« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
White House Says Emails Lost Due to Tech Glitch
Yesterday, I posted on CREW's revelation that there were as many as five million emails missing from the White House's system. These were emails totally separate from the emails on RNC-issued email accounts. They were in the White House system.
Today, during the White House press gaggle, Dana Perino gave an explanation of sorts:
But there was a conversion sometime between 2002 and 2003 to convert people that were using Lotus Notes when we first arrived to Microsoft Outlook. And I know that the tech people worked to get us all transferred over. We had to save our Word documents and all to make sure that they weren't lost in that transition.I don't have a specific number for you. Again, I wouldn't rule out that there were a potential 5 million emails lost, but we'll see if we can get to you. If it was 5 million, I think that, again, out of 1,700 people using email every day, again, there was no intent to have lost them.
From the press gaggle:
Q Do you have any further information on the suggestion that some of the official -- the emails from the official WHO --MS. PERINO: No, I'm looking into that. There was an assertion yesterday by one of the groups, outside groups, that outside of -- take apart -- we're not talking about GWB emails, but within the EOP system, that there had been a gap or that there had been upwards of 5 million emails that were missing. Scott and I are looking into that; we're talking to the Office of Administration.
Now, one of the things that occurred -- and we're also trying to figure out how many emails possibly could be sent by 1,700 employees on a daily basis. I don't know if the numbers are staggering. My inbox is staggering so -- we'll work to find that out. But there was a conversion sometime between 2002 and 2003 to convert people that were using Lotus Notes when we first arrived to Microsoft Outlook. And I know that the tech people worked to get us all transferred over. We had to save our Word documents and all to make sure that they weren't lost in that transition.
I don't have a specific number for you. Again, I wouldn't rule out that there were a potential 5 million emails lost, but we'll see if we can get to you. If it was 5 million, I think that, again, out of 1,700 people using email every day, again, there was no intent to have lost them.
And in addition to that, I think one of the things that we're talking about here, when you're asking about double-delete and what were the motivations, that is separate and apart from what we're talking about here, which is no one -- no person that was actually doing official government work or talking to any other outside groups or to the media would have known that their files would have -- that some of the emails would have been inadvertently lost in a transition of conversion of a technical sort.
Q Dana, can I follow up on that real quick. So this allegation about the 5 million missing emails refers only, as you understand it, to this 2002-2003 time period?
MS. PERINO: I don't know the time period. I'm saying 2002-2003 because that's when I worked at CEQ, and that's when I know that I got -- I moved from Lotus Notes to Microsoft Outlook. We'll get the dates for you. It was a rolling system in order to make sure that people weren't disrupted from their work.
Comments (407)
Anonymous wrote on April 13, 2007 1:17 PM:CREW has said that the loss of data lasted over two years, affecting all official White House e-mails (the ones that are supposed to automatically archive) from 2003-2005.
Perino again is only guessing here - just like her "handfull of staffers have RNC email" comment that turned out to be between 22-50 staffers. Her guess of time period may turn out to be wrong.
So as Paul notes, we've got TWO EMAIL SCANDALS HERE
1/This one. The White House official computer "lost" emails that were supposed to archive between (possibly) 2002-2005.
2/The other one. White House aides used RNC e-mail but the RNC erased all records of the mail. And Karl Rove's special backup system for RNC e-mails also failed.
uncle vester wrote on April 13, 2007 1:17 PM:*snort*
Horseshit!
So we're to believe nobody backed anything up during this switchover from Lotus Notes to M$ Outhouse (and presumably Exchange), and whoops we lost a buncha stuff? And nobody got canned?
John in Erie wrote on April 13, 2007 1:18 PM:Are you kidding me!!!! I work in IT and something like this would have MAJOR, MAJOR repercussions, up to and including immediate firing of all parties concerned. I don't know how they can walk into a room without their noses banging into the opposite wall
Mike Conwell wrote on April 13, 2007 1:19 PM:They can't handle a transition from Lotus Notes to Microsoft Outlook? No wonder they can't run a decent war.
And WhyTF hasn't this been addressed earlier. I can't imagine anyone in a serious business, let alone running a country, standing for loss of email on this scale. Yet alone, the archiving regulations.
Anonymous wrote on April 13, 2007 1:20 PM:Shes gumming up the works...What does saving your word docs have anything to do with converting from notes to outlook? And have ANYTHING to do with loosing 4 years worth of email data!!
There gumming it to death....
Sojourner wrote on April 13, 2007 1:20 PM:LotusNotes to Outlook... It is not the easiest conversion in general, but I wonder if the original Lotus archive files still exist on the individuals' computers? The archive file can be opened with either LotusNotes or a conversion program. Maybe that is why they are not finding them! If they did not get properly converted, they will not find them in the Outlook archives.
KestrelBrighteyes wrote on April 13, 2007 1:25 PM:Sounds like she's juggling the shiny objects to stall for time while SOMEONE plays CYA.
I'd say a WHOLE BUNCH of computer hard drives and servers need to be confiscated RIGHT NOW!
Rusty wrote on April 13, 2007 1:25 PM:This is such unbelievable bullshit. I can't say it enough. The way Perino is decribing these systems is not AT ALL how they work. Period. They are LYING to your faces.
If the techs screwed it up - who are they? Where are they? Since Dana knows so little about how it works, lets have the techs talk to us. This is the most bald-faced, audacious, shameless lying I have seen in this whole administration.
Dems - you must subpeona these servers now. There is not telling what kind of damage they are at this very moment.
code: fear
TheraP wrote on April 13, 2007 1:25 PM:We can't get the emails. But we could come up with a number.
How is a number supposed to help?
Allen Smothers wrote on April 13, 2007 1:26 PM:Exactly during the period leading up to the Iraq war. I guess we will never know the decision making process....ever. I'm sure they hoped this would stay buried till 2031 or so.
Anonymous wrote on April 13, 2007 1:30 PM:What incredible BS. Is she saying that the emails on the Lotus system weren't backed up, as they were supposed to be in accordance with the Presidential Records Act? Or that they just threw the backups away? Even if the emails were lost in the transition, the backups should still exist.
lisainvan wrote on April 13, 2007 1:31 PM:Somebody should ask the WH about what measures of data retrieval were put in place for Y2K. (Remember that?)
Buck wrote on April 13, 2007 1:32 PM:Or just get an IT guy to come in and ask the questions. They are banking on ignorance of the way IT works
Relax. The email is not lost. It is just thought to be lost.
Keyword: mine
Mark Richards wrote on April 13, 2007 1:35 PM:Bzzzt! If they can count them, then they know how many they...
deleted.
This bunch can't even manage to do a crime right!
Perhaps it's time for the equivalent of a court-ordered receivership to protect the nation from further incompetence and criminality. After all, the court brought us this mal-administration in the beginning. Let them clean it up.
John in Erie wrote on April 13, 2007 1:36 PM:These nimrods need to be thrown in jail now!!! A very good case can be made for obstruction of justice - just on what we now know. If I did any of this stuff, I'd be picked up and be in jail in 15 minutes (it's just down the street from here).
Forget all this subpoena stuff. Lock them up now and let their lawyers deal with it. Especially the one's from Regent Law who have all this experience running the country.
Unbelievable!!!
Code Word: door - as in slam the jail door on them.
steambomb wrote on April 13, 2007 1:37 PM:LotusNotes to Outlook... It is not the easiest conversion in general, but I wonder if the original Lotus archive files still exist on the individuals' computers? The archive file can be opened with either LotusNotes or a conversion program. Maybe that is why they are not finding them! If they did not get properly converted, they will not find them in the Outlook archives.
Posted by: Sojourner
I wouldn't even be asking this question. It's pretty clear what is going on here. I think the time for the impeachment hearing should begin with obstruction of justice right now. This whitehouse is using its office to obstruct an important investigation and the players should be kicked out of government. We all know it is a long ugly process but it will be the only way to get to the bottom of these important issues. If we dont we are done. All bets will be off and the wild west will begin again.
Clay wrote on April 13, 2007 1:42 PM:Time to appoint a special prosecutor. Now, who is in charge of appointing a special prosecutor. Oh yes, it's the nation's most trusted law enforcement officer, Alberto Gonzales.
Cavalor Epthith, Esquire wrote on April 13, 2007 1:46 PM:I am just a humble editor and user of e-mail but I know that it is very difficult to truly erase e-mail. And by difficult I mean the process takes more than the one or two easy steps most people are willing to endure to accomplish a task.
jeffgee wrote on April 13, 2007 1:50 PM:I fear if those servers and hard drives are not seized before the AG goes up the Hill they will be made love to by some very large shapely rare earth magnets.
Dana Perino combines the smugness of Ari Fleischer with the prickliness of Lynn Cheney and the sarcasm of Ann Coulter.
Andrew wrote on April 13, 2007 1:52 PM:Hi Josh --- Doesn't this still mean an offense has been committed, because there is no clause saying, "But you may delete emails if you change program"!
BTW -- Ms Pelosi is taking the heat delivered by her former friends better than I expected, so Hat Tip so far!
Tulkinghorn wrote on April 13, 2007 1:53 PM:Who in god's name would switch from Notes to Outlook? That is a prima facia case o reckless disregard right there!
Notrol wrote on April 13, 2007 1:55 PM:Conyers, Leahy-
Don't just authorize subpeonas- execute them right now. If the DOJ and the FBI refuse to execute the search and seizure of every computer, hard drive, server, backup server, thumb drive and archive in the WH and Executive Office Bldg, then charge them all with obstruction of justice.
If you need some backup, I'll start cleaning my pitchfork and wrapping a torch with flammable material.
(NoShit) Security Code: crime
Notrol (aka) Alphonse (Al) Kada
mbbsdphil wrote on April 13, 2007 1:58 PM:Never happened. There's a lot of expertise available about converting from LN to Outlook and the reverse. Hundreds of people available, starting at about $90/hour in the US, a quarter to a third of that in Asia.
If the two systems were incompatible, the govt would have maintained - and would have been legally obligated to maintain - a legacy system for ready access to older data.
My guess is a five minute call to the National Archivist would dismiss that argument.
Dana "Dear in the Headlights" Perino still stops the Press Korps dead. When will they ask her questions - and demand answers - as if she speaks for the President of the United States?
EH wrote on April 13, 2007 1:58 PM:steambomb: That's exactly it. That this is their explanation now only serves to confirm that these emails still exist. when doing a migration like that, they're going to check that the emails made it into Exchange (Outlook's server) before they delete the contents of the Lotus Notes mailboxes. This is invariably true in all cases, and especially so if the systems are beholden to records-keeping laws.
Not only this, but in the time it took to move from LN to Exchange, there were likely backups taken of the LN server that would preserve the mailboxes (or exported email into files) that were being moved over. Nobody has said that these tapes are missing (which would change the story quite a bit since people would have to be fired in that case), so we can be reasonably sure that the tapes are out there, in Exchange/Outlook or Lotus Notes format, it doesn't matter.
lm945 wrote on April 13, 2007 2:02 PM:Am I the only one seeing the potential bigger picture? They have to know no one is buying their b.s. Which can only mean they don't care.
I can't help but wonder -- are they not worried about what happens when they're out in 2008 because they have no intention of leaving?
Dem-agog wrote on April 13, 2007 2:03 PM:Having spent 12 years as a computer analyst/techie I would say that, in my experience, after any major conversion from one platform to another the previous platform data was *always* archived away and easily available -just in case.
Man, this whole thing really, really smells BAD.
Dem-agog wrote on April 13, 2007 2:06 PM:Also, if they are claiming that millions of emails were lost *because* of the conversion from Notes to Outlook then the tech people who performed the conversion need to be called to testify.
That is just insane!
Gromit wrote on April 13, 2007 2:07 PM:Um, WH press, why don't you get your IT people together with the WH IT people so that people who know how to ask intelleligent questions can ask people who might be able to answer them?
Just a thought.
TheraP wrote on April 13, 2007 2:08 PM:lm945 @ 2:02
You're on the money!
Yes, this is like Sadaam's PR guy doing broadcasts!
Dabb wrote on April 13, 2007 2:09 PM:lm945, I agree. They don't care. But what is worse is that they think the American public is so stupid that we are all buying into what they are saying. Problem is they've said this stuff for 6 years, and it's getting old. And it's not credible anymore. People are dying.
clueless wrote on April 13, 2007 2:10 PM:Actually this is a wonderful argument (switch from Lotus Notes to Outlook). Why?
Any techie will tell you that whenever you do a computer conversion, no matter how small it may be, you ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS create at least one backup and usually several.....just in case the conversion doesn't go as planned (they never do). And since these backups are saved, someone has to make the later decision to delete them all. Start talking to that person. Maybe one of these backups got overlooked during the document shredding -- I'm sorry, the routine cleaning of the system to ensure its peak performance.
Gromit wrote on April 13, 2007 2:10 PM:"intelligent". Damned paws.
Bill Cameron wrote on April 13, 2007 2:12 PM:This is completely plausible. Outlook blows.
cl-Oregon Girl wrote on April 13, 2007 2:14 PM:Where do they hire their IT folks from? The Pat Robertson Christian Tech Day School?
This is beyond incompetant. They are either big fat liars or idiots. We know that the Bush Administration abounds in both.
Voulez Vous wrote on April 13, 2007 2:15 PM:I work in IT, and at one point was involved in a Lotus to MS Outlook conversion. For a company of 100 people, it took us a year of planning, testing, training, and making backups up the yazoo until we were ready to roll. I don't believe for a moment that the IT staff at the EOP somehow, oopsie, lost millions of e-mails. And that this catastrophe is only now coming to light. The IT people at the White House are consummate pros -- I know several of them. They would have been hanged, drawn, and quartered if something like this occurred. This White House, not content to drag the reputations of US attorneys through the mud, is now trying to defame some top-notch IT people.
LastDemInNorman wrote on April 13, 2007 2:16 PM:Canard.
This is not rocket science. A simple search will show that there are folks doing this. Yes, there have been problems, but an entire cottage industry has been built around migrating Notes to Outlook. There are plenty of companies who will do it for you, or have a tool which will recover both the Notes and Outlook versions of the migrated mail stores.
Florida DOT had an issue. Microsoft was involved. Not just a re-seller, Microsoft. Who here doesn't think that if the WH asked Bill Gates for help on this, that he wouldn't relocate half of Redmond to the Beltway to fix it?
This is the best that the WH can do? The dog ate my homework?
Please.
LD
Bob O'Reilly wrote on April 13, 2007 2:17 PM:This is beyond belief. It is very difficult to lose email or any other electronic file. Deleted files and email live on in all sorts of places from the obvious hard drives and backup tapes to all kinds of archives that are created by users, admins and the software itself. Individuals skilled forensic computing can find and recover all kinds of stuff.
The conversion from Notes to Outlook should not lose a single email and no place I have ever worked would have permitted the new email system to go live if even one email was known to have been lost. Presumably at least one and probably more full backups of the Notes system where made before the conversion and retained by the organization -- the RNC or the EOP. Also this work was probably performed by a vendor who can attest to the procedures they followed. Lets get them on the phone.
Bob O'Reilly
TN wrote on April 13, 2007 2:17 PM:Lost in conversion? Now that's ridiculous. If there's to be a conversion from one system to another, they're much more likely to have good (pre-conversion) backups of their systems.
I wonder why there aren't any WH comments on existence of backup tapes, or on lack of them. Now that they seem to have a "gap" in archives, is it because (a) they destroyed the last remaining archive tapes (bad) or (b) they lost the tapes (MUCH worse); I manage e-mail archives containing mostly unimporant chatter, but would still get myself fired on the spot if I somehow "lost" the backup tapes. The WH backups contain some of the most important emails in this planet. I don't get this.
Every crummy little organization I've been in has kept backup tapes of important things like email archives in several physically separated locations, stored in fireproof safeboxes. Are they saying that WH manages it's email like some pet food store or junior sports club?
James wrote on April 13, 2007 2:19 PM:We are the Bush Administration and we ask you to trust us. After all, it was your mandate that put us into office.
Oh, look! A shiny object!
Henk wrote on April 13, 2007 2:19 PM:In 1998 ago I worked on a project converting several different email formats to Outlook. We had to write conversion software for a couple, but Microsoft had a tool already written for convert Lotus to Outlook.(I think it was Outlook in those days,but running on NT??) Someone already said it, but it was a very easy conversion. That was 9 years ago. That's a life time in software terms. These guys are walking on awfully thin ice.
UnixAdmin wrote on April 13, 2007 2:20 PM:To all the IT guys...
Don't you offsite sensitive tape backups? And if you really need to clean house, wouldn't you recall all the tapes first?
Point being, someone probably a contract with a data management company and once we find out which company and how they respond to questions...we'll see how bad this all stinks.
As any admin will tell ya...things get fubar'd..it happens.
Bill wrote on April 13, 2007 2:20 PM:http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20030213/ai_n10848332
White House e-mail system sluggish
Los Angeles Times
Thursday, February 13, 2003
But some information technology experts say the explanation may not be quite that simple, especially considering several tantalizing recent developments at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Last month the White House converted its e-mail system from Lotus Notes to Microsoft Outlook. At the same time, the White House is moving to a new e-mail server to better accommodate the volume of traffic it must handle.
But several West Wing staffers, speaking on condition of anonymity, offered another theory: that the slowdown could be traced to the system's "firewall," which is designed to protect it from hackers by filtering out unwanted incoming missives.
"Something happened with our firewall, and things really got jammed up," one aide said Wednesday. "Tech support had to shut down the whole thing, and just barely got it up and running this morning."
LS wrote on April 13, 2007 2:21 PM:Remind me again, which candidate for President in 2000 ran on "competency" and "credibility" again?
Code: regret. As it were.
UnixAdmin wrote on April 13, 2007 2:23 PM:To all the IT guys...
Don't you offsite sensitive tape backups? And if you really need to clean house, wouldn't you recall all the tapes first?
Point being, someone probably signed a contract with a data management company and once we find out which company and how they respond to questions...we'll see how bad this all stinks.
anne wrote on April 13, 2007 2:23 PM:As any admin will tell ya...things get fubar'd..it happens. Even in a totally seperate reality. heh heh heh.
One great thing about readership on the net is, for any topic there will be loads of people who actually know a thing or two about the subject. And it's enjoyable to learn something new by reading about unfamiliar things, concisely written by someone who knows what they're talking about. I don't know anything about constitutional law, how the US court systems work, or tons of other things. But I know how IT organizations do software migrations..and, boy, like the other techies here....we know a bogus story when we see one! "The mail was lost when we updated our system"...unless those IT people were hired simply for being loyal Bushies, that sounds totally fake.
code: dress, as in let's get our party clothes ready to celebrate and our work clothes ready to clean up this mess
Greg Kane wrote on April 13, 2007 2:24 PM:As a previous poster explained, the issue of a successful client application migration from Lotus Notes to Microsoft Exchange does not alter the requirement by law to have all systems (legacy and current) backed up. Specifically the legal requirement is to be able to retrieve historical data no longer available in current databases.
End users may attempt to claim they did not remember or they were confused by the policy statements they were required to sign but Information Technology (IT) staff would not be able to assert that fiction.
If the IT staff failed to backup every email sent and provide safe off-site storage for that archive, a clear violation of law occurred. It would not be possible for that violation of law to go unnoticed by the IT staff. Should backups not exist, it will be interesting to see what IT geeks are willing to fall on their pencil cases for the White House.
A cover-up just will not work here. They are either able to produce the required information or somebody tampered with the evidence and will have to pay the price.
EJS wrote on April 13, 2007 2:25 PM:I think this is some kind of head fake. They seem to be maintaining that complying with the SJC requires them to run from machine to machine printing out emails, thus if they're not on those machines they are "lost."
Jim wrote on April 13, 2007 2:29 PM:I would have to believe they journal their servers, so that's where everything is, and Congress needs to make it clear the mail needs to be retrieved from those servers and their backups, nearline storage, whatever.
Averyone Chill already. In a few days the story will be *clarified* to * I cannot RECALL if we lost the emails or not*
ahem wrote on April 13, 2007 2:34 PM:This is bullshit. And it presumes that the WH press corps is too dumb to call Dana Peroxide on it. She'll just bat her eyelids and rattle off something at radio-ad disclaimer speed, and they'll be good little stenographers. 'Sorry, our bad! Now leave us alone!'
Uh, no. Some of us have a clue about tech, Dana.
John Drake wrote on April 13, 2007 2:34 PM:More on E-mailgate. Once Congressional investigators, with subpoenas in hand secure, the servers located at all the elements involved with White House e-mails, including Smartechcorp, the process of un-deleting files can begin. The files are marked for deletion but are not removed until the space is required for a new file, which then overwrites the old information. The sooner the devices are impounded the more information will be retrieved (i.e., a race against writing to the disk). Also the e-mails are stored locally on the recipient's computer. These can be scrutinized with the same un-delete method. If it's a UNIX (the most likely, by far) system then there will be a set of user histories which will identify all user activity which can incriminate anyone tampering with the data. That will be a handy record for future indictments for obstruction of justice. [Thanks to WP in Florida for the aforementioned].
anne wrote on April 13, 2007 2:35 PM:I would like to see the mail server and network traffic logs subpoenaed, as well as the White House and RNC IT people.
The committees need to get their own techies' hands on the server systems and logs and backup media, sooner rather than later.
White House backup tapes brought down Ollie North.
Just Askin wrote on April 13, 2007 2:36 PM:So, the messages were lost during the migration from Lotus Notes to Exchange. Wow. That sure would be mud in the eye of the prime contractor who was responsible. Alot of times, specialty work like a migration between email platforms is contracted out as it's outside the scope of an "Operations" contract. Wonder if they - the contractor or vendor - would have a comment on this? Did the contractor really migrate without backups? A differing perspective maybe? Does the vendor still hold the contract? If there are no good backups, why? Where else does this contractor do similar business? OR... is somebody lying again? [insert shock here]
Bill wrote on April 13, 2007 2:39 PM:Republicans who say this isn't a big deal will have forgotten about missing e-mails during the Clinton administration (see link below). The difference is a Harlequin Romance between Bill and Monica and a Greek Tragedy.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E0D81638F936A35756C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2
New York Times
May 5, 2000
"Republicans on the panel could barely contain their fury at the White House lawyers for not disclosing the computer glitch after they learned about it nearly two years ago. Congressional Republicans first learned about the missing e-mail messages in an article published in The Washington Times in February.
s.m. koppelman wrote on April 13, 2007 2:40 PM:What a load of nonsense. Besides everything stated well already re: the necessity of backups and dry runs before doing such a migration, and the fact that backups don't go away when you introduce a new system, there's something else here.
If you're an organization required by law to maintain copies of all inbound and outbound email and instant messages, it's common practice to archive these things outside the mail servers themselves on the way into and out of the mail servers the staff connect to with Outlook or whatever.
Caligirl wrote on April 13, 2007 2:41 PM:any chance some highly skilled WH IT people feeling smeared today, may start speaking out? If they haven't already that is.
How insulting it is to be a consumate IT pro, those WH guys always get the best, and get insulted by a chimp?
Anonymous wrote on April 13, 2007 2:46 PM:This "the dog ate our emails" excuse is so lame, it raises the question of which of the following is true:
1. They're so clueless they don't even know a lame excuse when they see one.
Mark T wrote on April 13, 2007 2:47 PM:2. They don't care how lame it is.
3. This is really the best they could come up with.
I am a lwyer in a 12-lawyer office in the Washington DC area. We did a switch from Lotus Notes to Microsoft Outlook in my law office about 3 years ago. As a law firm, our e-mails (incoming and outgoing) are considered to be critically important client records, and we have a policy of retaining them -- indeed, law firms are obligated to maintain such records under basic principles of professional responsibility and professional ethics (not to be confused with the federal laws that mandated retention of White House communications during this administration). As a result, when we made the switch, we left Lotus Notes (and all of the historical e-mails, dating back to when the firm was created over 10 years ago) on one of the firm's servers, so that we would always retain access to any older e-mail on an "as needed" basis. Any organization with document retention requirements or policies (especially one with a statutory obligation to retain the e-mail records) would do the same thing. And any competent IT consultant handling that type of switch would retain the old e-mails in some fashion - even if transferred them to DVDs or tapes or other long term IT storage media.
RKimble wrote on April 13, 2007 2:49 PM:In short, this claim that they may have lost millions of e-mails due to a switch from Notes to Outlook is way too convenient, and lacks credibility. If the conversion might have resulted in such a deletion, one would think that the desire to avoid violating statutory retention requirements would have guided the responsible officials, and their IT consultants, to include a protocol in the conversion project to avoid just that outcome. As usual, the explanation is worse than the problem they are trying to explain. "The dog ate my e-mails" would be a more credible explanation.
This is pretty thin, even for the Bush WH. I use Lotus Notes. Depending on my rate of use, my share of the server gets full periodically. The system then copies my EMs to a CD, sends me the CD and empties my share of the server. (I assume there is a backup server too). The CD arrives and I file it. I have all of them since I got my LN account 10 years ago. None of this would be affected by a conversion to another software.
Bill wrote on April 13, 2007 2:49 PM:All the good techie questions have been already asked above. It's been a while since I've been involved in that side of things, but the thing that strikes me the most is that anyone in a position of authority with important e-mail communications would not ensure that their individual e-mails were saved/migrated. They can pretend it was just one big mess up, but no way someone like Rove doesn't ensure he has access to his archive...unless he wanted it destroyed. Problem is that some of the people will have made sure their cya e-mails will be saved. There is not a blanket big enough to cover up all their misdeeds.
RT wrote on April 13, 2007 2:53 PM:The Department of Commerce has announced that its component agencies that aren't already using MS Outlook will be migrating to Outlook.
Yeah, some of those agencies currently use Lotus Notes.
Kate Henry wrote on April 13, 2007 2:55 PM:Well, then, it's time to bring these inept system administrators before congress to explain how this happened. Then it's time to prosecute them for violating whatever the law is that says that all presidential communications be preserved for history. I'd be willing to bet that the systems administrators who were threatened with prosecution would cut a deal. Then we can clean house and get this lying, criminal administration out of the white house and into jail where they belong.
Anonymous wrote on April 13, 2007 2:58 PM:Caligirl: Us IT people have already gotten used to being scapegoats, so that's no biggie. What's insulting here is that Perino and others try to fabricate such a ludicrous story. Their excuses may fool lay people such as most journalists and others who are familiar with typical small-office or home systems. For anyone who's really worked on IT department of large organization, these excuses appear totally ridiculous.
Gary wrote on April 13, 2007 3:04 PM:It's Bill Gates' fault!
Kate Henry wrote on April 13, 2007 3:04 PM:Where are all the trolls? I haven't read a one on this post. Perhaps they are at a loss for talking points. They can't say "Clinton did it" and they certainly can't say that it's the "Democrats fault".
If this doesn't bring this administration down, nothing will. It's obstruction of justice plain and simple. And I'm sorry to find out that Fitzgerald is involved in this. But, he was appointed by Bush and they undoubtedly either have something on him or they made him a deal he can't refuse. What other explanation is there for his not prosecuting anyone for outing Valerie Plame.
Bill wrote on April 13, 2007 3:11 PM:Last link from me. This one digs into the investigation of what went wrong with the missing e-mails during the Clinton administration. If trolls start using this incident as their defense that they must also agree that everything that can be done to restore the e-mails and determine fault should be done.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=20695
Dan S wrote on April 13, 2007 3:13 PM:(Former Notes developer here.)
Lotus Notes users' mail is stored primarily on the Lotus Notes server in Notes database files (.nsf files). These files may also be duplicated (replicated) on the users' local hard drives or on other servers. Many organizations have more than one Notes server for mail, so there'd be copies on both.
It is standard practice to back up these .nsf files regularly. Any Notes shop that did not do this is incompetent.
Other places to look for mail would be in mail.box on the server. You might be able to recover some mail from the full text index files, if available.
You might at least get some header information from the server log files, showing you what emails were sent and received, even if the emails are no longer available.
Converting Notes -> Outlook would NOT have resulted in the destruction of the original .NSF email files. The only way they would have been destroyed is if the admins took extra steps to destory them.
Al23 wrote on April 13, 2007 3:22 PM:I'm employed in IT at a big institution. I can not imagine the email admins "losing" that many emails. No way. This is the f***ing White House! If their IT guys suck that bad, I'm sending my resume.
Remember, after Nixon resigned he was asked if had to do it all over again would he have released the tapes that eventually did him in. I think his response was that he would have burned them. Me thinks the Bush weasels have taken old Tricky Dicks advice.
Sara wrote on April 13, 2007 3:22 PM:There is a positive legal obligation for the National Archivist (Currently Alan Weinstein) to assure that all Presidential Records covered by the Presidential Records Act, are being properly archived. They have an IT staff out at the Maryland facility that does this -- remember, Presidential Records cover not only the WH, but all Executive Branch Agencies and Departments.
If they did a "migration" the Archives should have been in on the planning and execution -- the Congressional Committees should check, and call for all records dealing with WH systems, history of glitches, and what one would assume would be regular checking to see that the archiving system was working in accordance with the law.
Waxman should call in the Archivist and the lead technical people dealing with Presidential Archiving, and ask for all their records dealing with the WH from Jan 20 2001 to the present.
Anna S. wrote on April 13, 2007 3:34 PM:I work in Tech, and have for years. This is bullshit.
- Any large organization migrating from Notes to Outlook will have at least three backups, one on a medium that's more permanent that just serverspace (tapes, DVDs, etc). ESPECIALLY if the IT staff knows they're required by law to archive.
- About deleting emails from a server: it not only requires the hard drive to be completely overwritten before those emails go away (just 'deleting' them isn't enough), the hard drive has to be overwritten something like 20 times before all data becomes irretrievable. If Congress subpeonas those servers and their retrieval guys can't get anything from them, that's evidence of obstruction right there. NO ONE overwrites an email server 20 times by accident. No one. Especially not if you're required by law to keep archives.
- Even if the server information got destroyed (oops) somehow, there might still be information on personal machines that could be accessed by the network admins. Personal machines often back up email messages (or at least header info) as well, and depending on how they've got the machines' backup and cache systems set, there's a good chance that that information is still there.
In short, if I were a journalist, I would get a list of WH IT staff, and start leaning HARD on some of those. Right now, their professionalism is being insulted by politicos, and if you leaned on the right one you might find out interesting things about how all these 'mishandlings' got ordered.
ahem wrote on April 13, 2007 3:39 PM:What Anna S. said. Talk to the techs.
We may end up with the biggest non-NSA data forensics operation in US history.
Robert Beckwith wrote on April 13, 2007 3:40 PM:I've been responsible for thousands of backup jobs over the past 20 years.
At some point a tech has screwed up and there IS a tape (or disk) on a shelf or in someone's desk drawer that has everything.
mcsmith wrote on April 13, 2007 3:48 PM:cl-Oregon Girl:
"Where do they hire their IT folks from? The Pat Robertson Christian Tech Day School?"
Thanks for the one good laugh line amongst all the very serious discussion!
James Atkinson wrote on April 13, 2007 3:48 PM:As Andrew suggests above, failing to archive data that by law is required to be archived constitutes criminal negligence at best, and, given the current environment, perhaps constitutes criminal obstruction.
That is to say that if the White House is admitting to the loss of regulated data via "problems with conversion," then they are de facto admitting to a crime.
If these data truly are lost, then they also are admitting that:
1. no valid archives or backups exist (illegal)
2. no valid log files exist (illegal)
3. no data are retrievable from local hard drives because either nobody had attempted to recover the data or the drives have been discarded/obsoleted, etc. (a spectacular infrastructur failure in the first instance, and perhaps a criminally negligent event in the latter)
4. nobody on the White House IT staff has the first clue what they are doing. A data loss of this magnitude in private industry would be a fast ticket to the unemployment line and could even result in --- ahem --- increased interest in regulatory oversight.
Poppycock on all counts, I would wager.
Simple probability strongly would suggest deliberate obstruction. *If* the data indeed remain missing. Which they won't.
--JA
cfaller96@gmail.com wrote on April 13, 2007 3:54 PM:Regardless of "good" intentions or flawed "procedures," isn't the result still a gross violation of the Presidential Records Act? Whatever the reason, is the White House confirming that they have broken this law?
Larry wrote on April 13, 2007 4:10 PM:They say "it's the coverup, it's not the crime." But very few men are on Death Row because of the coverup.
They could be trying to play out the clock. Or they could be covering up something even bigger.
Personally, I wonder what email account Cheney was using. I suspect that his "Energy Task Force" was really a cover for the Haliburton installation of a really secure, non-archiving email system.
(Memo to Maxwell Smart: Security Code is "shoe")
Ron Byers wrote on April 13, 2007 4:15 PM:I understand that it would take a team of total incompetents working hard to screw things up this badly, but remember this is the same crowd that disbanded the Iraqi army without disarming or paying them and wondered why insurgents started shooting at us. They are also the same clowns that lost an entire beautiful American city. Incompetent is who they are. On the other hand, I bet a backup can be found. After all they are incompetent to the core.
Code word "story." That's my story and I am sticking to it.
Jim Meyer wrote on April 13, 2007 4:35 PM:I'd like to hear the audio, because I'm dying to learn how many reporters laughed out loud at that explanation. I do not believe that one single person at all familiar with either Lotus Notes or Microsoft Outlook would find this explanation anything but laughable.
Really simple explanation: you take a copy of all the old e-mail, and convert it to a different format. Nothing happens to the old email; it doesn't magically transform into something else. And when you're done, you either have something on the Outlook side (complete or incomplete) or you don't. If it's not complete, or if you have nothing, you find the problem, fix it, and do it again, until you get it right.
That's like saying "All my LPs were destroyed by the conversin to MP3..."
Why does this administration think everyone is as dumb as the commander-in-chief?
The Saint. wrote on April 13, 2007 4:38 PM:Regardless of the e-mail system used, the original Notes archives should have been preserved as part of the Presidential Records Act.
Someone is in violation. This should be a LOT bigger than it is, and it may be a big deal yet - we'll see whether the Sunday shows focus on Imus or this much bigger scandal.
The Saint. wrote on April 13, 2007 4:40 PM:Just to add something. I'll bet the press doesn't cover this because of one simple fact:
BJs are easy to understand.
Computers and stuff are hard!
Mooser wrote on April 13, 2007 4:40 PM:Ah, for the days of the shoe-phone.
EasyRider wrote on April 13, 2007 5:09 PM:Does everyone understand that Gonzales reviewed all the White House emails before selecting those that would be provided to FITZ.
Did Gonzales order all the emails not furnished to FITZ to be deleted?
I mean Gonzales saw they were of no use to FITZ and there was no need to keep them around for others to find.
billybob wrote on April 13, 2007 5:10 PM:this is utter crap.
I work for a government agency and we just last week had our email shifted from a Novell based system to Outlook. Although the transition was rough, I've not heard of anyone complaining of lost emails. In fact, almost everything switched over to the new system, contacts, address book, etc. We don't have a federal law demanding we keep all correspondence, they do. You think significant effort would have gone into making sure that backups existed due to this law. they are lying.
TN wrote on April 13, 2007 5:24 PM:Journalists should now press for answers about backup systems, such as tapes. What happened to them?
I don't believe for a moment that the WH would then dig the tapes up, but the admission that "well, we destroyed all of them" should stop this laughable "simple computer glitch" -spin and help everyone to see this as the cover-up it is.
anonymous wrote on April 13, 2007 5:37 PM:I swear to God, in three days we're gonna see Dana Perino up there apologizing about the "screwup with the servers."
See, there was a huge electromagnet delivery the White House got, which, unfortunately, got stored in the server room instead of in the basement...
OxyCon wrote on April 13, 2007 5:49 PM:There was ZERO reason whatsoever for emails to be "lost" during the migration from Lotus Notes to Outlook. None!.
It's so easy to migrate from Domino (Lotus) to Exchange (Outlook) that a caveman could do it.
http://www.msexchange.org/tutorials/Exchange-Migration-Wizard.html
In this article I will give you an overview of the Exchange 2003 Migration Wizard (MAILMIG.EXE). With the help of the Migration Wizard you can simply migrate from a foreign messaging system or older Exchange versions to Exchange 2003. The wizard can help you to migrate from: Migration Files, MS Mail for PC Networks, cc:Mail, Exchange 5.5, Lotus Notes, Novell GroupWise 4.x, Novell GroupWise 5.x, Internet Directory (LDAP via ADSI) and, Internet Mail (IMAP4).
The Exchange Server 2003 migration wizard has significant improvements over the Exchange 2000 Server version of the migration wizard.
To migrate mailboxes directly from Exchange Server 5.5 to Exchange 2003 in an intraorganizational migration you must use the Move Mailbox Wizard. To migrate mailboxes from Exchange 2000 Server to Exchange 2003 servers, Microsoft also recommends using the Move Mailbox Wizard, although in-place upgrades are fully supported.
Migration Wizard (MAILMIG.EXE)
Dan S wrote on April 13, 2007 5:58 PM:The Migration Wizard was first published in Exchange 2000, but the Exchange 2003 version is much more attractive and efficient when you want to move mailboxes from older Exchange servers to Exchange 2003.
Some more comments about the Notes database format in which the messages are stored. (Comments are true for Notes v1 - v5, not sure about v6+) All mail messages are stored in a single Notes database (.NSF). This is a single file, often quite large, up to 4GB in size. It's a proprietary, undocumented format.
Individual email message bodies may be RSA-encrypted, contents decryptable only with the user's private key (username.id file). Notes database files stored on a user's laptop are often completely encrypted. You'll need that .id file to read it.
When a user deletes an email message from Notes, the space is not immediately reclaimed in the .NSF file. But if the server runs a scheduled compact job, the space will be reclaimed and the .NSF file will shrink. Not sure if this affects recoverability, but it probably won't make things easier.
Recovering these deleted emails, in absence of backup tapes, is going to be somewhat more difficult than recovering plain text files from a UNIX mbox or equivalent.
DallasNE wrote on April 13, 2007 5:59 PM:Ah, yes, the old I'm dumber than dirt defense therefore I could not have possibly committed a crime. Plus, it is those IT guys that don't have a clue.
No, we pay these people $150,000, so they are not clueless clowns. They are scapegoats for what should be considered criminal activity.
Michael Lafferty wrote on April 13, 2007 6:02 PM:Q: "Where do they hire their IT folks from? The Pat Robertson Christian Tech Day School?"
A: Regent University does not appear to offer a degree in the information technology field. But, Liberty University does:
https://www.liberty.edu/academics/index.cfm?PID=541
You might not be so far off as your clever but sarcastic question suggests…
bobo the chimp wrote on April 13, 2007 7:44 PM:No backup tapes? Doesn't that law that says all White House docs must be archived say something about backup tapes?
TheraP wrote on April 13, 2007 9:29 PM:All along I've wondered if there was a system set up with a "double set of books."
I am not an IT person. But I'm wondering if they could have one set of information which they can go through - but won't admit to. And another "set" whatever they're willing to admit to.
Maybe that sounds really weird. But then these people started out as a criminal enterprise. What would the mob do? That's what they would do!
Also, for those who wonder about Pat Robertson's IT school, YES! At Regent! (where 150 graduates have been employed by bushco) Likely their IT folks also put God/bush above the law/heathens.
"collar" - as in white collar crime!
wapocritic wrote on April 13, 2007 9:40 PM:Dana Perino is just lying. Or she doesn't know whether it is true or not and she doesn't care. Just trying to muddy the waters and divert the press.
I am reminded of her statements during the Roberts confirmation hearings when she adamantly declared that he wasn't a Federalist Society member, and when it was disclosed that he was the membership chair (or some such, my memory is a bit fuzzy on which hard-core support Roberts provided to FS) she didn't even do an Emily Littella "never mind". When asked if her answers would have been different she basically said "No".
Code word 'Fear'
blm wrote on April 13, 2007 10:35 PM:Ollie North and company were caught in a similar situation many years ago and they deleted their email too, I believe. However, they didn't realize that the email servers (back then it was mainframes running IBM's email system called PROFS) was backed up onto tape!
I wonder where the tape backups for the new systems are?
blm wrote on April 13, 2007 10:37 PM:and yes, what does "a conversion sometime between 2002 and 2003 to convert people that were using Lotus Notes when we first arrived to Microsoft Outlook." have anything to do with having "to save our Word documents and all to make sure that they weren't lost in that transition"?
They are either making it up, or they don't understand it. In which case, perhaps the IT people should be called in for questioning.
zygote wrote on April 13, 2007 10:45 PM:So, they claim to have lost 5,000,000 messages belonging to about 1,700 people in 2002-03 and not one person in the WH or EO complained
"Hey, the machine just ate 3,000 of my emails!'
Where's the question: "Dana, how many messages did you lose?"
No user knows right? The techs don't know? This smells so bad from so many ways. Surely there is at least one geek/nerd in the gaggle who isn't afraid of losing his/her spot there to press this a bit.
And, let me reiterate everyone else who stated that this just is impossible to imagine. If my company, which is about 1/2 the size of the pool of people affected here had lost 2.5 million messages, the blood in the IT department would have been knee deep. It just doesn't happen.
Now, if some one were slowly purging them over time in a systematic way to defeat tape archives and other back-up...well, then that might be possible.
I wonder how many of those deleted email had the word "Ohio" in them?
Finally, (only because the tinfoil is itching my head) of those 5M deleted, I wonder how many had direct connections to the USA purge and how many had other issues attached?
I bet this number drops significantly (see also bait and swithc) so that it becomes a sort of non story. "Oh, only X thousand were lost, what a relief." I could go on...
zygote wrote on April 13, 2007 10:50 PM:""to save our Word documents and all to make sure that they weren't lost in that transition"?"
Interesting. So they probably saved any Word docs that were attached to these email to their local drives. I would suspect they were told: save these files until the "transition" is complete. Well, when the 5,000,000 messages were lost, surely someone in IT sent out a all-points saying: "Don't trash those Word files you moved to your local machines because all the copies of those docs on the server are gone."
This too went unnoticed by 1,700 people working in the White House? Not a group that I'd expect to take this in a mellow, SoCal kinda way, dude...
Plutodog wrote on April 13, 2007 10:55 PM:It's time for a constitutional uprising...it's long past time, in fact.
We need a March on Congress Demanding Impeachment of the Bush Crime Family and the Cheney Syndicate...a BIG march, the biggest ever, peaceful but resolute and insistent.
It's time, children. Who among our admired leaders will take up the mantle to lead this cause?
demtech wrote on April 13, 2007 10:58 PM:I've done the conversion from Lotus Notes to Microsoft Outlook in a large organization. It's not difficult from the user side, and of course the difficulty on the server side is centralized and planned. Yes, the old emails are archived in a lotus notes file. The files should be archived on the servers in at least one of the backups, the user's desktop if the user wants, and of course all copies of such files should be stored at a disaster recovery facility for a large organization such as the White House.
I don't believe an IT professional would work without many of the usual safeguards without being aware of the reasons behind it. Midlevel IT will have to know usual archiving procedures weren't properly followed. There's plenty of dupes to roll.
I wouldn't worry too much. There are too many reasons for people involved to actually save copies of things for their own protection, and I don't believe the stuff was actually destroyed because the mentality of control wouldn't allow them to actually do that. They want to control the emails even as they say they might be destroyed.
What they're doing is see if the mojo exists to force the emails out. Even if the emails are destroyed, it will result in automatic impeachment. They're in a jam, all right, to play games that are too sophisticated to support alongside simpler means of grabbing their throats.
On top of all that, Leahy made some sophisticated technical remarks in relation to the fact that he knows the emails are there and that they'll get them by subpoena if necessary.
So relax, this is part of the squirm.
Paul Gillett wrote on April 14, 2007 12:26 AM:Thank God you mentioned Leahy ! He is the only public figure or journalist who has called them on their bullshit. Surely they are not going to get away with this ? If I were the leadership in Tehran I would be raising the Defcon tonight.
mob wrote on April 14, 2007 12:51 AM:They fired USATTYs for ****performance-based**** reasons...
Greg Forest wrote on April 14, 2007 12:17 PM:When I used to work as a computer geek, it was pretty standard that every night we would make what was known as an incremental backup - archiving just the files that have been added or files that changed during the day. Weekly we would take these tapes and put them in a vault off site. Once a month we would throw everyone off the network so there were no open files and we would backup the entire network - again storing off site. We would cycle the the daily and weekly tapes back into the archive routine after about six months but the monthly full backups always stayed in the vault.
They have the files somewhere - Lotus Outlook is immaterial.
DCS wrote on April 14, 2007 1:39 PM:Dear Nancy,
Please remove impeachment from the cupboard and put it back on the table. There's plenty of room for it next to the other checks and balances and it's a great conversation starter when you have guests over from the executive branch.
Thanks,
dcs
sandy wrote on April 14, 2007 3:41 PM:I am so tired of being blatanly lied to and expected to believe it. I backup my home files and can't imagine the WHITEHOUSE not doing the same. Ole abu gonzo really opened up a can of worms with his document release listing those all those rnc email addresses. This just gets more and more disgusting by the minute.
Chuck wrote on April 14, 2007 9:32 PM:Notes from WH strategy session:
Lessee, we got a bunch of them to bite on "Hey, three of them are from border states so we can say they weren't prosecuting immigation cases". Let's see how many bite on "we lost millions of emails in a somewhat prosaic conversion of mail systems that every other organization that undertook the same effort mastered with no problems whatsoever." Hey, somebody call down to the IT guys and tell them we need them all on the WH driveway. Where's the keys to the bus?
llywrch wrote on April 15, 2007 2:09 PM:There's an easy way to force this cover-up into the spotlight. Someone needs to contact one of the higher-ups at Microsoft, and ask for the company's official response to this loss of emails.
After all, the WH is claiming or implying that there is something wrong in Microsoft Outlook that led to the irretrievable loss of data. This makes Outlook appear to be an unreliable & shoddy
product (okay, let's put aside years of well-deserved Microsoft-bashing forthe moment) &
undoubtedly harms the reputation of their product. Someone in Redmond needs to respond -- the higher up in the foodchain, the better. Preferably Bill Gates.
FWIW, I find it odd that Slashdot -- the usual spot for this to be discussed -- hasn't picked up
this story.
So who's going to ask Microsoft for their opinion? I'm happy to do it, if no one else.
Geoff
The Gay Curmudgeon wrote on April 15, 2007 2:18 PM:I worked on the e-mail server software they use at the White House (unless something has changed I am not aware of) and in particular the migration tools they would have used to move e-mail from Lotus Notes.
The tools were specifically designed to allow non-destructive, multi-pass and incremental migration approaches to allow maximum data integrity and control. There are problems that might have prevented some Lotus Notes messages from migrating when there was corruption in the source Lotus Notes message or server files.
In the time I worked on this software, seven years ago now, I presented at conferences and directly to important clients on best practices when conducting migrations from various other competitive products to our server platform. One of the things I would often recommend to organizations (prior to Sarbanes-Oxley) was to use the migration as an opportunity to reduce the amount of data in their online message stores by taking a hard line on what data was to be migrated to the new system.
We originally introduced the date filtering ability in the migration tools to help system administrators with staged and incremental migrations when the old Lotus Notes servers and the new e-mail servers are being run in parallel so that users could verify individually that everything had been migrated correctly. However the date filtering feature also allowed system administrators to draw the line and say “only e-mail from date X onward will be migrated to the new servers”.
Let's assume for a moment that the White House decided to take this hard line approach. They would definitely have been required to maintain full backups of the Lotus Notes source servers to preserve the data that wasn’t migrated to the new servers.
Now let’s assume they did a full migration of all data but that, like just about every Lotus Notes server we tested on, there was data and message corruption that meant some messages could never be migrated with full fidelity to the new servers. Once again, they would be required to maintain backups of any data that didn’t migrate based on detailed information produced in the log files of the migration tool.
Finally let’s assume that you are an experienced IT veteran who has done a migration before. You know that 100% fidelity across 100% of records is highly improbable and you are very aware of the heightened level scrutiny that these records get. Wouldn’t you *still* maintain complete backups of the Lotus Notes servers to ensure 100% recall? I know I would.
Any way you cut the statements made by Dana Perino on this topic, they defy all the core principles of good migration and record keeping practice. I find it very hard to believe the White House IT people are so lacking in experience or understanding of the migration process that they lost this data through error.
Nor do I believe, as Dana Perino clearly implies, that somehow the tools themselves failed so completely, that more than 5 million e-mails are missing as a result.
~GC
Jonglly wrote on May 3, 2007 8:29 PM:P.s. Here's my post on this strange piece of misdirection: http://gaycurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2007/04/dana-perino-just-messed-with-my-stuff.html
Before buying generic viagra read this.
Jonglly wrote on May 4, 2007 5:02 PM:I've got new info about generic viagra and share with you.
Before buying generic viagra read this.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on May 16, 2007 9:59 PM:I've got new info about generic viagra and share with you.
No backup tapes. No backup drives. Backups not automated.
Supeona the MIS/IT folk. Loss of at least one in 5 million White House e-mails must have give aid to our enemies during war time. . . Techies, dweebs and nerds all have aversions to being executed for treason. The MIS/IT folk will cough up the backups.
Bill wrote on June 12, 2007 5:05 PM:MSN I NIIPET
discount viagra wrote on September 18, 2007 1:46 AM:MSN
cheap@viagra.com
online viagra wrote on September 18, 2007 9:57 AM:cheap@viagra.com
cheap levitra wrote on September 19, 2007 11:47 AM:cheap@levitra.com
generic levitra wrote on September 19, 2007 1:38 PM:cheap@levitra.com
cheap viagra wrote on September 20, 2007 7:55 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy generic viagra wrote on September 20, 2007 11:21 AM:cheap@viagra.com
purchase viagra wrote on September 20, 2007 1:18 PM:cheap@viagra.com
buy cheap viagra wrote on September 20, 2007 3:10 PM:cheap@viagra.com
Eagles wrote on September 21, 2007 11:56 PM:sale@mp3.com
viagra generic wrote on September 22, 2007 5:53 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy levitra wrote on September 22, 2007 8:26 PM:cheap@levitra.com
generic levitra wrote on September 22, 2007 11:18 PM:cheap@levitra.com
purchase viagra wrote on September 23, 2007 5:45 PM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra cheap wrote on September 24, 2007 4:01 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy levitra wrote on September 25, 2007 3:10 PM:cheap@levitra.com
cheap levitra wrote on September 25, 2007 5:15 PM:cheap@levitra.com
generic levitra wrote on September 25, 2007 7:41 PM:cheap@levitra.com
order levitra wrote on September 25, 2007 9:47 PM:cheap@levitra.com
buy viagra wrote on September 25, 2007 11:03 PM:cheap@viagra.com
generic viagra wrote on September 26, 2007 12:33 AM:cheap@viagra.com
cheap viagra wrote on September 26, 2007 2:25 AM:cheap@viagra.com
discount viagra wrote on September 26, 2007 4:17 AM:cheap@viagra.com
purchase viagra wrote on September 26, 2007 7:29 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy cheap viagra wrote on September 26, 2007 9:06 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy viagra generic wrote on September 26, 2007 10:44 AM:cheap@viagra.com
online viagra wrote on September 26, 2007 12:25 PM:cheap@viagra.com
prescription viagra wrote on September 26, 2007 1:57 PM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra cheap wrote on September 26, 2007 3:25 PM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra generic wrote on September 26, 2007 5:04 PM:cheap@viagra.com
buy levitra wrote on September 27, 2007 8:36 AM:cheap@levitra.com
cheap levitra wrote on September 27, 2007 9:57 AM:cheap@levitra.com
generic levitra wrote on September 27, 2007 11:37 AM:cheap@levitra.com
order levitra wrote on September 27, 2007 1:23 PM:cheap@levitra.com
generic viagra wrote on September 27, 2007 4:23 PM:cheap@viagra.com
cheap viagra wrote on September 27, 2007 5:50 PM:cheap@viagra.com
discount viagra wrote on September 27, 2007 7:21 PM:cheap@viagra.com
buy generic viagra wrote on September 27, 2007 8:51 PM:cheap@viagra.com
buy cheap viagra wrote on September 27, 2007 11:54 PM:cheap@viagra.com
buy viagra generic wrote on September 28, 2007 1:40 AM:cheap@viagra.com
online viagra wrote on September 28, 2007 3:49 AM:cheap@viagra.com
prescription viagra wrote on September 28, 2007 5:32 AM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra cheap wrote on September 28, 2007 7:14 AM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra discount wrote on September 28, 2007 8:53 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy levitra wrote on September 28, 2007 11:58 PM:cheap@levitra.com
cheap levitra wrote on September 29, 2007 1:46 AM:cheap@levitra.com
generic levitra wrote on September 29, 2007 3:39 AM:cheap@levitra.com
order levitra wrote on September 29, 2007 5:36 AM:cheap@levitra.com
buy viagra wrote on September 29, 2007 10:08 AM:cheap@viagra.com
generic viagra wrote on September 29, 2007 11:42 AM:cheap@viagra.com
cheap viagra wrote on September 29, 2007 1:11 PM:cheap@viagra.com
discount viagra wrote on September 29, 2007 2:41 PM:cheap@viagra.com
purchase viagra wrote on September 29, 2007 4:08 PM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra pharmacy wrote on September 29, 2007 5:42 PM:cheap@viagra.com
buy cheap viagra wrote on October 2, 2007 2:21 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy viagra generic wrote on October 2, 2007 4:07 AM:cheap@viagra.com
online viagra wrote on October 2, 2007 5:47 AM:cheap@viagra.com
prescription viagra wrote on October 2, 2007 7:32 AM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra generic wrote on October 2, 2007 10:50 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy levitra wrote on October 4, 2007 2:37 AM:cheap@levitra.com
cheap levitra wrote on October 4, 2007 5:02 AM:cheap@levitra.com
generic levitra wrote on October 4, 2007 6:40 AM:cheap@levitra.com
order levitra wrote on October 4, 2007 8:23 AM:cheap@levitra.com
buy viagra wrote on October 5, 2007 4:39 AM:cheap@viagra.com
generic viagra wrote on October 5, 2007 7:19 AM:cheap@viagra.com
cheap viagra wrote on October 5, 2007 10:20 AM:cheap@viagra.com
discount viagra wrote on October 5, 2007 12:58 PM:cheap@viagra.com
buy generic viagra wrote on October 5, 2007 2:40 PM:cheap@viagra.com
purchase viagra wrote on October 5, 2007 4:21 PM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra pharmacy wrote on October 5, 2007 6:18 PM:cheap@viagra.com
buy cheap viagra wrote on October 5, 2007 8:05 PM:cheap@viagra.com
online viagra wrote on October 6, 2007 12:55 AM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra discount wrote on October 6, 2007 3:21 AM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra generic wrote on October 6, 2007 4:54 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy levitra wrote on October 7, 2007 1:45 AM:cheap@levitra.com
cheap levitra wrote on October 7, 2007 3:36 AM:cheap@levitra.com
generic levitra wrote on October 7, 2007 5:25 AM:cheap@levitra.com
order levitra wrote on October 7, 2007 6:57 AM:cheap@levitra.com
buy viagra wrote on October 7, 2007 8:31 AM:cheap@viagra.com
generic viagra wrote on October 7, 2007 9:58 AM:cheap@viagra.com
cheap viagra wrote on October 7, 2007 11:38 AM:cheap@viagra.com
discount viagra wrote on October 7, 2007 1:03 PM:cheap@viagra.com
buy generic viagra wrote on October 7, 2007 2:34 PM:cheap@viagra.com
purchase viagra wrote on October 7, 2007 4:25 PM:cheap@viagra.com
buy cheap viagra wrote on October 7, 2007 6:33 PM:cheap@viagra.com
buy viagra generic wrote on October 7, 2007 8:58 PM:cheap@viagra.com
cheap viagra uk wrote on October 7, 2007 10:39 PM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra cheap wrote on October 8, 2007 3:19 AM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra discount wrote on October 8, 2007 5:23 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy levitra wrote on October 9, 2007 5:14 AM:cheap@levitra.com
cheap levitra wrote on October 9, 2007 7:01 AM:cheap@levitra.com
generic levitra wrote on October 9, 2007 8:49 AM:cheap@levitra.com
order levitra wrote on October 9, 2007 10:30 AM:cheap@levitra.com
buy viagra wrote on October 9, 2007 12:24 PM:cheap@viagra.com
generic viagra wrote on October 9, 2007 3:07 PM:cheap@viagra.com
cheap viagra wrote on October 9, 2007 7:05 PM:cheap@viagra.com
discount viagra wrote on October 9, 2007 11:31 PM:cheap@viagra.com
buy generic viagra wrote on October 10, 2007 2:00 AM:cheap@viagra.com
purchase viagra wrote on October 10, 2007 5:24 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy cheap viagra wrote on October 10, 2007 7:49 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy viagra generic wrote on October 10, 2007 10:49 AM:cheap@viagra.com
online viagra wrote on October 10, 2007 1:56 PM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra cheap wrote on October 10, 2007 6:10 PM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra generic wrote on October 10, 2007 9:05 PM:cheap@viagra.com
buy levitra wrote on October 11, 2007 5:53 PM:cheap@levitra.com
cheap levitra wrote on October 11, 2007 8:11 PM:cheap@levitra.com
gonne collant wrote on October 11, 2007 9:20 PM:Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.
generic levitra wrote on October 11, 2007 10:12 PM:cheap@levitra.com
order levitra wrote on October 11, 2007 11:37 PM:cheap@levitra.com
buy viagra wrote on October 12, 2007 1:09 AM:cheap@viagra.com
cheap viagra wrote on October 12, 2007 4:23 AM:cheap@viagra.com
discount viagra wrote on October 12, 2007 5:44 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy generic viagra wrote on October 12, 2007 7:09 AM:cheap@viagra.com
purchase viagra wrote on October 12, 2007 8:48 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy cheap viagra wrote on October 12, 2007 10:19 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy viagra generic wrote on October 12, 2007 11:43 AM:cheap@viagra.com
online viagra wrote on October 12, 2007 1:27 PM:cheap@viagra.com
prescription viagra wrote on October 12, 2007 3:20 PM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra cheap wrote on October 12, 2007 5:37 PM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra discount wrote on October 12, 2007 8:27 PM:cheap@viagra.com
buy levitra wrote on October 13, 2007 1:22 PM:cheap@levitra.com
cheap levitra wrote on October 13, 2007 3:13 PM:cheap@levitra.com
generic levitra wrote on October 13, 2007 5:08 PM:cheap@levitra.com
order levitra wrote on October 13, 2007 7:03 PM:cheap@levitra.com
buy viagra wrote on October 13, 2007 9:22 PM:cheap@viagra.com
generic viagra wrote on October 14, 2007 12:00 AM:cheap@viagra.com
cheap viagra wrote on October 14, 2007 1:44 AM:cheap@viagra.com
discount viagra wrote on October 14, 2007 3:35 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy generic viagra wrote on October 14, 2007 5:33 AM:cheap@viagra.com
purchase viagra wrote on October 14, 2007 7:20 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy cheap viagra wrote on October 14, 2007 9:29 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy viagra generic wrote on October 14, 2007 11:52 AM:cheap@viagra.com
online viagra wrote on October 14, 2007 1:20 PM:cheap@viagra.com
prescription viagra wrote on October 14, 2007 2:50 PM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra cheap wrote on October 14, 2007 4:30 PM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra generic wrote on October 14, 2007 6:20 PM:cheap@viagra.com
buy levitra wrote on October 15, 2007 8:57 AM:cheap@levitra.com
cheap levitra wrote on October 15, 2007 10:31 AM:cheap@levitra.com
generic levitra wrote on October 15, 2007 12:09 PM:cheap@levitra.com
levitra online wrote on October 15, 2007 1:49 PM:cheap@levitra.com
buy viagra wrote on October 15, 2007 3:32 PM:cheap@viagra.com
generic viagra wrote on October 15, 2007 5:36 PM:cheap@viagra.com
cheap viagra wrote on October 15, 2007 7:46 PM:cheap@viagra.com
sesso polacche wrote on October 15, 2007 9:41 PM:Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.
discount viagra wrote on October 15, 2007 10:21 PM:cheap@viagra.com
buy generic viagra wrote on October 16, 2007 1:07 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy cheap viagra wrote on October 16, 2007 5:53 AM:cheap@viagra.com
order online viagra wrote on October 16, 2007 7:16 AM:cheap@viagra.com
cheap viagra uk wrote on October 16, 2007 8:32 AM:cheap@viagra.com
sexi vip wrote on October 16, 2007 9:15 AM:Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.
online viagra wrote on October 16, 2007 9:59 AM:cheap@viagra.com
online generic viagra wrote on October 16, 2007 11:31 AM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra cheap wrote on October 16, 2007 12:51 PM:cheap@viagra.com
buy levitra wrote on October 17, 2007 2:20 AM:cheap@levitra.com
cheap levitra wrote on October 17, 2007 3:49 AM:cheap@levitra.com
generic levitra wrote on October 17, 2007 5:13 AM:cheap@levitra.com
order levitra wrote on October 17, 2007 6:53 AM:cheap@levitra.com
buy viagra wrote on October 17, 2007 8:28 AM:cheap@viagra.com
generic viagra wrote on October 17, 2007 9:56 AM:cheap@viagra.com
cheap viagra wrote on October 17, 2007 11:25 AM:cheap@viagra.com
discount viagra wrote on October 17, 2007 12:59 PM:cheap@viagra.com
buy generic viagra wrote on October 17, 2007 2:23 PM:cheap@viagra.com
purchase viagra wrote on October 17, 2007 4:07 PM:cheap@viagra.com
buy cheap viagra wrote on October 17, 2007 5:51 PM:cheap@viagra.com
buy viagra generic wrote on October 17, 2007 7:32 PM:cheap@viagra.com
generic viagra uk wrote on October 17, 2007 9:03 PM:cheap@viagra.com
pharmacy viagra wrote on October 17, 2007 10:31 PM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra cheap wrote on October 17, 2007 11:59 PM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra generic wrote on October 18, 2007 1:45 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy levitra wrote on October 18, 2007 4:20 PM:cheap@levitra.com
cheap levitra wrote on October 18, 2007 6:21 PM:cheap@levitra.com
generic levitra wrote on October 18, 2007 8:04 PM:cheap@levitra.com
order levitra wrote on October 18, 2007 9:26 PM:cheap@levitra.com
buy viagra wrote on October 18, 2007 11:00 PM:cheap@viagra.com
generic viagra wrote on October 19, 2007 12:49 AM:cheap@viagra.com
cheap viagra wrote on October 19, 2007 2:45 AM:cheap@viagra.com
discount viagra wrote on October 19, 2007 4:57 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy generic viagra wrote on October 19, 2007 7:24 AM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra price wrote on October 19, 2007 9:21 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy cheap viagra wrote on October 19, 2007 10:51 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy viagra generic wrote on October 19, 2007 12:34 PM:cheap@viagra.com
online viagra wrote on October 19, 2007 2:12 PM:cheap@viagra.com
prescription viagra wrote on October 19, 2007 3:50 PM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra cheap wrote on October 19, 2007 5:43 PM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra generic wrote on October 19, 2007 8:04 PM:cheap@viagra.com
buy levitra wrote on October 20, 2007 10:05 AM:cheap@levitra.com
cheap levitra wrote on October 20, 2007 11:53 AM:cheap@levitra.com
generic levitra wrote on October 20, 2007 1:12 PM:cheap@levitra.com
order levitra wrote on October 20, 2007 2:36 PM:cheap@levitra.com
buy viagra wrote on October 21, 2007 4:38 AM:cheap@viagra.com
generic viagra wrote on October 21, 2007 6:33 AM:cheap@viagra.com
cheap viagra wrote on October 21, 2007 8:16 AM:cheap@viagra.com
discount viagra wrote on October 21, 2007 9:38 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy generic viagra wrote on October 21, 2007 11:13 AM:cheap@viagra.com
purchase viagra wrote on October 21, 2007 12:47 PM:cheap@viagra.com
buy cheap viagra wrote on October 21, 2007 2:02 PM:cheap@viagra.com
buy viagra generic wrote on October 21, 2007 3:33 PM:cheap@viagra.com
online viagra wrote on October 21, 2007 5:13 PM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra cheap wrote on October 21, 2007 8:36 PM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra generic wrote on October 21, 2007 9:56 PM:cheap@viagra.com
buy levitra cheap levitra generic levitra levitra online order levitra wrote on October 22, 2007 12:55 PM:cheap@levitra.com
buy levitra wrote on October 22, 2007 2:32 PM:cheap@levitra.com
cheap levitra wrote on October 22, 2007 4:03 PM:cheap@levitra.com
generic levitra wrote on October 22, 2007 5:39 PM:cheap@levitra.com
order levitra wrote on October 22, 2007 7:12 PM:cheap@levitra.com
buy viagra wrote on October 22, 2007 8:44 PM:cheap@viagra.com
generic viagra wrote on October 22, 2007 10:14 PM:cheap@viagra.com
discount viagra wrote on October 23, 2007 1:38 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy generic viagra wrote on October 23, 2007 3:36 AM:cheap@viagra.com
purchase viagra wrote on October 23, 2007 5:49 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy cheap viagra wrote on October 23, 2007 8:20 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy viagra generic wrote on October 23, 2007 10:25 AM:cheap@viagra.com
online viagra wrote on October 23, 2007 12:03 PM:cheap@viagra.com
prescription viagra wrote on October 23, 2007 1:40 PM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra cheap wrote on October 23, 2007 3:07 PM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra generic wrote on October 23, 2007 4:42 PM:cheap@viagra.com
buy levitra wrote on October 24, 2007 8:15 AM:cheap@levitra.com
cheap levitra wrote on October 24, 2007 9:43 AM:cheap@levitra.com
generic levitra wrote on October 24, 2007 11:18 AM:cheap@levitra.com
order levitra wrote on October 24, 2007 12:59 PM:cheap@levitra.com
buy viagra wrote on October 24, 2007 2:30 PM:cheap@viagra.com
generic viagra wrote on October 24, 2007 4:05 PM:cheap@viagra.com
cheap viagra wrote on October 24, 2007 5:33 PM:cheap@viagra.com
discount viagra wrote on October 24, 2007 7:05 PM:cheap@viagra.com
buy generic viagra wrote on October 24, 2007 8:52 PM:cheap@viagra.com
purchase viagra wrote on October 24, 2007 10:16 PM:cheap@viagra.com
buy cheap viagra wrote on October 24, 2007 11:38 PM:cheap@viagra.com
buy viagra generic wrote on October 25, 2007 1:07 AM:cheap@viagra.com
online viagra wrote on October 25, 2007 2:41 AM:cheap@viagra.com
prescription viagra wrote on October 25, 2007 4:25 AM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra cheap wrote on October 25, 2007 6:21 AM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra generic wrote on October 25, 2007 8:21 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy levitra wrote on October 25, 2007 11:06 PM:cheap@levitra.com
cheap levitra wrote on October 26, 2007 12:49 AM:cheap@levitra.com
generic levitra wrote on October 26, 2007 3:35 AM:cheap@levitra.com
order levitra wrote on October 26, 2007 5:34 AM:cheap@levitra.com
buy viagra wrote on October 26, 2007 5:54 PM:cheap@viagra.com
generic viagra wrote on October 26, 2007 7:44 PM:cheap@viagra.com
cheap viagra wrote on October 26, 2007 9:10 PM:cheap@viagra.com
discount viagra wrote on October 26, 2007 10:36 PM:cheap@viagra.com
purchase viagra wrote on October 27, 2007 12:00 AM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra price wrote on October 27, 2007 1:33 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy cheap viagra wrote on October 27, 2007 3:19 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy viagra generic wrote on October 27, 2007 5:12 AM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra online wrote on October 27, 2007 7:06 AM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra prescription wrote on October 27, 2007 9:06 AM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra generic wrote on October 27, 2007 12:24 PM:cheap@viagra.com
buy levitra wrote on October 28, 2007 2:46 AM:cheap@levitra.com
cheap levitra wrote on October 28, 2007 4:14 AM:cheap@levitra.com
generic levitra wrote on October 28, 2007 5:32 AM:cheap@levitra.com
order levitra wrote on October 28, 2007 7:00 AM:cheap@levitra.com
buy viagra wrote on October 28, 2007 3:48 PM:cheap@viagra.com
generic viagra wrote on October 28, 2007 5:10 PM:cheap@viagra.com
cheap viagra wrote on October 28, 2007 6:29 PM:cheap@viagra.com
discount viagra wrote on October 28, 2007 8:28 PM:cheap@viagra.com
purchase viagra wrote on October 28, 2007 9:54 PM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra price wrote on October 28, 2007 11:24 PM:cheap@viagra.com
buy cheap viagra wrote on October 29, 2007 1:04 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy viagra generic wrote on October 29, 2007 3:06 AM:cheap@viagra.com
online viagra wrote on October 29, 2007 5:15 AM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra prescription wrote on October 29, 2007 7:48 AM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra generic wrote on October 29, 2007 11:31 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy levitra wrote on October 30, 2007 1:59 AM:cheap@levitra.com
cheap levitra wrote on October 30, 2007 3:54 AM:cheap@levitra.com
generic levitra wrote on October 30, 2007 5:39 AM:cheap@levitra.com
order levitra wrote on October 30, 2007 7:20 AM:cheap@levitra.com
buy viagra wrote on October 30, 2007 6:26 PM:cheap@viagra.com
generic viagra wrote on October 30, 2007 7:58 PM:cheap@viagra.com
cheap viagra wrote on October 30, 2007 9:28 PM:cheap@viagra.com
discount viagra wrote on October 30, 2007 11:00 PM:cheap@viagra.com
purchase viagra wrote on October 31, 2007 12:32 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy generic viagra wrote on October 31, 2007 2:13 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy cheap viagra wrote on October 31, 2007 4:11 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy viagra generic wrote on October 31, 2007 6:12 AM:cheap@viagra.com
online viagra wrote on October 31, 2007 8:30 AM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra prescription wrote on October 31, 2007 11:22 AM:cheap@viagra.com
cońos amateur wrote on November 5, 2007 8:55 PM:Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.
viagra discount wrote on November 17, 2007 5:25 AM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra generic wrote on November 17, 2007 7:11 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy levitra wrote on November 18, 2007 3:03 AM:cheap@levitra.com
cheap levitra wrote on November 18, 2007 5:04 AM:cheap@levitra.com
generic levitra wrote on November 18, 2007 7:32 AM:cheap@levitra.com
order levitra wrote on November 18, 2007 9:52 AM:cheap@levitra.com
buy viagra wrote on November 18, 2007 2:10 PM:cheap@viagra.com
generic viagra wrote on November 18, 2007 4:06 PM:cheap@viagra.com
cheap viagra wrote on November 18, 2007 6:50 PM:cheap@viagra.com
discount viagra wrote on November 18, 2007 9:56 PM:cheap@viagra.com
buy generic viagra wrote on November 19, 2007 12:20 AM:cheap@viagra.com
purchase viagra wrote on November 19, 2007 2:08 AM:cheap@viagra.com
buy cheap viagra wrote on November 19, 2007 4:08 AM:cheap@viagra.com
order online viagra wrote on November 19, 2007 5:44 AM:cheap@viagra.com
cheap viagra uk wrote on November 19, 2007 7:15 AM:cheap@viagra.com
online viagra wrote on November 19, 2007 8:43 AM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra cheap wrote on November 19, 2007 10:27 AM:cheap@viagra.com
viagra generic wrote on November 19, 2007 12:17 PM:cheap@viagra.com
buy levitra wrote on November 20, 2007 7:40 AM:cheap@levitra.com
cheap levitra wrote on November 20, 2007 10:14 AM:cheap@levitra.com
generic levitra wrote on November 20, 2007 1:06 PM:cheap@levitra.com
order levitra wrote on November 20, 2007 4:06 PM:cheap@levitra.com