Date: Wed, 26 Nov 97 08:23:20 EST From: Snuffles@kew.com Subject: UUPC-Info-Request Digest 1997 #20 To: uupc-info-digest@kew.com Message-ID: Reply-To: UUPC-Info-Request@kew.com UUPC-Info-Request Digest Wed, 26 Nov 97 Volume 1997: Issue 20 Today's Topics: RMAIL Headers this is a test. UUPC/extended 1.12t -- UUSMTPD UUPC security problem? (3 msgs) To subscribe to UUPC-Info-Digest, send the command in the body of a message to listserv@kew.com: subscribe uupc-info-Digest To signoff from UUPC-Info-Digest, use "signoff" instead of "subscribe". You can also send an "index" to the listserv to get an index of back issues and other files available for retrieval. Note: Questions on UUPC/extended itself which are not of general interest should be sent to help@kew.com, not to the mailing list. Nor questions should be posted on Usenet, we don't read it. (Much.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 08:17:35 -0500 From: Drew Derbyshire Subject: To: Sysop Turn on trace with -t and look in linedata.log, I bet you have a bad password (or need to send the userid/password in one string with carriage return in the middle). Sysop wrote: > > Received: from queen.momeraths.org ( [192.168.2.4] ) by alice > (Hethmon Brothers Smtpd) ; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 00:04:49 EST5EDT > From: MarchHare@momeraths.org (Sysop) > To: uupc-info@kew.com > Subject: TCP/IP again > Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 00:00:46 -0500 > Organization: Mome Raths BBS > Message-ID: <+tle00E6ARCP092yn@momeraths.org> > Lines: 46 > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > OK, modem problems I can usually figure out. However, this has me > puzzled. I setup to call a site via TCP/IP, I put the entry into the > SYSTEMS, PERMISSN and SYS files. I tell the SYSTEMS file to use > TCPIP.MDM. However, here is what I get: > > 11/24-23:39 uucico: UUPC/extended 1.12s (May 18 1997 12:28:13) > 11/24-23:39 callup: Connecting to aldhfn via TCPIP on Mon Nov 24 23:39:30 1997 > 11/24-23:39 Connecting to host news.ald.net [198.17.116.20] port 540 > 11/24-23:39 tsread: EOF on recv() > 11/24-23:39 Startup: Timeout for first message > 11/24-23:39 tsread: EOF on recv() > 11/24-23:39 tswrite: Error sending data to socket > 11/24-23:39 send: [10032] Broken pipe > 11/24-23:39 tswrite: Error sending data to socket > 11/24-23:39 send: [10032] Broken pipe > 11/24-23:39 tswrite: Error sending data to socket > 11/24-23:39 send: [10032] Broken pipe > 11/24-23:39 0 files sent, 0 files received, 0 bytes sent, 0 bytes received > 11/24-23:39 0 packets transferred, 0 errors, connection time 0:06, 0 bytes/second > 11/24-23:39 Could not connect to remote system. > > I can telnet in to the machine via port 540 and get the Shere prompt, > however. Any ideas? > > John > - -- > //------------------------------------------------------------------------ > // momerath@apk.net sevot yhtils eht dna ,gillirb sawT` > // MarchHare@momeraths.org ebaw eht ni elbmig dna eryg diD > // ,sevogorob eht erew ysmim llA > // .ebargtuo shtar emom eht dnA > // In case of stupidity, break glass. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: 2.6.3a > Charset: cp850 > > iQCVAwUBNHpcXLMHJ4yl8MPNAQFKyQP/fw5QTxK6nF9/kR3fRySC3gQdjsTLtsGw > 8pZifLmZXK9A7INGWQL+UFHt1nsmOVRaNGXelsaFaAZruIVAESnSe6WIeH6kOuMM > k/mZQOOlDvt2eQVzRWY0952RxO5nP21eW7xZSMZ3tKX4s8B58ESEipKBBaJySn/3 > 2bTZyzgBU3Q= > =Rt9X > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Internet: ahd@kew.com Voice: 781-279-9812 "Who are these men of lust, greed, and glory?" - Supertramp ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 20:50:30 -0500 From: MarchHare@momeraths.org (Sysop) Subject: RMAIL Headers To: uupc-info@kew.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I finally gave up and put "unknown" into the alias file. Unfortunately, that means that I, the postmaster, will now receive all bounced mail. Why, do you ask? I have a SMTP/POP3 server that services the LAN/BBS. It spools outgoing mail faithfully into a directory that can be picked up by RMAIL. Local mail, however, is delivered by the server itself. While I could rig up something to change this behavior, it means that users have to wait for local mail until the cron job kicks off. Not terrible, I suppose, but highly inefficient. So, the problem, then, is getting RMAIL to deliver, in an acceptable manner, all outgoing mail without duplicating local mail. Since RMAIL is multi-talented :), I have tried all three combinations: 1. RMAIL -t: Unacceptable, since it duplicates local mail. However, it does generate correct headers. 2. RMAIL -w recipients: Terribly broken headers, which is evidenced by my last mailings to this very list. Doesn't duplicate local mail. 3. RMAIL recipients: Doesn't duplicate local mail. Only creates OK headers if the mail does not bounce. For example, the third alternative produces this header in a test message: - From mome!unknown Tue Nov 25 20:39:24 1997 remote from momeraths Received: from mome by momeraths.org (UUPC/extended 1.12s) with UUCP for john.carmack@bellhow.com; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 20:39:24 -0500 Received: from queen.momeraths.org ( [192.168.2.4] ) by alice (Hethmon Brothers Smtpd) ; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 20:38:03 EST5EDT From: MarchHare@momeraths.org (Sysop) To: john.carmack@bellhow.com Cc: marchhare ... There are actually a couple of problems with the above, both dealing with the "mome!unknown" portion. The most annoying is the "unknown", as this is what will happen with bounced mail: Mail is sent. Mail is bounced. Mail comes back. UUCP looks for user "unknown", and sends it back out again. And, so on. However, it does look like I can get it to do the correct thing if I tweak the outgoing file, correct? It appears that RMAIL looks for a - From line to parse before doing any processing? Would that cause any potential problems? Would I put the SMTP/POP server on the From line, or the UUCP node name? The other part of this that bothers me is that I recently changed providers. The gateway's uuname is no longer "mome", and I even checked by typing it in at a command prompt, "uuname -d". It appears, instead, to be using the "MailExt" defined in UUPC.RC. When both the node name and the mail extension were the same, this wasn't a big deal. Now, it just looks wrong. I'm worried that this could cause some routing problems somewhere along the line. John - -- //------------------------------------------------------------------------ // momerath@apk.net sevot yhtils eht dna ,gillirb sawT` // MarchHare@momeraths.org ebaw eht ni elbmig dna eryg diD // ,sevogorob eht erew ysmim llA // .ebargtuo shtar emom eht dnA // In case of stupidity, break glass. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 iQCVAwUBNHuLE7MHJ4yl8MPNAQGWHwQAn/XQX/3+b+oWM3eIggq2pUxoCJPIMNV4 Sr5MDIKnNbWpZT8bAFUIDyaKu4r/OnljA+/kYHJElOkCbzlR5NcjfwGFIXl3sDVS Uz5GAnDOAja7YwZg0hKOIZ7Y9BuwmRm1WBJgTiYQnDQ0FscmNorCuDe74cN1LTS3 iKAmWX3p55g= =GvFw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: 25 Nov 97 23:39:00 -0800 From: Slash-X@dec.canbbs.net (Slash-X) Subject: this is a test. To: uupc-info@kew.com one person only please reply to this message i am just testing this out as i am new to a newsgroup sending mail to my email... thanx ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 00:00:58 -0500 From: Drew Derbyshire Subject: UUPC/extended 1.12t -- UUSMTPD To: UUPC-Info Mailing List A partial release, labeled as UUPC/extended 1.12t, is available immediately for testing via our FTP server. ftp.kew.com, directory pub/1.12t for Windows NT and source ONLY. It has not been loaded to the listserv, and I do not expect it to be since it will be superceded with a full release after testing. The primary change in this release is the addition of the brand new program uusmtpd. This program provides a native UUPC/extended SMTP server coupled to the existing mail delivery engine used by RMAIL. It has been tested with netscape and sendmail 8.8. The program is fairly complete for LAN use and low profile Internet use, but lacking anti-SPAM (including third party relaying blocking) and resource limiting (size/number of connections) for primary inbound Internet mail relay use. Internally, the daemon is a single threaded multi-client design, meaning it accepts multiple connections as required and services the ready clients (skipping the others) in a round robin fashion. The server framework, TCP/IP network, and SMTP protocol components are sufficiently encapsulated that it will be possible to quickly use the same server components to build a batch SMTP program (by replacing the network module with a file I/O module) or a POP3 server (by replacing the SMTP protocol layer with a POP3 layer). I am interested to know if parties have a need for either of these functions. The daemon is invoked with just its command name and the standard UUPC/extended option of a debug level: uusmtpd -x 2 for example. It runs until you hit control-break. You must setup other SMTP clients to point at this server to use it; such setup (via MX records and/or Internet browser setup) is beyomd the scope of this annoucement letter. [This message, if you look carefully at the headers, was sent via the UUSMTPD; it went from Netscape to SMTP to UUCP and hence on the mail hub, pandora, which exploded the mailing lists] The other environments have not been built in part because our 32 bit OS/2 build environment is DOA (our file server runs Warp, but it doesn't want to run the bitrotting FirstStep C/C++ compiler). I've begun installing Watcom C/C++, but the makefile rules appear to be a little different, and so the file needs tuning. If you have a valid C compiler for OS/2 which has built previous UUPC/extended releases, it should build the new release (including UUSMTPD) with no problem, but I have not tested this -- I am interested in your results. UUSMTPD is NOT expected to be supported under Windows 3.1; I shudder to think of the resource usage of it and stability issues. A full release should follow within the next week or so, as I clean up the SMTP server, a few high priority trivial bugs, and get the other environments built. A new release of the documents is also provided with the release, but this editing is lagging the changes; the SMTP changes (including the 1.12s RMAIL changes) are NOT in the documents. As always, direct questions to help@kew.com. -- Internet: ahd@kew.com Voice: 781-279-9812 "Who are these men of lust, greed, and glory?" - Supertramp ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 12:32:11 -0500 From: MarchHare@momeraths.org (Sysop) Subject: UUPC security problem? To: uupc-info@kew.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sun, 23 Nov 97 00:11:47 +0100, hajo@quijote.Huellhorst.Zierke.com (Hans-Joachim Zierke) wrote: > >If I send mail to @terra.xs4all.nl:eric.I.crash.your.site.now > >the smtp server will correctly route it to the uucp login, the smtp/uucp >gate will correctly route it to Eric, it will write a correct D-xyexample >file and a nearly fine X-xyexample file. So, we are talking about the new SMTP stuff that is in 1.12s, correct? >But the X-xyexample file, that is delivered to Eric and resolved by his >UUPC uuxqt, will have a line > >C rmail > >instead of > >C rmail
Ouch! The way I read 821 is that the gateway _should_ be writing the last line. Specifically, This command is used to initiate a mail transaction in which the mail data is delivered to one or more mailboxes. The argument field contains a reverse-path. The reverse-path consists of an optional list of hosts and the sender mailbox.... This command is used to identify an individual recipient of the mail data; multiple recipients are specified by multiple use of this command. The forward-path consists of an optional list of hosts and a required destination mailbox.... [several more examples] So, it should be stripping off the "@terra.xs4all.nl:" portion of the address,putting it into the Return path and then writing "rmail eric.I.crash.your.site.now" into the X-file. It doesn't say anything about throwing away any of the address, but, rather, moving portions of it into the reverse-path line. I guess what is confusing me is the statement that UUPC does not understand the source path routing. In a sense, that is true, because it is going into rmail. However, the SMTP process doesn't appear to be writing the correct line. So, are we talking about the sending SMTP machine or the UUPC SMTP-enabled client that is writing the line? I can understand how it would crash the machine, and it appears that UUPC should do more checking, but then what? If it is not the SMTP-enabled UUPC client creating the line, then what do you do with the mail? The To: line of the message is not always the actual recipient of the mail (a mailing list, for example). The Return path can be time-consuming to parse. Do you just bounce it? :) Sorry for all of these questions, but I'm about to make a change in my setup that, theoretically, could lead to similar problems. I'm already gritting my teeth and bracing for the worst. John - -- //------------------------------------------------------------------------ // momerath@apk.net sevot yhtils eht dna ,gillirb sawT` // MarchHare@momeraths.org ebaw eht ni elbmig dna eryg diD // ,sevogorob eht erew ysmim llA // .ebargtuo shtar emom eht dnA // In case of stupidity, break glass. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 iQCVAwUBNHhz87MHJ4yl8MPNAQHjrAQAgNI5f5/2pN1B2hDe/3r7qLtZL3GCMSfP SE+cWg5NHgOo37eDqOdgU0hEeyoA4vdUCyaEARfMulRE/WPlrkV0NGsjka0XlmSS qtRuIZF0S775C6mBRT92cPBTisP7PwjhC+L1Vr+p2QjLfLHiwwKJ//NgoTWdvM+1 SEVp/SdVAcs= =pEBV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 18:18:43 -0500 From: Drew Derbyshire Subject: UUPC security problem? To: Sysop First off, UUPC/extended handles source routing without crashing: [SONATA,23:17:43,G:\SRC\UUPC] mail @toto.pn.com:ahd@sun.soe.clarkson.edu mail: UUPC/extended 1.12t (Windows 32 bit mode, 23Nov97 22:13) [debug enabled] Subject: sample Abort, Continue, Edit, List, or Send? Send Cc: rmail: UUPC/extended 1.12t (Windows 32 bit mode, 23Nov97 22:13) [debug enabled] Spooling mail from ahd@kew.com to @toto.pn.com:ahd@sun.soe.clarkson.edu via kew-pandora [SONATA,18:08:18,G:\SRC\UUPC] uucico uucico: UUPC/extended 1.12t (Windows 32 bit mode, 23Nov97 22:13) [debug enabled] callup: Connecting to kew-pandora via TCPIP on Mon Nov 24 18:08:23 1997 Connecting to host pandora.hh.kew.com [192.195.203.139] port 540 kew-sonata connected to kew-pandora: network link, e protocol, z grade Sending "D.kew-son09DPd" (kew-pand/D/'fh9kp2) as "D.kew-son09DPr" Sending "D.kew-son09DPe" (kew-pand/D/'fh9kp3) as "X.kew-son09DPr" 2 files sent, 0 files received, 1071 bytes sent, 15 bytes received 13 packets transferred, 0 errors, connection time 0:05, 217 bytes/second I also did a similar in bound test. The unknown mailer on the remote system is screwing up. I have asked three times what the mailer is, and gotton no response. So PLEASE stop saying UUPC/extended cannot handle source routing. Second, RMAIL does NOT crash if handled no arguments. It prints a usage message and exits. I suspect UUXQT may fail in unexpected ways if rmail has no arguments (uuxqt pre-processes the arguments); I will add a check to prevent this. -ahd- Sysop wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > On Sun, 23 Nov 97 00:11:47 +0100, hajo@quijote.Huellhorst.Zierke.com (Hans-Joachim Zierke) wrote: > > > >If I send mail to @terra.xs4all.nl:eric.I.crash.your.site.now > > > >the smtp server will correctly route it to the uucp login, the smtp/uucp > >gate will correctly route it to Eric, it will write a correct D-xyexample > >file and a nearly fine X-xyexample file. > > So, we are talking about the new SMTP stuff that is in 1.12s, correct? > > >But the X-xyexample file, that is delivered to Eric and resolved by his > >UUPC uuxqt, will have a line > > > >C rmail > > > >instead of > > > >C rmail
> > Ouch! The way I read 821 is that the gateway _should_ be writing the > last line. Specifically, > > This command is used to initiate a mail transaction in which > the mail data is delivered to one or more mailboxes. The > argument field contains a reverse-path. > > The reverse-path consists of an optional list of hosts and > the sender mailbox.... > > This command is used to identify an individual recipient of > the mail data; multiple recipients are specified by multiple > use of this command. > > The forward-path consists of an optional list of hosts and a > required destination mailbox.... > > [several more examples] > > So, it should be stripping off the "@terra.xs4all.nl:" portion of the > address,putting it into the Return path and then writing "rmail > eric.I.crash.your.site.now" into the X-file. It doesn't say anything > about throwing away any of the address, but, rather, moving portions of > it into the reverse-path line. > > I guess what is confusing me is the statement that UUPC does not > understand the source path routing. In a sense, that is true, > because it is going into rmail. However, the SMTP process doesn't > appear to be writing the correct line. So, are we talking about the > sending SMTP machine or the UUPC SMTP-enabled client that is writing > the line? > > I can understand how it would crash the machine, and it appears that > UUPC should do more checking, but then what? If it is not the > SMTP-enabled UUPC client creating the line, then what do you do with the > mail? The To: line of the message is not always the actual recipient of > the mail (a mailing list, for example). The Return path can be > time-consuming to parse. Do you just bounce it? :) > > Sorry for all of these questions, but I'm about to make a change in my > setup that, theoretically, could lead to similar problems. I'm already > gritting my teeth and bracing for the worst. > > John > - -- > //------------------------------------------------------------------------ > // momerath@apk.net sevot yhtils eht dna ,gillirb sawT` > // MarchHare@momeraths.org ebaw eht ni elbmig dna eryg diD > // ,sevogorob eht erew ysmim llA > // .ebargtuo shtar emom eht dnA > // In case of stupidity, break glass. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: 2.6.3a > Charset: cp850 > > iQCVAwUBNHhz87MHJ4yl8MPNAQHjrAQAgNI5f5/2pN1B2hDe/3r7qLtZL3GCMSfP > SE+cWg5NHgOo37eDqOdgU0hEeyoA4vdUCyaEARfMulRE/WPlrkV0NGsjka0XlmSS > qtRuIZF0S775C6mBRT92cPBTisP7PwjhC+L1Vr+p2QjLfLHiwwKJ//NgoTWdvM+1 > SEVp/SdVAcs= > =pEBV > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Internet: ahd@kew.com Voice: 781-279-9812 "if you you're lost . . . I will be waiting, time after time" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 97 21:09:27 +0100 From: hajo@quijote.Huellhorst.Zierke.com (Hans-Joachim Zierke) Subject: UUPC security problem? To: uupc-info@kew.com MarchHare@momeraths.org (Sysop) schrieb am 23. 11. 97: >>the smtp server will correctly route it to the uucp login, the smtp/uucp >>gate will correctly route it to Eric, it will write a correct D-xyexample >>file and a nearly fine X-xyexample file. >So, we are talking about the new SMTP stuff that is in 1.12s, correct? ??? Why do you think that remote uses UUPC? Not likely... >Ouch! The way I read 821 is that the gateway _should_ be writing the last >line. Sure. My suggestion was, that it shouldn't be possible to shoot down UUPC with a missing parameter from remote. >I guess what is confusing me is the statement that UUPC does not understand >the source path routing. Who did write that? hajo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 20:14:17 -0500 From: "Sysop" To: uupc-info@kew.com Received: from queen.momeraths.org ( [192.168.2.4] ) by alice (Hethmon Brothers Smtpd) ; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 20:11:32 EST5EDT From: MarchHare@momeraths.org (Sysop) To: ahd@kew.com Cc: MarchHare@momeraths.org, uupc-info@kew.com Subject: Re: your mail Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 19:53:36 -0500 Organization: Mome Raths BBS Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <347ACFEF.C4D994A5@kew.com> Lines: 40 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Tue, 25 Nov 1997 08:17:35 -0500, Drew Derbyshire wrote: >Turn on trace with -t and look in linedata.log, I bet you have a bad >password (or need to send the userid/password in one string with carriage >return in the middle). You are very close. Just in case anyone else tries to migrate from modem-only to TCP/IP, you will probably have to dump the beginning null strings, e.g.: Change "" "" --ogin:--ogin:--ogin to - --ogin:--ogin:--ogin: >Sysop wrote: >> >> Received: from queen.momeraths.org ( [192.168.2.4] ) by alice >> (Hethmon Brothers Smtpd) ; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 00:04:49 EST5EDT >> From: MarchHare@momeraths.org (Sysop) Oh, my. Broken headers. John - -- //------------------------------------------------------------------------ // momerath@apk.net sevot yhtils eht dna ,gillirb sawT` // MarchHare@momeraths.org ebaw eht ni elbmig dna eryg diD // ,sevogorob eht erew ysmim llA // .ebargtuo shtar emom eht dnA // In case of stupidity, break glass. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 iQCVAwUBNHt0JbMHJ4yl8MPNAQFFRAQAnDpbSN5RBURkK5ifXBU3nrvpkdMUHzYF s3s1QN0VNqEtRKUsGXPFENllsoyQYGXen8TOm1mK8PE2f18N/8Y2dqqSjndtis+8 4+XM1Kwr5yz0tgldVTKx1+Qc4U2399nmUL/tsv4W9VBzZwYHB+mqay3XbgeIHNRP GWt+tqBDAC0= =Wen2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 00:06:38 -0500 From: "Sysop" To: uupc-info@kew.com Received: from queen.momeraths.org ( [192.168.2.4] ) by alice (Hethmon Brothers Smtpd) ; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 00:04:49 EST5EDT From: MarchHare@momeraths.org (Sysop) To: uupc-info@kew.com Subject: TCP/IP again Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 00:00:46 -0500 Organization: Mome Raths BBS Message-ID: <+tle00E6ARCP092yn@momeraths.org> Lines: 46 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- OK, modem problems I can usually figure out. However, this has me puzzled. I setup to call a site via TCP/IP, I put the entry into the SYSTEMS, PERMISSN and SYS files. I tell the SYSTEMS file to use TCPIP.MDM. However, here is what I get: 11/24-23:39 uucico: UUPC/extended 1.12s (May 18 1997 12:28:13) 11/24-23:39 callup: Connecting to aldhfn via TCPIP on Mon Nov 24 23:39:30 1997 11/24-23:39 Connecting to host news.ald.net [198.17.116.20] port 540 11/24-23:39 tsread: EOF on recv() 11/24-23:39 Startup: Timeout for first message 11/24-23:39 tsread: EOF on recv() 11/24-23:39 tswrite: Error sending data to socket 11/24-23:39 send: [10032] Broken pipe 11/24-23:39 tswrite: Error sending data to socket 11/24-23:39 send: [10032] Broken pipe 11/24-23:39 tswrite: Error sending data to socket 11/24-23:39 send: [10032] Broken pipe 11/24-23:39 0 files sent, 0 files received, 0 bytes sent, 0 bytes received 11/24-23:39 0 packets transferred, 0 errors, connection time 0:06, 0 bytes/second 11/24-23:39 Could not connect to remote system. I can telnet in to the machine via port 540 and get the Shere prompt, however. Any ideas? John - -- //------------------------------------------------------------------------ // momerath@apk.net sevot yhtils eht dna ,gillirb sawT` // MarchHare@momeraths.org ebaw eht ni elbmig dna eryg diD // ,sevogorob eht erew ysmim llA // .ebargtuo shtar emom eht dnA // In case of stupidity, break glass. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 iQCVAwUBNHpcXLMHJ4yl8MPNAQFKyQP/fw5QTxK6nF9/kR3fRySC3gQdjsTLtsGw 8pZifLmZXK9A7INGWQL+UFHt1nsmOVRaNGXelsaFaAZruIVAESnSe6WIeH6kOuMM k/mZQOOlDvt2eQVzRWY0952RxO5nP21eW7xZSMZ3tKX4s8B58ESEipKBBaJySn/3 2bTZyzgBU3Q= =Rt9X -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ End of UUPC-Info-Request Digest ******************************