists.surbl.org [mailto:discuss-bounces@lists.surbl.org] On Behalf Of Eric Kolve Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 11:08 To: SURBL Discussion list Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Errors with spamassassin --lint It looks like you have two Conf.pm files floating around. Do a locate for 'Conf.pm', you probably have one from a previous perl install or SpamCopURI is going into the wrong place. You are looking for a directory that only has Conf.pm, PerMsgStatus.pm and SpamCopURI.pm. Remove all those files and try re-installing. --eric

2 1

Why is this?
by Doc Schneider 06 Aug '04

06 Aug '04

Why is MUNGED-m150.com being hit in SURBLs? I have one person on a list I host here who is always being tossed into spam for having their website over there. I suspect, since they're a free website provider, a lot of spamasshats use them. So can see why it is a questionable site. Is there anyway I can whitelist that site so it doesn't get caught by SURBL? Thanks, -Doc (D-Ninja)

2 4

Lag in multi.surbl.org
by ITReading ITReading 06 Aug '04

06 Aug '04

Please post when this is sorted out. Is the lag significant enough that I should consider switching back to the individual lists for everything except [ph]? Thanks in advance, Charles >Copied from <spamassassin-users(a)incubator.apache.org> >On Thursday, August 5, 2004, 2:50:59 PM, Nels Lindquist wrote: >> Is the multi.surbl.org synchronised dynamically to the individual >> lists, or is there some lag? >Yes, the source data in multi is generated at the same time as >the individual lists. The problem is that we currently have a >longish negative caching TTL on multi, which are are trying >to reduce to cut down on some of this lag that you noticed. >We hope to have it sorted out soon. >Jeff C. >-- >Jeff Chan >mailto:jeffc@surbl.org >http://www.surbl.org/

2 1

CPAN question
by Robert Leonard 05 Aug '04

05 Aug '04

This may be a total Newbie mistake.. But when I try to use CPAN to Install::SpamAssassin::SpamCopURI it says I am up to date (I have version 19).. Likewise when I try to update SpamAssassin itself it also says it's up to day.. (I have 2.63).. Is there a way to refresh the list of what is current vs. what I have? Thanks!!!!!!

3 2

ANNOUNCE: Mail::SpamAssassin::SpamCopURI 0.22
by Eric Kolve 05 Aug '04

05 Aug '04

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/ --eric

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] Whitelist Request
by Chris Santerre 05 Aug '04

05 Aug '04

Nothing here. I only show entries for anythingmilitaryMUNGED.com and hotgaymilitaryMUNGED.com :) --Chris >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 8:28 PM >To: SURBL Discussion list >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Whitelist Request > > >On Wednesday, August 4, 2004, 4:48:22 PM, Bitz Bitz wrote: >> We have customers subscribed to their mailing list :) >> Please whitelist military.com (listed at ws.surbl.org) > >Thanks. I've whitelisted across all SURBLs. > >ws folks, please find out how this got on the list and >see if we can eliminate a class of these. > >Jeff C. > >_______________________________________________ >Discuss mailing list >Discuss(a)lists.surbl.org >http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >

1 0

ANNOUNCE: Mail::SpamAssassin::SpamCopURI 0.21
by Eric Kolve 05 Aug '04

05 Aug '04

Just released SpamCopURI 0.21: 0.21 Wed Aug 4 16:41:31 PDT 2004 - Defaulting config param spamcop_uri_limit to 20. If the number of URLs in a message exceeds the limit, they are shuffled and only up to the number specified for the limit are tested. - New syntax for specifying the address match for multi.surbl.org: Instead of '127.0.0.0/2' use '127.0.0.0+2' this is being done to eliminate any confusion with CIDR syntax. The old '/' syntax is still supported, but will be deprecated in a future version. http://sourceforge.net/projects/spamcopuri/ Package has also been upload to CPAN as well. --eric

4 5

Errors with spamassassin --lint
by Daniel J McDonald 05 Aug '04

05 Aug '04

> On Thursday, August 5, 2004, 4:39:58 AM, Jeff Chan wrote: > > On Thursday, August 5, 2004, 4:12:23 AM, Mailing List wrote:>> > 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 > Er, the redirect tests failing may be ok, but I'm not so sure > about the eval ones. Can anyone else help? I had to remove my old /etc/mail/spamassassin/spamcop_uri.cf in order to upgrade to SA 2.64, then install the new spamcop_uri 0.21 and copy the new rules/spamcop_uri.cf from the distribution to /etc/mail/spamassassin/ in order for --lint to be happy. -- Daniel J McDonald <dan.mcdonald(a)austinenergy.com> Austin Energy

1 0

[SURBL-Discuss] jwSpamSpy domains in ws.surbl.org reduced to only the best ones
by Jeff Chan 05 Aug '04

05 Aug '04

Joe Wein has created a new version of the data which Raymond is putting into ws.surbl.org. The new version is 60% smaller and contains only domains that were added under an extensive and strict set of criteria which Joe devised. As a result, the jw additions to ws are 60% smaller and probably a lot better in terms of false positives. The earlier cut of the data had included some domains which Joe had seeded from other RBLs and which therefore did not have the extensive checking which Joe's current process applies to new entries. Joe used the seeding from other RBLs to initially populate his data, but the new data gathered purely with his own processing should be much better. Bottom line is that the FP rate of WS should drop. Does anyone have any current FP rates to share? Jeff C.

5 6

Fwd: Re: SpamAssassin 2.64 is released!
by Jeff Chan 05 Aug '04

05 Aug '04

From: Jeff Chan To: SpamAssassin Users Date: Thursday, August 5, 2004, 4:04:25 AM Subject: SpamAssassin 2.64 is released! On Wednesday, August 4, 2004, 10:46:34 PM, Daniel Quinlan wrote: > "jdow" <jdow(a)earthlink.net> writes: >> Did this port the SURBL into the release or not? > Adding SURBL to 2.64 wasn't really an option we could consider. A few > reasons off of the top of my head: > - the 2.6x tree is our stable tree and that would be a major change > - the main purpose of 2.64 is fixing a specific security issue, adding > SURBL would have delayed the release and added unnecessary risk [...] It's probably worth noting the Eric happened to have revised SpamCopURI recently also, to version 0.21. Perhaps more importantly several people have tried SpamCopURI 0.21 with SpamAssassin 2.64 and they seem to work just fine together. > OVERALL% SPAM% HAM% S/O RANK SCORE NAME > 151033 122586 28447 0.812 0.00 0.00 (all messages) > 100.000 81.1650 18.8350 0.812 0.00 0.00 (all messages as %) > 23.882 29.4218 0.0105 1.000 0.98 0.00 RCVD_IN_XBL > 17.441 21.4837 0.0176 0.999 0.97 0.00 URIBL_SC_SURBL > 53.206 65.5156 0.1582 0.998 0.90 0.00 URIBL_OB_SURBL > 9.897 12.1449 0.2074 0.983 0.82 0.00 URIBL_AB_SURBL > 58.068 71.4494 0.4043 0.994 0.79 0.00 URIBL_WS_SURBL > 0.017 0.0204 0.0000 1.000 0.48 0.00 URIBL_PH_SURBL Thanks for the additional stats. I'll assume the spam detection rates for AB and SC are probably low because Daniel's spam corpus covers a much longer historical time period than would typically be encountered with messages in real time. Other rule stats seems to suggest SC, WS, and OB have fairly similar spam detection rates, such as these from Raymond Dijkxhoorn: SpamAssassin tag hits: (top 100) #1 64675 BAYES_99 #2 54198 HTML_MESSAGE #3 44694 RCVD_IN_SBL+XBL #4 43427 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET #5 37191 RCVD_IN_SORBS #6 35888 WS_URI_RBL #7 33729 SPAMCOP_URI_RBL #8 33089 MIME_HTML_ONLY #9 32485 OUTBLAZE_URI_RBL #10 26678 RCVD_IN_DSBL #11 19665 RCVD_IN_AHBL #12 19662 RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK #13 19146 CLICK_BELOW #14 18374 ABUSEBUTLER_URI_RBL Cheers, Jeff C.

1 0

Whitelist Request
by Bitz 05 Aug '04

05 Aug '04

We have customers subscribed to their mailing list :) Please whitelist military.com (listed at ws.surbl.org)

2 1

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: sex.surbl.org
by Chris Santerre 04 Aug '04

04 Aug '04

Ah...all coming back to me now. Thanks for the replies. I shall remove this note from my system now :) --Chris >-----Original Message----- >From: Patrik Nilsson [mailto:patrik@patrik.com] >Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 1:06 PM >To: SURBL Discussion list >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: sex.surbl.org > > >At 08:13 2004-08-04 -0700, Jeff Chan wrote: >>On Wednesday, August 4, 2004, 7:53:02 AM, Chris Santerre wrote: >> > What was the final say on this? >> >>The particular data source we looked at seemed to have too >>many false positives. Maybe there are some data sources >>we could check. >> >>Also there's some dilution of focus and potential for >>misapplication since such a list probably would have >>non-spammers on it. > >I think that it would be a substantial dilution of focus that >could cause >serious damage to surbl.org's reputation. > >If some people find it useful to have surbl-type lists of >domains that are >not necessarily spam but that they find objectionable for some >reason, be >it sex sites, gaming sites, sites selling alcohol or promoting >drugs or >whatever, I think it would be better if they where done >totally separate >from surbl.org. > >Patrik > >_______________________________________________ >Discuss mailing list >Discuss(a)lists.surbl.org >http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: sex.surbl.org
by Chris Santerre 04 Aug '04

04 Aug '04

What was the final say on this? Are we waiting until more people use multi? --Chris >-----Original Message----- >From: Bret Miller [mailto:bret.miller@wcg.org] >Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 4:06 PM >To: rob(a)pvsys.com; SURBL Discussion list >Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: sex.surbl.org > > >> I still vote YES on adding the sex sites (in a separate DNS feed). >> >> (1) It seems like all the technology and know-how is in place >> to do this... maybe with a little tweaking, but nothing >> different than what has already been done elsewhere. > >Which is why my vote is still "yes" too. > >> >> (2) It would be a separate list and its use would be >> completely voluntary. Therefore, this seems to me to be MORE >> a question of "are there sufficient YET votes to make it >> worthwhile"... and NOT so much a question of comparing the >> "yes" vs. "no" votes because the "no" votes can simply choose >> to not participate... which is easy.... simply don't do >> anything different from what you are already doing. >> >> (3) Its purpose and scope could easily be explained on the >> SURBL.org site in its own page. It could even be omitted from >> being mentioned on any other pages to avoid confusion. > >However, as was explained in a different thread, a lot of adult sites >are subdomains and the SURBL mode of operation is to strip subdomains >down to their base domain, which would make it rather useless against >some sites. So, it would also have to be explained that the sex SURBL >was not a complete solution to eliminating sex sites, but rather a >better-than-nothing filter to remove some sex sites. > >>From our point of view, blocking some sex sites is better >than blocking >none, even if they are truly opt-in, confirmed signups. > >On the other side of things, SURBL has significantly reduce the amount >of image-only sex spam that gets through in addition to making overall >spam scoring more accuate for us. So it's not an over-the-top >need which >drives the interest, but just rather the convenience of using it to >further reduce the possibility of explicitly sexual photographs and >sites being sent through our e-mail system. > >Bret > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Discuss mailing list >Discuss(a)lists.surbl.org >http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >

4 3

[FP] OK, whos the wise guy :)
by Chris Santerre 04 Aug '04

04 Aug '04

Who put FredericksMUNGED.com into WS? Girls in NY office complained this morning they weren't getting their newsletters :) Silly boys! DO you really want to block this? I suggest a whitelist for this and victoriasecret.com 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

3 2

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] [FP] OK, whos the wise guy :)
by Chris Santerre 04 Aug '04

04 Aug '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 11:20 AM >To: Chris Santerre >Cc: SURBL Discussion list (E-mail) >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] [FP] OK, whos the wise guy :) > > >On Wednesday, August 4, 2004, 7:58:34 AM, Chris Santerre wrote: >> Who put FredericksMUNGED.com into WS? > >> Girls in NY office complained this morning they weren't getting their >> newsletters :) > >> Silly boys! DO you really want to block this? I suggest a >whitelist for this >> and victoriasecret.com > >OK I've whitelisted them. > >Jeff C. And there was much rejoicing from boyfriends and husbands across the internet :) Jeff, do you smile or cringe when you see an email from me in your inbox? :P --Chris

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] Kudos again
by Chris Santerre 04 Aug '04

04 Aug '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 6:35 PM >To: SURBL Discussion list >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Kudos again > > >On Tuesday, August 3, 2004, 9:41:41 AM, Bret Miller wrote: >> Just installed SpamCopURI 0.20 and reconfigured to use the >multi list. >> This works great! Less overhead, more lists. Wonderful! > >Thanks should go to Eric for writing the code, Understatement. Eric should be knighted :) Or at least given a cookie. --Chris

1 0

Potential FP in OB - conventionbloggers.com
by Patrik Nilsson 04 Aug '04

04 Aug '04

conventionbloggers.com is listed in OB. I can't see why it should be SURBL listed... unless we're using political criteria... Patrik

2 1

[SURBL-Discuss] Please beta test ms.surbl.org - data from MailSecurity
by Jeff Chan 04 Aug '04

04 Aug '04

David Hooton has made available to us MailSecurity's spamvertised site data for public use. I have turned that data into a SURBL list for testing: ms.surbl.org This is the same company that has provided the phishing data currently in multi.surbl.org. Please do corpus checks, etc. but don't use it on high volume mail servers yet since it's only hosted on my mail server right now. Please let us know what spam detection rates you get and particularly about false positive rates. At this point we don't know if the data will stay a separate list, be added to multi only, get folded into ws, etc. The results you report will help us decide that. Jeff C.

9 23

ANNOUNCE: Mail::SpamAssassin::SpamCopURI 0.20
by Eric Kolve 04 Aug '04

04 Aug '04

Just released SpamCopURI 0.20. Biggest change is support for multi.surbl.org. Let me know if you see anything strange. See the change notes below for what you need to do for your config. 0.20 Sat Jul 31 22:02:20 PDT 2004 - adding max url config param to limit number of URLs checked in an email. Usage (place into .cf file): spamcop_uri_limit 50 Default is unlimited. - adding support for multi.surbl.org / bitmasked results. query results are cached on a per msg basis to prevent additional lookups. Modify your configuration to look like the following for sc.surbl.org: uri SPAMCOP_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('multi.surbl.org','127.0.0.0/2') describe SPAMCOP_URI_RBL URI's domain appears in spamcop database at sc.surbl.org tflags SPAMCOP_URI_RBL net ws.surbl.org would look like this: 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 - Removed configuration params: spamcop_uri_src and spamcop_uri_path since these should never be used anymore. - added cleanup for hosts that come in with a dot in front of of the host (e.g. http://.spammy-site.org) http://sourceforge.net/projects/spamcopuri/ --eric

9 25

multi.surbl.org
by Cami 04 Aug '04

04 Aug '04

Hi All, Is multi.surbl.org SA 3.0 specific? Cami

3 2

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] Please beta test ms.surbl.org - data from Mai lSecurity
by Chris Santerre 04 Aug '04

04 Aug '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 4:27 PM >To: SURBL Discuss >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Please beta test ms.surbl.org - data from >Mai lSecurity > > >On Monday, August 2, 2004, 8:09:49 AM, David Hooton wrote: >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 11:14:45 -0400, Chris Santerre >> <csanterre(a)merchantsoverseas.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >-----Original Message----- >>> >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >>> >Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 3:32 AM >>> >To: SURBL Discussion list >>> >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Please beta test ms.surbl.org >- data from >>> >MailSecurity >>> > >>> 3) When will we have an SURBL contributors BBQ? Soon I >hope, I'm hungry! > >> Come to Sydney Australia - I'm sure MailSecurity would be happy to >> throw a shrimp on the barbie! Sorry Chris - no Ice Hockey here >> though!! > >Make it some prawns, and I'm there. ;-) > I'll eat just about anything :) We can play rugby, or any other sport in which people try to hurt me! Is "Sheila" wrestling a sport down there? ;) --Chris

3 2

TTL/turnaround times for SURBL
by Rob McEwen 04 Aug '04

04 Aug '04

RE: TTL/turnaround times for SURBL This discussion seems to have gotten drowned out by other recent discussions. I'd like to see where this stands at this point. In particular, Jeff noted that Outblaze updates their data very fast in response to fast analysis of their spam-trap data. But the OutBlaze feed at SURBL get updated every six hours? Doesn't that defeat the purpose. Would it be possible to speed up the ob.surbl.org refresh so that we can reap more benefits from their quick responsiveness? Also, it was mentioned that the sc.surbl.org data updates every ten minutes? Is there really substantial new or different data in this feed to justify this? (in other words, is there a system where very, very new data causes quick updates to sc.surbl.org) Finally, has any progress been made speeding up the refresh times for multi.surbl.org? Rob McEwen

3 3

Please Whitelist ebooks dot com
by Bitz 04 Aug '04

04 Aug '04

This is a legit site -- X-Spam-Status: No, hits=5.0 required=10.0 tests=WS_URI_RBL=5 www . ebooks . com Thanks, -B.

2 1

[SURBL-Discuss] Selectively looking up the IPs to which uri's resolve
by Rich Graves 04 Aug '04

04 Aug '04

As postmaster, I see a lot of double-bounces for a user who forwards their mail to a server that implements the policy: 550 5.7.1 mail containing 8aa.tXokG4N.fagonyenomy.org rejected - sbl; see http://www.spamhaus.org/query/bl?ip=201.3.240.234 They appear to be using the milter mentioned in http://www.surbl.org/faq.html#numbered Sure, fagonyenomy.org is in sc.surbl.org now, but these cretins register new domains pointing at the same IPs on a (at least) daily basis, and there is a time lag. The site they were spamming about this morning, thebest-search.com.sc.surbl.org, exists only on ob.surbl.or, not sc or ws. For the reasons mentioned in the FAQ, I do not agree with uri-to-ip-based blacklisting as a blanket policy, but it does seem very effective in dealing with these rapidly morphing porn spammers. I would like to give such a rule a SA score of 4 or so. In order to implement this nicely, I see a need for a *per surbl* switch in SpamCopURI telling it whether to look up the domain, or the domain as resolved to an IP. Configured something like uri SPAMCOP_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('sc.surbl.org','127.0.0.2') uri SPAMHAUS_URI eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('sbl.spamhaus.org','127.0.0.2','ip') Obviously there is no point in looking up fagonyenomy.org in spamhaus, nor do I want to look up all resolved IPs in all surbls needlessly. I could write completely separate code to do this, but I'd like to reuse the url and redirector parsing infrastructure. Unfortunately I don't see a clean way to do this without changing the internal hash structure. Ideas? Should I just wait for (or start experimenting with now) SA3's uridnsbl and urirhsbl, which were designed for this? Yeah, that's what I was afraid of... I think I just answered my own question, but I'm curious what others think and how others are dealing with this spam gang. I can't wait for a big ISP to hit them with the big clue stick. -- Rich Graves <rcgraves(a)brandeis.edu> UNet Systems Administrator

4 7

FW: False Positive: WLS_URI_OPT_683
by Chris Santerre 04 Aug '04

04 Aug '04

I don't have this in my files. Anyone else add urbanet.ch?? --Chris >-----Original Message----- >From: Alex Broens [mailto:alexb@midway.ch] >Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 2:07 PM >To: csanterre(a)MerchantsOverseas.com >Subject: False Positive: WLS_URI_OPT_683 > > >describe WLS_URI_OPT_683 URI contains sites starting with u >uri WLS_URI_OPT_683 >m/\bu(?:rbanet\.ch|rbanfreebies\.com|rbanoffers\.com|rentdvds\. >com|rerotic\.com|rgentreplymail\.com|rgentvalue\.com|rhomeloans >ource\.com|rielsys\.com|rinalslut\.com|rlintl\.com|rlintl\.net| >rlsos\.com|rncage\.com|rpersonalservice\.biz|rthelast1in\.com|r >toyz\.biz|s-advertising\.biz|s-auto\.ru|s-bp-im-pt\.info|s-gree >ncard-register\.com|s-monitor-sales\.com|s-paypal\.com|s-site-m >aintenance\.com|s1bet6\.com|s1currency\.biz|sa-dental-care\.com >|sa-greencard\.org|sa-immigration-green-card-lottery\.com|sa99\ >.net|sabusiness1\.com|sabusinesscredit\.com|sacardservices\.us| >sacdt\.com|sacredit\.com|sadentalcare\.com|safreemerchantsource >\.com|sagreencard-register\.com|sagreencardcenter\.com|sagreeti >ngs\.com|sahealthcare\.com|saherbals\.com|sahomemortgageworld\. com|sahomemortgageworld\.net|sahomemortgageworld>\.org|sahomeworkers\.com|sa inkdepot\.com|sainsurancesource\.com >|salendingnetwork\.com|salinks\.net|saloanfinder\.com)\b/i >score WLS_URI_OPT_683 3.0 > > >This footer triggered the rule above: > >Dr Rainer W.BIELINSKI >Bossons 1b >CH-1018 LAUSANNE - SWITZERLAND >Tél. +41-21-6416111 >Fax +41-21-6471968 >Mob.+41-79-2104652 >E-mail: <mailto:rbielinski@urbanet.ch>rbielinski(a)urbanet.ch > >same with the @urbanet addr in the forwarded txt below > > >Meilleures salutations / Best regards >Delisle Pierre >mailto:pierre.delisle@bluewin.ch >tél : 021 635 20 60 > : 079 204 40 72 > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Claudine Wyssa" <claudine(a)wyssa.ch> >To: "Pascal Petter" <pascal.petter(a)acs.ch>; "christianmaeder" ><christianmaeder(a)mydiax.ch>; "Pierre Delisle" ><pierre.delisle(a)bluewin.ch>; >"Bruno Lutz" <blutz(a)vtx.ch>; "Etienne Lasserre" <elasserre(a)urbanet.ch>; >"Pierre Wagnières" <pf.wagnieres(a)hispeed.ch>; "O. Ostertag" ><info(a)jouxtens-mezery.ch>; "JEan Daniel Graf" <v.j-d.graf(a)bluewin.ch> >Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 1:58 PM >Subject: Police de l'Ouest lausannois > > > >urbanet.ch is a legit ISP. > >Thanks > >Alex > >

2 1

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss