One document matched: draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-09.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-08.txt
Sieve Working Group A. Stone, Ed.
Internet-Draft Serendipity
Obsoletes: 3028 (if approved)
Updates: 5228 (if approved) November 17, 2008
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: May 21, 2009
Sieve Email Filtering: Reject and Extended Reject Extensions
draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-09
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 21, 2009.
Abstract
This memo updates the definition of the Sieve mail filtering language
"reject" extension, originally defined in RFC 3028.
A "Joe-job" is a spam run forged to appear as though it came from an
innocent party, who is then generally flooded by automated bounces,
Message Disposition Notifications (MDNs), and personal messages with
complaints. The original Sieve "reject" action defined in RFC 3028
required use of MDNs for rejecting messages, thus contributing to the
flood of Joe-job spam to victims of Joe-jobs.
Stone, et al. Expires May 21, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Sieve Extension: Reject November 2008
This memo updates the definition of the "reject" action to allow
messages to be refused during the SMTP transaction, and defines the
"ereject" action to require messages to be refused during the SMTP
transaction, if possible.
The "ereject" action is intended to replace the "reject" action
wherever possible. The "ereject" action is similar to "reject", but
will always favor protocol level message rejection.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Sieve 'reject' and 'ereject' Extentions . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Action ereject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.1. Rejecting a message at the SMTP/LMTP protocol level . 5
2.1.2. Rejecting a message by sending a DSN . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Action reject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.1. Rejecting a message by sending an MDN . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. Silent upgrade from reject to ereject . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4. Compatibility with other actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.5. Details of protocol level refusal . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Changes from RFC 3028 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. reject extension registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. ereject extension registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 15
Stone, et al. Expires May 21, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Sieve Extension: Reject November 2008
1. Introduction
The Sieve mail filtering language, as originally defined in RFC 3028
[SIEVE], specified that the "reject" action shall discard a message
and send a Message Disposition Notification [MDN] to the envelope
sender along with an explanatory message. The Sieve mail filtering
language, as updated in RFC 5228 [SIEVEBIS], does not define any
reject action, hence the purpose of this document.
This document updates the definition of the "reject" action to permit
refusal of the message during the SMTP transaction, if possible, and
defines a new "ereject" action to require refusal of the message
during the SMTP transaction, if possible.
An important goal of this document is to reduce the risk of Sieve
scripts being used to perpetrate "Joe-job" spam runs, where the MDN
sent notifying the sender of a message of its non-delivery is in fact
sent to an innocent third-party. The original Sieve "reject" action
defined in RFC 3028 required use of MDNs for rejecting messages, thus
contributing to the flood of Joe-job spam to victims of Joe-jobs. By
rejecting the message at the protocol level, it is less likely that
an MDN will be needed, and so less likely that an MDN will be
misdirected at an innocent third-party.
Implementations are further encouraged to use spam-detection systems
to determine the level of risk associated with sending an MDN, and
this document allows implementations to silently drop the MDN if the
rejected message is deemed to be likely spam.
This document also describes how to use reject/ereject at varying
points in the email stack: Mail Transfer Agent (MTA), Mail Delivery
Agent (MDA), and Mail User Agent (MUA). See [EMAIL-ARCH] for a
comprehensive discussion of these environments.
In general, an MDN is generated by an MUA, and can be used to
indicate the status of a message with respect to its recipient, while
a DSN [DSN] is generated by an MTA, and can be used to indicate
whether or not a message was received and delivered by the mail
system.
Further discussion highlighting the risks of generating MDNs and the
benefits of protocol-level refusal can be found in [Joe-DoS].
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [KEYWORDS].
Stone, et al. Expires May 21, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Sieve Extension: Reject November 2008
Conventions for notations are as in RFC 5228 [SIEVEBIS] Section 1.1.
This document does not attempt to define spam or how it should be
identified, nor to define an email virus or how it should be
detected. Implementors are advised to follow best practices and keep
abreast of current research in these fields.
2. Sieve 'reject' and 'ereject' Extentions
2.1. Action ereject
Usage: ereject <reason: string>
Sieve implementations that implement the "ereject" action must use
the "ereject" capability string.
The "ereject" action cancels the implicit keep and refuses delivery
of a message. The reason string is a UTF-8 [UTF-8] string specifying
the reason for refusal. How a message is refused depends on the
capabilities of the mail component (MDA or MTA) executing the Sieve
script. The Sieve interpreter MUST carry out one of the following
actions (listed in order from most to least preferred), MUST carry
out the most preferable action possible, and MUST fall back to lesser
actions if a preferred action fails.
1. Refuse message delivery by sending a 5XX response code over SMTP
[SMTP] or LMTP [LMTP]. See Section 2.1.1 for more details.
2. Send a non-delivery report to the envelope sender ([REPORT]
[DSN]), unless the envelope sender address is determined to be a
forged or otherwise invalid address.
Note that determination of whether or not an envelope sender is a
forgery may be performed by site-specific and implementation-specific
heuristic techniques, such as "return-path verification", details of
which are outside the scope of this document. Implementations SHOULD
log instances when a non-delivery report is not sent and the reason
for not sending the report (e.g. content was spam, return-path
invalid, etc.).
The ereject action MUST NOT be available in environments that do not
support protocol level rejection, e.g. an MUA, and MUST be available
in all other environments that support the reject action.
Stone, et al. Expires May 21, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Sieve Extension: Reject November 2008
Example:
require ["ereject"];
if address "from" "someone@example.com" {
ereject "I no longer accept mail from this address";
}
2.1.1. Rejecting a message at the SMTP/LMTP protocol level
Sieve implementations that are able to reject messages at the SMTP/
LMTP level MUST do so and SHOULD use the 550 response code. Note
that if a message is arriving over SMTP and has multiple recipients,
some of whom have accepted the message, Section 2.1.2 defines how to
reject such a message.
The risk that these actions will generate blowback spam are minimized
but cannot be eliminated completely even in the case of ereject, so
caution is advised when using these actions to deal with messages
determined to be spam.
Note that SMTP [SMTP] does not allow non-ASCII characters in the SMTP
response text. If non-ASCII characters appear in the "reason"
string, they can be sent at the protocol level if and only if the
client and the server use an SMTP extension that allows for
transmission of non-ASCII reply text. (One example of such an SMTP
extension is described in [UTF8-RESP].) In the absence of such an
SMTP extension, the Sieve engine MUST replace any reason string being
sent at the protocol level and containing non-ASCII characters with
an implementation-defined ASCII-only string.
Users who don't like this behavior should consider using the "reject"
action described in Section 2.2, if available.
See Section 2.5 for the detailed instructions about performing
protocol level rejection.
2.1.2. Rejecting a message by sending a DSN
An implementation may receive a message via SMTP that has more than
one RCPT TO that has been accepted by the server, and at least one
but not all of them are refusing delivery (whether the refusal is
caused by a Sieve "ereject" action or for some other reason). In
this case, the server MUST accept the message and generate DSNs for
all recipients that are refusing it. Note that this exception does
not apply to LMTP, as LMTP is able to reject messages on a per-
recipient basis. (However, the LMTP client may then have no choice
but to generate a DSN to report the error, which may result in
blowback spam.)
Stone, et al. Expires May 21, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Sieve Extension: Reject November 2008
Note that according to [DSN], Delivery Status Notifications MUST NOT
be generated if the MAIL FROM (or Return-Path) is empty.
The DSN message MUST follow the requirements of [DSN] and [REPORT]
The action-value field defined in [DSN], Section 2.3.3, MUST contain
the value "failed". The human-readable portion of the non-delivery
report MUST contain the reason string from the "ereject" action and
SHOULD contain additional text alerting the apparent original sender
that the message was refused by an email filter. This part of the
report might appear as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------
Your message was refused by the recipient's mail filtering program.
The reason given was as follows:
I am not taking mail from you, and I don't want your birdseed,
either!
------------------------------------------------------------
2.2. Action reject
This section updates the definition of the reject action in Section
4.1 of RFC 3028 and is an optional extension to [SIEVEBIS].
Usage: reject <reason: string>
Sieve implementations that implement the "reject" action must use the
"reject" capability string.
The "reject" action cancels the implicit keep and refuses delivery of
a message. The reason string is a UTF-8 [UTF-8] string specifying
the reason for refusal. Unlike the "ereject" action described above,
this action would always favor preserving the exact text of the
refusal reason. Typically the "reject" action refuses delivery of a
message by sending back an MDN to the sender (see Section 2.2.1).
However implementations MAY refuse delivery over SMTP/LMTP protocol
(as detailed in Section 2.5), if and only if all of the following
conditions are true:
1. The reason string consists of only US-ASCII characters
or
The reason string contains non-US-ASCII and both client and
server support and negotiate use of an SMTP/LMTP extension for
sending UTF-8 responses.
Stone, et al. Expires May 21, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Sieve Extension: Reject November 2008
2. LMTP protocol is used
or
SMTP protocol is used and the message has a single recipient
or
SMTP protocol is used, the message has multiple recipients, and
all of them refused message delivery (whether using Sieve or
not).
Example:
require ["reject"];
if size :over 100K {
reject text:
Your message is too big. If you want to send me a big attachment,
put it on a public web site and send me an URL.
.
;
}
(Pretend that the reason string above contains some non-ASCII text.)
Implementations may use techniques as described in Section 2.1 to
determine if a non-delivery report should not be sent to a forged
sender. Implementations SHOULD log instances when a non-delivery
report is not sent and the reason for not sending the report.
2.2.1. Rejecting a message by sending an MDN
The reject action resends the received message to the envelope sender
specified by the MAIL FROM (or Return-Path) address, wrapping it in a
"reject" form, explaining that it was rejected by the recipient.
Note that according to [MDN], Message Disposition Notifications MUST
NOT be generated if the MAIL FROM (or Return-Path) is empty.
A reject message MUST take the form of a failure MDN as specified by
[MDN]. The human-readable portion of the message, the first
component of the MDN, contains the human readable message describing
the error, and it SHOULD contain additional text alerting the
apparent original sender that mail was refused by an email filter.
The MDN disposition-field as defined in the MDN specification MUST be
"deleted" and MUST have the "MDN-sent-automatically" and "automatic-
action" modes set (see Section 3.2.6 of [MDN]).
In the following script, a message is rejected and returned to the
sender.
Stone, et al. Expires May 21, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Sieve Extension: Reject November 2008
Example:
require ["reject"];
if header :contains "from" "coyote@desert.example.org" {
reject text:
I am not taking mail from you, and I don't
want your birdseed, either!"
.
;
}
For this script, the first part of the MDN might appear as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------
The message was refused by the recipient's mail filtering program.
The reason given was as follows:
I am not taking mail from you, and I don't want your birdseed,
either!
------------------------------------------------------------
2.3. Silent upgrade from reject to ereject
Implementations MUST NOT silently upgrade reject actions to ereject
actions in a Sieve script, because this might lead to unpleasant
changes of behavior not expected by the script owner.
User interfaces that present a generic rejection option, and generate
Sieve script output, MAY switch from generating reject to ereject
actions, so long as doing so does not create a confusing change for
the script owner.
Script generators SHOULD ensure that a rejection action being
executed as a result of an anti-spam/anti-virus positive test be done
using the ereject action, as it is more suitable for such rejections.
Script generators MAY automatically upgrade scripts that previously
used the reject action for anti-spam/anti-virus related rejections.
Note that such generators MUST make sure that the target environment
can support the ereject action.
2.4. Compatibility with other actions
This section applies equally to "reject" and "ereject" actions. All
references to the "reject" action in this section can be replaced
with the "ereject" action.
A "reject" action cancels the implicit keep.
Stone, et al. Expires May 21, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Sieve Extension: Reject November 2008
Implementations MUST prohibit the execution of more than one reject
in a Sieve script.
"Reject" MUST be incompatible with the "vacation" [VACATION] action.
It is NOT RECOMMENDED that implementations permit the use of "reject"
with actions that cause mail delivery, such as "keep", "fileinto",
"redirect".
Making "reject" compatible with actions that cause mail delivery
violates the RFC 2821 [SMTP] principle that a message is either
delivered or bounced back to the sender. So bouncing a message back
(rejecting) and delivering it will make the sender believe that the
message was not delivered.
However, there are existing laws requiring certain organizations to
archive all received messages, even the rejected ones. Also, it can
be quite useful to save copies of rejected messages for later
analysis.
Any action that would modify the message body will not have an effect
on the body of any message refused by "reject" using an SMTP response
code and MUST NOT have any effect on the content of generated DSN/
MDNs.
2.5. Details of protocol level refusal
If the "reason" string consists of multiple CRLF separated lines,
then the reason text MUST be returned as a multiline SMTP/LMTP
response, per [SMTP], Section 4.2.1. Any line MUST NOT exceed the
SMTP limit on the maximal line length. To make the reason string
conform to any such limits the server MAY insert CRLFs and turn the
response into a multiline response.
In the following script (which assumes support for the spamtest
[SPAMTEST] and fileinto extensions), messages that test highly
positive for spam are refused.
Stone, et al. Expires May 21, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Sieve Extension: Reject November 2008
Example:
require ["ereject", "spamtest", "fileinto",
"comparator-i;ascii-numeric"];
if spamtest :value "ge"
:comparator "i;ascii-numeric" "6" {
ereject text:
AntiSpam engine thinks your message is spam.
It is therefore being refused.
Please call 1-900-PAY-US if you want to reach us.
.
;
} elsif spamtest :value "ge"
:comparator "i;ascii-numeric" "4" {
fileinto "Suspect";
}
The following excerpt from an SMTP session shows it in action.
...
C: DATA
S: 354 Send message, ending in CRLF.CRLF.
...
C: .
S: 550-AntiSpam engine thinks your message is spam.
S: 550-It is therefore being refused.
S: 550 Please call 1-900-PAY-US if you want to reach us.
If the SMTP/LMTP server supports RFC 2034 [ENHANCED-CODES] it MUST
prepend an appropriate Enhanced Error Code to the "reason" text.
Enhanced Error code 5.7.1 or a more generic 5.7.0 are RECOMMENDED.
With an Enhanced Error Code, the response to DATA command in the SMTP
example below will look like:
S: 550-5.7.1 AntiSpam engine thinks your message is spam.
S: 550-5.7.1 It is therefore being refused.
S: 550 5.7.1 Please call 1-900-PAY-US if you want to reach us.
if the server selected "5.7.1" as appropriate.
If a Sieve implementation that supports "ereject" does not wish to
immediately disclose the reason for rejection (for example, that it
detected spam), it may delay immediately sending of the 550 error
code by sending a 4XX error code on the first attempt to receive the
message.
Stone, et al. Expires May 21, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Sieve Extension: Reject November 2008
3. Changes from RFC 3028
Clarified that the "reject" action cancels the implicit keep.
Extended the list of allowable actions on "reject" to include
protocol level message rejection.
Added the "ereject" action that is similar to "reject", but will
always favor protocol level message rejection.
4. Security Considerations
The Introduction to this document discusses why rejecting messages
before delivery is better than accepting and bouncing them.
While the details of techniques that can be used to determine when to
silently drop a non-delivery report are outside the scope of this
document, the explicit permission this document gives to take such
action may enable denial of service situations. Techniques such as
spam-checking, return-path verification, and others, can and do have
false-positives. Care should be exercised to prevent the loss of
legitimate messages by failing to notify the sender of non-delivery.
Security issues associated with email auto-responders are fully
discussed in the Security Considerations section of [RFC3834]. This
document is not believed to introduce any additional security
considerations in this general area.
The "ereject" extension does not raise any other security
considerations that are not already present in the base [SIEVE]
specification, and these issues are discussed in [SIEVE].
5. IANA Considerations
The following section provides the IANA registrations for the Sieve
extensions specified in this document:
5.1. reject extension registration
IANA is requested to update the registration for the Sieve "reject"
extension as detailed below:
Capability name: reject
Description: adds the "reject" action for refusing delivery
of a message. The exact reason for refusal is
conveyed back to the client.
RFC number: this RFC
Stone, et al. Expires May 21, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Sieve Extension: Reject November 2008
Contact address: the Sieve discussion list <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>
5.2. ereject extension registration
IANA is requested to replace the preliminary registration of the
Sieve refuse extension with the following registration:
Capability name: ereject
Description: adds the 'ereject' action for refusing delivery
of a message. The refusal should happen as early
as possible (e.g. at the protocol level) and might
not preserve the exact reason for refusal if it
contains non-US-ASCII text.
RFC number: this RFC
Contact address: the Sieve discussion list <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[DSN] Moore, K. and G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible Message Format
for Delivery Status Notifications", RFC 3464,
January 2003.
[ENHANCED-CODES]
Freed, N., "SMTP Service Extension for Returning Enhanced
Error Codes", RFC 2034, October 1996.
[KEYWORDS]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[LMTP] Myers, J., "Local Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2033,
October 1996.
[MDN] Hansen, T. and G. Vaudreuil, "Message Disposition
Notification", RFC 3798, May 2004.
[REPORT] Vaudreuil, G., "The Multipart/Report Content Type for the
Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages",
RFC 3462, January 2003.
[SIEVEBIS]
Guenther, P. and T. Showalter, "Sieve: An Email Filtering
Language", RFC 5228, January 2008.
[SMTP] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2821,
Stone, et al. Expires May 21, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Sieve Extension: Reject November 2008
April 2001.
[UTF-8] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
[VACATION]
Showalter, T. and N. Freed, "Sieve Email Filtering:
Vacation Extension", RFC 5230, January 2008.
6.2. Informative References
[EMAIL-ARCH]
Crocker, D., "Internet Mail Architecture",
draft-crocker-email-arch-11 (work in progress),
October 2008.
[Joe-DoS] Frei, S., Silvestri, I., and G. Ollman, "Mail Non-Delivery
Notice Attacks", April 2004, <http://www.techzoom.net/
papers/mail_non_delivery_notice_attacks_2004.pdf>.
[RFC3834] Moore, K., "Recommendations for Automatic Responses to
Electronic Mail", RFC 3834, August 2004.
[SIEVE] Showalter, T., "Sieve: A Mail Filtering Language",
RFC 3028, January 2001.
[SPAMTEST]
Daboo, C., "Sieve Email Filtering: Spamtest and Virustest
Extensions", RFC 5235, January 2008.
[UTF8-RESP]
Melnikov, A., "SMTP Language Extension",
draft-melnikov-smtp-lang-07 (work in progress), June 2007.
Appendix A. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Ned Freed, Cyrus Daboo, Arnt Gulbrandsen, Kristin Hubner,
Mark E. Mallett, Philip Guenther, Michael Haardt, and Randy Gellens
for comments and corrections.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the extensive work of Tim
Showalter as the author of the RFC 3028, which originally defined the
"reject" action.
Stone, et al. Expires May 21, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Sieve Extension: Reject November 2008
Authors' Addresses
Aaron Stone (editor)
Serendipity
260 El Verano Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94306
USA
Email: aaron@serendipity.palo-alto.ca.us
Matthew Elvey
The Elvey Partnership, LLC
1819 Polk Street, Suite 133
San Francisco, CA 94109
USA
Email: sieve3@matthew.elvey.com
Alexey Melnikov
Isode Limited
5 Castle Business Village
36 Station Road
Hampton, Middlesex TW12 2BX
UK
Email: Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com
Stone, et al. Expires May 21, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Sieve Extension: Reject November 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Stone, et al. Expires May 21, 2009 [Page 15]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 09:59:07 |