<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 9.00.8112.16464"></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id=role_body
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 rightMargin=7 topMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV>I don't understand why you don't get it. It is LEGAL TO ORDER PIZZA
ON HAM RADIO unless you own or work for the pizza business. PERIOD.
<BR><BR>If you are a pizza delivery driver you can't use amateur radio to
get direction to a customer.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>We have swap net on amateur radio. We talk about money on the
air. This is OK TOO!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Daniel Stevens, KL7WM</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 2/20/2013 11:38:40 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
cory@nq1e.hm writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV dir=ltr>It appears that we're getting our layers mixed up.
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Phone patches to the pizza place are legitimate because the patching
system itself is run by a licensed control operator. In this case, the
RF link is layer 1 and the phone call is at least layer 3. The rules are
for governing who gets to use layer 1 and for what purpose. It would be
totally inappropriate for a pizza place to get a radio and camp on a frequency
for the purpose of accepting orders. However, contacting another ham and
asking them to order a pizza for you on their phone (or giving you an auto
patch to do it yourself) is appropriate because the RF portion is
still ham-to-ham, even if the message being relayed is not.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The same goes for "broadcasting". Your transmission must be
intended for one or more hams, even if the message must be relayed by them to
reach its final destination. If you knew the general public all had
scanners tuned to a ham frequency, it would not be appropriate to create your
own radio show meant for them.<BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Regarding AAA, I think we were also thinking about different layers.
Securing the configuration of a network device and providing "security"
for a network service (think SSL/TLS) is quite a bit different. I
was referring to the latter.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Using IPSec(AH) is a very good idea.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I have high hopes that this will all work out. It sounds like so
much fun, I can't contain myself! ;)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>-Cory</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_extra><BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Bart Kus <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A title=mailto:me@bartk.us href="mailto:me@bartk.us"
target=_blank>me@bartk.us</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<DIV>First of all, +1, Informative.
<DIV class=im><BR><BR>On 2/20/2013 11:22 AM, Cory (NQ1E)
wrote:<BR></DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=im>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV dir=ltr>It's not just optimization. We have serious
restrictions on what type of content can be moved over our RF links.
Everyone who runs a device that transmits is responsible for its
operation. Luckily there is precedent here since each node
can be considered the same as a "digital packet repeater" in historical
context. In those cases, the repeater operator is not held liable
for illegal content relayed through them as long as they take "reasonable
measures" to limit it and when discovered, stop it.
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>While it's not preferable to get into the distributed firewall
business, it may be necessary if this network carries traffic to or from
the internet. If we had another "reasonable" way to make sure only
licensed hams were able to originate content on the network, firewalls
likely wouldn't be needed.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV>I think of the case of an audio
repeater phone patch. A ham can call someone via hammy spectrum, but
the return voice traffic may not belong to a ham. This has been
allowed in the past as fair use.<BR><BR>Now if we tweak the scenario and say
the phone call is originally inbound from the repeater to the ham by a
non-ham, but consists of content which the ham (in control of hanging up)
considers appropriate as per the hammy rules of airwave content, should the
conversation be allowed to continue? :) My read on this is yes.
99% of the airtime will be the bidirectional content of the conversation,
just as it is in the outbound case. As long as this content is in
compliance with ham law, it ought not matter who sent the original
ring.<BR><BR>The next step in this line of thinking is to translate the
concepts of the analog telephone call to that of opening a digital inbound
TCP session to a ham server. It's up to the ham who is hosting the
server to ensure that the content of such conversations complies with ham
rules. Hang up (TCP RST) the session if the content goes outside the
law. The role of HamWAN is simply to facilitate the exchange of
signals, and we're not held responsible (as per voice repeater rules) should
hams decide to break the rules of content.<BR><BR>There is of course that
little lingering issue of the initial unsolicited ring in the analog world,
or TCP SYN in the digital world making its way onto hammy spectrum. I
like to think HamWAN could even set some useful precedent here, by
delivering worthy use-cases, and perhaps cause an eventual tweak to the
official rules to allow for short control messages ("I would like to talk")
to be sent over hammy spectrum by non-hammies.<BR><BR>Another way of
thinking about this inbound ring from non-hams is that while the actual ring
is received by ham equipment (repeater / digital microwave router) on a
non-hammy medium (telco / ISP network), the hammy RF spectrum transmission
from the repeater or digital microwave router is not a signal relay, but
rather a whole new communication, initiated by a ham-licensed station (the
repeater and its owner) to inform the target ham of the presence of an
inbound message on the non-hammy medium, and is therefore ham2ham traffic
after all!<BR><BR>We can do these legal mental gymnastics for a long time,
but the bottom line is unless someone actually complains and the FCC decides
to care, we should just go on and operate instead of shying away in
fear. If the practices are eventually ruled as illegal, we can cease
such operations easily by applying new firewall rules. I hope it does
not come to that as it would greatly stall the progress of digital ham
radio.
<DIV class=im><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV>In a somewhat related issue, there is also precedent for hams using
encrypted WiFi links with part 97 rules. Supposedly, it's only
acceptable to encrypt when the purpose is not to hide the content of your
message. This means that it's okay to run encryption as long you
publish the decryption keys so that they could be found by the public
(negating the point of using encryption in most cases).</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV>Agreed, and I know of people who
do this with P25 gear. But I don't see any useful cases in which
HamWAN could make use of encryption while publishing the keys.
<DIV class=im><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV>The frequencies that we're allowed to use as licensed radio amateurs
belong to the public and we're allowed to use them for the purposes of
experimentation and communication with other amateurs. In order to
assure the fair use of such a valuable resource, we have to follow
strict rules that prevent commercial interests from taking over.
That's why we're not allowed to conduct business on the air or
communicate with the general public (broadcast). That's also why
it's important that anything transmitted is not intentionally obfuscated
from anyone else's ability to view it.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV>I see the <A
title=http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=ad552c047464dd8e611924492c5b41c6&rgn=div5&view=text&node=47:5.0.1.1.6&idno=47#47:5.0.1.1.6.1.157.2
href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=ad552c047464dd8e611924492c5b41c6&rgn=div5&view=text&node=47:5.0.1.1.6&idno=47#47:5.0.1.1.6.1.157.2"
target=_blank>definition of broadcast</A> you cite there, and boy is that a
weird one. I'd counter this with my phone patch example, and cite the
<A title=http://www.arrl.org/phone-patch-guidelines
href="http://www.arrl.org/phone-patch-guidelines" target=_blank>ARRL
guidance</A> on the matter, which allow communication with non-amateur third
parties (is that the same as "general public"?). In fact, the ARRL
guidance counters what has been said about commercial communications in a
previous thread:<BR><BR><SMALL><FONT
face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">Calls to place an order for a
commercial product may be made such as the proverbial call to the pizza
restaurant to order food, but not calls to one's office to receive or to
leave business messages since communications on behalf of ones employer are
not permitted.<BR></FONT></SMALL><BR>The ARRL guidance on reverse autopatch
(inbound TCP) actually runs counter to my views on the subject. In
part, it states:<BR><BR><SMALL><FONT
face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">Incoming calls to an autopatch must
be answered and screened off the air by the control operator to ensure rule
compliance. If an incoming call automatically causes the repeater to
transmit, even if it's just a signal tone or notification message, then it
is possible for an unlicensed person to initiate a transmission without the
control operator's knowledge or approval, which is not
permitted.<BR></FONT></SMALL><BR>This to me sounds like we absolutely need a
ham-controlled edge firewall mechanism to "screen the calls off the air" as
per the individual hams' specifications.<BR><BR>One thing is for sure: we're
in brand new territory. We need to tread with the utmost character so
we set a good example for others who follow us.
<DIV class=im><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV>As a long-time computer engineer with a strong emphasis on
security, the idea of having such an open network is very scary to me.
However, it's also why I'm excited about the challenge. When
most people think about security, they only think about secrecy (hiding
your messages). However, security also includes authentication
(making sure messages really come from the intended sender) and integrity
(has this message been altered in transit). With those two aspects
and a lot of help from public key cryptography, my hope is to contribute
to making a network that is both open *and* secure.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I've already made some strides in this area for other ham-related
projects of mine, and now I'm hoping to translate that to the needs of the
overall network.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV>This is exactly right.
Well, almost. :) Cisco's thinking gets it right when they refer
to AAA: Authentication, Authorization and Accounting. For anyone
unfamiliar with what these concepts mean exactly, can <A
title=http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_2/security/configuration/guide/scfaaa.html#wp1000889
href="http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_2/security/configuration/guide/scfaaa.html#wp1000889"
target=_blank>refer to this page</A>. Also Wikipedia has a <A
title=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAA_protocol
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAA_protocol" target=_blank>page on
AAA</A>. The additional point you make about Integrity may not
necessarily fall under the "Authentication" concept, since that deals more
with actors in a network rather than the non-molestation of their messages,
but can be served nicely by an implementation of <A
title=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipsec#Authentication_Header
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipsec#Authentication_Header"
target=_blank>IPSec in AH mode</A>.<BR><BR>Tons of work here for sure, after
the lower layers of the network (RF) are up and running.<SPAN
class=HOEnZb><FONT color=#888888><BR><BR>--Bart</FONT></SPAN>
<DIV>
<DIV class=h5><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_extra><BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Bart Kus <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A title=mailto:me@bartk.us href="mailto:me@bartk.us"
target=_blank>me@bartk.us</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<DIV>It's just a little more efficient to stop unwanted traffic early,
before it takes up a bunch of airtime. Just an optimization, which
may not be worth the complexity right up front. Your suggestion
works too.<SPAN><FONT color=#888888><BR><BR>--Bart</FONT></SPAN>
<DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR>On 2/19/2013 8:46 PM, Benjamin Krueger
wrote:<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV dir=ltr>Just saw this, "just needs to push an ACL update". Why
can't we just route all traffic and let the client nodes run their own
firewalls? We *really* don't want to be in the distributed firewall
business. :)</DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_extra><BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Bart Kus <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A title=mailto:me@bartk.us href="mailto:me@bartk.us"
target=_blank>me@bartk.us</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<DIV>Global reachability is not in conflict with autonomy.
Achieving both simultaneously just requires careful design of HamWAN
network services. If the HamWAN internet feed drops off, the
routing, DNS and other services need to continue working. The
first word in ASN is Autonomous after all. :)<BR><BR>I consider NAT
and Proxies as old crusty hacks from the age of ISPs giving out just
1 IP/customer. It's time to put these ideas to rest.
IPv6 will do this on the commercial internet in the coming years,
and AMPRnet will allow us to do it immediately here. For the
cases where communication is to be restricted due to user
preference, we can push filtering rules to firewalls at the edges of
the network, and at the HamWAN <-> user site interface.
In short, firewalls: yes, nat+gateways: no.<BR><BR>If a user wants
to make a service running on one of his servers public, he just
needs to push an ACL update to HamWAN and it'll be opened up.
No need to re-IP, update DNS, change NICs, whatever else. And
most importantly, it makes everyone equal. Your subnet
allocation has the same powers as mine. There is no special
ground to fight over, such as space on a public subnet, or access to
some officially sanctioned gateway servers that are allowed to do
special things.<BR><BR>If you want though, you can of course live in
the world of private IPs and NAT. Just configure your LAN
router that way.<BR><BR>Complete freedom of configuration.
This is the way the internet should have evolved for
geeks!<SPAN><FONT color=#888888><BR><BR>--Bart</FONT></SPAN>
<DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR><BR>On 2/13/2013 8:30 AM, Cory (NQ1E)
wrote:<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV dir=ltr>Unless I've misunderstood the point of this network
all together, there shouldn't be a case where we want the entire
network address space to be reachable from the global internet.
It's much more likely that the network will remain as
autonomous as possible and any connections to the internet will be
for connecting specific services through a gateway of some sort.
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>A subnet of at least /23 (typical minimum for global BGP
announcements) should be reserved for the purpose of being
globally routable in the future, if/when HamWAN decides
to peer with one or more ISPs. An address in the /23 can be
given to each service gateway for connecting to the
internet.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The rest of the 44-net allocation can be treated as private
address space, except that it's
essentially guaranteed not to cause conflicts with the
user-level networks since it's still globally unique.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_extra><BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 2:28 AM, Bart Kus
<SPAN dir=ltr><<A title=mailto:me@bartk.us
href="mailto:me@bartk.us" target=_blank>me@bartk.us</A>></SPAN>
wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<DIV>Clever ;)<BR><BR>What if HamWAN switches ISPs? All
that IPv6 space would need to be given up. It can't follow
you AFAIK. Or the ISP may charge whatever they feel like
to let you take it with you. Also bad.<BR><BR>The fees for
IPv6 are not as low as I had hoped, but not as high as you think
either! There's a 25% discount in effect for "extra-small"
allocations (which are still larger than the entire IPv4
internet). The cost looks to be $937.50/yr. Not sure
it's worth the cost, given the IPv4 AMPRnet situation. We
can very likely just expand our AMPRnet allocation if we
out-grow the /20.<SPAN><FONT
color=#888888><BR><BR>--Bart</FONT></SPAN>
<DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR><BR>On 2/13/2013 1:10 AM, Cory (NQ1E)
wrote:<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV dir=ltr>Here's an IPv6 allocation for you ;)
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>::ffff:<A title=http://44.24.240.0/116
href="http://44.24.240.0/116"
target=_blank>44.24.240.0/116</A></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>With the obvious exception of AMPRNet addresses for
amateur radio use, IP allocations should come from an ISP.
Obtaining a direct allocation from ARIN would cost
around a couple grand per year.</DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_extra><BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:46 AM, Bart
Kus <SPAN dir=ltr><<A title=mailto:me@bartk.us
href="mailto:me@bartk.us"
target=_blank>me@bartk.us</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>Result: APPROVED<BR>Your allocated subnet
is: <A title="tel:44.24.240.0 / 20"
href="tel:44.24.240.0%20%2F%2020" target=_blank
value="+14424240020">44.24.240.0 / 20</A><BR><BR><A
title=https://portal.ampr.org/networks.php?a=region&id=191
href="https://portal.ampr.org/networks.php?a=region&id=191"
target=_blank>https://portal.ampr.org/networks.php?a=region&id=191</A><BR><BR>HamWAN
now has 4096 real Internet IPs to play with. Next up:
we gotta crack the mystery of getting IPv6 net space.
Any volunteers? :)<BR><BR>What an incredibly
productive
day,<BR><BR>--Bart<BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>PSDR
mailing list<BR><A title=mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org
href="mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org"
target=_blank>PSDR@hamwan.org</A><BR><A
title=http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org
href="http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org"
target=_blank>http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV><BR>
<FIELDSET></FIELDSET> <BR><PRE>_______________________________________________
PSDR mailing list
<A title=mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org href="mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org" target=_blank>PSDR@hamwan.org</A>
<A title=http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org href="http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org" target=_blank>http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org</A>
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>PSDR
mailing list<BR><A title=mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org
href="mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org"
target=_blank>PSDR@hamwan.org</A><BR><A
title=http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org
href="http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org"
target=_blank>http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org</A><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV><BR>
<FIELDSET></FIELDSET> <BR><PRE>_______________________________________________
PSDR mailing list
<A title=mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org href="mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org" target=_blank>PSDR@hamwan.org</A>
<A title=http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org href="http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org" target=_blank>http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org</A>
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>PSDR
mailing list<BR><A title=mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org
href="mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org"
target=_blank>PSDR@hamwan.org</A><BR><A
title=http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org
href="http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org"
target=_blank>http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org</A><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR
clear=all>
<DIV><BR></DIV>-- <BR>
<DIV dir=ltr>Benjamin<BR></DIV></DIV><BR>
<FIELDSET></FIELDSET> <BR><PRE>_______________________________________________
PSDR mailing list
<A title=mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org href="mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org" target=_blank>PSDR@hamwan.org</A>
<A title=http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org href="http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org" target=_blank>http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org</A>
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>PSDR
mailing list<BR><A title=mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org
href="mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org" target=_blank>PSDR@hamwan.org</A><BR><A
title=http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org
href="http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org"
target=_blank>http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org</A><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV><BR>
<FIELDSET></FIELDSET> <BR><PRE>_______________________________________________
PSDR mailing list
<A title=mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org href="mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org" target=_blank>PSDR@hamwan.org</A>
<A title=http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org href="http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org" target=_blank>http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org</A>
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>PSDR
mailing list<BR><A title=mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org
href="mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org">PSDR@hamwan.org</A><BR><A
title=http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org
href="http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org"
target=_blank>http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org</A><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>PSDR
mailing
list<BR>PSDR@hamwan.org<BR>http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>