block in open()

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by freegnu, Oct 24, 2006.

  1. freegnu

    freegnu Guest

    hi all, it strange, when i use open() to open a FIFO to write, but i find when i use
    open(Fifo,O_WRONLY | O_CREAT | O_TRUNC);
    it will block

    i really confused
     
    freegnu, Oct 24, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. freegnu wrote:

    > hi all, it strange, when i use open() to open a FIFO to write, but i find when i use
    > open(Fifo,O_WRONLY | O_CREAT | O_TRUNC);
    > it will block
    >
    > i really confused


    write() is not defined by the C standard. You need to post on an
    appriate news group. Perhaps one that discusses Unix.

    --
    Nick Keighley
     
    Nick Keighley, Oct 24, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. freegnu <> wrote:
    > hi all, it strange, when i use open() to open a FIFO to write, but i find when i use
    > open(Fifo,O_WRONLY | O_CREAT | O_TRUNC);
    > it will block


    That's a question you should take to another newsgroup (I guess that
    comp.unix.programmer might do) since neither the open() function nor
    FIFOs are something that are defined by the C language (the topic of
    this group) but are extensions e.g. defined by the POSIX standard,
    thus a group dealing with POSIX is the one where you should ask.

    <OffTopic>
    First, O_TRUNC is useless when opening a FIFO and O_CREAT also, be-
    cause you already need to have created it using mkfifo(). Second,
    opening a FIFO always blocks until both sides have opened it (unless
    you open it in non-blocking mode), see the man page for fifo(4) and
    mkfifo(3), both pointing this out.
    </OffTopic>
    Regards, Jens
    --
    \ Jens Thoms Toerring ___
    \__________________________ http://toerring.de
     
    Jens Thoms Toerring, Oct 24, 2006
    #3
  4. freegnu

    CBFalconer Guest

    freegnu wrote:
    >
    > Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
    > Encoding: quoted-printable


    Don't use html or mime types in Usenet.

    --
    Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
    Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
    <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
     
    CBFalconer, Oct 24, 2006
    #4
  5. freegnu

    Jordan Abel Guest

    2006-10-24 <>,
    CBFalconer wrote:
    > Don't use html or mime types in Usenet.


    It's entirely unclear to me why not. IIRC the only format restriction on
    usenet is that binary (i.e. anything whose mime type would not begin
    "text/") is not acceptable in non-binary groups. Wouldn't it make more
    sense for text-based newsreaders to automatically display the text/plain
    and ignore the text/html portion? And "don't use mime types" is a bit
    of a strange way to put it - surely you meant "don't use multipart
    messages" - i'm using a mime type right now, which you likely wouldn't
    have noticed if i hadn't pointed it out (in case you're stumped, try
    checking the headers)

    Note: My newsreader did not handle it the way I suggested either. My
    point is, rather, that maybe it should have.
     
    Jordan Abel, Oct 24, 2006
    #5
  6. freegnu

    CBFalconer Guest

    Jordan Abel wrote:
    > CBFalconer wrote:
    >
    >> Don't use html or mime types in Usenet.

    >
    > It's entirely unclear to me why not. IIRC the only format
    > restriction on usenet is that binary (i.e. anything whose mime
    > type would not begin "text/") is not acceptable in non-binary
    > groups. Wouldn't it make more sense for text-based newsreaders to
    > automatically display the text/plain and ignore the text/html
    > portion? And "don't use mime types" is a bit of a strange way to
    > put it - surely you meant "don't use multipart messages" - i'm
    > using a mime type right now, which you likely wouldn't have
    > noticed if i hadn't pointed it out (in case you're stumped, try
    > checking the headers)


    The fundamental reason for banning html is that they can carry
    infections to unwary systems, such as webbugs, or worse. Pure text
    cannot.

    --
    Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
    Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
    <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
     
    CBFalconer, Oct 24, 2006
    #6
  7. freegnu

    Jordan Abel Guest

    2006-10-24 <>,
    CBFalconer wrote:
    > Jordan Abel wrote:
    >> CBFalconer wrote:
    >>
    >>> Don't use html or mime types in Usenet.

    >>
    >> It's entirely unclear to me why not. IIRC the only format
    >> restriction on usenet is that binary (i.e. anything whose mime
    >> type would not begin "text/") is not acceptable in non-binary
    >> groups. Wouldn't it make more sense for text-based newsreaders to
    >> automatically display the text/plain and ignore the text/html
    >> portion? And "don't use mime types" is a bit of a strange way to
    >> put it - surely you meant "don't use multipart messages" - i'm
    >> using a mime type right now, which you likely wouldn't have
    >> noticed if i hadn't pointed it out (in case you're stumped, try
    >> checking the headers)

    >
    > The fundamental reason for banning html is that they can carry
    > infections to unwary systems, such as webbugs, or worse. Pure text
    > cannot.


    OK, I guess you're right.

    --
    This sig-webbug is based on the honor system. Please go to the form
    located at http://821.340.510.276/webbug.php and enter the message-id of
    this message, the date and time that you opened the message, your IP
    address, and your newsreader version (including OS version).
     
    Jordan Abel, Oct 24, 2006
    #7
  8. On 24 Oct 2006 14:17:48 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
    <> wrote:

    >2006-10-24 <>,
    >CBFalconer wrote:
    >> Don't use html or mime types in Usenet.

    >
    >It's entirely unclear to me why not.


    because html is an executable file format, and many other mime types
    are frequently used to deliver virus payload.

    Plus usenet is inherently a text medium, and many newsreaders display
    multipart mime messages rather oddly.

    >and ignore the text/html portion? And "don't use mime types" is a bit
    >of a strange way to put it - surely you meant "don't use multipart
    >messages"


    I agree, even plain text is techically a mime type.
    --
    Mark McIntyre

    "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
    Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
    by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
    --Brian Kernighan
     
    Mark McIntyre, Oct 24, 2006
    #8
  9. In article <>,
    Jordan Abel <> wrote:
    >2006-10-24 <>,


    >CBFalconer wrote:
    >> Don't use html or mime types in Usenet.


    >It's entirely unclear to me why not. IIRC the only format restriction on
    >usenet is that binary (i.e. anything whose mime type would not begin
    >"text/") is not acceptable in non-binary groups.


    You don't RC (Recall Correctly).

    Except where specifically permitted by charter, newsgroups messages
    shall not be encoded.

    >Wouldn't it make more
    >sense for text-based newsreaders to automatically display the text/plain
    >and ignore the text/html portion?


    Newsreaders were designed around the NNTP standards and standard
    Usenet usage, which in turn was -specifically- tailored towards maximizing
    the opportunities to read the message, especially on high-cost links.
    MIME did not exist when the major newsreaders were designed. Telling
    people that they have to start using clunky new interfaces such as
    IE is Not Acceptable.

    You are presuming that HTML messages get posted in both formats.
    A lot of the time they don't, and are only posted in HTML.

    Permitting HTML is also an open invitation to use non-ASCII
    characters (by &entity; or ), and big invitation
    to include embedded images and embedded javascript and Active X
    and so on -- after all, if people don't like it, all they have to
    do is tell their newsreader to show them the plain text version, right?


    >And "don't use mime types" is a bit
    >of a strange way to put it - surely you meant "don't use multipart
    >messages" - i'm using a mime type right now, which you likely wouldn't
    >have noticed if i hadn't pointed it out (in case you're stumped, try
    >checking the headers)


    MIME -- are you aware that the very name of it includes the word "Mail".
    Not "Usenet" but "Mail".

    As far as Usenet is concerned, a Content-type header is just another
    non-standard header that should have been named starting with
    X- to indicate an optional eXtension header (like X-Face), but which
    is tolerated on sufferance under the principle of "It's best to just
    ignore non-standard headers; they shouldn't be there, but if you
    pretend it wasn't there then maybe the reader will be able to make
    *some* sense out of the message." The key word there is "ignore":
    as far as Usenet and NNTP are concerned, Content-type: is a noise
    header and the body must stand on its own.


    If you feel strongly that HTML should be permitted in comp.lang.c
    then create an HTML-friendly comp.lang.c analog somewhere and see
    whether you get much company.

    If you feel strongly that HTML (and Content-Type) should be
    recognized by NNTP and permitted in Usenet, then you could -try-
    reviving the moribund "Usenet 2" project -- or you could just do
    what a lot of other people have done and gone and migrated over to
    web sites.


    "Think of the starving children in Africa!" -- no, but seriously,
    Usenet is still expensive in a lot of the world, and the mission of
    Usenet has always been to reach as far as practical as cheaply as
    practical, rather than to be a playground for what the rich kids
    in the "First World" could afford.
    --
    Prototypes are supertypes of their clones. -- maplesoft
     
    Walter Roberson, Oct 24, 2006
    #9
  10. freegnu

    Richard Bos Guest

    CBFalconer <> wrote:

    > Jordan Abel wrote:
    > > CBFalconer wrote:
    > >
    > >> Don't use html or mime types in Usenet.

    > >
    > > It's entirely unclear to me why not. IIRC the only format
    > > restriction on usenet is that binary (i.e. anything whose mime
    > > type would not begin "text/") is not acceptable in non-binary
    > > groups. Wouldn't it make more sense for text-based newsreaders to
    > > automatically display the text/plain and ignore the text/html
    > > portion? And "don't use mime types" is a bit of a strange way to
    > > put it - surely you meant "don't use multipart messages" - i'm
    > > using a mime type right now, which you likely wouldn't have
    > > noticed if i hadn't pointed it out (in case you're stumped, try
    > > checking the headers)

    >
    > The fundamental reason for banning html is that they can carry
    > infections to unwary systems, such as webbugs, or worse. Pure text
    > cannot.


    And it costs considerably more bandwidth than plain text (yes, I know,
    binary groups cost more, but that's no reason to waste any for frippery
    like HTML) - for the worst (and therefore most common...) generators
    several times more; and it's bloody ugly, and if there is no plain text
    part, damn near illegible.

    Richard
     
    Richard Bos, Oct 25, 2006
    #10
  11. freegnu

    Jordan Abel Guest

    2006-10-24 <>,
    Mark McIntyre wrote:
    > On 24 Oct 2006 14:17:48 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>2006-10-24 <>,
    >>CBFalconer wrote:
    >>> Don't use html or mime types in Usenet.

    >>
    >>It's entirely unclear to me why not.

    >
    > because html is an executable file format,


    No, it's not. What ever gave you the idea that it was? HTML is no more
    an executable format than JPEG. (and, I chose the example of JPEG for
    a specific reason - can you guess what it is?)

    > and many other mime types are frequently used to deliver virus payload.


    That's hardly relevant to this discussion.

    > Plus usenet is inherently a text medium, and many newsreaders display
    > multipart mime messages rather oddly.


    N years ago, many newsreaders displayed quoted-printable rather oddly.
    Some still do.
     
    Jordan Abel, Oct 25, 2006
    #11
  12. freegnu

    Jordan Abel Guest

    2006-10-24 <ehljec$8sv$>,
    Walter Roberson wrote:
    > Jordan Abel <> wrote:
    >>It's entirely unclear to me why not. IIRC the only format restriction on
    >>usenet is that binary (i.e. anything whose mime type would not begin
    >>"text/") is not acceptable in non-binary groups.

    >
    > You don't RC (Recall Correctly).
    >
    > Except where specifically permitted by charter, newsgroups messages
    > shall not be encoded.


    Text is text, binary is binary, and CLC has no charter on record. But,
    that aside... Can you cite a source for that? Is ascii forbidden because
    it's not specifically permitted? What about utf-8 or latin-1? Or, what
    about... well, see below.

    --
    Random832, whose message includes an _encoded_ instruction
    (specifically, the instruction word 0D0A2D2D200D0A) to snip this
    paragraph out when quoting for a reply.
     
    Jordan Abel, Oct 25, 2006
    #12
  13. "Walter Roberson" <-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote in message
    news:ehljec$8sv$...
    >> And "don't use mime types" is a bit of a strange way to put it -
    >> surely
    >> you meant "don't use multipart messages" - i'm using a mime type
    >> right now, which you likely wouldn't have noticed if i hadn't pointed
    >> it out (in case you're stumped, try checking the headers)

    >
    > MIME -- are you aware that the very name of it includes the word
    > "Mail".
    > Not "Usenet" but "Mail".


    Another case of an IETF standard that's spread rather successfully. Do
    you think MIME types don't belong in HTTP since HTTP isn't "mail"?

    Using MIME headers is pretty much unavoidable since you need them for
    any non-ASCII content, and there's no reason to object to news posts in
    UTF-8 or Latin-1 or anything else as long as they remain in text/plain
    types.

    The objection is to text/html or binary attachments, and I support that.
    I have no objection to MIME itself.

    > As far as Usenet is concerned, a Content-type header is just another
    > non-standard header that should have been named starting with
    > X- to indicate an optional eXtension header (like X-Face), but which
    > is tolerated on sufferance under the principle of "It's best to just
    > ignore non-standard headers; they shouldn't be there, but if you
    > pretend it wasn't there then maybe the reader will be able to make
    > *some* sense out of the message." The key word there is "ignore":
    > as far as Usenet and NNTP are concerned, Content-type: is a noise
    > header and the body must stand on its own.


    Correction: Any headers not standardized by the IETF, i.e. private
    headers, are supposed to start with X-. The IETF only defines new
    extensions _without_ the X-. The X is for eXperimental, not eXtension.

    S

    --
    Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
    CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
    K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
     
    Stephen Sprunk, Oct 25, 2006
    #13
  14. freegnu

    Jordan Abel Guest

    2006-10-25 <453f81a8$0$19623$>,
    Stephen Sprunk wrote:
    > "Walter Roberson" <-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote in message
    > news:ehljec$8sv$...
    >> As far as Usenet is concerned, a Content-type header is just another
    >> non-standard header that should have been named starting with
    >> X- to indicate an optional eXtension header (like X-Face), but which
    >> is tolerated on sufferance under the principle of "It's best to just
    >> ignore non-standard headers; they shouldn't be there, but if you
    >> pretend it wasn't there then maybe the reader will be able to make
    >> *some* sense out of the message." The key word there is "ignore":
    >> as far as Usenet and NNTP are concerned, Content-type: is a noise
    >> header and the body must stand on its own.

    >
    > Correction: Any headers not standardized by the IETF, i.e. private
    > headers, are supposed to start with X-. The IETF only defines new
    > extensions _without_ the X-. The X is for eXperimental, not eXtension.


    It might be worth mentioning that Content-Type is in fact standardized
    by the IETF.

    Quoted from USEFOR:
    > The MIME headers Content-Type and Content-Transfer-Encoding are often
    > used in news articles and have the identical meaning as that
    > specified in [RFC2045] with the added restrictions detailed in
    > Section 2.2.


    Also:
    > User agents MUST meet the definition of MIME-conformance in
    > [RFC2049]. This level of MIME Conformance provides support for
    > internationalization and multimedia in message bodies [RFC2045], and
    > support for internationalization of headers [RFC2047]. Note that
    > [Errata] currently exist for [RFC2046] and [RFC2231].


    There you have it. Content-type and Content-transfer-encoding are
    officially acknowledged by a usenet standard. MIME is officially
    acknowledged (and with a MUST, even) by the same usenet standard.

    RFC 2049, on MIME conformance. A user agent (it says mail user agent,
    but in context USEFOR is adapting this section to apply equally to
    usenet user agents) that is MIME conformant MUST:
    > (6) Explicitly handle the following media type values, to
    > at least the following extents:

    [...]
    >Multipart:
    >
    > -- Recognize the mixed subtype. Display all relevant
    > information on the message level and the body part
    > header level and then display or offer to display
    > each of the body parts individually.
    >
    > -- Recognize the "alternative" subtype, and avoid
    > showing the user redundant parts of
    > multipart/alternative mail.
    >
    > -- Recognize the "multipart/digest" subtype,
    > specifically using "message/rfc822" rather than
    > "text/plain" as the default media type for body parts
    > inside "multipart/digest" entities.
    >
    > -- Treat any unrecognized subtypes as if they were
    > "mixed".


    In other words, a usenet user agent MUST properly decode a multipart
    message and display the appropriate part(s) (since this was an
    "alternative" message, the appropriate part would be the text/plain part
    for a user-agent that cannot handle text/html). This all started because
    someone's user agent failed to do so, and he or she decided to blame
    the sender instead of his or her own faulty newsreader.

    MIME is part of usenet, and your insistence on living in the 70s does
    not change that fact. I would argue that even _attachments_ (that is,
    multipart/mixed) are legal in all newsgroups, as long as the attachments
    themselves are text types. I think it would not be out of line for
    someone to post a message with an attachment of type text/x-csrc or
    text/x-chdr, for example.
     
    Jordan Abel, Oct 25, 2006
    #14
  15. In article <453f81a8$0$19623$>,
    Stephen Sprunk <> wrote:

    >Using MIME headers is pretty much unavoidable since you need them for
    >any non-ASCII content, and there's no reason to object to news posts in
    >UTF-8 or Latin-1 or anything else as long as they remain in text/plain
    >types.


    RFC1036 (format of Usenet messages) requires RFC822 (mail format) as a
    base; RFC 822 section 3.3 requires the characters to be ASCII.
    RFC977 (NNTP) says,

    2.2. Character Codes

    Commands and replies are composed of characters from the ASCII
    character set. When the transport service provides an 8-bit byte
    (octet) transmission channel, each 7-bit character is transmitted
    right justified in an octet with the high order bit cleared to zero.


    When an article is retrieved, the body of an article is part of
    the reply to a command, so the strict 7 bit ASCII requirement applies
    to posting bodies and headers. If the article managed to make it
    into the system in an 8 bit character set (such as Latin-1), then the
    eighth bit -must- be cleared during article retrieval in accordance
    with RFC977 2.2.

    Thus, for non-ASCII content, text/plain is not sufficient: at the
    very least you would need to add a Content-type heading.
    --
    "It is important to remember that when it comes to law, computers
    never make copies, only human beings make copies. Computers are given
    commands, not permission. Only people can be given permission."
    -- Brad Templeton
     
    Walter Roberson, Oct 25, 2006
    #15
  16. In article <>,
    Jordan Abel <> wrote:

    >It might be worth mentioning that Content-Type is in fact standardized
    >by the IETF.


    >Quoted from USEFOR:


    All USEFOR documents, including the latest from September 16, 2006,
    are *draft* documents, not yet IETF approved.

    Which negates the rest of your post.
    --
    "law -- it's a commodity"
    -- Andrew Ryan (The Globe and Mail, 2005/11/26)
     
    Walter Roberson, Oct 25, 2006
    #16
  17. freegnu

    Jordan Abel Guest

    [encoded content by hand just to prove a point. message contains no
    8-bit characters over the wire]

    2006-10-25 <ehobvr$91r$>,
    Walter Roberson wrote:
    > In article <453f81a8$0$19623$>,
    > Stephen Sprunk <> wrote:
    >
    >> Using MIME headers is pretty much unavoidable since you need them for =
    >> any non-ASCII content, and there's no reason to object to news posts in =
    >> UTF-8 or Latin-1 or anything else as long as they remain in text/plain =
    >> types.

    >
    > RFC1036 (format of Usenet messages) requires RFC822 (mail format) as a
    > base; RFC 822 section 3.3 requires the characters to be ASCII.


    And they are. the =3D sign and all hex digits are ascii. By UTF-8 I meant =
    UTF-8 over quoted-printable of course. You have to read the requirements =
    in their proper context. =E2=98=BA
     
    Jordan Abel, Oct 25, 2006
    #17
  18. freegnu

    CBFalconer Guest

    Jordan Abel wrote:
    >

    .... snip ...
    >
    > In other words, a usenet user agent MUST properly decode a
    > multipart message and display the appropriate part(s) (since this
    > was an "alternative" message, the appropriate part would be the
    > text/plain part for a user-agent that cannot handle text/html).
    > This all started because someone's user agent failed to do so,
    > and he or she decided to blame the sender instead of his or her
    > own faulty newsreader.


    That is not the point. The point is that html is dangerours to
    unwary systems and operators. This started not because my
    newsreader cannot read html, but because I have taken the
    precaution of forbidding it to do so, for security reasons, and I
    advised the OP of the situation. HTML does not belong in news
    groups, and I will not read HTML email either. Just because you
    can step out your back door and urinate on the geraniums does not
    mean that that is an advisable thing to do.

    > MIME is part of usenet, and your insistence on living in the 70s
    > does not change that fact. I would argue that even _attachments_
    > (that is, multipart/mixed) are legal in all newsgroups, as long
    > as the attachments themselves are text types. I think it would
    > not be out of line for someone to post a message with an
    > attachment of type text/x-csrc or text/x-chdr, for example.


    Some newsgroups allow it. However the consensus here is no. In
    addition the addition of attachments reduces the number of servers
    carrying your article, inasmuch as the better servers will simply
    delete any article carrying an attachment. This also means they
    will not propagate it to further servers. Since you write the
    article with the intent of having others read it (unless you are
    only trying to annoy) attachments defeat your own purpose.

    We are not simply being obstinate antediluvians. HTML works quite
    well on the www (except when misused, which is often). It has its
    place, which is not here.

    --
    Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
    Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
    <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
     
    CBFalconer, Oct 25, 2006
    #18
  19. In article <>,
    Jordan Abel <> wrote:

    >MIME is part of usenet, and your insistence on living in the 70s does
    >not change that fact.


    Jordan, do I make personal judgemental comments such as
    "living in the 70s" about -you-?

    When it comes to Usenet, let me ask you this:

    Declare, if thou hast understanding.
    Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest?
    or who hath stretched the line upon it?
    Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid
    the corner stone thereof;

    --
    "law -- it's a commodity"
    -- Andrew Ryan (The Globe and Mail, 2005/11/26)
     
    Walter Roberson, Oct 25, 2006
    #19
  20. freegnu

    Jordan Abel Guest

    2006-10-25 <ehoc3v$9c1$>,
    Walter Roberson wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Jordan Abel <> wrote:
    >
    >>It might be worth mentioning that Content-Type is in fact standardized
    >>by the IETF.

    >
    >>Quoted from USEFOR:

    >
    > All USEFOR documents, including the latest from September 16, 2006,
    > are *draft* documents, not yet IETF approved.
    >
    > Which negates the rest of your post.


    And an RFC does not have the status of a standard. And guess how many
    STDs apply to usenet? The answer: exactly zero. RFC822 is STD11, but
    there aren't any usenet standards to reference it. No NNTP, no usenet
    message standard, heck no mime when you get right down to it - as far as
    standards are concerned, Usenet doesn't exist.

    Now, USEFOR is quite good at _passing for_ a standard - newsreaders are
    judged on it and USEAGE, posters are judged on USEAGE, etc. And there's
    really nothing better.

    And if we only used headers that are present in STD11... well, no
    Newsgroups. no path, no xref.

    USEFOR and its cousins are widely adhered to, quoted, and generally
    accepted. Who gives a crap what the IETF approves - their last standard
    (not counting STD1, which doesn't really count since it's just an index)
    is dated 2000.

    And, regardless, the fact that RFC 822 is the basis for all this means
    that there are no headers that are valid for mail but invalid for
    usenet, or vice versa.
     
    Jordan Abel, Oct 25, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Showjumper
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    706
    Showjumper
    Mar 19, 2005
  2. Noozer

    Block DIV within a block DIV?

    Noozer, Jan 6, 2005, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    11,384
    Mitja
    Jan 6, 2005
  3. Andy
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    542
  4. morrell
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    968
    roy axenov
    Oct 10, 2006
  5. Alvin
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    991
Loading...

Share This Page