CentOS 4.8, sendmail 8.13
Hi All:
I have a couple of questions regarding the routing of outgoing emails. I have spent several hours doing Google searches but I have not come close to what I am looking for. If someone can give me push in the right direction I would greatly appreciate it.
We currently have three domain names (two for our development company and one for our production company). We have one mail server in our development office that hosts all three domain names. Actually we just treat the three domain names as aliases of the mail server (via the local-host-names file and I do not see a need to change this. What I would like to do is route (relay?) any outgoing emails that are from emails addresses using only one of those domains to a separate SMPT server.
1. Is this possible?
2. What is it called?
3. Can you provide examples or links to relevant docs?
TIA
Regards, Hugh
Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
CentOS 4.8, sendmail 8.13
Hi All:
I have a couple of questions regarding the routing of outgoing emails. I have spent several hours doing Google searches but I have not come close to what I am looking for. If someone can give me push in the right direction I would greatly appreciate it.
We currently have three domain names (two for our development company and one for our production company). We have one mail server in our development office that hosts all three domain names. Actually we just treat the three domain names as aliases of the mail server (via the local-host-names file and I do not see a need to change this. What I would like to do is route (relay?) any outgoing emails that are from emails addresses using only one of those domains to a separate SMPT server.
Is this possible?
What is it called?
Can you provide examples or links to relevant docs?
TIA
Regards, Hugh
Hi
I believe mailertable is what you want.
http://www.sendmail.org/m4/mailertables.html
Good Luck
From: Clint Dilks Sent: September 1, 2009 19:38
I believe mailertable is what you want.
I do believe you are right. I had looked at that before but for some reason my brain was stuck on seeing so much about incoming emails that I read that in to this feature as well.
Thank you very much.
Regards, Hugh
Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
From: Clint Dilks Sent: September 1, 2009 19:38
I believe mailertable is what you want.
I do believe you are right. I had looked at that before but for some reason my brain was stuck on seeing so much about incoming emails that I read that in to this feature as well.
Thank you very much.
Mailertable lets you route mail for a specific destination. It wasn't clear that's what you wanted. If you want to relay all outbound mail through another host you can use SMART_HOST.
Les Mikesell wrote:
Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
From: Clint Dilks Sent: September 1, 2009 19:38
I believe mailertable is what you want.
I do believe you are right. I had looked at that before but for some reason my brain was stuck on seeing so much about incoming emails that I read that in to this feature as well.
Thank you very much.
Mailertable lets you route mail for a specific destination. It wasn't clear that's what you wanted. If you want to relay all outbound mail through another host you can use SMART_HOST.
The reason I discounted this option is because he only wanted to use a SMART host for one domain not all of his domains. :)
Clint Dilks wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
From: Clint Dilks Sent: September 1, 2009 19:38
I believe mailertable is what you want.
I do believe you are right. I had looked at that before but for some reason my brain was stuck on seeing so much about incoming emails that I read that in to this feature as well.
Thank you very much.
Mailertable lets you route mail for a specific destination. It wasn't clear that's what you wanted. If you want to relay all outbound mail through another host you can use SMART_HOST.
The reason I discounted this option is because he only wanted to use a SMART host for one domain not all of his domains. :)
But what it actually said was:
"What I would like to do is route (relay?) any outgoing emails that are from emails addresses using only one of those domains to a separate SMPT server."
Which didn't sound like routing _to_ one of the domains. So maybe neither approach will work.
From: Les Mikesell Sent: September 1, 2009 21:18
But what it actually said was:
"What I would like to do is route (relay?) any outgoing emails that are from emails addresses using only one of those domains to a separate SMPT server."
Which didn't sound like routing _to_ one of the domains. So maybe neither approach will work.
Hi Les:
You are correct. I was referring to routing email _from_ one of our domain names through a separate mail server then out to the 'net. Upon rereading the mailertable doc it appears that this is for routing email _to_ on of our domain names so it will not work for what I was looking for.
The reason I was trying to do this is that we have our production sever sending out automated emails from one location and our sales and support staff sending out emails from another location both using one domain name. I was trying to consolidate all email for this domain name to/from one mail server.
It is not critical but it would have been nice to do. I am not going to waste too much more effort on this as I have more critical things that need my time.
Thanks to all that replied!
Regards, Hugh
Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
From: Les Mikesell Sent: September 1, 2009 21:18
But what it actually said was:
"What I would like to do is route (relay?) any outgoing emails that are from emails addresses using only one of those domains to a separate SMPT server."
Which didn't sound like routing _to_ one of the domains. So maybe neither approach will work.
Hi Les:
You are correct. I was referring to routing email _from_ one of our domain names through a separate mail server then out to the 'net. Upon rereading the mailertable doc it appears that this is for routing email _to_ on of our domain names so it will not work for what I was looking for.
The reason I was trying to do this is that we have our production sever sending out automated emails from one location and our sales and support staff sending out emails from another location both using one domain name. I was trying to consolidate all email for this domain name to/from one mail server.
It is not critical but it would have been nice to do. I am not going to waste too much more effort on this as I have more critical things that need my time.
Thanks to all that replied!
Regards, Hugh
Hi Again
Unless I am completely confused won't using mailer table with the option
.domain smtp:[gateway.domain]
where .domain is the domain you are concerned with do what you wish ?
Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
[ ... ]
Hi Again
Unless I am completely confused won't using mailer table with the option
.domain smtp:[gateway.domain]
where .domain is the domain you are concerned with do what you wish ?
For using a mailertable rule the domain MUST NOT be local (means not class {w}), which is the case for the OP.
Alexander
Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
You are correct. I was referring to routing email _from_ one of our domain names through a separate mail server then out to the 'net. Upon rereading the mailertable doc it appears that this is for routing email _to_ on of our domain names so it will not work for what I was looking for.
The reason I was trying to do this is that we have our production sever sending out automated emails from one location and our sales and support staff sending out emails from another location both using one domain name. I was trying to consolidate all email for this domain name to/from one mail server.
It is not critical but it would have been nice to do. I am not going to waste too much more effort on this as I have more critical things that need my time.
You can use SMART_HOST to send the mail from any single host through a specified relay. If the same machine is sending for more than one domain, you may be able to configure the application sending the automated emails to send to a specified SMTP server. Users can almost certainly configure their mail agent to sent through the SMTP server of their choice.
From: Les Mikesell Sent: September 1, 2009 22:35
You can use SMART_HOST to send the mail from any single host through a specified relay.
Single host and multiple domains so no go here.
If the same machine is sending for more than one domain, you may be able to configure the application sending the automated emails to send to a specified SMTP server.
The automated emails are being generated on the alternate host so this is basically already in place. It is the users' emails that I am trying to reroute.
Users can almost certainly configure their mail agent to sent through the SMTP server of their choice.
This is my fallback position. The problem here is that my users are a rather uncooperative bunch and tend to think that they know better on what should be done and then go off and do things their way. And this attitude starts at the top and works its way down. Worse yet some of this has now become company policy (would you believe it is now company policy that we MUST top post and fully quote all previous messages). I was attempting to see if there was a way that I could do this behind the scenes without having to reconfigure everyone's MTA.
Thanks again for your input (and everyone else's).
Regards, Hugh
The problem here is that my users are a rather uncooperative bunch and tend to think that they know better on what should be done and then go off and do things their way. And this attitude starts at the top and works its way down. Worse yet some of this has now become company policy
I hate this kinda stuff. Delegation without authority. Ugh.
(would you believe it is now company policy that we MUST top post and fully quote all previous messages).
Well, I did not top post and I trimmed previous messages, so tell your policymakers they can sue me if they want!
Neil
-- Neil Aggarwal, (281)846-8957, www.JAMMConsulting.com Will your e-commerce site go offline if you have a DB server failure, fiber cut, flood, fire, or other disaster? If so, ask about our geographically redundant database system.
Les Mikesell wrote:
"What I would like to do is route (relay?) any outgoing emails that are from emails addresses using only one of those domains to a separate SMPT server."
Which didn't sound like routing _to_ one of the domains. So maybe neither approach will work.
yeah, most routing is DESTINATION based, not SOURCE based.
Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
CentOS 4.8, sendmail 8.13
Hi All:
I have a couple of questions regarding the routing of outgoing emails. I have spent several hours doing Google searches but I have not come close to what I am looking for. If someone can give me push in the right direction I would greatly appreciate it.
We currently have three domain names (two for our development company and one for our production company). We have one mail server in our development office that hosts all three domain names. Actually we just treat the three domain names as aliases of the mail server (via the local-host-names file and I do not see a need to change this. What I would like to do is route (relay?) any outgoing emails that are from emails addresses using only one of those domains to a separate SMPT server.
- Is this possible?
Sorry, last I checked, there is no sender-based routing support in sendmail. You cannot even try to create rulesets to get that.
- What is it called?
sender-based routing. I suggest switching to postfix or exim.
- Can you provide examples or links to relevant docs?
Not for sendmail.
Sorry, last I checked, there is no sender-based routing support in sendmail. You cannot even try to create rulesets to get that.
Could a milter do it?
Maybe capture all outbound messages and stop them from processing on the original server. Next, create an smtp session to the new outbound server and drop the message data into it.
Neil
-- Neil Aggarwal, (281)846-8957, www.JAMMConsulting.com Will your e-commerce site go offline if you have a DB server failure, fiber cut, flood, fire, or other disaster? If so, ask about our geographically redundant database system.
Neil Aggarwal wrote:
Sorry, last I checked, there is no sender-based routing support in sendmail. You cannot even try to create rulesets to get that.
Could a milter do it?
No idea. I do not know if the milter interface supports changing the routing...it would have to be able to bypass the sendmail rulesets if I am not wrong.
Too bad you cannot pass flags on from different parts of the rulesets.
Maybe capture all outbound messages and stop them from processing on the original server. Next, create an smtp session to the new outbound server and drop the message data into it.
That requires quite a bit of programming. Maybe just make another sendmail instance which routes the way the OP wants and inject the emails in question in that queue. Saves the smtp and socket programming and what not.
Sorry, last I checked, there is no sender-based routing support in sendmail. You cannot even try to create rulesets to get that.
Looks like it is my turn to eat humble pie. You will need to rebuild sendmail.cf after applying this hack.
http://www.cs.niu.edu/~rickert/cf/hack/sender_based_routing.m4
I have not tested it let alone tried on 8.14.x
I cannot believe the file is dated 2004. Ah well, I got rid of sendmail and replaced it with postfix in 2003 while I was still a mail admin. I must bow to the real sendmail bigots.
Christopher Chan wrote:
Sorry, last I checked, there is no sender-based routing support in sendmail. You cannot even try to create rulesets to get that.
Looks like it is my turn to eat humble pie. You will need to rebuild sendmail.cf after applying this hack.
http://www.cs.niu.edu/~rickert/cf/hack/sender_based_routing.m
I note the comments on that patch talk about from: sender@host rather than sender@domain ... so, its possible it triggers on the host that the sender is using rather than the domain in the 'from' header.
ugh, i used to know what ...
R$+ <@ $+ > $:$&f@$j<>$1<@$2> prepend local sender R$+@$+@$j<>$+<@$+> $:$1@$2<>$3<@$4> avoid duplicate domain R$+@$+<>$+<@$+> $:$(mailertable From:$1@$2 $:@$2 $)<>$3<@$4> R$*@$+.$+<>$+<@$+> $:$(mailertable From:$2.$3 $@$1 $:$1$2@.$3 $)<>$4<@$5> R$*@$+<>$+<@$+> $:$(mailertable From:$2 $@$1 $: $)<>$3<@$4> R$-:$+<>$+ $@$>MailerToTriple <$1 : $2> $3 R$*<>$+<$+> $:$2 <$3>
would do, but I'll be damned if I remember how that .cf stuff works anymore :rofl:
John R Pierce wrote:
Christopher Chan wrote:
Sorry, last I checked, there is no sender-based routing support in sendmail. You cannot even try to create rulesets to get that.
Looks like it is my turn to eat humble pie. You will need to rebuild sendmail.cf after applying this hack.
http://www.cs.niu.edu/~rickert/cf/hack/sender_based_routing.m
I note the comments on that patch talk about from: sender@host rather than sender@domain ... so, its possible it triggers on the host that the sender is using rather than the domain in the 'from' header.
You missed this part:
dnl # If the sender address/domain is as given, then that relay will be dnl # chosen for the message. If the sender address $f has no dnl # "@domain" component, then $j is used.
It triggers on the domain. If there is no domain, the local hostname is appended before being checked against the mailertable. At least, that is how I read the comments. As for the rulesets below...@_@
ugh, i used to know what ...
R$+ <@ $+ > $:$&f@$j<>$1<@$2> prepend local sender R$+@$+@$j<>$+<@$+> $:$1@$2<>$3<@$4> avoid duplicate domain R$+@$+<>$+<@$+> $:$(mailertable From:$1@$2 $:@$2 $)<>$3<@$4> R$*@$+.$+<>$+<@$+> $:$(mailertable From:$2.$3 $@$1 $:$1$2@.$3 $)<>$4<@$5> R$*@$+<>$+<@$+> $:$(mailertable From:$2 $@$1 $: $)<>$3<@$4> R$-:$+<>$+ $@$>MailerToTriple <$1 : $2> $3 R$*<>$+<$+> $:$2 <$3>
would do, but I'll be damned if I remember how that .cf stuff works anymore :rofl:
A beer to anyone who can still remember how sendmail rulesets work after one month of being away from the stuff!
From: Christopher Chan Sent: September 1, 2009 23:04
Sorry, last I checked, there is no sender-based routing support in sendmail. You cannot even try to create rulesets to get that.
Looks like it is my turn to eat humble pie. You will need to rebuild sendmail.cf after applying this hack.
http://www.cs.niu.edu/~rickert/cf/hack/sender_based_routing.m4
While this does look promising I am hesitant to install anything that is either a) possibly version dependent and b) beyond my understanding as to what it is doing. I will have to review this thoroughly before I even consider implementing it.
I have not tested it let alone tried on 8.14.x
Caveat noted.
I cannot believe the file is dated 2004. Ah well, I got rid of sendmail and replaced it with postfix in 2003 while I was still a mail admin. I must bow to the real sendmail bigots.
Mail administration is just one of those "little" jobs that I am responsible for and I just have not had the time to review/learn a new MTA so I muddle on with the "devil I know".
Thanks for your suggestion it has definitely given me something to think on and possibly work with.
Regards, Hugh
On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 11:38 -0700, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
From: Christopher Chan Sent: September 1, 2009 23:04
Sorry, last I checked, there is no sender-based routing support in sendmail. You cannot even try to create rulesets to get that.
Looks like it is my turn to eat humble pie. You will need to rebuild sendmail.cf after applying this hack.
http://www.cs.niu.edu/~rickert/cf/hack/sender_based_routing.m4
While this does look promising I am hesitant to install anything that is either a) possibly version dependent and b) beyond my understanding as to what it is doing. I will have to review this thoroughly before I even consider implementing it.
I have not tested it let alone tried on 8.14.x
Caveat noted.
I cannot believe the file is dated 2004. Ah well, I got rid of sendmail and replaced it with postfix in 2003 while I was still a mail admin. I must bow to the real sendmail bigots.
Mail administration is just one of those "little" jobs that I am responsible for and I just have not had the time to review/learn a new MTA so I muddle on with the "devil I know".
I'm certainly not going to throw stones at this philosophy, but I will suggest that you reconsider in this case. I'm not really a mail guru, or even that much of a mail admin, but I switched to Postfix about 3 years ago, and I have to say that the learning curve is a LOT less challenging than Sendmail ever was for me. I became "productive" with Postfix in less than a week, mostly because the documentation is a lot better, as well as the config files are readable by the average computer-literate humanoid. I suggest that you give it some thought.
My $0.02 (US) worth. ;>
Thanks for your suggestion it has definitely given me something to think on and possibly work with.
Regards, Hugh
From: Ron Loftin Sent: September 2, 2009 11:48
On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 11:38 -0700, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
From: Christopher Chan Sent: September 1, 2009 23:04
I cannot believe the file is dated 2004. Ah well, I got rid of sendmail and replaced it with postfix in 2003 while I was still a mail admin. I must bow to the real sendmail bigots.
Mail administration is just one of those "little" jobs that I am responsible for and I just have not had the time to review/learn a new MTA so I muddle on with the "devil I know".
I'm certainly not going to throw stones at this philosophy, but I will suggest that you reconsider in this case. I'm not really a mail guru, or even that much of a mail admin, but I switched to Postfix about 3 years ago, and I have to say that the learning curve is a LOT less challenging than Sendmail ever was for me. I became "productive" with Postfix in less than a week, mostly because the documentation is a lot better, as well as the config files are readable by the average computer-literate humanoid. I suggest that you give it some thought.
I will definitely consider it. The main problem I have is time. We are a small company and I am stretched very thin to cover a lot of tasks. Trying to carve out a week to learn a new MTA will be difficult but I will definitely consider it.
Thanks for your comments.
Regards, Hugh
Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
From: Christopher Chan Sent: September 1, 2009 23:04
Sorry, last I checked, there is no sender-based routing support in sendmail. You cannot even try to create rulesets to get that.
Looks like it is my turn to eat humble pie. You will need to rebuild sendmail.cf after applying this hack.
http://www.cs.niu.edu/~rickert/cf/hack/sender_based_routing.m4
While this does look promising I am hesitant to install anything that is either a) possibly version dependent and b) beyond my understanding as to what it is doing. I will have to review this thoroughly before I even consider implementing it.
I have not tested it let alone tried on 8.14.x
Caveat noted.
I cannot believe the file is dated 2004. Ah well, I got rid of sendmail and replaced it with postfix in 2003 while I was still a mail admin. I must bow to the real sendmail bigots.
Mail administration is just one of those "little" jobs that I am responsible for and I just have not had the time to review/learn a new MTA so I muddle on with the "devil I know".
Thanks for your suggestion it has definitely given me something to think on and possibly work with.
As 'yet another way' that might work... You could set SMART_HOST to a name that has multiple MX entries in DNS, so everything will attempt to relay through the one with the lowest priority. On that box you could install a sendmail milter that would tmp_fail messages from senders in the domain you want the other relay to handle with a 4xx response. That should make the originating sendmail immediately retry the next-lowest priority MX address which would be the server you want these to use. The down side (besides not having tested it) would be that user agents configured to send directly to the 1st MX wouldn't know how to handle the rejection.
MimeDefang is a good addition to sendmail because it has an efficient design and code for most milter operations you might need. You just write a small snippet of perl to control it and do any custom operations. For example, it has a 'filter_sender' hook where you could easily reject or tmp_fail based on the sender's domain. Hmmm, I guess you could do that in the access file with a custom error too - but mimedefang lets you think in perl instead of sendmail macros.
From: Christopher Chan Sent: September 1, 2009 23:04
Sorry, last I checked, there is no sender-based routing support in sendmail. You cannot even try to create rulesets to get that.
Looks like it is my turn to eat humble pie. You will need to rebuild sendmail.cf after applying this hack.
http://www.cs.niu.edu/~rickert/cf/hack/sender_based_routing.m4
For those that might be interested I have found one other alternative called Smart Table available at:
http://www.jmaimon.com/sendmail/anfi.homeunix.net/sendmail/smarttab.html
However it is for sendmail 8.5+ and will not work with my 8.13.
I have also found some documentation for both at:
http://www.theillien.com/Sys_Admin_v12/html/v13/i02/a8.htm
HTH
Regards, Hugh
Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
From: Christopher Chan Sent: September 1, 2009 23:04
Sorry, last I checked, there is no sender-based routing support in sendmail. You cannot even try to create rulesets to get that.
Looks like it is my turn to eat humble pie. You will need to rebuild sendmail.cf after applying this hack.
http://www.cs.niu.edu/~rickert/cf/hack/sender_based_routing.m4
For those that might be interested I have found one other alternative called Smart Table available at:
http://www.jmaimon.com/sendmail/anfi.homeunix.net/sendmail/smarttab.html
However it is for sendmail 8.5+ and will not work with my 8.13.
You are running 8.13.x? Well, give the ricker hack a try. Is that sendmail box also the mx for the domains concerned?
From: Christopher Chan Sent: September 2, 2009 18:36
You are running 8.13.x?
Yes.
8.13.1 on our primary development server (CentOS 4.8) which is also our primary mail server.
8.13.8 on our primary production server (RHEL 5.3 soon to be 5.4) which is the alternate mail server that I was looking to route some mail through.
Well, give the ricker hack a try.
Will do but I want to understand it a bit better before I do.
Is that sendmail box also the mx for the domains concerned?
Currently yes but I will be changing the MX for the one domain that I want to route from the development system to the production system. Now that we have moved the production systems to a co-location facility I am trying isolate the two environments as much as possible and moving the one domain name over is just one part of this. Part of the problem here is that we will be retaining sales/support staff at the our development offices (no mater how hard I tried I just could not squeeze them into that half-rack cage).
Thanks again for your input.
Regards, Hugh
Well, give the ricker hack a try.
Will do but I want to understand it a bit better before I do.
Of course. Therefore the question I posed below.
Is that sendmail box also the mx for the domains concerned?
Currently yes but I will be changing the MX for the one domain that I want to route from the development system to the production system. Now that we have moved the production systems to a co-location facility I am trying isolate the two environments as much as possible and moving the one domain name over is just one part of this. Part of the problem here is that we will be retaining sales/support staff at the our development offices (no mater how hard I tried I just could not squeeze them into that half-rack cage).
If the box is the also the mx for the domain for which you want to do special routing, I believe there will be a problem if you apply that sender_based_routing patch. They cannot share the same mailertable lookups. Another table lookup needs to be defined for sender_based routing.
I will see if I can cook up something on a Centos 4 box.
From: Christopher Chan Sent: September 2, 2009 19:34
If the box is the also the mx for the domain for which you want to do special routing, I believe there will be a problem if you apply that sender_based_routing patch. They cannot share the same mailertable lookups. Another table lookup needs to be defined for sender_based routing.
I will see if I can cook up something on a Centos 4 box.
Thanks for the offer but I would hold off for now. I am going to give the Smart Table solution a try first as it seems to be a little cleaner/easier/somethinger.
Regards, Hugh
From: Hugh E Cruickshank Sent: September 2, 2009 19:40
From: Christopher Chan Sent: September 2, 2009 19:34
If the box is the also the mx for the domain for which you want to do special routing, I believe there will be a problem if you apply that sender_based_routing patch. They cannot share the same mailertable lookups. Another table lookup needs to be defined for sender_based routing.
I will see if I can cook up something on a Centos 4 box.
Thanks for the offer but I would hold off for now. I am going to give the Smart Table solution a try first as it seems to be a little cleaner/easier/somethinger.
Hi all:
I have done some initial testing of smarttable.m4 and have observed positive results. It appears to perform as I hoped. I will do some more extensive testing either tomorrow night or, more likely, over the weekend. I will update this thread after I have had a chance to complete the additional testing.
Again, thank you too all our contributed. Your assistance was greatly appreciated.
Regards, Hugh
From: Hugh E Cruickshank Sent: September 3, 2009 00:25
From: Hugh E Cruickshank Sent: September 2, 2009 19:40
From: Christopher Chan Sent: September 2, 2009 19:34
If the box is the also the mx for the domain for which you want to do special routing, I believe there will be a problem if you apply that sender_based_routing patch. They cannot share the same mailertable lookups. Another table lookup needs to be defined for sender_based routing.
I will see if I can cook up something on a Centos 4 box.
Thanks for the offer but I would hold off for now. I am going to give the Smart Table solution a try first as it seems to be a little cleaner/easier/somethinger.
I have done some initial testing of smarttable.m4 and have observed positive results. It appears to perform as I hoped. I will do some more extensive testing either tomorrow night or, more likely, over the weekend. I will update this thread after I have had a chance to complete the additional testing.
Hi All:
We have been running the smartable.m4 code for the last three days and I have not been able to detect any problems. It seems that this code does handle the sender based routing quite well.
Regards, Hugh
From: Hugh E Cruickshank Sent: September 2, 2009 18:27
For those that might be interested I have found one other alternative called Smart Table available at:
http://www.jmaimon.com/sendmail/anfi.homeunix.net/sendmail/smarttab.html
However it is for sendmail 8.5+ and will not work with my 8.13.
I am going to have to correct that last statement as it seems that I have lost the ability to read. The 8.5+ version restriction was for the Smart Table version not the sendmail version. This dawned on me when I discovered the 8.14.3 is the latest sendmail version so my statement above made no sense (even to me).
My apologies for any confusion.
Regards, Hugh
-
Alexander Dalloz -
Christopher Chan -
Clint Dilks -
Hugh E Cruickshank -
John R Pierce -
Les Mikesell -
Neil Aggarwal -
Ron Loftin