Email server problem - Slackware

This is a discussion on Email server problem - Slackware ; I have set up an email server in one of my boxes, running Slackware 12. The box is called my_server.my_domain.net (well, not really; these are just pseudonyms) and has an IP address xx.yy.zz.aa (again, not really) reachable from the external ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Email server problem

  1. Email server problem

    I have set up an email server in one of my boxes, running
    Slackware 12. The box is called my_server.my_domain.net (well, not
    really; these are just pseudonyms) and has an IP address xx.yy.zz.aa
    (again, not really) reachable from the external world.

    When an email is received from the net, the following diagnostics
    get printed out to my /var/log/maillog file:

    Oct 8 10:39:32 folkvang sm-mta[10995]: l98HdWwt010995:
    from=, size=1252, class=0, nrcpts=1,
    msgid=<346742.21731.qm@web35615.mail.mud.yyy.com>, pro
    to=SMTP, daemon=MTA, relay=web35615.mail.mud.yyy.com [66.163.179.154]

    Oct 8 10:42:41 folkvang sm-mta[10997]: l98HdWwt010995:
    to=, delay=00:03:09, xdelay=00:03:09,
    mailer=esmtp, pri=121252, relay=my_server.my_domain.net. [xx.yy.zz.aa],
    dsn=4.0.0, stat=Deferred: Connection timed out with
    my_server.my_domain.net

    The message has been received by my_server from a yahoo.com MTA.
    However, it never gets delivered the local user xxx, which does exist all
    right in the my_server box. The traces are obtained in my_server. Why the
    "Connection timed out" message? Everything is running in my_server; how
    come it can't connect to itself? The messages received are sitting in
    /var/spool/mqueue, waiting to be delivered to the local users they are
    being sent to. What else do I have to do in my email server configuration
    to fix this? What am I missing?



  2. Re: Email server problem

    On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, H.K. Kingston-Smith wrote:

    >
    > I have set up an email server in one of my boxes, running
    >
    > to=SMTP, daemon=MTA, relay=web35615.mail.mud.yyy.com [66.163.179.154]


    Ok, received well so far..



    > Oct 8 10:42:41 folkvang sm-mta[10997]: l98HdWwt010995:
    > to=, delay=00:03:09, xdelay=00:03:09,
    > mailer=esmtp, pri=121252, relay=my_server.my_domain.net. [xx.yy.zz.aa],
    > dsn=4.0.0, stat=Deferred: Connection timed out with
    > my_server.my_domain.net


    What sendmail instances are running? Sounds like the queue runner is not
    running

    > come it can't connect to itself? The messages received are sitting in
    > /var/spool/mqueue, waiting to be delivered to the local users they are


    Are you starting like this?, dont worry if -L options differ, it's the
    arguments after that, that matter.

    /usr/sbin/sendmail -L sendmail -bd -q15m
    /usr/sbin/sendmail -L sm-msp-queue -Ac -q15m


    --

    Cheers
    Res

  3. Re: Email server problem

    On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 08:50:11 +1000, Res wrote:

    > On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, H.K. Kingston-Smith wrote:
    >
    >
    >> I have set up an email server in one of my boxes, running
    >>
    >> to=SMTP, daemon=MTA, relay=web35615.mail.mud.yyy.com [66.163.179.154]

    >
    > Ok, received well so far..
    >
    >
    >
    >> Oct 8 10:42:41 folkvang sm-mta[10997]: l98HdWwt010995:
    >> to=, delay=00:03:09, xdelay=00:03:09,
    >> mailer=esmtp, pri=121252, relay=my_server.my_domain.net. [xx.yy.zz.aa],
    >> dsn=4.0.0, stat=Deferred: Connection timed out with
    >> my_server.my_domain.net

    >
    > What sendmail instances are running? Sounds like the queue runner is not
    > running
    >
    >> come it can't connect to itself? The messages received are sitting in
    >> /var/spool/mqueue, waiting to be delivered to the local users they are

    >
    > Are you starting like this?, dont worry if -L options differ, it's the
    > arguments after that, that matter.
    >
    > /usr/sbin/sendmail -L sendmail -bd -q15m /usr/sbin/sendmail -L
    > sm-msp-queue -Ac -q15m


    Sendmail is started from the rc.sendmail file shipped with
    Slackware 12. According to that file (which I have not modified) sendmail
    is started as follows:

    /usr/sbin/sendmail -L sm-mta -bd -q25m
    /usr/sbin/sendmail -L sm-msp-queue -Ac -q25m

    I seem to have sorted it out but, unfortunately, I am not sure
    how :-( I monkeyed a bit with sendmail.cnf and after restarting sendmail
    the diagnostic line above becomes:

    Oct 8 11:15:28 folkvang sm-mta[11228]: l98IAUY0011177:
    to=, delay=00:04:58, xdelay=00:00:01,
    mailer=local, pri=210896, dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent

    and everything works fine. The problem is, after reinstating the original
    sendmail.cnf and restarting, everything still works!

  4. Re: Email server problem

    On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, H.K. Kingston-Smith wrote:

    > the diagnostic line above becomes:
    >
    > Oct 8 11:15:28 folkvang sm-mta[11228]: l98IAUY0011177:
    > to=, delay=00:04:58, xdelay=00:00:01,
    > mailer=local, pri=210896, dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent
    >
    > and everything works fine. The problem is, after reinstating the original
    > sendmail.cnf and restarting, everything still works!


    LOL, well at least its all good now


    --

    Cheers
    Res


  5. Re: Email server problem

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On 2007-10-09, H.K. Kingston-Smith wrote:
    > I seem to have sorted it out but, unfortunately, I am not sure
    > how :-( I monkeyed a bit with sendmail.cnf and after restarting sendmail
    > the diagnostic line above becomes:


    That's the absolute worst feeling in the world: "It works now, but I
    have no idea why." It's almost as if this was an Exchange server!

    Seriously, take a look at postfix for a solid, easily configured mail
    server. The documentation is great, and you can get SlackBuild scripts
    for 11.0 and 12.0 from http://www.slackbuilds.org.

    - --
    It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
    Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
    Ecclesiastes 7:5
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHC7AlrZS6hX/gvjoRAumKAKCdL04GSZlXlohx/5mZP9w6bP3hpACfbUzK
    r2xJPM31+EFJm78xfYhPHn0=
    =A8q7
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  6. Re: Email server problem

    +Alan Hicks+ wrote:
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > On 2007-10-09, H.K. Kingston-Smith wrote:
    >
    >> I seem to have sorted it out but, unfortunately, I am not sure
    >>how :-( I monkeyed a bit with sendmail.cnf and after restarting sendmail
    >>the diagnostic line above becomes:

    >
    >
    > That's the absolute worst feeling in the world: "It works now, but I
    > have no idea why." It's almost as if this was an Exchange server!


    "Monkeying" with the configs instead of systematic working _can_
    contiribute to such a feeling. :-)

    The second log line in the original posting showed that sendmail
    tried to use the "relay" mailer te deliver the message. For local
    delivery the "local" mailer should have been used. This indicates
    that sendmail didn't recongnize it's own name as a local distination.
    A second issue was that sendmail could not reach its ounw IP
    address.

    Mode details were not supplied and even these few details
    (host name an IP number) were obfuscated.
    A little more details about configuration and network environment
    would have been helpfull to diagnos the problem.
    Of course there should be a logical explaination. Sendmail is not
    Exchange after all!

    I'll make a wild guess. That might make the "absolute worst feeling
    in the world" a little better.
    Combineing the "not recognised own name" and the "unreachable
    own IP number" I start directly thinking about a local
    network using a private IP range and located behind a
    masquerading/NAT-ing firewall. The host name and IP number are
    the official/external name and number. At startup sendmail
    tries to determine its name, and the name(s) of its network
    interface(s) via the resolver library (reverse dns lookups,
    /etc/hosts file). Of course a reverse lookup of a local
    (masqueraded) IP number will not resolve to the external
    host name. The unreachable external IP number could have
    been a firewall issue.
    Specifying the host name as a local detination would solve
    both problems. The easy way to do this is putting the
    name in /etc/mail/local-host-names. The hard way is putting
    it in sendmail.mc and generating a new sendmail.cf.
    Of course this won't change the firewall rules but sendmail
    doesn't need to contact the external IP number anymore
    once the name is recognized as a local destination.

    As I said it's a wild guess, but it's the best I can do with
    as little information as the OP supplied. I'm curious if it
    makes any sense.


    Regards,

    Kees.

    --
    Kees Theunissen.

  7. Re: Email server problem


    Well, I was wondering when the spammers would get around to it.

    On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, +Alan Hicks+ wrote:

    > Seriously, take a look at postfix for a solid, easily configured mail
    > server. The documentation is great, and you can get SlackBuild scripts


    For that mater, look at Exim and Qmail as well.

    If you are going to spam that an MTA is better, how about you prove why
    its better, somthing nobody has been able to do yet, since postfix
    basically copies everything sendmail does anyway, also postfixes
    implimentation of the sendmail (look-ahead|milter-ahead|smd-sav) milter,
    fails dismally under heavy use.


    --

    Cheers
    Res

  8. Re: Email server problem

    On 2007-10-09, Res wrote:
    >
    > Well, I was wondering when the spammers would get around to it.
    >
    > On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, +Alan Hicks+ wrote:
    >
    >> Seriously, take a look at postfix for a solid, easily configured mail
    >> server. The documentation is great, and you can get SlackBuild scripts

    >
    > For that mater, look at Exim and Qmail as well.
    >
    > If you are going to spam that an MTA is better,


    I see no mention in Alan's post about postfix being better than any
    other MTA.

    Qmail is an utter disaster from a configuration and maintenance
    standpoint. I'd suggest against it for anyone except my enemies.

    --keith

    --
    kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
    (try just my userid to email me)
    AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
    see X- headers for PGP signature information


  9. Re: Email server problem

    On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Keith Keller wrote:

    >> If you are going to spam that an MTA is better,

    >
    > I see no mention in Alan's post about postfix being better than any
    > other MTA.
    >


    IMHO thats what he was doing, the OP says he is using MTA a, why
    should anyone say 'check out MTA b', its like posting on this list and
    saying we should check out SuSE or ****dora.

    > Qmail is an utter disaster from a configuration and maintenance
    > standpoint. I'd suggest against it for anyone except my enemies.


    on its own, yes, but it is powerfull with a few patches and has its place,
    especially for those in large hosting arenas or ISP's with millions and
    millions of customers, Qmail/Vpopmail combo is far superior performer
    then Sendmail/Cyrus(2) and postfix's implimentation, disastor recovery is
    so simple my 12yo nephew could do it.

    Its only set back in djb is an arrogant prick , and has not maintained
    it, its reliance upon others to supply modern day patching, many large
    ISP/ASP/OSP's around the world still use it, and probably always will.
    I don't use B.Shupps or JMS's patches, I took netqmail and got the
    other patches I want that do much the same sort of thing, and work from
    there, and remember, when djb wrote qmail, spam was something you went to
    a supermarket to buy and eat.

    --

    Cheers
    Res

  10. Re: Email server problem

    On 2007-10-10, Res wrote:
    > On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Keith Keller wrote:
    >
    >>> If you are going to spam that an MTA is better,

    >>
    >> I see no mention in Alan's post about postfix being better than any
    >> other MTA.
    >>

    >
    > IMHO thats what he was doing, the OP says he is using MTA a, why
    > should anyone say 'check out MTA b', its like posting on this list and
    > saying we should check out SuSE or ****dora.


    Not really, but you're welcome to your own opinion. Some software is
    more suited to certain environments. Some people just grok some
    software better than others. I certainly wouldn't claim that postfix is
    better than sendmail (or vice versa), but I understand postfix better
    than sendmail. Other admins understand sendmail better. The person who
    said he's using MTA a might try MTA b and decide for himself which he
    prefers.

    --keith



    --
    kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
    (try just my userid to email me)
    AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
    see X- headers for PGP signature information


  11. Re: Email server problem

    On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Keith Keller wrote:

    >> IMHO thats what he was doing, the OP says he is using MTA a, why
    >> should anyone say 'check out MTA b', its like posting on this list and
    >> saying we should check out SuSE or ****dora.

    >
    > Not really, but you're welcome to your own opinion. Some software is
    > more suited to certain environments. Some people just grok some
    > software better than others. I certainly wouldn't claim that postfix is
    > better than sendmail (or vice versa), but I understand postfix better
    > than sendmail. Other admins understand sendmail better. The person who
    > said he's using MTA a might try MTA b and decide for himself which he
    > prefers.


    Hence my comment he should then try Exim and Qmail even, if you are saying
    to someone try another MTA, then in fairness you should try all other
    MTA's.

    --

    Cheers
    Res

  12. Re: Email server problem

    On 2007-10-09, Res wrote:
    > Well, I was wondering when the spammers would get around to it.
    >
    > For that mater, look at Exim and Qmail as well.
    >
    > If you are going to spam that an MTA is better, how about you prove why
    > its better, somthing nobody has been able to do yet, since postfix
    > basically copies everything sendmail does anyway, also postfixes
    > implimentation of the sendmail (look-ahead|milter-ahead|smd-sav) milter,
    > fails dismally under heavy use.


    I believe this is the first time I've ever been accused of "spamming"
    anywhere. Accusing me of spamming this group because I recommended a
    particular MTA in one single post is patently ridiculous.

    As for why it's better? I recommend it because it's sane and easy to
    setup. The documentation is without par in the MTA world, and
    installing it is a breeze with the SlackBuild script I personally
    wrote for it.

    I have only barely touched exim, but I've used qmail enough to know
    that it's a nightmare to admin. Friends don't let friends use qmail.
    Sure, some big ISPs use qmail, but others use sendmail and other use
    Exchange. I'm sure you'll find some running postfix or exim as well.

    From my experience with MTAs, postfix is almost certainly the best fit
    for the OP's needs, and that is why I recommended it. Perhaps you
    should take the chip off your shoulder and stop seeing threats or (as
    you put it) spam whenever some one doesn't recommend your pet favorite
    application?

    --
    It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
    Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
    Ecclesiastes 7:5

  13. Re: Email server problem

    On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, +Alan Hicks+ wrote:

    > I believe this is the first time I've ever been accused of "spamming"
    > anywhere. Accusing me of spamming this group because I recommended a
    > particular MTA in one single post is patently ridiculous.


    The OP never asked is there an alternative MTA, and the only people trying
    to ram any MTA down anyones throats are postfix users, and normally only a
    small minority but always the same people, you don't see other MTA users
    coming out and saying this do you? I have banned a few of them from some
    lists, because it gets beyond a joke.

    > As for why it's better? I recommend it because it's sane and easy to
    > setup. The documentation is without par in the MTA world, and


    As many find the same about Sendmail, Exim and Qmail

    its a personal choice and no one has the right to try ram our own
    preferences down other peoples throats, it would have been totally
    different if the OP asked for opinions on alternative MTA's but he did
    not.

    > I have only barely touched Exim, but I've used Qmail enough to know
    > that it's a nightmare to admin. Friends don't let friends use Qmail.


    Thats a cop out, Qmail is not that bad once you understand it, just like
    anything once you take the time to understand it.

    > Sure, some big ISP's use Qmail, but others use sendmail and other use
    > Exchange. I'm sure you'll find some running postfix or Exim as well.


    I don't know any ISP that uses exchange . but I'm sure there is some
    small backyard garage operators with 50 customers that might.

    >
    > From my experience with MTA's, postfix is almost certainly the best fit
    > for the OP's needs, and that is why I recommended it. Perhaps you
    > should take the chip off your shoulder and stop seeing threats or (as
    > you put it) spam whenever some one doesn't recommend your pet favorite
    > application?


    errr we have some postfix servers, we have a mixture of servers, postfix
    is no better or easier than Sendmail, but I took the time to understand
    all the mentioned MTA's (to ensure I'm using what's most suited for us)
    not just jump on the spammers bandwagons of anti-sendmail traits.

    We have started replacing our front line Qmail boxes with Sendmail
    (because Qmail is a lot of work to get modern front door style
    protections in place that compare to MTA's like Sendmail or postfix),
    who then pass off to one of a couple Qmail servers which are basically
    mail gateways (along with mail DB's etc) to the NetApps, it works
    fantastic, the front boxes take care of all the real work.

    We tried postfix as well but it fails miserably under this loading with
    its inbuilt recipient lookup where Sendmail's milter, using smf-sav (in
    recipient lookup mode only) does not even raise a sweat, infact Wietse
    himself I recall saying its not designed for high volume work (probably
    because he would rather have you change to his VD method)


    --

    Cheers
    Res


  14. Re: Email server problem

    On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Res wrote:


    > mail gateways (along with mail DB's etc) to the NetApps, it works
    > fantastic, the front boxes take care of all the real work.


    I also forgot to mention, for redundancy and load balancing, we can have 8
    Sendmail front-line boxes to 1 Qmail box, could possibly run more if we
    needed to.

    >> We tried postfix as well but it fails miserably under this loading with

    > its inbuilt recipient lookup where Sendmail's milter, using smf-sav (in


    Because of this failure, I'd probably get postfix all working happily if
    I threw in 16 or 24 to 1


    --

    Cheers
    Res

  15. Re: Email server problem

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    This is the last I'll argue with you. You seem intent on finding fault
    in anything for the sake fo finding fault with some one else. That is
    simply foolish.

    On 2007-10-10, Res wrote:
    >> I believe this is the first time I've ever been accused of "spamming"
    >> anywhere. Accusing me of spamming this group because I recommended a
    >> particular MTA in one single post is patently ridiculous.

    >
    > The OP never asked is there an alternative MTA, and the only people trying
    > to ram any MTA down anyones throats are postfix users, and normally only a
    > small minority but always the same people, you don't see other MTA users
    > coming out and saying this do you? I have banned a few of them from some
    > lists, because it gets beyond a joke.


    I far from rammed anything down anyone's throat. The OP obviously
    didn't know what he was doing with sendmail, so I simply recommended an
    easier alternative. There is nothing wrong with that, and frankly your
    comments to that border on trolling.

    >> As for why it's better? I recommend it because it's sane and easy to
    >> setup. The documentation is without par in the MTA world, and

    >
    > As many find the same about Sendmail, Exim and Qmail


    Please. Qmail is horribly documented. Hundreds if not thousands of
    patches are floating around the net, and the way those patches interact
    with one another is hardly straightforward. Sendmail has lots of
    documentation, but much of it is difficult to understand. I have no
    real experience with Exim to comment on that.

    > its a personal choice and no one has the right to try ram our own
    > preferences down other peoples throats


    Apparently some one changed the definition of recommendation to
    "ramming down a throat". You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
    Seriously, this is the exact quote:

    Seriously, take a look at postfix for a solid, easily configured mail
    server. The documentation is great, and you can get SlackBuild scripts
    for 11.0 and 12.0 from http://www.slackbuilds.org.

    Given that the OP had no grasp of what was going on with sendmail, I
    see no problem in offering an alternative that might be easier for him
    to grok. Apparently, you see that as some sort of attack. How
    simple-minded.

    >> I have only barely touched Exim, but I've used Qmail enough to know
    >> that it's a nightmare to admin. Friends don't let friends use Qmail.

    >
    > Thats a cop out, Qmail is not that bad once you understand it, just like
    > anything once you take the time to understand it.


    I've taken the time to understand it, and I can say with a straight
    face and all seriousness that qmail sucks big time. Sure you can make
    it do whatever you want it to do, but the amount of time required for
    that, the amount of aggrivation, the long list of patches and patches,
    the poor configuration utilities, and other problems you're sure to
    come across, it's just not worth it.

    - --
    It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
    Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
    Ecclesiastes 7:5
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHDkfarZS6hX/gvjoRAl0eAJsGZ5tTel1kDdyJ96Qc4uXZRd4mNQCeK2nG
    WYmCLSZvv0/4gxz70c9eIg0=
    =iB8W
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  16. Re: Email server problem

    On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, +Alan Hicks+ wrote:

    >> The OP never asked is there an alternative MTA, and the only people trying
    >> to ram any MTA down anyones throats are postfix users, and normally only a
    >> small minority but always the same people, you don't see other MTA users
    >> coming out and saying this do you? I have banned a few of them from some
    >> lists, because it gets beyond a joke.

    >
    > I far from rammed anything down anyone's throat. The OP obviously
    > didn't know what he was doing with sendmail, so I simply recommended an
    > easier alternative. There is nothing wrong with that, and frankly your
    > comments to that border on trolling.


    Ahh "I dont like you picking on me so you are a troll".. right... now I
    know where you come from and again you cant say any MTA is easier than
    another, because you apparently dont understand them all equally as well.

    >> As many find the same about Sendmail, Exim and Qmail

    >
    > Please. Qmail is horribly documented. Hundreds if not thousands of


    Eh? you obviously dont know how to read the web site or use google.

    > patches are floating around the net, and the way those patches interact


    thousands my ass, theres only a handful, and you only need basic patching,
    the toaster patch (which I dont use) is most popular and contains all hte
    good stuff

    > with one another is hardly straightforward. Sendmail has lots of
    > documentation, but much of it is difficult to understand. I have no


    I agreesome of it could be dummied down for people who don't know how to
    take advantage of its advanced capabilities, for the average person, they
    will never need to know most of it.

    (not repasting your spam) but again it might be easier forYOU, thats is in
    YOUR opinion and yours only.


    I notice you didn't comment on how useless postfix's internal recipient
    lookup is, or maybe you dont run anything more than a standalone box with
    a few local users, not responsible for a mail network contained hundreds
    of thousands, where you cant do it on one machine.

    Your tripe reminds me of the local sedan (postfix) V SUV (Sendmail), they
    both get you around town, but once you hit the offroad the sedan is useless.

    --

    Cheers
    Res


  17. Re: Email server problem

    On 2007-10-11, Res wrote:
    >
    > I notice you didn't comment on how useless postfix's internal recipient
    > lookup is, or maybe you dont run anything more than a standalone box with
    > a few local users, not responsible for a mail network contained hundreds
    > of thousands, where you cant do it on one machine.


    Perhaps not. Not everybody can be as super-important as you make
    yourself out to be. It doesn't sound like the OP is running a mail
    network containing hundreds of thousands of users; if he were, he'd
    probably know about Qmail by now (and if he didn't, that'd be grounds
    for firing him).

    > Your tripe reminds me of the local sedan (postfix) V SUV (Sendmail), they
    > both get you around town, but once you hit the offroad the sedan is useless.


    If you never go offroad, the SUV is overkill.

    Get over it already! Perhaps you're not trolling, but you sure sound
    like you're whinging over nothing.

    --keith

    --
    kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
    (try just my userid to email me)
    AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
    see X- headers for PGP signature information


  18. Re: Email server problem

    On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Keith Keller wrote:

    > yourself out to be. It doesn't sound like the OP is running a mail
    > network containing hundreds of thousands of users; if he were, he'd
    > probably know about Qmail by now (and if he didn't, that'd be grounds
    > for firing him).


    More to the point, the person who hired him should join him in that
    direction

    >> Your tripe reminds me of the local sedan (postfix) V SUV (Sendmail), they
    >> both get you around town, but once you hit the offroad the sedan is useless.

    >
    > If you never go offroad, the SUV is overkill.


    you aint seen some of the roads around here, and thats just the bitumen
    ones, let alone the dirt ones

    --

    Cheers
    Res

+ Reply to Thread