Spam Net Looking Good

Baphomet · Nov 18, 2003

I know that there was some discussion of Spam on the newsgroup(s) awhile
back (of course I can't find it now). In any event, I have been using Spam
Net http://www.cloudmark.com/products/spamnet/download/ free
Beta download for Outlook Express. It seems to have a very good heuristic
algorithim and catches most Spam.

Jim Thompson · Nov 18, 2003

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:49:27 -0800, "Baphomet"
<fandaDEATH2SPAMMERS@catskill.net> wrote:

I know that there was some discussion of Spam on the newsgroup(s) awhile
back (of course I can't find it now). In any event, I have been using Spam
Net http://www.cloudmark.com/products/spamnet/download/ free
Beta download for Outlook Express. It seems to have a very good heuristic
algorithim and catches most Spam.

Want ZERO spam? For $30 a year I route my E-mail though spamcop.net.

NO spam in my inbox... period!

!!! Just a happy user... no affiliation with spamcop.

I just plain ass got tired of dealing with it all, and spamcop reports
seem to be read carefully by administrators... block listed seems to
hurt a wee bit ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Baphomet · Nov 18, 2003

"Jim Thompson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:t9kkrvcvk8ndkkj109ghu2ho80f3cq77l0@4ax.com...

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:49:27 -0800, "Baphomet"
fandaDEATH2SPAMMERS@catskill.net> wrote:

I know that there was some discussion of Spam on the newsgroup(s) awhile
back (of course I can't find it now). In any event, I have been using
Spam
Net http://www.cloudmark.com/products/spamnet/download/ free
Beta download for Outlook Express. It seems to have a very good heuristic
algorithim and catches most Spam.

Want ZERO spam? For $30 a year I route my E-mail though spamcop.net.

NO spam in my inbox... period!

!!! Just a happy user... no affiliation with spamcop.

I just plain ass got tired of dealing with it all, and spamcop reports
seem to be read carefully by administrators... block listed seems to
hurt a wee bit ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Thanks for the tip Jim.

Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun · Nov 21, 2003

Baphomet wrote:

I know that there was some discussion of Spam on the newsgroup(s) awhile
back (of course I can't find it now). In any event, I have been using Spam
Net http://www.cloudmark.com/products/spamnet/download/ free
Beta download for Outlook Express. It seems to have a very good heuristic
algorithim and catches most Spam.

It uses P-P peer to peer, to determine what's spam. Unless they've added
something else since it was first released.

So in actuality, it does indeed use a very good algorithm, known as
humans reading and marking the email as spam. ;-)

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@
F
o
d
d
e
r

f
o
r

s
t
u
p
i
d

n
o
t

e
n
o
u
g
h

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

t
e
x
t

m
s
g

Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun · Nov 21, 2003

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:49:27 -0800, "Baphomet"
fandaDEATH2SPAMMERS@catskill.net> wrote:

I know that there was some discussion of Spam on the newsgroup(s) awhile
back (of course I can't find it now). In any event, I have been using Spam
Net http://www.cloudmark.com/products/spamnet/download/ free
Beta download for Outlook Express. It seems to have a very good heuristic
algorithim and catches most Spam.

Want ZERO spam? For $30 a year I route my E-mail though spamcop.net.

NO spam in my inbox... period!

Guess who is buying Spamcop?

http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/19/HNironport_1.html

!!! Just a happy user... no affiliation with spamcop.

I just plain ass got tired of dealing with it all, and spamcop reports
seem to be read carefully by administrators... block listed seems to
hurt a wee bit ;-)

...Jim Thompson

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@
F
o
d
d
e
r

f
o
r

s
t
u
p
i
d

n
o
t

e
n
o
u
g
h

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

t
e
x
t

m
s
g

Jim Thompson · Nov 21, 2003

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:37:38 -0800, "Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun - the
Dark Remover\"" <NOSPAM@dslextreme.com> wrote:

[snip]

Guess who is buying Spamcop?

http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/19/HNironport_1.html

[snip]

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Jim Thompson · Nov 21, 2003

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:37:38 -0800, "Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun - the
Dark Remover\"" <NOSPAM@dslextreme.com> wrote:

[snip]

Guess who is buying Spamcop?

http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/19/HNironport_1.html

[snip]

My web access is back. Interesting possibility... let's hope it works
out.

(I have noted some DOS crap against SpamCop in recent weeks. Maybe
some financing will help the fight.)

My arrangement is working marvelously:

Outbound mail by SMTP thru Cox (required... Cox doesn't allow SMTP
thru remote servers).

Inbound mail comes first to Dallas to my website provider where
"certain" addresses go straight to /dev/null/. The rest are forwarded
to SpamCop.net (*net* not *com*... *com* is a ripoff of the name).

At SpamCop.net E-mails are subjected to blacklists (user selectable),
then to SpamAssassin.

I POP from SpamCop.net to receive the remainder.

All "spam" is held for my review. After white listing a few
newsletters I get, I now verify and dump 100% into the SpamCop
reporting system.

For the, now-about-one-per-month, spam that gets thru to me, Spamnix
scarfs it into a folder where I also report to SpamCop.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Baphomet · Nov 22, 2003

"Watson A.Name "Watt Sun - the Dark Remover"" <NOSPAM@dslextreme.com> wrote
in message news:bpls7v$4ure2$1@hades.csu.net...

Baphomet wrote:
I know that there was some discussion of Spam on the newsgroup(s) awhile
back (of course I can't find it now). In any event, I have been using
Spam
Net http://www.cloudmark.com/products/spamnet/download/ free
Beta download for Outlook Express. It seems to have a very good
heuristic
algorithim and catches most Spam.

It uses P-P peer to peer, to determine what's spam. Unless they've added
something else since it was first released.

So in actuality, it does indeed use a very good algorithm, known as
humans reading and marking the email as spam. ;-)

We must know different humans ;-)

A follow up:

N.Y. Times

November 22, 2003
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS and SAUL HANSELL

WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 - House and Senate leaders reached
agreement on Friday on legislation intended to stanch the
flood of junk messages filling e-mail in-boxes, making it
likely that Congress will approve a final version of the
bill by early next week.

Lawmakers said they expected the bill - which had strong
bipartisan support as well as support from the marketing
industry - to pass the House on a voice vote and sail
through the Senate as early as Monday. President Bush is
expected to sign the bill if it makes it to his desk.

The legislation would expose mass e-mailers to civil fines
of up to $250 a message if they disguise their identities
or make themselves impossible to trace - a potentially
significant blow to marketers because unwanted e-mail
solicitations, or spam, now total as many as five billion
messages a day.

The bill would also authorize the Federal Trade Commission
to come up with a plan for creating a national "do not
e-mail" registry, a list that would allow people to
prohibit marketers from sending them any unsolicited e-mail
messages.

Even though the bill is intended to provide relief to
Internet users overwhelmed with advertising for cheap loans
and penis-enlargement products, some e-mail experts
cautioned that it includes many concessions to the
marketing industry and may have a limited impact.

The bill would not allow people to sue a company that
deluges them with unwanted messages, reserving that right
for the Federal Trade Commission, state attorneys general
and Internet service providers.

Deferring to industry pressure, lawmakers also refused to
require that commercial e-mailers include words or
indicators like "ADV," for advertisement, that would
readily identify their messages and make them easy to
filter out automatically.

Perhaps the industry's biggest victory, however, is a
provision in the bill that would override state laws that
impose tougher restrictions on junk e-mail. California
passed a highly restrictive law, scheduled to take effect
Jan. 1, that would have prohibited any commercial marketer
from sending messages without getting approval in advance
from recipients.

"We are comfortable with the agreement," said Gerald E.
Cerasale, a top lobbyist for the Direct Marketing
Association, an industry trade organization that had fought
against many proposed restrictions. "We want a bill that
gives us a single federal standard so we don't have 50
separate state standards."

Despite the many compromises, lawmakers who have been
pushing for anti-spamming legislation said they supported
the final compromise.

"This bill keeps getting better as it moves through the
legislative process," said Senator Charles E. Schumer,
Democrat of New York. Mr. Schumer had been the strongest
proponent of the "do not e-mail" registry, which is the one
provision that marketing companies still oppose vehemently.

In response to industry concerns, the bill merely
authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to set up a
national registry but does not require it. Timothy J.
Muris, the commission's chairman, has already said he is
skeptical of the value of such a list. If the bill becomes
law, the commission would be given six months to present
plans for a "do not e-mail" list to Congress; the
legislation also instructs the commission to address the
technical and practical problems such a list might create.

Supporters of tougher anti-spam restrictions complained on
Friday that the law could actually encourage junk
e-mailers.

"The legislation legitimizes spam and will increase the
volume," said David E. Sorkin, a law professor at the John
Marshall School of Law in Chicago. "The only saving grace
is the do-not-spam registry."

Indeed, one large bulk e-mailer said on Friday that he was
relieved and enthusiastic because the bill would invalidate
the California law that would have been far more onerous on
the industry.

"We are very excited," said Scott Richter, the president of
OptInRealBig, an e-mail marketing firm in Westminster,
Colo. "All of our clients had been worried about the
California law. In the last two hours we have been booking
a lot of orders for January."

Even so, the nearly unanimous political support for some
kind of anti-spam bill is a response to the anger and
frustration of millions of computer users who have felt
helpless against a daily torrent of unwanted messages that
are often pornographic.

The new law could give opponents of spam several important
new legal tools. It would expand the definition of fraud to
cover bulk e-mailers who disguise their identities with
false names and fake return addresses. It would impose
fines of up to $1 million and prison terms of up to five
years for bulk spammers who hack into other people's
computers and use those computers to send spam.

The Senate passed a an anti-spam bill on Oct. 22 by a
margin of 97 to 0, but House Republicans had been reluctant
to support a do-not-spam registry. The agreement came after
negotiations on Thursday involving Representative Billy
Tauzin, Republican of Louisiana and chairman of the House
Energy and Commerce Committee; Representative F. James
Sensenbrenner Jr., Republican of Wisconsin and chairman of
the House Judiciary committee; and two lawmakers who had
pushed for a stricter bill, Representative Gene Green,
Democrat of Texas, and Representative Heather A. Wilson,
Republican of New Mexico.

In the end, House lawmakers adopted most of the Senate bill
and then added amendments that increased the potential
penalties to $250 from $100 for each prohibited message.

Speaking on the House floor Friday afternoon, Mr.
Sensenbrenner said he supported the compromise because "it
provides a win-win situation for everybody but the few bad
actors."

Baphomet · Nov 22, 2003

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,61339,00.html?tw=newsletter_topstories_html

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,61343,00.html?tw=newsletter_topstories_html

Jim Thompson · Nov 22, 2003

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 11:53:02 -0800, "Baphomet"
<fandaDEATH2SPAMMERS@catskill.net> wrote:

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,61339,00.html?tw=newsletter_topstories_html

I can understand the rage ;-)

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,61343,00.html?tw=newsletter_topstories_html

The bill will do no good. May even make things worse by giving some
legality to some forms of advertising.

How do you enforce it?

Most spam routes thru Brazil, China, Korea, Estonia,... on and on...

Only black listing will do the job... and that's *private* enterprise.

Or, a method I like... make your local ISP responsible for letting any
spam through... with heavy fines. Guess who'll learn to apply
blacklisting really fast ?

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Baphomet · Nov 22, 2003

"Jim Thompson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:43gvrvgrg91eoht83pscs1e5baqt5m3srf@4ax.com...

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 11:53:02 -0800, "Baphomet"
fandaDEATH2SPAMMERS@catskill.net> wrote:

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,61339,00.html?tw=newsletter_topsto
ries_html

I can understand the rage ;-)

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,61343,00.html?tw=newsletter_topst
ories_html

The bill will do no good. May even make things worse by giving some
legality to some forms of advertising.

How do you enforce it?

Most spam routes thru Brazil, China, Korea, Estonia,... on and on...

Only black listing will do the job... and that's *private* enterprise.

Or, a method I like... make your local ISP responsible for letting any
spam through... with heavy fines. Guess who'll learn to apply
blacklisting really fast ?

...Jim Thompson

There was endless discussion as to whether or not it would do any good and
you are correct, it will probably have limited utility; but it does set a
precedent and that is probably a good thing. I like your idea of holding the
I.S.P. accountable for spam; it makes perfect sense to me and that would
probably be the next step, with much kicking and screaming from A.O.L. et
al. ;-)

R. Steve Walz · Nov 23, 2003

Baphomet wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:43gvrvgrg91eoht83pscs1e5baqt5m3srf@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 11:53:02 -0800, "Baphomet"
fandaDEATH2SPAMMERS@catskill.net> wrote:

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,61339,00.html?tw=newsletter_topsto
ries_html

I can understand the rage ;-)

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,61343,00.html?tw=newsletter_topst
ories_html

The bill will do no good. May even make things worse by giving some
legality to some forms of advertising.

How do you enforce it?

Most spam routes thru Brazil, China, Korea, Estonia,... on and on...

Only black listing will do the job... and that's *private* enterprise.

Or, a method I like... make your local ISP responsible for letting any
spam through... with heavy fines. Guess who'll learn to apply
blacklisting really fast ?

...Jim Thompson

There was endless discussion as to whether or not it would do any good and
you are correct, it will probably have limited utility; but it does set a
precedent and that is probably a good thing. I like your idea of holding the
I.S.P. accountable for spam; it makes perfect sense to me and that would
probably be the next step, with much kicking and screaming from A.O.L. et
al. ;-)
--------------------

Simply make unsolicited commercial email entirely illegal on penalty
of death, and enforce it, and make ISPs filter foreign enemy domains
from the national list. They'll stop.
Steve

Baphomet · Nov 23, 2003

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3FC02CBC.1C6@armory.com...

Baphomet wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:43gvrvgrg91eoht83pscs1e5baqt5m3srf@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 11:53:02 -0800, "Baphomet"
fandaDEATH2SPAMMERS@catskill.net> wrote:

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,61339,00.html?tw=newsletter_topsto
ries_html

I can understand the rage ;-)

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,61343,00.html?tw=newsletter_topst
ories_html

The bill will do no good. May even make things worse by giving some
legality to some forms of advertising.

How do you enforce it?

Most spam routes thru Brazil, China, Korea, Estonia,... on and on...

Only black listing will do the job... and that's *private* enterprise.

Or, a method I like... make your local ISP responsible for letting any
spam through... with heavy fines. Guess who'll learn to apply
blacklisting really fast ?

...Jim Thompson

There was endless discussion as to whether or not it would do any good
and
you are correct, it will probably have limited utility; but it does set
a
precedent and that is probably a good thing. I like your idea of holding
the
I.S.P. accountable for spam; it makes perfect sense to me and that would
probably be the next step, with much kicking and screaming from A.O.L.
et
al. ;-)
--------------------
Simply make unsolicited commercial email entirely illegal on penalty
of death, and enforce it, and make ISPs filter foreign enemy domains
from the national list. They'll stop.
Steve

"on penalty of death". Ah, I always appreciate moderation ;-)

R. Steve Walz · Nov 24, 2003

Baphomet wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message

There was endless discussion as to whether or not it would do any good
and
you are correct, it will probably have limited utility; but it does set
a
precedent and that is probably a good thing. I like your idea of holding
the
I.S.P. accountable for spam; it makes perfect sense to me and that would
probably be the next step, with much kicking and screaming from A.O.L.
et
al. ;-)
--------------------
Simply make unsolicited commercial email entirely illegal on penalty
of death, and enforce it, and make ISPs filter foreign enemy domains
from the national list. They'll stop.
Steve

"on penalty of death". Ah, I always appreciate moderation ;-)
---------------

Once a society knows what it wants, it SHOULD be able to get it
ABSOLUTELY, and there's nothing wrong with that! And lately, EVERYONE
agrees that SPAM and Telemarketing should be STOPPED, so LET'S JUST
DO IT!! Anyone who violates that law isn't having a moment's insanity,
aren't committing a crime of desperation or passion, they're committing
a calcluating vicious assault upon our laws, and they should be KILLED
OUTRIGHT!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun · Nov 24, 2003

In article <vrvkk3ejmbat1f@corp.supernews.com>,
fandaDEATH2SPAMMERS@catskill.net mentioned...

"Jim Thompson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:43gvrvgrg91eoht83pscs1e5baqt5m3srf@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 11:53:02 -0800, "Baphomet"
fandaDEATH2SPAMMERS@catskill.net> wrote:

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,61339,00.html?tw=newsletter_topsto
ries_html

I can understand the rage ;-)

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,61343,00.html?tw=newsletter_topst
ories_html

The bill will do no good. May even make things worse by giving some
legality to some forms of advertising.

How do you enforce it?

Most spam routes thru Brazil, China, Korea, Estonia,... on and on...

Only black listing will do the job... and that's *private* enterprise.

Or, a method I like... make your local ISP responsible for letting any
spam through... with heavy fines. Guess who'll learn to apply
blacklisting really fast ?

...Jim Thompson

There was endless discussion as to whether or not it would do any good and
you are correct, it will probably have limited utility; but it does set a
precedent and that is probably a good thing. I like your idea of holding the
I.S.P. accountable for spam; it makes perfect sense to me and that would
probably be the next step, with much kicking and screaming from A.O.L. et
al. ;-)

But do you want others invading the privacy of your email? Not long
ago email was considered private, and having others filter it, i.e.
examine it for its contents, was considered a loss of privacy.

But spam has changed a lot of things.

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@

Baphomet · Nov 24, 2003

"Watson A.Name - Watt Sun, Dark Remover" <alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:MPG.1a2b3402357f7e4e989967@news.dslextreme.com...

In article <vrvkk3ejmbat1f@corp.supernews.com>,
fandaDEATH2SPAMMERS@catskill.net mentioned...

"Jim Thompson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:43gvrvgrg91eoht83pscs1e5baqt5m3srf@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 11:53:02 -0800, "Baphomet"
fandaDEATH2SPAMMERS@catskill.net> wrote:

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,61339,00.html?tw=newsletter_topsto
ries_html

I can understand the rage ;-)

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,61343,00.html?tw=newsletter_topst
ories_html

The bill will do no good. May even make things worse by giving some
legality to some forms of advertising.

How do you enforce it?

Most spam routes thru Brazil, China, Korea, Estonia,... on and on...

Only black listing will do the job... and that's *private* enterprise.

Or, a method I like... make your local ISP responsible for letting any
spam through... with heavy fines. Guess who'll learn to apply
blacklisting really fast ?

...Jim Thompson

There was endless discussion as to whether or not it would do any good
and
you are correct, it will probably have limited utility; but it does set
a
precedent and that is probably a good thing. I like your idea of holding
the
I.S.P. accountable for spam; it makes perfect sense to me and that would
probably be the next step, with much kicking and screaming from A.O.L.
et
al. ;-)

But do you want others invading the privacy of your email? Not long
ago email was considered private, and having others filter it, i.e.
examine it for its contents, was considered a loss of privacy.

But spam has changed a lot of things.

9-11 and Homeland Security have changed things even more. If I wanted to
ensure privacy, I would resort to some pretty heavy duty encrypting.

Spam Net Looking Good

Baphomet

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Baphomet

Guest

Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun

Guest

Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Baphomet

Guest

Baphomet

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Baphomet

Guest

R. Steve Walz

Guest

Baphomet

Guest

R. Steve Walz

Guest

Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun

Guest

Baphomet

Guest

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Online statistics

Forum statistics

Spam Net Looking Good

Baphomet

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Baphomet

Guest

Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun

Guest

Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Baphomet

Guest

Baphomet

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Baphomet

Guest

R. Steve Walz

Guest

Baphomet

Guest

R. Steve Walz

Guest

Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun

Guest

Baphomet

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor