Re: [SLE] Re: [suse-security] Did SuSE hack ls or which?
Matthew Johnson
On Monday 26 November 2001 12:07 pm, you wrote:
Noticed that Turbolinux promptly reports where ls is located in response to "which ls", as will Mandrake and RedHat, but SuSE 7.3 won't.
Is this intentional? Please don't tell me I've been hacked already, the box has only been running 12 hours, and its only got a ssh open.
Just noticed that on my box too. Its behind a firewall, of course still can be cracked, but...
Can anyone from SuSE verify its working please? Really pretty please :).
Note that the default "which" in SuSE is the bash alias $ alias which alias which='type -p' see bash(1) and /etc/bash.bashrc (7.3) or /etc/profile (7.2) for more info. Also try: $ type -a ls ls is aliased to `ls $LS_OPTIONS' ls is /bin/ls The old "which" command is still there: $ /usr/bin/which ls /bin/ls -- Alexandr.Malusek@imv.liu.se
On 27-Nov-01 Alexandr Malusek wrote:
Note that the default "which" in SuSE is the bash alias
$ alias which alias which='type -p'
The old "which" command is still there:
$ /usr/bin/which ls /bin/ls
Would someone from SuSE please explain what the point of this
particular alias is?
Since 'which' is there in its own right, why steal its name for
something else?
This strikes me as comparable with the silliness of the default
behaviour of 'less' (due to a daft default '/usr/bin/lessopen.sh'
file which makes altogether too many assumptions about what the
user wants to see -- i.e. whoever put that together has their own
idea of what users should be seeing, which is mostly a long way
from what I usually want to see; and in the process makes it
tricky for users who want the "usual" behaviour to restore it,
indeed to find out what's happening).
Inspired by Alexandr's note above, I did 'alias' (on 7.2), with the
following results:
alias +='pushd .'
alias -='popd'
alias ..='cd ..'
alias ...='cd ../..'
alias A:='echo -e '\''Error: There is no such thing
as a drive A: in Un*x!\n
Use mtools, mount or autofs to access your floppy.'\'''
alias C:='echo -e '\''Error: There is no such thing
as a drive C: in Un*x!\n
Your harddisk should already be mounted (via /etc/fstab
or autofs).'\'''
alias beep='echo -en "\x07"'
alias cd..='echo '\''Error: Try: cd ..'\'''
alias chkdsk='echo -e '\''Error: Your filesystems are
checked on bootup.\n
If you want to do it manually, use fsck.\n
Use df and mount for an overview of your disks.
alias copy='echo '\''Error: Try the command: cp -piv'\'''
alias del='echo '\''Error: Try the command: rm -iv'\'''
alias dir='ls -l'
alias dos2unix='recode ibmpc..lat1'
alias format='echo -e '\''Error: The D*S concept of
formatting a disk is screwed.\n
Maybe you want to create a filesystem? Use mkfs then.'\'''
alias l='ls -alF'
alias la='ls -la'
alias ll='ls -l'
alias ls='ls $LS_OPTIONS'
alias ls-l='ls -l'
alias md='mkdir -p'
alias mem='echo '\''Error: Try the command: free'\'''
alias move='echo '\''Error: Try the command: mv -iv'\'''
alias o='less'
alias rd='rmdir'
alias rehash='hash -r'
alias unix2dos='recode lat1..ibmpc'
alias unmount='echo "Error: Try the command: umount"'
alias ver='echo '\''Error: Try the command: uname -a'\'''
alias which='type -p'
Of these, "+", "-", "..", "...", "beep", perhaps "dir",
"dos2unix", "l", "la", "ll", "md", "rd", "rehash" and "unix2dos"
strike me as (more or less) useful abbreviations; though some
people might prefer to assign some of them to something slightly
different.
I see no point to "o". As to "which", see above.
Now for "A:", "C:". Well, sorry, but I do have "A:", "C:" and
also "D:". Or, more precisely, "/A:", "/C:" and "/D:" -- these
are mount points for, respectively, the floppy drive and for
certain DOS partitions on the hard drives, and are so present
in /etc/fstab. So it is easy to "mount /A:", "cd /C:", etc.;
it's a useful mnemonic for anyone, and (in my experience)
is helpful for DOS users to get used to.
Which also suggests that it would be more to the point to
have commands (aliases or command files) "A:", "C:" etc,
where "A:" would do "mount /A: ; cd /A:", while "C:"
would do "cd /C: and, if "/A:" mounted, unmount it."
That would actually be _useful_, instead of the really
pointless sneering at "ignorant DOS users" which the above
aliases generate -- "Oh, you said 'A:', you must be a DOS
user but look, now you're using **UNIX** which is superior
and you really MUSTN'T use those nasty commands that you've
been used to and which tell us all where you've come from."
The same point about sneering at "DOS users" applies to
"copy", "del", "format", "mem" and "move". Whoever took the
trouble to compose these useless aliases could have taken the
trouble to assign aliases which did something _useful_ instead
-- even something as simple as "alias copy='cp'" or
"alias mem='free'" would be worth while. (A possible exception
would be "format", which if used at all should be a script
which would only work if called as "format A:"; there IS a
point in having UNIX commands which emulate such DOS commands
as are relevant to UNIX).
I can see the point of the "chkdsk" alias (though might
have expressed it differently); probably someone who has
an urge to type "chkdsk" would get their fingers burned
if they dipped them into "fsck".
And if someone's going to take the trouble to compose
the above equally pointless alias for "unmount" then, again,
they might instead take the trouble to make it straightforward and
useful: "alias unmount='umount'" (it's a common enough typo;
I recall that either Brian Kernighan, or Dennis Ritchie, when
asked what he thought was the worst mistake he had made while
developing C/UNIX, replied "leaving the final 'e' off 'creat'").
Dear SuSE: Please stop doing this silly stuff. Much of what I've
criticised above is on the level of practical jokes in a student
computer lab.
It gets in the way of "real" users. As it happens, I had not
done a "which ls" and hadn't noticed this. However, if I had,
I would have had the same initial reaction: that something was
wrong; and it might have taken me quite a bit of time and trouble
to track it down (it doesn't immediately leap to the mind, even
of an experienced user, that a command which doesn't do what
it's supposed to do might actually be an alias instead).
It's totally unnecessary to alias an existing command to
something quite different. Commands are commands. If nothing
else, "man which" gives false information; new users getting
used to UNIX will only get confused and deterred. Frankly,
I expect commands to do what they're "officially" supposed
to do, not what some interfering SuSE apparatchik has seen fit
to change them into. All the more so if the new alias doesn't
behave as "man <command>" describes. If you want a command to
do something different (though related), then for God's
sake give it a different name: it's no more trouble than
aliasing the original command to something which, arguably,
is simply wrong because it doesn't do what it's supposed to.
And, as for DOS users: Please don't treat them like low life.
I've known quite a few become very competent Linux users,
even if they sometimes retain a preference for where they
originated. They will only feel insulted by the ouput of
the likes of "copy" or "del". Remember that people who use
computers a lot, be they DOS or UNIX, have a tendency to
type "on autopilot" when working fast; "alias copy='cp'"
would help them. It would also help people coming from the
"copy" and "move" world who, otherwise, would take some time
to get used to the abbreviations "cp" and "mv" (as I have seen).
I've been sarcastic before about SuSE "Professional".
As far as I can see, "Professional" simply means "In contrast
with 'Personal', you get a lot more applications which could
help you do real work". It does not imply a professional
quality to the way the distribution has been created (though
of course much of what is on the SuSE CDs is indeed of that
quality).
A really professional distribution would quietly create
useful aliases which unobtrusively do useful things in a correct
and reliable manner (see examples above), and would NOT break
the behaviour of things which real professional users expect
to behave in a particular way (e.g. because of what they
read in the man pages). "Student pranks" are not professional.
Best wishes to all,
Ted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding)
On Tuesday 27 November 2001 16:36, Ted Harding wrote:
Would someone from SuSE please explain what the point of this particular alias is?
Yeah...
Since 'which' is there in its own right, why steal its name for something else?
Strikes me as odd... (Still) Being the relative newcomer to both Linux and SuSE, I tend to agree with Ted here... One of the things that I really appreciate with linux is it's apparent consistency... it's one of the things that eventually drove me off of MS's platforms... (Windows inconsistencies, that is) - Now I regularly use 'which' to find programs/scripts, and although I haven't needed it yet, on this machine (just got it, freshly installed with 7.3, flawlessy, I might add. Kudos to SuSE for the installer -it's great! :) I *would* eventually need 'which', and be baffled as to why it was behaving differently than what I'm used to. IMHO aliasing stuff to already established commands/functions/progs/whatever is *not* a great idea... I think that at least *some* warning about stuff like that would be in order, e.g. "which --help" could produce something like "type: usage: type [-apt] name [name ...] which has been aliased to 'type -p' -to use (the old) which enter: /usr/bin/which" or something... man type gets me the manpage for bash... this is even more confusing... I know from "type type", that type is a shell builtin, but this manpage is >5000 lines, and I'm really no closer to understanding what type *does* :P -now I *like* which, and I would like it back... so I looked around a bit and found out where these aliases are set up: /etc/bash.bashrc The first couple lines state: # PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE /etc/bash.bashrc There are chances that your changes # will be lost during system upgrades. so what do I do? Just edit anyway, and try to remember this next time I upgrade? or is there some other place where this may be done without above "risk"?
Inspired by Alexandr's note above, I did 'alias' (on 7.2), with the following results:
<snip>
Which also suggests that it would be more to the point to have commands (aliases or command files) "A:", "C:" etc, where "A:" would do "mount /A: ; cd /A:", while "C:" would do "cd /C: and, if "/A:" mounted, unmount it." That would actually be _useful_, instead of the really pointless sneering at "ignorant DOS users" which the above aliases generate
good point...
there IS a point in having UNIX commands which emulate such DOS commands as are relevant to UNIX).
I agree...
useful: "alias unmount='umount'" (it's a common enough typo;
Dear SuSE: Please stop doing this silly stuff.
yeah... ;)
As it happens, I had not done a "which ls" and hadn't noticed this. However, if I had, I would have had the same initial reaction: that something was wrong; and it might have taken me quite a bit of time and trouble to track it down (it doesn't immediately leap to the mind, even of an experienced user, that a command which doesn't do what it's supposed to do might actually be an alias instead).
Very true. I know that *I'd* have been completely lost...
It's totally unnecessary to alias an existing command to something quite different. Commands are commands. If nothing else, "man which" gives false information; new users getting used to UNIX will only get confused and deterred.
Which I feel is a *very* important point. I've been "using" SuSE since 6.2, and I am finally getting to the point where I have *some* confidence in what I'm doing... Changes like these make it *much* harder for people on my 'level' understand and learn...
Frankly, I expect commands to do what they're "officially" supposed to do,
Which is probably what 'converts' from other distros would, as well... what's the point in trying to adhere to the FSH if not to make life easier for people using several different distros...? My point here being that the command 'which' would probably be a very much used command for a while, if I were to suddenly find myself at a RH or Debian system...
All the more so if the new alias doesn't behave as "man <command>" describes.
Yep: Consistency, please...
And, as for DOS users: Please don't treat them like low life.
Patronizing attitudes don't yield 'happy campers' -another of the myriad reasons I up and left the window-littered fields of Microland, and found a new campsite...
the aliases aren't so bad. Someone said mount /A: was a good mnemonic, but I don't see how it's better than mount /floppy. A: is a letter followed by a punctuation mark. 'floppy' says what it is. Only people with environmental damages from various other OSes could find A: 'intuitive' and they have to be re-educated ASAP. While we're on this subject: who was the brainiac behind /etc/profile.d/complete.bash? I don't see why I can't have file name completion just because the suffix isn't 'correct'. This 'fenestration' of linux has to stop IMHO. It also ties in with the somewhat silly discussion about MIME attachments. This is linux. You should be using linux. Then you wouldn't have problems with attachments. On Tuesday 27 November 2001 18:40, Jon Clausen wrote:
gets me the manpage for bash... this is even more confusing... I know from "type type", that type is a shell builtin, but this manpage is >5000 lines, and I'm really no closer to understanding what type *does* :P
type [-atp] name [name ...] With no options, indicate how each name would be interpreted if used as a command name. If the -t option is used, type prints a string which is one of alias, keyword, function, builtin, or file if name is an alias, shell reserved word, function, builtin, or disk file, respectively. If the name is not found, then nothing is printed, and an exit status of false is returned. If the -p option is used, type either returns the name of the disk file that would be executed if name were specified as a command name, or nothing if ``type -t name'' would not return file. If a command is hashed, -p prints the hashed value, not necessarily the file that appears first in PATH. If the -a option is used, type prints all of the places that contain an exe cutable named name. This includes aliases and functions, if and only if the -p option is not also used. The table of hashed commands is not con sulted when using -a. type returns true if any of the arguments are found, false if none are found. //Anders
On Tuesday 27 November 2001 18:50, you wrote:
the aliases aren't so bad.
*Aliases* are not bad. Aliases that substitute a well known command with something *different* are. IMO anyway... especially if this happens without *some* warning...
Someone said mount /A: was a good mnemonic, but 'floppy' says what it is.
true
environmental damages from various other OSes could find A: 'intuitive' and they have to be re-educated ASAP.
sure ;) <snip>
gets me the manpage for bash... this is even more confusing... I know from "type type", that type is a shell builtin, but this manpage is >5000 lines, and I'm really no closer to understanding what type *does* :P
type [-atp] name [name ...] With no options, indicate how each name would be interpreted if used as a command name. If the -t
<snip> Yeah, right after I sent the other message I found that in the manpage, but that's not the point... Point is that if I enter a command, it should do what that command is *supposed* to do. If I enter 'man <command>', then the manpage for *that* command should show. Now that we all know that 'which' is an alias for 'type -p' it's not that big of a deal, but I still think that Ted was right in his initial post... So do I just edit /etc/bash.bashrc -or what? Jon Clausen
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Jon Clausen wrote: jc> On Tuesday 27 November 2001 18:50, you wrote: jc> > the aliases aren't so bad. jc> jc> Now that we all know that 'which' is an alias for 'type -p' it's not that big jc> of a deal, but I still think that Ted was right in his initial post... jc> jc> So do I just edit /etc/bash.bashrc -or what? jc> It's located in /etc/profile additional aliases are called through your personal ~/.bashrc using the ~/.alias file in case your wondering about that. :) jc> Jon Clausen jc> jc> -- S.Toms - smotrs@mindspring.com - www.mindspring.com/~smotrs SuSE Linux v7.2+ - Kernel 2.4.4 Deliberation, n.: The act of examining one's bread to determine which side it is buttered on. -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
On 27-Nov-01 Anders Johansson wrote:
the aliases aren't so bad. Someone said mount /A: was a good mnemonic, but I don't see how it's better than mount /floppy. A: is a letter followed by a punctuation mark. 'floppy' says what it is.
Well, if it's natural to think of "A:" as a DOS floppy drive, then that also "says what it is"; after all, "floppy" itself is simply six letters. But that's all a bit philosophico-linguistical. Also to the point is that "A:" is only three keypresses, and less error-prone than "floppu" (oops). Even more to the point (for "/C:") is that "mount /C:" is MUCH easier than (on my relevant system) "mount -o... /dev/hdc3 /dos1"; and even easier would be a command "C:" which simply did all that so that I wouldn't even have to type "mpunt" (oops).
Only people with environmental damages from various other OSes could find A: 'intuitive' and they have to be re-educated ASAP.
Well, there are a few of us around (in my case from maybe 15
years ago), more coming over still, and many who are obliged to
use both systems competently. Which is why I very seriously
object to your final statement (unless you meant it in fun):
"re-education" sounds more like "brain-washing" -- however,
I can accept "further education": you keep the skills and
competences you have, but you also acquire new ones, and you
apply both in the correct contexts, ac cording as you find
yourself in them.
Which is why, for me, "mount /C:" is useful (and, indeed,
why "C:" would be even better) when I want to mount a DOS
partition. But if it's not for you, or you don't have call
for it, then by all means don't bother. Aliases like this
are a personal matter. If they're useful and meaningful,
help efficient work, and don't break anything else, then
they're fine and it doesn't matter what you call them.
But the SuSE response from "A:" or "C:" reads like "re-education"
by mockery. Not nice and not necessary.
Ted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding)
On Tuesday 27 November 2001 19:56, Ted Harding wrote:
Well, if it's natural to think of "A:" as a DOS floppy drive,
There is no such thing as a "DOS floppy drive". This is exactly the kind of misnomer that I think has to be checked. I hear people everywhere refer to harddrives as c:, as if that was the universal identifier. I see no problems with informing people that this is win-terminology.
Also to the point is that "A:" is only three keypresses, and less error-prone than "floppu" (oops).
If six letters are a problem, then you're probably better of with "right-click on floppy icon and choose mount". To each his own. For me personally, I find I make more errors with one or two letter commands, simply because if I type floppu I get an error message, if I type s: (the s is next to the a on my keyboard) I could get god knows what effect. That could be potentially more damaging. Perhaps someone should design a command set where the distance between two commands is guaranteed to be > 1
Even more to the point (for "/C:") is that "mount /C:" is MUCH easier than (on my relevant system) "mount -o... /dev/hdc3 /dos1"; and even easier would be a command "C:" which simply did all that so that I wouldn't even have to type "mpunt" (oops).
If you insist. But I think that would have to be a concious choice on your part. I see no gain from turning linux into a windows lookalike on the command/device level.
Only people with environmental damages from various other OSes could find A: 'intuitive' and they have to be re-educated ASAP.
Well, there are a few of us around (in my case from maybe 15 years ago), more coming over still, and many who are obliged to use both systems competently. Which is why I very seriously object to your final statement (unless you meant it in fun):
Partly. But there are so many people that use concepts like "a:" or "c:" that I think it's valid to inform them that this is not universal usage.
"re-education" sounds more like "brain-washing" -- however,
No, I'd say the brainwashing bit is performed elsewhere. Why else would you be som adamant in holding on to terminology from other systems?
I can accept "further education": you keep the skills and competences you have, but you also acquire new ones, and you apply both in the correct contexts, ac cording as you find yourself in them.
Sure, I can agree to that. A: in dos/windows, /dev/fd0 (or /mnt/floppy) in linux.
Which is why, for me, "mount /C:" is useful (and, indeed, why "C:" would be even better) when I want to mount a DOS partition. But if it's not for you, or you don't have call for it, then by all means don't bother. Aliases like this are a personal matter. If they're useful and meaningful, help efficient work, and don't break anything else, then they're fine and it doesn't matter what you call them.
But the SuSE response from "A:" or "C:" reads like "re-education" by mockery. Not nice and not necessary.
I see nothing mocking in that. It is a simple, polite piece of information. And I agree with Jon Clausen, incidentally, that aliases that attempt to replace commands transparently can be confusing, and in some cases even damaging.
On 27-Nov-01 Anders Johansson wrote:
On Tuesday 27 November 2001 19:56, Ted Harding wrote:
Also to the point is that "A:" is only three keypresses, and less error-prone than "floppu" (oops).
If six letters are a problem, then you're probably better of with "right-click on floppy icon and choose mount". To each his own.
Well, in the immortal words of my friend Charles Curran,
"I can touch-type but I can't touch-mouse".
Anyway, I don't propose to continue arguing about the issue of
"reminders of DOS polluting Linux". I guess each of us knows
where he/she stands on this.
On more substantial issues arising out of this thread
(and on this list .. ) see a couple of accompanying mails.
Regards,
Ted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding)
I originally asked: On 27-Nov-01 Ted Harding wrote:
On 27-Nov-01 Alexandr Malusek wrote:
Note that the default "which" in SuSE is the bash alias
$ alias which alias which='type -p'
The old "which" command is still there:
$ /usr/bin/which ls /bin/ls
Would someone from SuSE please explain what the point of this particular alias is?
I've now had a look at a Red Hat 7.1 system. This also has
an alias for 'which':
RH> alias which='alias | /usr/bin/which \
--tty-only --read-alias --show-dot --show-tilde'
I *can* see the point of this. Consider "which <command>".
If there is an alias for <command>, this returns the alias
and also the path of the true executable used in the alias:
RH> alias ls
alias ls='ls --color=tty'
RH> which ls
alias ls='ls --color=tty'
/bin/ls
RH> which which
alias which='alias | /usr/bin/which --tty-only \
--read-alias --show-dot --show-tilde'
/usr/bin/which
This is fine; you get both -- both 'alias' and standard 'which'.
If there is no alias, you just get the usual behaviour of the
standard 'which'. So you lose nothing, and gain on the aliases.
One the other hand, SuSE has
SuSE> alias which
alias which='type -p'
And, of course, since 'ls' (and also 'which' and a lot of other
things) have aliases, 'type -p' in bash returns nothing:
SuSE> which ls
SuSE> which which
SuSE> which dir
...
NOW:
SuSE> type -t ls
alias
and ["help type"]:
If the -p flag is used, `type' either returns the name of the disk
file that would be executed, or nothing if `type -t NAME' would not
return `file'.
which is why SuSE 'which' returns nothing for aliases, including 'ls'.
However ["help type"]:
If the -a flag is used, `type' displays all of the places that contain
an executable named `file'. This includes aliases and functions, if
and only if the -p flag is not also used.
and indeed:
SuSE> type -a ls
ls is aliased to `ls $LS_OPTIONS'
ls is /bin/ls
SuSE> type -ap ls
/bin/ls
So I *guess* that SuSE either intended
alias which='type -a'
(which is effectively the same behaviour as in Red Hat, though
differently achieved); or else:
alias which='type -p'
which just gives you the path to the executable and not the alias.
Either way, it looks as though the SuSE alias for 'which'
is a mistake.
Ted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding)
On Tuesday 27 November 2001 22:40, Ted Harding wrote:
I originally asked:
<snip>
Would someone from SuSE please explain what the point of this particular alias is?
<snippo> (RH-research)
This is fine; you get both -- both 'alias' and standard 'which'. If there is no alias, you just get the usual behaviour of the standard 'which'. So you lose nothing, and gain on the aliases.
<snip> (SuSE-research)
So I *guess* that SuSE either intended
alias which='type -a'
(which is effectively the same behaviour as in Red Hat, though differently achieved); or else:
alias which='type -p' ^^^^^^^ typo? this is how it *is*... do not you mean
alias which='type -ap' ?
which just gives you the path to the executable and not the alias.
which is what 'which' does anyway, right?
Either way, it looks as though the SuSE alias for 'which' is a mistake.
So is there any potential breakage by removing that alias (scripts expecting 'which' to behave like /usr/bin/which, but getting the output of 'type -p' or vice versa)? Jon Clausen
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk wrote:
th> On 27-Nov-01 Alexandr Malusek wrote:
th> > Note that the default "which" in SuSE is the bash alias
th> >
th> > $ alias which
th> > alias which='type -p'
th> >
th> > The old "which" command is still there:
th> >
th> > $ /usr/bin/which ls
th> > /bin/ls
th>
th> Would someone from SuSE please explain what the point of this
th> particular alias is?
th>
Try the following:
which <any command>
/usr/bin/which <any command>
everything looks good, right? Now try the following:
which <non-existent command>
/usr/bin/which <non-existent command>
which (no pun) is the reason for that particular alias I imagine.
th> Since 'which' is there in its own right, why steal its name for
th> something else?
th>
th> This strikes me as comparable with the silliness of the default
th> behaviour of 'less' (due to a daft default '/usr/bin/lessopen.sh'
th> file which makes altogether too many assumptions about what the
th> user wants to see -- i.e. whoever put that together has their own
th> idea of what users should be seeing, which is mostly a long way
th> from what I usually want to see; and in the process makes it
th> tricky for users who want the "usual" behaviour to restore it,
th> indeed to find out what's happening).
th>
How do you know every user doesn't want that? Seems to me, no matter how
hard someone tries to please group 1, group 2 is upset and vice-a-versa.
Personally, I like the way less works in 7.2 (which was also the same as
7.0), 7.1 was completely different.
th> Inspired by Alexandr's note above, I did 'alias' (on 7.2), with the
th> following results:
th>
<snipped a bunch of stuff>
th>
After reading your message, I'm left to wonder, why do you continue to
use SuSE if the things their doing seem to displease you? And no, I'm not
trying to be an asshole or anything, just conversing. :)
Talk to you later.
th>
th> Best wishes to all,
th> Ted.
th>
th> --------------------------------------------------------------------
th> E-Mail: (Ted Harding)
participants (5)
-
Alexandr Malusek -
Anders Johansson -
Jon Clausen -
S.Toms -
Ted.Harding＠nessie.mcc.ac.uk