Comcast to Block Port 25?The crackdown may finally be at hand... ( old news - 01:36PM Wednesday Jun 09 2004) tags: cable · spamComcast, the nation's largest cable provider and self-proclaimed "biggest spammer on the internet", may finally begin "targeted" blocking of some users' outgoing port 25/tcp traffic to help reduce spam, according to discussion in our Comcast forum. The tactic, discussed at length in a previous BBR report, has grown in popularity among ISP's; particularly with the increase of infected PC's acting as unwitting spam relays. Port 25/tcp is used for SMTP, the outgoing mail protocol, and blocking outgoing traffic prevents users from sending outgoing mail via any third party mail-hosting services. The only problem we've seen with the tactic is when ISP's don't announce the changes clearly; forcing many users to suddenly bombard their ISP (and our forums) with questions about getting third-party mail to function properly. Users of our "DSLR mail" can check out this FAQ entry to resolve their problem. Earthlink originally caused quite a stir in 2000 with the practice; many users complaining it was simply an effort to prevent home mail servers. Since that time, many ISP's have adopted the tactic for all customers as an effective spam countermeasure. BellSouth users who upgraded to the new 3Mbps tier just recently noticed the company was taking the opportunity to begin blocking all port 25/tcp traffic on those accounts. Why Comcast hadn't been doing this earlier is something that has been baffling our forum regulars, who have been watching the problem get worse for some time. While the company found its IP blocks being blacklisted as millions of spam e-mails poured from its network, it apparently felt that warning letters to users were enough to solve the problem. With a "targeted" approach, Comcast likely plans to block port 25/tcp traffic for only the most egregious offenders. We'll soon see if that's going to be enough.
Related:- Comcast to Use Spamhaus
- Cox Spam Filters Deleting Legit Mail?
- After 10 Years Of Service, Charter Declares Home 'Unserviceable'
- New Comcast Throttling System 100% Online
- Google #4 On Spamhaus Spam Network List
- DOCSIS 3.0 Gets Faster
- Vidéotron Expands DOCSIS 3.0 Service
- Charter Sues Verizon
|
 
sonofjay
Mission Accomplished - Bush May 1, 2003
Premium,MVM
join:2001-05-14
North Attleboro, MA | Killing a fly with a jackhammer Hope it works! | |
|  | kpatz
MY HEAD A SPLODE
Premium
join:2003-06-13
Manchester, NH
edit:
June 9th, @11:41AM
| Re: Killing a fly with a jackhammer What isn't mentioned in the BBR article but is mentioned in the Comcast forum and a CNet article, is that Comcast plans on targeting the blocks toward subscribers that are sending out spam, rather than foisting the blocks on everyone. This way it won't affect the majority of subscribers. After all, there are probably more people out there who legitimately use 3rd party SMTP servers, which would be negatively affected by such a block than there are spamming zombies.
--
Robert Tappan Morris, Jr., got six months in jail for crashing 10% of the computers that Bill Gates made $100 million crashing last weekend. | |
| | | DonLibes
Premium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19
| Re: Killing a fly with a jackhammer said by kpatz  :
What isn't mentioned in the BBR article but is mentioned in the Comcast forum and a CNet article, is that Comcast plans on targeting the blocks toward subscribers that are sending out spam, rather than foisting the blocks on everyone.
How does Comcast's proposed implementation only target subscribers sending out spam? I need to use my employer's SMTP server (Comcast's SMTP server has too many limits on outbound mail plus it's much lower reliability, has long latency, etc.) So would I still be able to use my employer's SMTP server? How would Comcast differentiate? | |
| | | | kpatz
MY HEAD A SPLODE
Premium
join:2003-06-13
Manchester, NH
| Re: Killing a fly with a jackhammer said by DonLibes :
How does Comcast's proposed implementation only target subscribers sending out spam? I need to use my employer's SMTP server (Comcast's SMTP server has too many limits on outbound mail plus it's much lower reliability, has long latency, etc.) So would I still be able to use my employer's SMTP server? How would Comcast differentiate?
I presume they would go by Spamhaus etc. reports and/or abuse complaints, and just block those who are known to have sent large amounts of spam.
Sending legitimate mail to a legitimate 3rd-party server shouldn't get their attention.
--
Robert Tappan Morris, Jr., got six months in jail for crashing 10% of the computers that Bill Gates made $100 million crashing last weekend. | |
| | | | | | | | jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·ViaTalk
| Your employer can (and should) set up an alternate port for you to use, preferably with SMTP-Auth, and you'll have no problems.
I've listened to this debate for months and NO ONE has come up with a convincing argument for permitting outbound port 25 from an ISP's subscriber block. The workarounds are too easy, the benefits too monumental, and the drawbacks are nill.
If people want to run their own SMTP server, pony up the money and pay for an account that supports it.
I'll be curious to see how SPF manages to cause headaches, assuming it ever gets widespread acceptance. If companies don't adopt the alternate port approach, they're going to have a ton of extra work. | |
| | | | | russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| Re: Killing a fly with a jackhammer said by jester121 :
I've listened to this debate for months and NO ONE has come up with a convincing argument for permitting outbound port 25 from an ISP's subscriber block. The workarounds are too easy, the benefits too monumental, and the drawbacks are nill.
The "workarounds" depend on having a machine with a first-class internet account. If you've seen no convincing arguments, it's because you won't accept any arguments. | |
| | | | | | jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
·ViaTalk
| Re: Killing a fly with a jackhammer said by russotto :
The "workarounds" depend on having a machine with a first-class internet account. If you've seen no convincing arguments, it's because you won't accept any arguments.
What is a first-class internet account? I didn't know there were classifications for that, but I'll bite.
The workarounds depend on having a server admin who knows WTF they're doing, who can set up alternate ports for SMTP. Barring that, pay a few bucks a month for a hosting service that will let you send through them.
If you're referring to being prevented from running a server at home as a workaround, then you're way off base -- subscribers who want to run their own servers are already USING a workaround, because they don't want to use Comcast's servers or they like to tinker. | |
| | | | | 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| said by jester121 :
If people want to run their own SMTP server, pony up the money and pay for an account that supports it.
It is not only those who want to run their own server who want to use a SMTP Server other than that of the ISP that is AT THAT TIME providing their connectivity. It is anyone who has a laptop who does not want to have to alter all their MUA settings every time they connect via a different ISP's network. Yes I know about using Port587 to bypass the "Control Freak" blocking of Port 25 but that relies on the 'foreign" ISP supporting this port. I have seen ISPs that block outgoing Port25 (You must use OUR Servers or Port 587 to get to THEIR Server) who then will not allow Port25 OR PORT587 connects to their Internet facing Servers. | |
| | | | | netscape 6
join:2002-03-07
Constantine, MI
| said by jester121 :
If people want to run their own SMTP server, pony up the money and pay for an account that supports it.
How about you pony up the money for them. I mean it's so easy for you spending other peoples money. I figure you should'nt mind me spending yours. | |
| | | | | | jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Re: Killing a fly with a jackhammer Errr... I spend MY money to run MY server. You spend YOUR money to run YOURS. THEY will spend THEIR money to run THEIRS.
Are we 100% clear on this now? | |
| | | | | | | netscape 6
join:2002-03-07
Constantine, MI
| Re: Killing a fly with a jackhammer said by jester121 :
Errr... I spend MY money to run MY server. You spend YOUR money to run YOURS. THEY will spend THEIR money to run THEIRS.
Are we 100% clear on this now?
Well you seem to be so insitent on how they can spend it. Why can't I be insitent on how you spend yours? | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | kpatz
MY HEAD A SPLODE
Premium
join:2003-06-13
Manchester, NH
| Re: Killing a fly with a jackhammer said by Brazbit :
Didn't they say that in the last lines of the BBR article?
Not when it was first posted, unless I overlooked it.
--
Robert Tappan Morris, Jr., got six months in jail for crashing 10% of the computers that Bill Gates made $100 million crashing last weekend. | |
| | 
Steve
ho ho ho dammit
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| said by sonofjay :
Killing a fly with a jackhammer
Um, the enormous volume of spam coming from Comcast hardly qualifies as "a fly"
--
Stephen J. Friedl * Security Consultant * Tustin, California USA * my web site | |
| | | | | | |
Steve
ho ho ho dammit
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| Re: Killing a fly with a jackhammer said by sonofjay :
And how long will it really be before a virus is written to use a different port?
They won't: as long as 25/tcp is the only port that recipient mailservers listen on, blocking that outbound port stops the spam once and for all.
I don't care of Comcast customers are infected, I just care that the spam stops.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl * Security Consultant * Tustin, California USA * my web site | |
| | | | | 
alien9999999
Your Head Looks Nice
Premium
join:2002-05-21
B-3000
| Re: Killing a fly with a jackhammer it's more "killing billions of flys with a bunch of jackhammers"
furthermore, even if every ISP blocks the port, it won't mean spam would be ended, but it would mean that every spam would be perfectly traceable and sueable (hopefully) and that spammers would have no place to run anymore...
...effectively ending 90% of all spam.
--
Alien is my name and headbiting is my game. | |
| | | | 
Link Logger
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
Calgary, AB
 ·Shaw
| While this will help as there are lots of open email servers out there, it will not stop spam, as sonofjay is correct that other ports are used to bounce spam (559 and 65506 are two very common virus installed proxies and I would bet filtering those two ports would have more of an effect then filtering port 25).
The only solution is to go after the infected systems and spam servers spewing out this junk, but right now I'm happy to see someone trying something to help.
Blake
--
Vendor: Firewall Logging Software »www.SonicLogger.com - SonicWall and 3Com »www.LinkLogger.com - Linksys, Netgear and Zyxel | |
| | | | |
Steve
ho ho ho dammit
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| Re: Killing a fly with a jackhammer Huh?
Blocking inbound 25/tcp to Comcast subscribers would have the effect you suggest - use a different proxy port - but I believe we're talking about blocking outbound 25/tcp. This will stop all email coming from these infected machines.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl * Security Consultant * Tustin, California USA * my web site | |
| | | | | | | | | 
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
 ·Speakeasy
| said by sonofjay :
said by Steve :
Um, the enormous volume of spam coming from Comcast hardly qualifies as "a fly"
True, but this is simply treating the symptom and not the problem itself. And who long will it really be before a virus is written to use a different port? What will they do then block all ports?
That's a REALLY naive argument. You assume two things: that all SMTP service providers will provide alternate port service on the same alternate port and that there's no authentication required on that alternate port.
Unless every ISP sets up to listen on the same port, how is the virus going to know what port to connect to? Port-scan every MX host? That will just end up auto-blacklisting the scanning host - defeating the purpose of the virus. Granted, there is an RFC stipulated alternate port, the MSA port, 587, that viruses could try to go against, but doing so is problematic, as well. Mail services that bother to set up SMTP on alternate ports typically require authentication to pass traffic. Without authentication credentials, those viruses that are written to use alternate ports aren't really going to go anywhere.
-tom
--
"There are 10 types of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't."
"That's only 2 types of people, moron" | |
| | | pvera
join:2001-12-01
Reston, VA | More like a swarm of Cicadas! | |
| | | 
ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
clubs: | Psssh. At least until they start going out over different ports. OOPS, maybe they should have though of that, ROFLMAO at their ignorance. | |
| | kpatz
MY HEAD A SPLODE
Premium
join:2003-06-13
Manchester, NH
| Re: Psssh. Well it's hard to send mail out over other ports unless smtp servers listen on those ports... but what I'm hoping is, since these blocks are targeted toward zombied customers, that they'll notify them and get them to clean their systems, rather than considering the block as a long term solution.
--
Robert Tappan Morris, Jr., got six months in jail for crashing 10% of the computers that Bill Gates made $100 million crashing last weekend. | |
| |
Steve
ho ho ho dammit
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| said by ctceo :
ROFLMAO at their ignorance.
Laughing at yourself today?
Considering that the recipient mailservers are only generally listening on port 25/tcp, how might you suggest that spamware circumvent a block on this outbound port?
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl * Security Consultant * Tustin, California USA * my web site | |
| | | 
HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
clubs: | Re: Psssh. My DSL ISP here in Canada, Bell Sympatico, has been blocking port 25 for several years now. I hate it, I'm stuck using their crap servers, which tend to be very unreliable at times. | |
| | |
ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
clubs: | Yes, I did. when I stubbed my toe on the couch leg earlier. | |
| |
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| said by ctceo :
At least until they start going out over different ports. OOPS, maybe they should have though of that, ROFLMAO at their ignorance.
You're laughing at who's ignorance?
Are you under the impression that SMTP servers simply sit there, listening on thousands of random ports, for incoming email? Because, if you are, let me disabuse you of that notion right now. In order for a standards compliant SMTP server to function, it only has to listen on port 25. Indeed, most MTAs (if not all) will only set up an externally accessibly SMTP listener on port 25 unless specifically configured to do otherwise.
SMTP on alternate ports is most typically done to enable third party relaying. Administrators that bother to set up this kind of special service also set up the service to require identification, authentication and authorization of the client. How well do you think a virus is going to be able to perform this?
Lastly, unless EVERY provider of alternate port SMTP service decides to listen on the same port, how well do you think viruses are going to function when they have to guess what port to try for every MX host it tries to SPAM?
-tom
--
"There are 10 types of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't."
"That's only 2 types of people, moron" | |
| | | kpatz
MY HEAD A SPLODE
Premium
join:2003-06-13
Manchester, NH
| Re: Psssh. said by nixen :
Lastly, unless EVERY provider of alternate port SMTP service decides to listen on the same port, how well do you think viruses are going to function when they have to guess what port to try for every MX host it tries to SPAM?
Well, if across-the-board port-25 blocking becomes the norm, and every ISP is doing it, then I'm sure the MX hosts will quickly agree on a standard alternate port so that customers can still send mail through them easily.
Then the spammers and virus writers will target THAT port... and then ISPs will start blocking THAT port, and we just go in a vicious circle.
This is why port blocking is only an INTERIM fix, and not a permanent solution. Comcast is moving in the right direction by only targeting spam-sending accounts with the block. What would be even better is if they notify such account holders, and get them to clean their systems. Once cleaned, the block can be lifted for that account.
ISPs that block 25 outbound for all subscribers are merely hiding the issue under a blanket, since although they're stopping the outgoing spam, they've then made it difficult/impossible to identify infected subscribers so they can be notified to clean their systems.
--
Robert Tappan Morris, Jr., got six months in jail for crashing 10% of the computers that Bill Gates made $100 million crashing last weekend. | |
| | | | | | | | | kpatz
MY HEAD A SPLODE
Premium
join:2003-06-13
Manchester, NH
| Re: Psssh. said by nixen :
That's a crap argument. Anyone that sets up an alternate port listener is or will be doing so to enable relay service, not general MTA-to-MTA SMTP service. Administrators of such relay services set up the relay service with some form of authentication. What good is any SMTP port to a virus if a virus can't authenticate to it?
Maybe in a perfect world, every alternate port listener will require authentication, even for local (non-relayed) mail, but we both know, if the world were perfect, there would be no spam and this discussion wouldn't be happening... 
--
Robert Tappan Morris, Jr., got six months in jail for crashing 10% of the computers that Bill Gates made $100 million crashing last weekend. | |
| | | | 
Jeremy341
Bye
Premium
join:2000-01-06
localhost
| said by kpatz :
I'm sure the MX hosts will quickly agree on a standard alternate port so that customers can still send mail through them easily.
Why would they do that? There's simply no benefit. If you're already going to have to instruct your customers on how to change the SMTP port in their mail software, what they're actually changing it to doesn't make a difference. Every provider already has different host names, so having a different port won't really complicate things too much more. | |
| | | |
ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
clubs:
| This is a better way of explaining what I said. By no means do I appreciate spam or zombie machines mucking up the whole pot, but if they are to continue their business they will simply adapt. There is no other way to put it.
--
ASUS SK8N nForce3 - 8GB PC2700 - AXP 64 3400+ - nVidia 6800 Ultra w/512mb - CL Audigy 2 PP - WD SATA150 36GB + Hitachi GST 250GB - Plextor PX708A + Sony CRX300A - Dual 600 Watt PSU's. | |
| 
newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
·Vonage
| It's about damn time . . .Whatever implementation Comcast decides to go with, whether it's targeted or blanket blocking, it was way past time to drastically address the horrible spam problem they allowed themselves to get into. I can't help but think that the recent SPEWS & AHBL listings were instrumental in forcing management at Comcast to finally start listening to their engineering department.
Now, along with this, they need to start looking at Spamhaus.org and getting those entries taken care of.
--
The Rules of Spam | Maryland's Newest Anti-Spam Law
Where are we going? And what's with the hand basket? | |
| 
gruggni
Oxygen Gets You High
join:2003-07-28
Corpus Christi, TX
edit:
June 9th, @11:53AM
| port 25 Once port 25 is blocked they will switch to another port.
I can almost sense the possibility for a DoS on returned email. I feel a disturbance in the force.
--
"I'm sick of following my dreams man; I'm just going to ask where they're going and hook up with them later."
- Mitch Hedberg | |
| |
See 13 replies to this post | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| Thanks Idiots! Once again, I would like to thank all the idiot computer users out there who never patch their systems, don't use firewalls, install all the spyware/crapware they can find onto their machines and ruin the Internet for the rest of us responsible computer users who don't do these things. Its too bad your connections can't just drop dead instead.
Jerks.
--
Win another one for the Gipper! Bush/Cheney 2004 | |
| |
See 14 replies to this post | |
miketavares
join:2000-12-10
North Dighton, MA
| this will solve NOTHING Since Comcast will be blocking hosts that have already sent spam (we still don't know how many strikes it will take before they do it), the affect of this will be NOTHING, as the spammers will still find new boxes to infect, then spend their spam.(and then comcast will block them). What good is this going to do? NONE. Its reactive instead of proactive, and it will not stop the flow of spam coming out of the comcast network.
once the repeatly abused systems are blocked, the spammers will just move on to another box.
Blanket port 25 block, is the only way to stop the spam. For those that are using other SMTP servers, there are other ways you can access those servers.
--
I need something catchy here | |
| | sieklucki1
join:2002-08-12
Lincolnshire, IL
| Re: this will solve NOTHING I have to disagree with this. True, some spam will be sent out before a person is blocked, but at least they are eventually stopped from further spamming. In essence, this method will decrease spam without hindering service to those that are using it properly. Additionally, if the spammers move to different machines, these new machines will also eventually get blocked. Overall, spam should be reduced by a great amount and maybe, just maybe, if the people with compromised machines are contacted, people in general will begin to secure their machines more, resulting in an overall spam reduction.
I don't want my service blocked because of other people who don't secure their machines, but at the same time, if we can stop those people who are spamming we reduce spam and make it harder for spammers. In the long run, more and more machines will be secured and, as time passes, spam should be curbed--I'm all for this method of spam reduction. | |
| | | 
subcultured
Premium
join:2001-08-21
Jamaica Plain, MA
| Re: this will solve NOTHING said by sieklucki1 :
I don't want my service blocked because of other people who don't secure their machines, but at the same time, if we can stop those people who are spamming we reduce spam and make it harder for spammers.
indeed! i am a responsible customer on comcast's network that likes to have full control over my mail, and i shouldn't be punished with an across-the-board denial of outbound port 25 without comcast first trying to remedy the problem on a per-user basis. i _really_ don't want to have to rely on comcast's SMTP/POP/IMAP servers, and shouldn't have to.
--
Verum Ipsum Factum | |
| | kpatz
MY HEAD A SPLODE
Premium
join:2003-06-13
Manchester, NH
| I think the idea behind this is to stop the worst spam-spewing zombies--the ones who send out thousands of emails per day, without implementing a block that would negatively impact a far greater number of subscribers than there are spammers.
Although it won't eliminate ALL the spam coming from Comcast's network, it'll make the numbers look better, and then Spamhaus, SPEWS, etc. will eventually remove Comcast netblocks from their blacklists.
With 2+ million HSI customers, there will always be a few bad apples. IMHO Comcast is doing this in the way that will minimize the impact on those 2+ million subscribers, which will minimize the impact on their support staff as well.
--
Robert Tappan Morris, Jr., got six months in jail for crashing 10% of the computers that Bill Gates made $100 million crashing last weekend. | |
| | | 8744675
join:2000-10-10
Decatur, GA
edit:
June 9th, @02:45PM
| Re: this will solve NOTHING There's more than a few bad Comcast apples...there's truckloads of 'em! I'm not a Comcast customer, but I have a Comcast internet connection any time I want. What's that tell you?
It seems my neighbor has Comcast and a wireless router that is unsecure. I kept noticing a 2nd profile named "Netgear" in my wireless configuration on a PC I have in my bedroom. I couldn't get rid of it, so I connected with that profile and did some checks to see what IP it was using. I was connecting through my neighbors router on a Comcast account. I did some more checking and his IP address is listed in all the major spam blacklist databases!
I wonder why? | |
| 
Morac
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
·Comcast
| Maybe Comcast should require SMTP authentication As it is, as long as I'm at a Comcast IP address I can send email through Comcast's mail servers without authenticating with the SMTP server. It doesn't matter what I use for my email address.
Spamware can just use the default Comcast SMTP server to send spam and Comcast's mail servers will happily pass it along (forged headers and all).
--
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired. | |
| | kpatz
MY HEAD A SPLODE
Premium
join:2003-06-13
Manchester, NH
| Re: Maybe Comcast should require SMTP authentication That only works if you're on Comcast's network. If you're outside their network, then you have to use authentication in order to relay (if it's allowed at all).
Their SMTP servers will block you if you try to send too much mail within a short time frame, and I'm sure they will shut down anyone who tries to spam through them.
--
Robert Tappan Morris, Jr., got six months in jail for crashing 10% of the computers that Bill Gates made $100 million crashing last weekend. | |
| | 
xenoie
@jtlnet.com | Re: Maybe Comcast should require SMTP authenticati If you have a comcast IP, then you have (or should have) a comcast email account that came with your connection. So what would be the point of creating access rules for people who already have access? | |
| | |
Morac
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
·Comcast
| Re: Maybe Comcast should require SMTP authenticati By signing in there is a record in the message header of who the actual sender is. As it stands now I can forge whatever return address I feel like and there is pretty much no way for the receiver to tell who I am, other than the fact that I use Comcast.
--
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired. | |
| bvanderw
join:2003-01-11
Elkhart, IN
| Provide SMTP server, or block port 25 altogether? I resell for a web hosting business, so this news concerns me. I'm not so concerned about simply blocking port 25, as long as they provide an SMTP server than my customers using Comcast can use to send e-mail from the accounts they have setup at our service.
What concerns me is when ISPs either only allow traffic on their SMTP server when the 'From' address is a Comcast (for example) address, OR when they block port 25 traffic all together, forcing customers to only use webmail. The last time I checked, this is what MSN does. The latter is really an ugly thing to do to their customers. | |
|
jus-curious
@bellsouth.net
| enlighten me, please thanks to the 'upgrade' of my ISP and port 25 being blocked, are my emails now subject to easier 'monitoring'?
since i use several domains for my 3 businesses i always felt like my information was more private. now that i know that everything is going through one smtp server (my ISP's) i feel like my privacy is invaded. is this just naive thinking since the volume of emails sent is so much or i am just paranoid.. or is 'the man' watching us a little more closely and our rights being compromised. just curious because i only understand some of the implications this involves to use 1 server for outbound (my ISP's). thanks. | |
| |
jus-curious
@bellsouth.net | Re: enlighten me, please- thanks thanks for the feedback people.. | |
|
|
|
