HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: Question about unsolicited Internet Email.
Date: 11 Oct 1992 01:10:22 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Reply-To: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

From article <1992Oct10.155553.311@infodev.cam.ac.uk>, by ag129@cus.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant):
> 
> So the posting of commercial advertising over British, Dutch, Italian,
> Swedish and Australian academic networks (and probably everyone else's
> as well) is an "internal American affair"?

Not at all.  The posting of this "noise" to a *US* network _is_ an
internal American affair.  It may be rude, impolite, offensive, and
a whole host of other adjectives.  But is *is* internal to us.

As for these messages appearing on "foreign" (relative to the USA)
networks, well...  *you* folks voluntarily connected to our
network(s).  That places _some_ responsibility for appropriateness 
of traffic on you.

[Question:  Has the sum total of traffic in these newsgroups reached the
volume of the original e-mail postings everyone is yammering about yet?]
-- 
John G Dobnick (News Janitor)           ATTnet: (414) 229-5727
Computing Services Division             INTERNET: jgd@uwm.edu
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee     UUCP: uunet!uwm!jgd

"Knowing how things work is the basis for appreciation,
and is thus a source of civilized delight."  -- William Safire
From: etheredg@iugate.ucs.indiana.edu (Wil Etheredge)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Public Access - List
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:32:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: lib102b_.etheredg-131092103055
Followup-To: comp.mail.misc
Organization: Indiana University

Sorry if this is an FAQ -
But I need a list of the available Public Access Sites
For Unix and VMS Platforms.

Any help would be appreciated.

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
(  \\  /\  //             (    Mailing Address:                           
)
 )  \\//\\// il Etheredge  )       Vax -  etheredg@aqua.ucs.indiana.edu   (
(    \/  \/               (        Unix - etheredg@silver.ucs.indiana.edu 
)
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,news.admin.misc
From: gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Question about unsolicited Internet Email.
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 22:05:58 GMT
Keywords: question legal use email

In article <p9jprrr@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>relative to that individual.  I believe the rules of net.conduct should
>NOT be set by mob rule of a few loudmouths.

Mr Pot meet Mr Kettle.  "The (net.loud)Mouth of the South" indeed.

G
--
From: nauen@WRAIR-EMH1.ARMY.MIL
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: Helpful Tips For This week
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:51:00 GMT

In <1992Oct12.171018.6869@wariat.org> zbig@wariat.org (Zbigniew J. Tyrlik) 
writes

>> Abacus Global Support, Inc.            INTERNET: abacus@global.gwinnett.com
>> 9566 N.W. 41 Street                    COMPUSERVE: 71201.1201@compuserve.com
> 
> ( And call them at their 800 number - let them pay for such stuff ).

Probably wouldn't be a bad idea to write them at their CompuServe
mailbox also, rather than the one at gwinnett.COM

Ric

Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
From: amillar@netcom.com (Alan Millar)
Subject: Re: More unsolicited advertising e-mail.
Organization: The Bolis Group, San Jose, CA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 08:18:13 GMT

In article <70941@hydra.gatech.EDU> you write:
>In <samp2@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>See how useful net.advertising is?  Even when you don't mean to?
>
>John, John, John.  I usually agree with you on things, but this is too far.

John is only guilty of not including a disclaimer for the humor-impaired.

Go back and read it again.  This time imagine you hear sarcasm.

The point was that Steve Frampton's quote included the advertising, thereby
propagating it.  I'm sure Steve didn't intend it, which is what was
meant by "Even when you don't mean to" above.

----        
Alan Millar       amillar@bolis.SF-Bay.org        
Mail me if you are interested in, um, giving me, uh, all your money!  Yeah,
that's it....
-- 
----             email:                                  ,,,,  
Alan Millar       amillar@bolis.SF-Bay.org            __oo  \  
                  ames!zorch!bolis!amillar              =___/  
But Moses said "Oh, Lord, please send someone else to do it." -Exo. 4:13
Xref: sparky comp.mail.misc:3338 news.admin.misc:139
From: bruce@ais.com (Bruce C. Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: Question about unsolicited Internet Email.
Date: 11 Oct 92 00:15:54 GMT
Organization: Applied Information Systems, Chapel Hill, NC

In article <r+kpc!+@dixie.com>, jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
> ag129@cus.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant) writes:
> 
>>Yeah, good point. I kinda wonder what Emory and Clemson told Gwinnett Inc.,
>>and what Gwinnett Inc. told its clients. 
> 
> Well since Clemson is in Alabama and only serves as the MX backup to 
> Emory, one can safely assume they said nothing.  I have a pretty good
> idea what was said from Emory too.

Last I checked the orange tiger paws on the road to Death Valley (the
Clemson football stadium) still led to Clemson, South Carolina.  8-)

> Now you and a few others have been masturbating over emory being
> in the mail path.  Let's just suppose for the sake of argument
> that this mail that you've screamed about routed instead through
> a commercial connection like PSInet or UUNET that has no academic AUP?
> What would you scream about then?

Do people really expect that the administrators at all these sites
are going to inspect all the e-mail that's going through their site
to see if it meets the network guidelines?  I don't think this is
reasonable -- even at a low-usage site, this would be a lot of
trouble for someone who probably has lots of more important things
to do (from the point of view of his or her employers), and at high-
volume sites -- especially those with a lot of connections -- it is
just simply impractical to scan any more than a tiny fraction,
especially if it's sent at night.  Even noting that there was an
"unusual" volume or type of mail might not happen fast enough to
inspect it or stop it unless the person had nothing else to do.

I'm not happy with the ethics that are implied by making this sort of
inspection routine at large numbers of sites, to say nothing of the
cost in lost time and productivity.  Is this really what people want?

Bruce C. Wright
Xref: sparky comp.mail.misc:3348 news.admin.misc:146
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: Question about unsolicited Internet Email.
Date: 12 Oct 92 08:43:14 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

ag129@cus.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant) writes:

>Perhaps you ought to learn something about
>international networking before you assume it's all run from the USA.

First, of course, we'd have to care.  Just as an experiment sometime,
print out the Brian Reed's postscript maps.  Notice where about 99.9% of
all connections anchor one end or the other.  Note the country involved.  Then
crawl back out on your leaf and be quiet.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
From: victor@watson.ibm.com (Victor Miller)
Subject: Reply-To and Resent-Reply-To
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 20:20:00 GMT
Reply-To: victor@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM, T.J. Watson Research Center

I had always been under the impression that the proper way for a
program to formulate the reply address for a piece of mail was as
follows (here is a list of fields, go down the list and find the first
that exists).

Resent-Reply-To
Resent-From
Reply-To
From

so that if mail contained both a Resent-Reply-To and a Reply-To, the
reply should go to the Resent-Reply-To.  I've looked at rfc822, and it
seems a little murky on this.  Here is the "interpretation" from the
postmastser at Sun.  I don't really agree with this.  Does anyone want
to venture his opinion?

---- Forwarded mail ---

First the legal interpretation.  Here is the relevant text from RFC-822:

     4.2.  FORWARDING

          Some systems permit mail recipients to  forward  a  message,
     retaining  the original headers, by adding some new fields.  This
     standard supports such a service, through the "Resent-" prefix to
     field names.

          Whenever the string "Resent-" begins a field name, the field
     has  the  same  semantics as a field whose name does not have the
     prefix.  However, the message is assumed to have  been  forwarded
     by  an original recipient who attached the "Resent-" field.  This
     new field is treated as being more recent  than  the  equivalent,
     original  field.   For  example, the "Resent-From", indicates the
     person that forwarded the message, whereas the "From" field indi-
     cates the original author.

          Use of such precedence  information  depends  upon  partici-
     pants'  communication needs.  For example, this standard does not
     dictate when a "Resent-From:" address should receive replies,  in
     lieu of sending them to the "From:" address.

     Note:  In general, the "Resent-" fields should be treated as con-
            taining  a  set  of information that is independent of the
            set of original fields.  Information for  one  set  should
            not  automatically be taken from the other.  The interpre-
            tation of multiple "Resent-" fields, of the same type,  is
            undefined.

So the standard clearly does not require sending replies to resent-reply-to.

Now, as to what we should do: the basic question is "what is indented".
If you reply to a forwarded message, who did you really intend to
talk to?  I can't see an overriding case for selecting one case over
the other.  Usually reply is intended for the message author; who is
the "author" of a forwarded message?  It depends on context that is
not within the message itself.  Based on this ambigous situation,
I can't see changing mailtool in this case.
-------- End forwarded mail ---------


--
		Victor S. Miller
		Bitnet: VICTOR at WATSON
		Internet: victor@watson.ibm.com
		IBM, TJ Watson Research Center
		"Great artists steal; lesser artists borrow" Igor Stravinsky
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Reply-To and Resent-Reply-To
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 01:29:18 GMT

In article <VICTOR.92Oct16140020@terse.watson.ibm.com> victor@watson.ibm.com (Victor Miller) writes:
>I had always been under the impression that the proper way for a
>program to formulate the reply address for a piece of mail was as
>follows (here is a list of fields, go down the list and find the first
>that exists).
>
>Resent-Reply-To
>Resent-From
>Reply-To
>From
>
>so that if mail contained both a Resent-Reply-To and a Reply-To, the
>reply should go to the Resent-Reply-To.  I've looked at rfc822, and it
>seems a little murky on this.  Here is the "interpretation" from the
>postmastser at Sun.  I don't really agree with this.  Does anyone want
>to venture his opinion?

I'll stick my neck out, and venture an opinion.  It is not intended to
imply any official interpretation, but my view of a practical
interpretation.

In my view, there really should not be a "Resent-Reply-To:", but
regardless, the automatic reply should go first to "Reply-To:", and in
its absence, to "From:".  Those headers designate the author of the
mail, or the author's wishes.  If a respondent wishes to manually override
the default, that is obviously his choice.

I make a distinction you are not making.  I refer to a "forwarded"
message as a message which is enclosed in another message, perhaps with
a some deletions, and often with the addition of commentary.  A "resent"
message is essentially a verbatim copy of the original message, except
for the addition of the "Resent" headers.  For a "forwarded" message,
it is proper to reply to the forwarder.  For a "resent" message it is
appropriate to reply to the original author.

>---- Forwarded mail ---
>
>First the legal interpretation.  Here is the relevant text from RFC-822:

I see you too find it convenient to make a distinction between "forwarded"
and "resent" messages, except that you call them both by the same name.

Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
From: victor@watson.ibm.com (Victor Miller)
Subject: Reply-To and Resent-Reply-To
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 18:00:20 GMT
Reply-To: victor@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM, T.J. Watson Research Center

I had always been under the impression that the proper way for a
program to formulate the reply address for a piece of mail was as
follows (here is a list of fields, go down the list and find the first
that exists).

Resent-Reply-To
Resent-From
Reply-To
From

so that if mail contained both a Resent-Reply-To and a Reply-To, the
reply should go to the Resent-Reply-To.  I've looked at rfc822, and it
seems a little murky on this.  Here is the "interpretation" from the
postmastser at Sun.  I don't really agree with this.  Does anyone want
to venture his opinion?

---- Forwarded mail ---

First the legal interpretation.  Here is the relevant text from RFC-822:

     4.2.  FORWARDING

          Some systems permit mail recipients to  forward  a  message,
     retaining  the original headers, by adding some new fields.  This
     standard supports such a service, through the "Resent-" prefix to
     field names.

          Whenever the string "Resent-" begins a field name, the field
     has  the  same  semantics as a field whose name does not have the
     prefix.  However, the message is assumed to have  been  forwarded
     by  an original recipient who attached the "Resent-" field.  This
     new field is treated as being more recent  than  the  equivalent,
     original  field.   For  example, the "Resent-From", indicates the
     person that forwarded the message, whereas the "From" field indi-
     cates the original author.

          Use of such precedence  information  depends  upon  partici-
     pants'  communication needs.  For example, this standard does not
     dictate when a "Resent-From:" address should receive replies,  in
     lieu of sending them to the "From:" address.

     Note:  In general, the "Resent-" fields should be treated as con-
            taining  a  set  of information that is independent of the
            set of original fields.  Information for  one  set  should
            not  automatically be taken from the other.  The interpre-
            tation of multiple "Resent-" fields, of the same type,  is
            undefined.

So the standard clearly does not require sending replies to resent-reply-to.

Now, as to what we should do: the basic question is "what is indented".
If you reply to a forwarded message, who did you really intend to
talk to?  I can't see an overriding case for selecting one case over
the other.  Usually reply is intended for the message author; who is
the "author" of a forwarded message?  It depends on context that is
not within the message itself.  Based on this ambigous situation,
I can't see changing mailtool in this case.
-------- End forwarded mail ---------


--
		Victor S. Miller
		Bitnet: VICTOR at WATSON
		Internet: victor@watson.ibm.com
		IBM, TJ Watson Research Center
		"Great artists steal; lesser artists borrow" Igor Stravinsky
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers,comp.sys.next.misc
From: berg@physik.tu-muenchen.de (Stephen R. van den Berg)
Subject: Re: (? FOLLOWUP) procmail and processing FAXes
Originator: frach@akela
Organization: Rechnerbetrieb Informatik  /  RWTH Aachen
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 14:12:22 GMT

>As a reminder: Thus far, I have gotten the procmail account to receive a  
>FAX, log it, archive it, and forward it. However, the read receipt goes  
>back to the original account, not the procmail account. Also, there is  
>apparently, no way to tell sendmail to request an read acknowledgement.

There is no such thing as a Read-receipt in E-mail.  If you want one, the
best you can do is ask the recipient to send back a mail when he has read
the message.

The only receipts the e-mail system supports are Return-Receipts.  They can
are generated by the receiving sendmail program that does the final delivery.

So, if you were sending mail from hostA through hostB to hostC, and you
were to include the following line in your header:
Return-Receipt: myname@hostA

Then, the sendmail on hostC will immediately send back a receipt when the
mail *arrives* at hostC.
-- 
Sincerely,                                  berg@pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de
           Stephen R. van den Berg (AKA BuGless).    berg@physik.tu-muenchen.de

He did a quarter of the work in *half* the time!
Xref: sparky comp.mail:185 comp.mail.sendmail:2481 comp.mail.uucp:1911
From: jchdr@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com (Dennis R. Chandler)
Newsgroups: comp.mail,comp.mail.sendmail,comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Help with email statistics
Keywords: statistics sendmail uucp
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:34:49 GMT
Followup-To: poster
Organization: Chevron, La Habra, CA


I need help locating tools I can use to collect and analyze
sendmail and uucp logfile data. I'm looking for as many metrics
as I can ( total messages, user & host trends, averages, etc.)
A DEC Ultrix system currently provides our company with a connection to
UUNET.

Mailstats doesn't exist on our Ultrix OS. Besides it has limited
capabilities.  Any assistance that you can provide would be
greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Dennis Chandler
Systems Analyst

===============================================================================
Dennis Chandler			Voice:	(310) 694-9125
Chevron Info Tech Co.		FAX:	(310) 694-7709
P.O. Box 446			Internet: jchdr@chevron.com
La Habra, CA 90633
From: uucpmap@rutgers.rutgers.edu (UUCP Mapping Project)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.maps
Subject: UUCP map for u.fin.0
Date: 8 Oct 92 11:28:23 GMT
Expires: 22 Nov 92 11:28:23 GMT
Supersedes: <Sep.8.05.48.30.1992.22189@rutgers.rutgers.edu>

:	This is a shell archive.
:	Remove everything above this line and
:	run the following text with /bin/sh to create:
:	u.fin.0
: This archive created: Thu Oct  8 07:28:21 1992
echo shar: extracting u.fin.0
cat << 'SHAR_EOF' > u.fin.0
#
# u.fin.0 - EUnet Map for Finnish EUnet backbones
#
# Copyright 1989-1992 by EurOpen.  All rights reserved
# 
# Permission to use and redistribute for routing purposes granted.
# Permission is granted for non-commercial use.
#
# Changes: uucpmap@fuug.fi
#
# Last modified: Sat May 18 14:12:05 1991
#

#
#	Finnish EUnet backbone
#

#N	fuug.fi fuug Finland.EU.net
#S	DECSystem 5400; Ultrix 4.1
#O	Finnish Unix Users' Group
#C	Petri Ojala
#E	postmaster@Finland.EU.net
#T	+358 0 1393 0010, +358 0 400 2043
#P	Perustie 23 A 11, SF-00330 Helsinki, Finland
#L
#W	ojala@fuug.fi; Wed Aug  1 20:56:47 1990
#W	ojala@fuug.fi; Sat Apr 27 17:07:56 1991
#
#R	To contact FUUG in general, use address 'fuug@fuug.fi'
#R
#R	Current FUUG board 'fuug-board@fuug.fi':
#R		Marko Katajisto CHAIRMAN	<jita@fuug.fi>
#R		Marko Kaittola			<moa@funet.fi>
#R		Kai Kein{nen			<kmk@cc.tut.fi>
#R		Markku J{rvinen			<mta@cc.tut.fi>
#R		Ikka Neva			<ineva@utu.fi>
#R		Petri Ojala			<ojala@funet.fi>
#R		Esa Pekkarinen			<pekkis@fuug.fi>
#R
#R              Petri Ojala EUNET               <Petri.Ojala@fuug.fi>
#R
#R      Office secretary (very, VERY important person....)
#R              Outi Nyman			<fuug@fuug.fi>
#
#
fuug.fi	=fuug
fuug.fi	=finland.eu.net
fuug.fi	.innopoli.fi
fuug.fi	.pp.fi
fuug.fi	.fuug.fi

# National backbone connections
fuug.fi	datanet.tele.fi(ARPA),	# National PTT / Datanet
	funet.fi(ARPA),		# funet.fi

# Other special connections
fuug.fi	ioc(HOURLY),ioc.ew.su(HOURLY),			# Estonia
	sys130(HOURLY),sys130.ew.su(HOURLY)		# University of Tartu
	
#
#	FUNET backbone
#

#N	funet.fi funet
#O	Finnish University and Research Network FUNET
#C	Marko Kaittola
#E	postmaster@funet.fi
#T	+358 31 162 933
#P	FUNET c/o TTKK, P.O. Box 527, SF-33101 Tampere, Finland
#L	23 50 E / 61 26 N
#W	ojala@fuug.fi; Wed Aug  1 20:56:59 1990
#W	ojala@fuug.fi; Sat Apr 27 17:22:15 1991
#
#
funet.fi	=funet
funet.fi	=etana
funet.fi	=etana.funet.fi
funet.fi	.fi
funet.fi	.funet.fi

#
#	National PTT (Datanet)
#

#N	datanet.tele.fi
#S
#O	Tele / Datanet
#C	Juha Hein{nen
#E	postmaster@datanet.tele.fi
#T	
#P
#L
#W	ojala@fuug.fi; Sat Apr 27 17:24:51 1991
#
#
datanet.tele.fi	.datanet.tele.fi
datanet.tele.fi	.tele.fi

#
#	Finnish University and Research Network
#

#N	nic.funet.fi funic.funet.fi funic
#S	Sun SPARCServer 330; SunOS 4.1.1
#O	Finnish University and Research Network FUNET
#C	Matti Aarnio, Harri Salminen
#E	postmaster@nic.funet.fi
#T	+358 0 457 2288, +358 21 633 6516
#P	FUNET, P.O. box 40, SF-02101 Espoo, Finland
#L	24 50 E / 60 11 N
#W	ojala@fuug.fi; Wed Feb 13 13:29:53 1991
#
#
nic.funet.fi	=funic
nic.funet.fi	=funic.funet.fi
nic.funet.fi	=ftp.funet.fi
nic.funet.fi	fuug.fi(LOCAL)

SHAR_EOF
:	End of shell archive
exit 0
From: uucpmap@rutgers.rutgers.edu (UUCP Mapping Project)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.maps
Subject: UUCP map for u.sgp.1
Date: 8 Oct 92 11:33:04 GMT
Expires: 22 Nov 92 11:33:04 GMT
Supersedes: <Sep.8.05.55.30.1992.23666@rutgers.rutgers.edu>

:	This is a shell archive.
:	Remove everything above this line and
:	run the following text with /bin/sh to create:
:	u.sgp.1
: This archive created: Thu Oct  8 07:33:00 1992
echo shar: extracting u.sgp.1
cat << 'SHAR_EOF' > u.sgp.1
# u.sgp.1 - pleasant@rutgers.edu - Mon Oct 21 22:20:15 EDT 1991

#N      temasek
#S      Waffle v1.64/Windows 3.0/MS-DOS 5.0, ALR 33/386
#O      Private Singapore UUCP and Usenet Site
#C      Harish Pillay (harish@itivax.bitnet)
#E      postmaster%temasek.uucp@cs.orst.edu
#T      +65 278 4191
#P      115 Bukit Purmei Road #05-234, Singapore 0409
#L      1 25 N / 103 50 E City
#R      Alternate site for uucp and usenet in Singapore
#R      All sites please take note:  If mail is sent to user@temasek.sg, it
#R      gets routed to CUNYVM and thence to NUSVM which will promptly
#R      reject it.  Until NUSVM allows feed to this site, addresses should
#R      be kept as user%temasek.uucp@cs.orst.edu
#R      Requests for uucp and Usenet feeds from any site is Singapore or
#R      surrounding ASEAN sites welcome.  Send mail to:
#R              root%temasek.uucp@cs.orst.edu
#U      orstcs
#W      harish%temasek@cs.orst.edu (Harish Pillay); Wed, Oct 16, 1991 2027 SST
#
#       Local Sites
temasek temasek(DEMAND),asterix(DEMAND),bluevox(DEMAND),infinity(DEMAND),
        csar(DEMAND),aslsng(DEMAND),tptan(DEMAND),werk(DEMAND)
#       Foreign Sites
temasek orstcs(EVENING)
#

#N	walt, walt.omron.sg
#F	uunet.uu.net
#S	4.3 BSD and System V R2-1
#O	Omron Management Centre of Asia Pacific Pte Ltd
#C	Mohamed Ibrahim
#E	walt!root
#T	+1 065 353 2611
#P	510 Thomson Road #13-03, SLF Building, Singapore 1129
#L	01 25 N / 103 50 E [city]
#R
#W	asp@uunet.UU.NET (Andrew Partan); Fri Oct 26 20:27:40 EDT 1990
#U
#
walt	.omron.sg
walt =	walt.omron.sg
walt =	.omron.sg
#
walt	uunet(DEMAND)

# End of u.sgp.1
SHAR_EOF
:	End of shell archive
exit 0