Discussion:
[whispersystems] RFE: SMS on the Desktop
Todd Warner
2015-12-14 21:56:36 UTC
Permalink
The desktop chrome app should manage non-Signal SMS/MMS communication as
well.

There are 1001 texting applications out there for the phone and for the
desktop. Folks use one or more of these various applications but always an
SMS application as well. Why is SMS always in the mix? Because it is a
ubiquitous protocol. If you send someone an SMS message... they'll very
likely get it. That has a lot of power.

But SMS/MMS has one disadvantage: Very few applications can send and
receive SMS over the desktop. And hence... the proliferation of other chat
protocols.

But there are some exceptions...

iMessage has a desktop application that can apparently chat over SMS and
MMS as well as whatever proprietary protocol iMessage is.

Google Hangouts, if you have a google voice number, can send and receive
SMS/MMS via desktop and mobile.

What about Signal? For both mobile and the desktop?

Signal, now, has a wonderful mobile application that can send and receive
secure chat (signal's protocol) but also SMS/MMS (insecure chat). On the
desktop, the experience is more limited. Signal for the desktop can send
and receive ONLY secure chat.

In order to send and receive SMS on both mobile and the desktop, I have to
drop Signal as the default SMS application and use Google Hangouts as the
default SMS application on both desktop and mobile. I'd prefer to use
Signal for both mobile and desktop.

...So, the request...

The goal should be to have the Signal Desktop application send to both
Signal and non-Signal users. This would remove a barrier to user adoption
and increase the use of Signal as the primary chat application for that
user.

I am not sure how Signal on the Desktop works currently, but it could work
a number of ways to add SMS/MMS. Here's two:
1. It could just aggregate all Signal *and* non-Signal messages just by
working as a front end to the phone (downside -- that's a lot of
communication between desktop and phone via some intermediary)
2. Desktop leverages the phone as an SMS/MMS engine and communicates more
directly only if it is a secure message.
Patrick Connolly
2015-12-14 23:17:18 UTC
Permalink
While I currently remain supportive of decisions to keep OWS products as
simple as possible, I'm actually interested in UX parity between SMS and
signal messages. Forgive the digression, but I'll give a little background.

I say that as someone who is interested in the premise of using
Signal-Android as the foundation of a secure Android ROM for regular people
(ie. normals). It used to be the case that the app perfectly fit the above
use-case -- it auto-upgraded regular PSTN voip calls, and handled insecure
data-SMS just as conveniently as its own secure data messages. (Incoming
data-SMS had been transposed into system SMS messages by a fork of
Cyanogenmod's GoogleVoicePlus, after being received from a Twilio-like SMS
service. Outgoing SMS replies were also transposed back into data-SMS when
sent from Signal/TextSecure. )

The idea of the side-project was to build a project that might someday be
the basis of a mobile OS offered by a privacy-focussed, data-only MVNO.
(Further context [1])

Currently, despite all the truly wonderful progress (for which we're all
appreciative), the app no longer intercepts calls, nor does it treat SMS
with UX parity. And this is totally understandable, as my side-project was
not OWS' concern (nor were they likely aware). Anyhow, allowing SMS to be
read/sent from desktop would at least make the experience consistent for
the texting side of a project like this, whether it's myself working on it,
or someone else

Anyhow, just wanted to provide some insight as to how folks might be able
to create value with features like the OP suggests :)

Patrick

[1]: https://github.com/patcon/textnowplus-android#readme

--------------------------------------------
*NOTE* that my emails are delayed from arriving in my inbox until 9am
daily. If urgent, please use another way of getting in touch.
#slowwebmovement <http://www.musubimail.com/gmail_timer.html>
Post by Todd Warner
The desktop chrome app should manage non-Signal SMS/MMS communication as
well.
There are 1001 texting applications out there for the phone and for the
desktop. Folks use one or more of these various applications but always an
SMS application as well. Why is SMS always in the mix? Because it is a
ubiquitous protocol. If you send someone an SMS message... they'll very
likely get it. That has a lot of power.
But SMS/MMS has one disadvantage: Very few applications can send and
receive SMS over the desktop. And hence... the proliferation of other chat
protocols.
But there are some exceptions...
iMessage has a desktop application that can apparently chat over SMS and
MMS as well as whatever proprietary protocol iMessage is.
Google Hangouts, if you have a google voice number, can send and receive
SMS/MMS via desktop and mobile.
What about Signal? For both mobile and the desktop?
Signal, now, has a wonderful mobile application that can send and receive
secure chat (signal's protocol) but also SMS/MMS (insecure chat). On the
desktop, the experience is more limited. Signal for the desktop can send
and receive ONLY secure chat.
In order to send and receive SMS on both mobile and the desktop, I have to
drop Signal as the default SMS application and use Google Hangouts as the
default SMS application on both desktop and mobile. I'd prefer to use
Signal for both mobile and desktop.
...So, the request...
The goal should be to have the Signal Desktop application send to both
Signal and non-Signal users. This would remove a barrier to user adoption
and increase the use of Signal as the primary chat application for that
user.
I am not sure how Signal on the Desktop works currently, but it could work
1. It could just aggregate all Signal *and* non-Signal messages just by
working as a front end to the phone (downside -- that's a lot of
communication between desktop and phone via some intermediary)
2. Desktop leverages the phone as an SMS/MMS engine and communicates more
directly only if it is a secure message.
Tim Harman
2015-12-16 02:53:04 UTC
Permalink
I'm the opposite.

SMS within Signal on Android is now a legacy hangover that needs to go
away. Moxie has already stated that as soon as "proper" FDE comes to
Android, that the passphrase feature of Signal will be removed.

What's left then, a secure messaging app that also happens to be able to
send/read text messages? What's the point?

Why not leave SMS to an app that's dedicated to it, and focus Signal on
what it's good at?

My vote says remove the SMS code from Signal fully. It's not supported
in iOS, it's not supported in the desktop UI and it's redundant. SMS is
unsecure. Remove it.

Tim
While I currently remain supportive of decisions to keep OWS products as simple as possible, I'm actually interested in UX parity between SMS and signal messages. Forgive the digression, but I'll give a little background.
I say that as someone who is interested in the premise of using Signal-Android as the foundation of a secure Android ROM for regular people (ie. normals). It used to be the case that the app perfectly fit the above use-case -- it auto-upgraded regular PSTN voip calls, and handled insecure data-SMS just as conveniently as its own secure data messages. (Incoming data-SMS had been transposed into system SMS messages by a fork of Cyanogenmod's GoogleVoicePlus, after being received from a Twilio-like SMS service. Outgoing SMS replies were also transposed back into data-SMS when sent from Signal/TextSecure. )
The idea of the side-project was to build a project that might someday be the basis of a mobile OS offered by a privacy-focussed, data-only MVNO. (Further context [1])
Currently, despite all the truly wonderful progress (for which we're all appreciative), the app no longer intercepts calls, nor does it treat SMS with UX parity. And this is totally understandable, as my side-project was not OWS' concern (nor were they likely aware). Anyhow, allowing SMS to be read/sent from desktop would at least make the experience consistent for the texting side of a project like this, whether it's myself working on it, or someone else Anyhow, just wanted to provide some insight as to how folks might be able to create value with features like the OP suggests :)
Patrick
[1]: https://github.com/patcon/textnowplus-android#readme
--------------------------------------------
NOTE that my emails are delayed from arriving in my inbox until 9am daily. If urgent, please use another way of getting in touch. #slowwebmovement [1]
The desktop chrome app should manage non-Signal SMS/MMS communication as well.
There are 1001 texting applications out there for the phone and for the desktop. Folks use one or more of these various applications but always an SMS application as well. Why is SMS always in the mix? Because it is a ubiquitous protocol. If you send someone an SMS message... they'll very likely get it. That has a lot of power.
But SMS/MMS has one disadvantage: Very few applications can send and receive SMS over the desktop. And hence... the proliferation of other chat protocols.
But there are some exceptions...
iMessage has a desktop application that can apparently chat over SMS and MMS as well as whatever proprietary protocol iMessage is.
Google Hangouts, if you have a google voice number, can send and receive SMS/MMS via desktop and mobile.
What about Signal? For both mobile and the desktop?
Signal, now, has a wonderful mobile application that can send and receive secure chat (signal's protocol) but also SMS/MMS (insecure chat). On the desktop, the experience is more limited. Signal for the desktop can send and receive ONLY secure chat.
In order to send and receive SMS on both mobile and the desktop, I have to drop Signal as the default SMS application and use Google Hangouts as the default SMS application on both desktop and mobile. I'd prefer to use Signal for both mobile and desktop.
...So, the request...
The goal should be to have the Signal Desktop application send to both Signal and non-Signal users. This would remove a barrier to user adoption and increase the use of Signal as the primary chat application for that user.
1. It could just aggregate all Signal *and* non-Signal messages just by working as a front end to the phone (downside -- that's a lot of communication between desktop and phone via some intermediary)
2. Desktop leverages the phone as an SMS/MMS engine and communicates more directly only if it is a secure message.
Links:
------
[1] http://www.musubimail.com/gmail_timer.html
Bryan Phelps
2015-12-16 04:30:09 UTC
Permalink
Here's how I look at it and probably how others feel as well... I like SMS built in so I can use one app for messages. Someone sends me an SMS... I use signal. Someone that has signal sends me a secure message... I use signal. I want so send someone a message... I use signal (SMS, unless they have signal as well, in which case it gets an automatic upgrade to secure).

I see your point that supporting SMS is a feature that's not consistent with the desktop/apple versions, however it does make security as easy as "use this app and whenever possible it'll have almost perfect forward security." Security is best when it's the easy way.
Post by Tim Harman
I'm the opposite.
SMS within Signal on Android is now a legacy hangover that needs to go
away. Moxie has already stated that as soon as "proper" FDE comes to
Android, that the passphrase feature of Signal will be removed.
What's left then, a secure messaging app that also happens to be able to
send/read text messages? What's the point?
Why not leave SMS to an app that's dedicated to it, and focus Signal on
what it's good at?
My vote says remove the SMS code from Signal fully. It's not supported
in iOS, it's not supported in the desktop UI and it's redundant. SMS is
unsecure. Remove it.
Tim
Post by Patrick Connolly
While I currently remain supportive of decisions to keep OWS products
as simple as possible, I'm actually interested in UX parity between SMS
and signal messages. Forgive the digression, but I'll give a little
background.
Post by Patrick Connolly
I say that as someone who is interested in the premise of using
Signal-Android as the foundation of a secure Android ROM for regular
people (ie. normals). It used to be the case that the app perfectly fit
the above use-case -- it auto-upgraded regular PSTN voip calls, and
handled insecure data-SMS just as conveniently as its own secure data
messages. (Incoming data-SMS had been transposed into system SMS
messages by a fork of Cyanogenmod's GoogleVoicePlus, after being
received from a Twilio-like SMS service. Outgoing SMS replies were also
transposed back into data-SMS when sent from Signal/TextSecure. )
Post by Patrick Connolly
The idea of the side-project was to build a project that might
someday be the basis of a mobile OS offered by a privacy-focussed,
data-only MVNO. (Further context [1])
Post by Patrick Connolly
Currently, despite all the truly wonderful progress (for which we're
all appreciative), the app no longer intercepts calls, nor does it
treat SMS with UX parity. And this is totally understandable, as my
side-project was not OWS' concern (nor were they likely aware). Anyhow,
allowing SMS to be read/sent from desktop would at least make the
experience consistent for the texting side of a project like this,
whether it's myself working on it, or someone else Anyhow, just wanted
to provide some insight as to how folks might be able to create value
with features like the OP suggests :)
Post by Patrick Connolly
Patrick
[1]: https://github.com/patcon/textnowplus-android#readme
--------------------------------------------
NOTE that my emails are delayed from arriving in my inbox until 9am
daily. If urgent, please use another way of getting in touch.
#slowwebmovement [1]
Post by Patrick Connolly
Post by Todd Warner
The desktop chrome app should manage non-Signal SMS/MMS
communication as well.
Post by Patrick Connolly
Post by Todd Warner
There are 1001 texting applications out there for the phone and for
the desktop. Folks use one or more of these various applications but
always an SMS application as well. Why is SMS always in the mix?
Because it is a ubiquitous protocol. If you send someone an SMS
message... they'll very likely get it. That has a lot of power.
Post by Patrick Connolly
Post by Todd Warner
But SMS/MMS has one disadvantage: Very few applications can send and
receive SMS over the desktop. And hence... the proliferation of other
chat protocols.
Post by Patrick Connolly
Post by Todd Warner
But there are some exceptions...
iMessage has a desktop application that can apparently chat over SMS
and MMS as well as whatever proprietary protocol iMessage is.
Post by Patrick Connolly
Post by Todd Warner
Google Hangouts, if you have a google voice number, can send and
receive SMS/MMS via desktop and mobile.
Post by Patrick Connolly
Post by Todd Warner
What about Signal? For both mobile and the desktop?
Signal, now, has a wonderful mobile application that can send and
receive secure chat (signal's protocol) but also SMS/MMS (insecure
chat). On the desktop, the experience is more limited. Signal for the
desktop can send and receive ONLY secure chat.
Post by Patrick Connolly
Post by Todd Warner
In order to send and receive SMS on both mobile and the desktop, I
have to drop Signal as the default SMS application and use Google
Hangouts as the default SMS application on both desktop and mobile. I'd
prefer to use Signal for both mobile and desktop.
Post by Patrick Connolly
Post by Todd Warner
...So, the request...
The goal should be to have the Signal Desktop application send to
both Signal and non-Signal users. This would remove a barrier to user
adoption and increase the use of Signal as the primary chat application
for that user.
Post by Patrick Connolly
Post by Todd Warner
I am not sure how Signal on the Desktop works currently, but it
1. It could just aggregate all Signal *and* non-Signal messages just
by working as a front end to the phone (downside -- that's a lot of
communication between desktop and phone via some intermediary)
Post by Patrick Connolly
Post by Todd Warner
2. Desktop leverages the phone as an SMS/MMS engine and communicates
more directly only if it is a secure message.
------
[1] http://www.musubimail.com/gmail_timer.html
--Bryan
Stephen Michel
2015-12-16 06:49:42 UTC
Permalink
I strongly disagree with the sentiment that Signal should drop sms support.

One of the major barriers to adoption for any messaging app is the network effect. When I convince someone to use the app, "Use this for your texting and it'll automatically upgrade to secure whenever it can" is a MUCH easier sell than "Install yet another messaging app, that's kind of like WhatsApp but with a smaller network."

I'm friends with many international students who are on WhatsApp to communicate with their families or friends from home who want to be off it, because it's annoying to remember which app I need to use to communicate with whom.

So why not [drop SMS] and focus Signal on what it's good at? Because we want people to use it.
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
James Firth
2015-12-16 07:06:28 UTC
Permalink
I agree with Stephen that keeping SMS support is very useful for keeping
users/gaining adoption.

Heck, I was initially interested partially due to the fact it was a good
looking SMS/secure messaging app. If it was only Signal messages I may have
chalked it up as being "yet another messaging app".
Post by Stephen Michel
I strongly disagree with the sentiment that Signal should drop sms support.
One of the major barriers to adoption for any messaging app is the network
effect. When I convince someone to use the app, "Use this for your texting
and it'll automatically upgrade to secure whenever it can" is a MUCH easier
sell than "Install yet another messaging app, that's kind of like WhatsApp
but with a smaller network."
I'm friends with many international students who are on WhatsApp to
communicate with their families or friends from home who want to be off it,
because it's annoying to remember which app I need to use to communicate
with whom.
So why not [drop SMS] and focus Signal on what it's good at? Because we
want people to use it.
Post by Tim Harman
I'm the opposite.
SMS within Signal on Android is now a legacy hangover that needs to go
away. Moxie has already stated that as soon as "proper" FDE comes to
Android, that the passphrase feature of Signal will be removed.
What's left then, a secure messaging app that also happens to be able to
send/read text messages? What's the point?
Why not leave SMS to an app that's dedicated to it, and focus Signal on
what it's good at?
My vote says remove the SMS code from Signal fully. It's not supported
in iOS, it's not supported in the desktop UI and it's redundant. SMS is
unsecure. Remove it.
Tim
While I currently remain supportive of decisions to keep OWS products as
simple as possible, I'm actually interested in UX parity between SMS and
signal messages. Forgive the digression, but I'll give a little background.
I say that as someone who is interested in the premise of using
Signal-Android as the foundation of a secure Android ROM for regular people
(ie. normals). It used to be the case that the app perfectly fit the above
use-case -- it auto-upgraded regular PSTN voip calls, and handled insecure
data-SMS just as conveniently as its own secure data messages. (Incoming
data-SMS had been transposed into system SMS messages by a fork of
Cyanogenmod's GoogleVoicePlus, after being received from a Twilio-like SMS
service. Outgoing SMS replies were also transposed back into data-SMS when
sent from Signal/TextSecure. )
The idea of the side-project was to build a project that might someday be
the basis of a mobile OS offered by a privacy-focussed, data-only MVNO.
(Further context [1])
Currently, despite all the truly wonderful progress (for which we're all
appreciative), the app no longer intercepts calls, nor does it treat SMS
with UX parity. And this is totally understandable, as my side-project was
not OWS' concern (nor were they likely aware). Anyhow, allowing SMS to be
read/sent from desktop would at least make the experience consistent for
the texting side of a project like this, whether it's myself working on it,
or someone else
Anyhow, just wanted to provide some insight as to how folks might be able
to create value with features like the OP suggests :)
Patrick
[1]: https://github.com/patcon/textnowplus-android#readme
--------------------------------------------
*NOTE* that my emails are delayed from arriving in my inbox until 9am
daily. If urgent, please use another way of getting in touch.
#slowwebmovement <http://www.musubimail.com/gmail_timer.html>
The desktop chrome app should manage non-Signal SMS/MMS communication as well.
There are 1001 texting applications out there for the phone and for the
desktop. Folks use one or more of these various applications but always an
SMS application as well. Why is SMS always in the mix? Because it is a
ubiquitous protocol. If you send someone an SMS message... they'll very
likely get it. That has a lot of power.
But SMS/MMS has one disadvantage: Very few applications can send and
receive SMS over the desktop. And hence... the proliferation of other chat
protocols.
But there are some exceptions...
iMessage has a desktop application that can apparently chat over SMS and
MMS as well as whatever proprietary protocol iMessage is.
Google Hangouts, if you have a google voice number, can send and receive
SMS/MMS via desktop and mobile.
What about Signal? For both mobile and the desktop?
Signal, now, has a wonderful mobile application that can send and
receive secure chat (signal's protocol) but also SMS/MMS (insecure chat).
On the desktop, the experience is more limited. Signal for the desktop can
send and receive ONLY secure chat.
In order to send and receive SMS on both mobile and the desktop, I have
to drop Signal as the default SMS application and use Google Hangouts as
the default SMS application on both desktop and mobile. I'd prefer to use
Signal for both mobile and desktop.
...So, the request...
The goal should be to have the Signal Desktop application send to both
Signal and non-Signal users. This would remove a barrier to user adoption
and increase the use of Signal as the primary chat application for that
user.
I am not sure how Signal on the Desktop works currently, but it could
1. It could just aggregate all Signal *and* non-Signal messages just by
working as a front end to the phone (downside -- that's a lot of
communication between desktop and phone via some intermediary)
2. Desktop leverages the phone as an SMS/MMS engine and communicates
more directly only if it is a secure message.
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
johanw
2015-12-16 08:32:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Harman
SMS within Signal on Android is now a legacy hangover that needs to go
away.
In its current form I agree. After the removal of encrypted sms it can't
serve as secure backup option either for when there is no internet or
the
access to the Signal servers are blocked (like Bangladesh did for
Whatsapp
recently). In such a case encrypted sms is a nice backup because it will
be
much more difficult to switch sms off (that will cause problems for all
kinds
of industrial equipment too). So I switched to SMSSecure for sms and use
Signal when I have internet (in my country, most of the time but you
never
know what even western countries do after some disaster like the Paris
attacks).
Post by Tim Harman
Moxie has already stated that as soon as "proper" FDE comes to
Android, that the passphrase feature of Signal will be removed.
But "proper" FDE will never come to all suported Android versions.
Unless
some future version will only support Android > 6.
--
Met vriendelijke groet/With kind regards,

Johan Wevers
Per Guth
2015-12-16 09:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Hello,


# Dropping SMS

By now I have convinced about 80 people to install TextSecure/Signal.
As much as I favor the SMS integration, I must admit that it almost
always was *not* the selling point and only a minority switched that
feature on.

But then again as far as I can tell/guess, this minority almost totally
encompasses the group of power users that go out and spread the app.

In the few cases I installed Signal for the elder generation I almost
always enabled the SMS integration. The reasons being easier usability
and the already discussed "automatic upgrade to a secure channel if
possible".


# SMS via the desktop app

Personally I would like to have that feature. I guess SMS won't leave
us that soon and there are lots of non-Signal contacts I would like to
reach.


Viele Gruesse,
Per

***

In another exchange leaked [...], Zuckerberg explained to a friend that
his control of Facebook gave him access to any information he wanted
[...]:
ZUCK: yea so if you ever need info about anyone at harvard
ZUCK: just ask
ZUCK: i have over 4000 emails, pictures, addresses, sns
FRIEND: what!? how’d you manage that one?
ZUCK: people just submitted it
ZUCK: i don’t know why
ZUCK: they “trust me”
ZUCK: dumb fucks

- http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/09/20/the-face-of-facebook
Post by johanw
Post by Tim Harman
SMS within Signal on Android is now a legacy hangover that needs to go
away.
In its current form I agree. After the removal of encrypted sms it can't
serve as secure backup option either for when there is no internet or
the
access to the Signal servers are blocked (like Bangladesh did for
Whatsapp
recently). In such a case encrypted sms is a nice backup because it
will be
much more difficult to switch sms off (that will cause problems for
all kinds
of industrial equipment too). So I switched to SMSSecure for sms and use
Signal when I have internet (in my country, most of the time but you
never
know what even western countries do after some disaster like the
Paris attacks).
Post by Tim Harman
Moxie has already stated that as soon as "proper" FDE comes to
Android, that the passphrase feature of Signal will be removed.
But "proper" FDE will never come to all suported Android versions.
Unless
some future version will only support Android > 6.
--
Met vriendelijke groet/With kind regards,
Johan Wevers
Stephen Michel
2015-12-16 16:07:08 UTC
Permalink
That's very interesting, and a larger sample size than the ~20 people I've convinced to install Signal. I wonder if it has to do with the demographic; the majority of my sample are college students.

As an aside, the number of people who cannot install apps on iOS because they're (legitimately) out of disk space from taking pictures and having a low storage model is pretty incredible.
Post by Per Guth
Hello,
# Dropping SMS
By now I have convinced about 80 people to install TextSecure/Signal.
As much as I favor the SMS integration, I must admit that it almost
always was *not* the selling point and only a minority switched that
feature on.
But then again as far as I can tell/guess, this minority almost totally
encompasses the group of power users that go out and spread the app.
In the few cases I installed Signal for the elder generation I almost
always enabled the SMS integration. The reasons being easier usability
and the already discussed "automatic upgrade to a secure channel if
possible".
# SMS via the desktop app
Personally I would like to have that feature. I guess SMS won't leave
us that soon and there are lots of non-Signal contacts I would like to
reach.
Viele Gruesse,
Per
***
In another exchange leaked [...], Zuckerberg explained to a friend that
his control of Facebook gave him access to any information he wanted
ZUCK: yea so if you ever need info about anyone at harvard
ZUCK: just ask
ZUCK: i have over 4000 emails, pictures, addresses, sns
FRIEND: what!? how’d you manage that one?
ZUCK: people just submitted it
ZUCK: i don’t know why
ZUCK: they “trust me”
ZUCK: dumb fucks
- http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/09/20/the-face-of-facebook
Post by johanw
Post by Tim Harman
SMS within Signal on Android is now a legacy hangover that needs to go
away.
In its current form I agree. After the removal of encrypted sms it can't
serve as secure backup option either for when there is no internet or
the
access to the Signal servers are blocked (like Bangladesh did for
Whatsapp
recently). In such a case encrypted sms is a nice backup because it
will be
much more difficult to switch sms off (that will cause problems for
all kinds
of industrial equipment too). So I switched to SMSSecure for sms and use
Signal when I have internet (in my country, most of the time but you
never
know what even western countries do after some disaster like the
Paris attacks).
Post by Tim Harman
Moxie has already stated that as soon as "proper" FDE comes to
Android, that the passphrase feature of Signal will be removed.
But "proper" FDE will never come to all suported Android versions.
Unless
some future version will only support Android > 6.
--
Met vriendelijke groet/With kind regards,
Johan Wevers
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Loading...