root@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US (Mark J. Bailey) (01/01/89)
Keepers of the long anticipated (awaited) smail 3.x.... when will it be
available to the general population of Usenet site administrators?????
I have heard so many great and wonderous things about it for several
months now, that I am getting impatient with anticipation. Any comments???
Mark.
--
Mark J. Bailey "Y'all com bak naw, ya hear!"
USMAIL: 511 Memorial Blvd., Murfreesboro, TN 37129 ___________________________
VOICE: +1 615 893 0098 | JobSoft
UUCP: ...!{ames,mit-eddie}!killer!mjbtn!mjb | Design & Development Co.
DOMAIN: mjb@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US | Murfreesboro, TN USAwisner@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Bill Wisner) (01/01/89)
Smail 3.1 is still in alpha test. Before it is released for beta testing the authors want to (among other things) finish writing documentation for it. [I'm *THIS* close to having Spafford put this, and the dirt on News 3.0, in the Frequently Asked Questions..]
mem@zinn.MV.COM (Mark E. Mallett) (01/04/89)
In article <6616@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> wisner@killer.Dallas.TX.US (Bill Wisner) writes: >Smail 3.1 is still in alpha test. Before it is released for beta testing >the authors want to (among other things) finish writing documentation for >it. Would it be possible to get a synopsis of important new features, in order to entertain a suggestion-and-denial period? There's a bunch of things I've been hoping for... >[I'm *THIS* close to having Spafford put this, and the dirt on News 3.0, >in the Frequently Asked Questions..] Ah... yes... but infrequently answered! :-) -mm- -- Mark E. Mallett Zinn Computer Co/ PO Box 4188/ Manchester NH/ 03103 Bus. Phone: 603 645 5069 Home: 603 424 8129 BIX: mmallett uucp: mem@zinn.MV.COM ( ...{decvax|elrond|harvard}!zinn!mem ) Northern MA and Southern NH consultants: Ask me about MV.COM
wisner@xanth.cs.odu.edu (Bill Wisner) (01/08/89)
>Would it be possible to get a synopsis of important new features, in order >to entertain a suggestion-and-denial period? There's a bunch of things I've >been hoping for... Smail 3.1 was written from scratch. The only thing it has in common with earlier versions of Smail is the name. On machines with Berkeley networking, Smail 3.1 has an SMTP listener and handles outgoing SMTP mail. It gets along fine with BIND 4.8 and obeys MX records. For UUCP sites, it supports a variant called uusmtp. Some trivial hacks described in the documentation will implement true batched SMTP over UUCP links, with many messages being transferred in one file. It knows about all the Sendmail alias file constructs, including mail piped into a program and sent to an arbitrary file name. And no, no DEBUG command in SMTP mode. It can access a paths file stored with DBM. It includes a very fun little program called mkpath that will transmogrify UUCP maps into a paths file based on the directions given in a configuration file. There is no way I could possibly extoll all the virtues of Smail from memory, particularly at this hour. Why not post your suggestions and denials? I'm sure the Smail 3.1 authors are lurking here somewhere; you might give them some ideas. Bill, the man from Xanth
mem@zinn.MV.COM (Mark E. Mallett) (01/16/89)
In article <7095@xanth.cs.odu.edu> wisner@xanth.cs.odu.edu (Bill Wisner) writes: > In some article, mm writes: >>Would it be possible to get a synopsis of important new features, in order >>to entertain a suggestion-and-denial period? There's a bunch of things I've >>been hoping for... > >There is no way I could possibly extoll all the virtues of Smail from memory, >particularly at this hour. Why not post your suggestions and denials? I'm >sure the Smail 3.1 authors are lurking here somewhere; you might give them >some ideas. Thanks. But I have no denials; I assumed those would come after I made the suggestions :-) I suspect that you've had the same (or more) wishes that I have, otherwise you wouldn't have undertaken this venture. But OK, here's a couple of things that I can recall wishing for: - smail 2.5 provides for a global smart-host. I'd like to be able to have smart-hosts that are tied to the facility provided. For instance, for my domain (MV.COM), I want member nodes, particularly gateways, to be able to identify the host that does alias translations (fullname and otherwise), but only if the local translation fails. And I'd like to have a specification of a domain-level smart-host that knows about path resolution for the domain -- not the same as alias translation, mind you. This would be a major administrative boon. I'd like to be able to specify this by domain, or by pattern (but please don't make me look at another sendmail.cf file -- it's a black hole as well as a black art). Note that I'm talking about uucp-only sites; YP is not an option. - I'd like to be able to do aliasing based on username AND/OR sitename. This has come up a number of times, for instance when registering a new domain member who's machine isn't available but who wants to start distributing the new address; mail to user@newsite should be redirected to user@oldsite for a while. For instance (this just came up again in an e-mail discussion) if a node goes down or changes name, traffic to that node should be redirected. - tee-aliasing: Many is the time that I've wanted to make an alias for a user that splits mail off to other recipients, but still delivers it to the user named in the mail. smail 2.5, with its alias grid from which "used" translations are deleted, will not do this. Example: perhaps I want to make sure I see all mail that goes to "admin", but I hardly ever check it. At the same time, I still want it to go into the admin bucket. I would make an alias: admin mem admin and it would do the right thing. You say you support sendmail's /usr/lib/aliases; it's been a few years since I did any sendmail stuff, and I've forgotten if that's supported. Thanks for your attention. Other items on my wishlist have been ionized and disolved in the back of my brain, someday they will condense and reform. What are chances of getting a test version of this software? -mm- -- Mark E. Mallett Zinn Computer Co/ PO Box 4188/ Manchester NH/ 03103 Bus. Phone: 603 645 5069 Home: 603 424 8129 BIX: mmallett uucp: mem@zinn.MV.COM ( ...{decvax|elrond|harvard}!zinn!mem ) Northern MA and Southern NH consultants: Ask me about MV.COM
zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff) (01/17/89)
Last time I checked, smail 3.x couldn't do the following: 1) Send copies of all mail this site bounces to a specified user. Very important for catching problems. 2) Rewrite addresses in a header very well (or very flexibly) when changing from uucp format to domain format. xxx!foo.com!user was rewritten to xxx!foo.com!user@thissite.domain instead of user@foo.com. 3) Support rerouting if the specified route failed. If you mail to xxx!yyy!zzz and xxx is unavailable (or misspelled), the mail is bounced. It's my experience that it creates fewer problems to reroute it to yyy!zzz (yes, I know the arguments here). 4) Convert outgoing addresses to pure uucp form for dumb uucp only sites. (some of my neighbors don't understand user@domain). In general, I felt that smail 3.x had a bit of an attitude about how things should be done and wasn't going to give you the flexibility to do it differently. -- Jon Zeeff zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us Ann Arbor, MI umix!b-tech!zeeff
wisner@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Bill Wisner) (01/19/89)
Smail 3 currently supports a "smart-user" machine; this is a smart host used for mail with an unknown recipient (instead of an unknown machine). This can include aliasing. >- tee-aliasing: Many is the time that I've wanted to make an alias for > a user that splits mail off to other recipients, but still delivers > it to the user named in the mail. smail 2.5, with its alias grid > from which "used" translations are deleted, will not do this. > Example: perhaps I want to make sure I see all mail that goes to > "admin", but I hardly ever check it. At the same time, I still want > it to go into the admin bucket. I would make an alias: > admin mem admin > and it would do the right thing. You say you support sendmail's > /usr/lib/aliases; it's been a few years since I did any sendmail > stuff, and I've forgotten if that's supported. The proper way to do this with Smail 2.5 is: admin mem \admin The proper way to do this with Smail 3.1 is: admin: mem, real-admin Clarification: I am not one of the Smail 3.1 authors, although I believe they lurk here. I'm just alpha testing it.
henry@garp.mit.edu (Henry Mensch) (01/20/89)
wisner@killer.Dallas.TX.US (Bill Wisner) wrote:
->Smail 3 currently supports a "smart-user" machine; this is a smart host
->used for mail with an unknown recipient (instead of an unknown machine).
->This can include aliasing.
->
-> . . .
->
->Clarification: I am not one of the Smail 3.1 authors, although I believe
->they lurk here. I'm just alpha testing it.
well, maybe if they do lurk here they will get around to answering my
response to their e-mail .... it's been more than a week, and (for
folks who want alpha testers for their s/w) they don't seem very
enthusiastic.
# Henry Mensch / <henry@garp.mit.edu> / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA
# {decvax,harvard,mit-eddie}!garp!henry / <henry@uk.ac.sussex.cvaxa>wisner@cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bill Wisner) (01/21/89)
Henry Mensch: >well, maybe if they do lurk here they will get around to answering my >response to their e-mail .... it's been more than a week, and (for >folks who want alpha testers for their s/w) they don't seem very >enthusiastic. They've been busy recently. Reponses to my own mail have been sluggish. But I'm sure you know something about "Real Work".
chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (01/21/89)
Being an Smail 3 alpha tester, I feel obligated to comment on Jon Zeeff's criticism of Smail 3's feature set. According to zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff), Smail 3 can't: >1) Send copies of all mail this site bounces to a specified user. Very >important for catching problems. No doubt a very simple patch: simply invoke the child bounce-delivery instance of Smail with "postmaster" as an additional argument. >2) Rewrite addresses in a header very well (or very flexibly) when changing >from uucp format to domain format. xxx!foo.com!user was rewritten to >xxx!foo.com!user@thissite.domain instead of user@foo.com. Smail's behavior in this respect is RFC987-conformant. It's a conservative choice, one that will seldom break things. Again, there's nothing to stop you from changing it in your copy. >3) Support rerouting if the specified route failed. This is a philosophical choice. (I happen to agree with Smail here.) >4) Convert outgoing addresses to pure uucp form for dumb uucp only sites. >(some of my neighbors don't understand user@domain). This "feature" would really be a misfeature of the worst kind. If I am mailing from a smart site, to a smart site, via a dumb site, I do NOT want to rewrite all addresses into UUCP form! The character of the next site in the bang path should *NOT* affect the message header. > In general, I felt that smail 3.x had a bit of an attitude about how >things should be done and wasn't going to give you the flexibility to >do it differently. Want something? Modify the source yourself! It's not encrypted, you know. -- Chip Salzenberg <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> A T Engineering Me? Speak for my company? Surely you jest! "It's no good. They're tapping the lines."
zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff) (01/22/89)
>>4) Convert outgoing addresses to pure uucp form for dumb uucp only sites. >>(some of my neighbors don't understand user@domain). > >This "feature" would really be a misfeature of the worst kind. If I am >mailing from a smart site, to a smart site, via a dumb site, I do NOT want >to rewrite all addresses into UUCP form! The character of the next site in >the bang path should *NOT* affect the message header. Agreed, although that's not what I said. The rmail command line addresses DO need to be rewritten or the dumb site is going to bounce it. I should say that I like 95% of smail 3.0. The authors have obviously put alot of time and thought into it. I could (and probably would) use it if it was just a little more flexible. -- Jon Zeeff zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us Ann Arbor, MI mailrus!b-tech!zeeff
chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (01/24/89)
According to zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff): >According to chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg): >>This "feature" would really be a misfeature of the worst kind. If I am >>mailing from a smart site, to a smart site, via a dumb site, I do NOT want >>to rewrite all addresses into UUCP form! The character of the next site in >>the bang path should *NOT* affect the message header. > >Agreed, although that's not what I said. The rmail command line >addresses DO need to be rewritten or the dumb site is going to bounce >it. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Smail 3's behavior in this case is the more conservative one: if the originator of the message specifies a bang path, it is used without modification. This behavior never breaks correct paths. (If the maps are causing pathalias to generate incorrect paths, then fix the map entries for the dumb sites.) >I could (and probably would) use it if it was just a little more flexible. Smail 3 isn't "flexible" enough? What do you want, Pla-Do? If I had a problem, and I had a program in source form that provides 95% of a solution to that problem, I would use the program after modifying it to taste. That's what source code is for, after all. -- Chip Salzenberg <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> A T Engineering Me? Speak for my company? Surely you jest! "It's no good. They're tapping the lines."
alexb@cfctech.UUCP (Alex Beylin) (12/17/89)
About a year ago there was a lot of talk about a smail re-write called "smail 3.0". A bit later I heared that smail 3.1 was out. As far as I know nothing ever appeared in comp.sources.* and I have not seen any mention of smail 3.X in the last few month. Did smail ever graduate to Release 3? Is is worth to upgrade from smail 2.5 to the new one? Our mail situation is getting more and more complex every day and we either are going to seriously patch existing smail (which means we will never upgrade to anything else), install sendmail (Not a trivial task on a SVR3 Unix with no sockets ot TCP/IP support) or write our own. Am I missing any alternatives? Suggestions will be appreciated. Thanks in advance, -- Alex Alex Beylin, Unix Systems Admin. | +1 313 948-3386 alexb%cfctech.uucp@mailgw.cc.umich.edu | Chrysler Financial Corp. sharkey!cfctech!alexb | MIS, Distributed Systems ATT Mail ID: attmail!abeylin | Southfield, MI 48034
rolff@mosh.UUCP (Anders Rolff) (12/17/89)
alexb@cfctech.UUCP (Alex Beylin) writes: >Did smail ever graduate to Release 3? Is is worth to upgrade from smail 2.5 >to the new one? Our mail situation is getting more and more complex every day >and we either are going to seriously patch existing smail (which means >we will never upgrade to anything else), install sendmail (Not a trivial task >on a SVR3 Unix with no sockets ot TCP/IP support) or write our own. The current version of smail is 3.1.18 and I think it will cover your needs. To get a copy, write to the author tron%tolsoft@uunet.uu.net (Ron Karr). --Anders
bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker) (12/18/89)
In article <18806@cfctech.UUCP> alexb@cfctech.UUCP (Alex Beylin) writes: |About a year ago there was a lot of talk about a smail re-write |called "smail 3.0". A bit later I heared that smail 3.1 was |out. As far as I know nothing ever appeared in comp.sources.* |and I have not seen any mention of smail 3.X in the last few month. | |Did smail ever graduate to Release 3? Is is worth to upgrade from smail 2.5 |to the new one? Our mail situation is getting more and more complex every day |and we either are going to seriously patch existing smail (which means |we will never upgrade to anything else), install sendmail (Not a trivial task |on a SVR3 Unix with no sockets ot TCP/IP support) or write our own. | |Am I missing any alternatives? Suggestions will be appreciated. I think you need to be specific as to what your actual limitations with smail 2.5 are. I've installed patches to smail 2.5 which - * allow "|" piping in the alias file * allow parsing of "%" in addresses * put dotted-host-name lookup before domain subtree lookup * use "From: Name <user@host>" * use "Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1989 12:55:33 EST (-0500)" * various bug fixes & small enhancements Most of these patches came from the net or local sources. On the other hand, I've used smail 3.1 beta, which is quite nice & comprehensive. I can understand it right away, a fact which certainly isn't true about sendmail, in my case at least. It probably will be available soon, so it certainly is worth waiting for if you have a very complex mail setup. However, it is definite overkill for small sites and/or simple setups. Smail 2.5 is an easy port to the Amiga, for example, but 3.1 probably will never fit... Cheers, -- ^^ Bruce Becker Toronto, Ont. w \**/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `/v/-e BitNet: BECKER@HUMBER.BITNET _/ >_ "The Rounder I Go, the Faster I Get" - Tenderfeed for QuodUseNet
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/19/89)
In article <104@mosh.UUCP> rolff@mosh.UUCP (Anders Rolff) writes: > The current version of smail is 3.1.18 and I think it will cover > your needs. To get a copy, write to the author tron%tolsoft@uunet.uu.net > (Ron Karr). Note that SMAIL 3.1 has some bugs. Compare the following messages, one sent to a machine running smail 3.1, and one sent to a machine running smail 2.5. The identical message was sent around the loop ficc-sugar-texbell both ways. The original message looked like: | From peter Wed Dec 13 13:11:20 1989 remote from ficc | >From peter Wed Dec 13 13:11:20 | Subject: Screen Doors Sent via texbell, it became: | From sugar!texbell!Postmaster Wed Dec 13 16:16:32 1989 | Received: by sugar.hackercorp.com (smail2.5) | id AA07661; 13 Dec 89 17:07:18 CST (Wed) | Received: by texbell.swbt.com (Smail3.1) | id <m0gbf6P-0000E2C@texbell>; Wed, 13 Dec 89 13:57 CST | Message-Id: <m0gbf6P-0000E2C@texbell> | Apparently-From: Postmaster | To: sugar!texbell!ficc!peter texbell!sugar!ficc!peter | Subject: Screen Doors | Date: Wed Dec 13 13:11:20 1989 | Status: RO Sent via sugar, it became: | From texbell!sugar!ficc!peter Wed Dec 13 16:07:27 1989 | Received: by texbell.swbt.com (Smail3.1) | id <m0gbgwH-0000dkC@texbell>; Wed, 13 Dec 89 15:55 CST | Message-Id: <m0gbgwH-0000dkC@texbell> | Apparently-From: texbell!sugar!ficc!peter | Received: by sugar.hackercorp.com (smail2.5) | id AA06788; 13 Dec 89 14:13:24 CST (Wed) | To: sugar!texbell!ficc!peter texbell!sugar!ficc!peter | Subject: Screen Doors | Date: Wed Dec 13 13:11:20 1989 | Status: RO Both machines correctly inserted the date, but smail 3.1 lost the From_ line. While this isn't RFC822, it's what Version 2 UUCP generates. It should be handled by smail. You might want to look into sticking with 2.5 for a while, especially if you have some old Xenix or version 7 UNIX sites. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com
chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (12/23/89)
Lest anyone be scared away from Smail 3 because of Peter da Silva's bug reports, know that the problem he describes is a configuration error, and not a program bug. Smail 3, in an effort to make forgeries more difficult, only trusts specific users to give a From_ line that lies (i.e. refers to someone other than the sender). Typically this list of trusted users is specified thus: trusted = "root:uucp" If, for example, user "uucp" is not trusted, then Smail 3 will do what Peter has described: it will ignore the From_ line in mail arriving via UUCP. This is all just a matter of not Reading the Fine Manual. -- You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. Chip Salzenberg at A T Engineering; <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> "The Usenet, in a very real sense, does not exist."
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/27/89)
In article <25926BDA.10093@ateng.com> chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > Lest anyone be scared away from Smail 3 because of Peter da Silva's bug > reports, know that the problem he describes is a configuration error, and > not a program bug. I'm sorry to report that it's more complex than that. I passed your information on to Greg Hackney (hack@texbell). He added the line > trusted = "root:uucp" and it's still doing it. > This is all just a matter of not Reading the Fine Manual. I wish. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com
jessea@dynasys.UUCP (Jesse W. Asher) (08/07/90)
I'm not sure what is going on, but I just install smail 3.1.18.1 and
the aliasing function doesn't seem to be working very well. I've got
/usr/lib/aliases set up in the following fashion:
jesse:jessea
so that any mail coming in for jesse will be routed to jessea. I ran
mkaliases to create the /usr/lib/aliases.sort file. The above line is
also in that file. A message sent to jesse failed, however. Can anyone
give me any pointers on what may be wrong. Yes, I did configure the
EDITME file to use /usr/lib/aliases. Any ideas?
---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---
Jesse W. Asher
6196-1 Macon Rd., Suite 200, Memphis, TN 38134
UUCP: {fedeva,chromc}!dynasys!jessea Evening: (901)382-1609
-> These days govt. is a four letter word.gemini@geminix.mbx.sub.org (Uwe Doering) (08/09/90)
jessea@dynasys.UUCP (Jesse W. Asher) writes: >I'm not sure what is going on, but I just install smail 3.1.18.1 and >the aliasing function doesn't seem to be working very well. I've got >/usr/lib/aliases set up in the following fashion: > >jesse:jessea > >so that any mail coming in for jesse will be routed to jessea. I ran >mkaliases to create the /usr/lib/aliases.sort file. The above line is >also in that file. A message sent to jesse failed, however. Can anyone >give me any pointers on what may be wrong. Yes, I did configure the >EDITME file to use /usr/lib/aliases. Any ideas? With smail 3.1 you are supposed to run the `newaliases' program in the smail lib directory. This works for me. Uwe -- Uwe Doering | USA : gemini@geminix.mbx.sub.org Berlin | World : gemini%geminix@tmpmbx.UUCP West Germany | Bangpath : ...!{backbone}!tmpmbx!geminix!gemini
wlr@fosters.eng.ufl.edu (Bill Ricker) (08/13/90)
Summary says it all. Thanks bill -- Bill Ricker wlr@fosters.ee.ufl.edu 306 N.E. 3rd. ST. #B Gainesville, FL 32601 (904) 376-0430
wlr@fosters.eng.ufl.edu (Bill Ricker) (08/17/90)
Summary says it all. Thanks bill -- Bill Ricker wlr@fosters.ee.ufl.edu 306 N.E. 3rd. ST. #B Gainesville, FL 32601 (904) 376-0430
lyndon@cs.athabascau.ca (Lyndon Nerenberg) (08/18/90)
wlr@fosters.eng.ufl.edu (Bill Ricker) writes: >Summary says it all. [ Where can I ftp smail 3.1 from? ] From: lyndon@cs.AthabascaU.CA (Lyndon Nerenberg) Newsgroups: can.uucp,can.general Subject: smail 3.1 availability Date: 28 Jun 90 20:58:25 GMT For those of you who attended the smail3.1 BOF at the NET90 conference, the source code is now available for anonymous ftp/uucp access from van-bc. The compressed tar archive is 902701 bytes. To ftp it, connect to van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca [128.189.233.155] using login anonymous, password guest, and take a copy of /pub/mail/smail3.1.19.Z in BINARY mode. For uucp access, request the file van-bc!~ftp/pub/mail/smail3.1.19.Z using one of the following: PEP: +1 604 939 4782 login: nuucp password: nuucp 2400/1200 +1 604 939 4756 login: nuucp password: nuucp Sites with uucp connections to aunro or atha can uucp the file from ...!~/smail3.1.19.Z. If you would like a connection to one of these machines, contact postmaster@cs.athabascau.ca. If you cannot use the above methods, I'm willing to cut tapes in the following formats: Sun 1/4 inch cart (60 or 150 MB) 1/2 inch 9 track (1600 or 6250 BPI) Exabyte 8mm 3b2/1000 1/4 inch cart To get the distribution on magnetic media, send a blank tape of your choice with a cover letter indicating the format you require to me at the address listed below. Please include an email address or daytime telephone number where you can be reached. Don't forget to include a return postal address, or your tape will be added to my archive collection. Also, I have started a mailing list for smail3 users. To join, send your request to smail3-users-request@cs.athabascau.ca. Lyndon Nerenberg Computing Services Athabasca University Box 10,000 Athabasca, Alberta T0G 2R0 -- Lyndon Nerenberg VE6BBM / Computing Services / Athabasca University {alberta,cbmvax,mips}!atha!lyndon || lyndon@cs.athabascau.ca Practice Safe Government Use Kingdoms