
Gmail blows up e-mail marketing by caching all images on Google servers - shawndumas
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/12/gmail-blows-up-e-mail-marketing-by-caching-all-images-on-google-servers/
======
codeflo
> E-mail marketers will no longer be able to get any information from
> images—they will see a single request from Google, which will then be used
> to send the image out to all Gmail users. Unless you click on a link,
> marketers will have no idea the e-mail has been seen.

Absurdly wrong, marketers _already_ use a unique image URL for each email
recipient, and Google has no way to know that all of those point to the same
image. So they won't see "a single request from Google", they'll see one
request from Google per successful delivery to an inbox.

Now, an open question is if Google will make that request when the email is
actually opened, which would allow marketers to determine if and when the
email was read by the user, or if Google will make the request as soon as the
email is received. The latter would enhance users' privacy at the cost of
bandwidth for Google, but early tests indicate that they don't actually do
that, waiting for the user to click the email to make the request.

I'd like to add that there's no possibility the Gmail team is stupid enough to
not have considered this. They must know full well what they're doing, and
marketing this as a privacy enhancement when it's _actually_ detrimental to
privacy is willfully dishonest.

~~~
trevyn
> Google has no way to know that all of those point to the same image.

Try again. :)

~~~
slg
Yeah, I am not sure where the original claim is coming from. It isn't that
hard for Google to simply follow the links and compare the files as part of
the caching process. So unless marketers start customizing the images in
addition to the links, there isn't any reason why Google can't cache the
images together.

And even if marketers do start customizing images, hasn't Google gotten pretty
good at comparing very similar files? Isn't that how Google Music works
without having a copy of every single individual upload?

~~~
ben0x539
I don't understand how that helps. If I send an email to user_x@gmail.com with
an embedded image at
[http://example.com/my_spam_images/image_for_user_x.jpg](http://example.com/my_spam_images/image_for_user_x.jpg)
and google makes a request to that, I know the mail has been delivered and the
user in question exists and is seeing my ads, because a request for
image_for_user_x.jpg showed up in my logs.

Now, when user_y also receives my spam and I get a request for
image_for_user_y.jpg and I just serve the same file, Google is probably gonna
deduplicate them on their cache or cdn or w/e, but only after they've sent me
the request and confirmed that someone read my email.

I'm not trying to overload google's storage capability here (lol), I'm just
interested in the information leak.

~~~
leephillips
"I know the mail has been delivered and the user in question exists and is
seeing my ads"

No, you just know that the email was delivered to the user's inbox. You don't
know if the user looked at it or just trashed it.

~~~
vidarh
Here's the social workaround to that: Send a few e-mail campaign with "time
sensitive offers" with a timer that starts on retrieval off the image with a
"oh, by the way, please not that for Gmail users it starts on delivery as
Gmail loads the image right away".

People love their e-mail offers. The type of users e-mail marketers want the
most - namely the ones that responds to their offers very well - would be up
in arms if Gmail makes them start missing out on offers.

------
necubi
There seems to be a lot of misinformation flying around. Here's [0] Google's
support doc that clears up some of it.

The most important part is at the end:

"In some cases, senders may be able to know whether an individual has opened a
message with unique image links. As always, Gmail scans every message for
suspicious content and if Gmail considers a sender or message potentially
suspicious, images won’t be displayed and you’ll be asked whether you want to
see the images."

So Google apparently does not see read receipts as a problem. The privacy and
security protections are about preventing other information (like ip, browser
headers, cookies) from leaking, rather than read notifications.

If you care about maintaining your privacy, I would recommend disabling the
new functionality.

[0]
[https://support.google.com/mail/answer/145919?hl=en&ctx=mail](https://support.google.com/mail/answer/145919?hl=en&ctx=mail)

~~~
cloudwalking
These two statements of yours seem at odds with each other:

"The privacy and security protections are about preventing other information
(like ip, browser headers, cookies) from leaking, rather than read
notifications."

"If you care about maintaining your privacy, I would recommend disabling the
new functionality."

~~~
necubi
"Disabling the new functionality" refers to maintaing the old behavior of
hiding images by default. This means that you're leaking nothing unless you
explicitly decide to. This does not appear to disable the proxying, though, so
you're still covered by these additional protections when you do explicitly
show images.

------
drzaiusapelord
So instead of my work mailing lists having accurate stats via ye olde tracking
pixel, now only google does, which they will sell to their own chosen
marketers and clients paying google's rate.

This isn't the privacy and common-sense win you think it is.

~~~
momokatte
Your work mailing lists only have accurate stats if all of the recipients
currently enable loading of images by default.

I don't think you're being sincere in your concern.

~~~
lmkg
No one in the industry believes that open rate is 100% accurate, or even 50%
accurate. It doesn't need to be. It's a directional measure: Which subject
lines have better open rate, how does open rate decline as you send more
frequently, which mailing lists or demographics have better open rates to the
same email, etc.

------
ianbicking
"Google will now be digging deeper than ever into your e-mails and literally
modifying the contents."

This is a silly fear, all email clients already do this, as you don't display
raw unmodified HTML from emails, you have to scrub it. They are just adding
one new kind of scrubbing to the list of things they already must do.

------
javiercr
It seems Gmail was already caching the images in emails (before today's change
to display them by default).

Read Mailchimp's post (December 6th):

"Image caching still lowers our ability to track repeat opens, but turning
those images on means we’ll be more accurate when tracking unique opens. At
least, theoretically it should work that way"

[http://blog.mailchimp.com/how-gmails-image-caching-
affects-o...](http://blog.mailchimp.com/how-gmails-image-caching-affects-open-
tracking)

------
philip1209
I wonder whether this applies only to the web UI.

I've seen a couple startups that were working on dynamic email marketing -
they fed in the content as an image, e.g. a "one-day promotion", but would
change the image content server-side for future email opens to reflect current
details. I guess that this breaks that functionality.

~~~
PeterisP
Such functionality should be broken - my email archive should be a permanent
record of what you sent, not something the sender is able to tweak afterwards.

------
dangrossman
Regardless of any caching or deduplication, the fact that Google is acting as
a proxy means an end to e-mail remarketing. E-mail remarketing requires the
request come from the visitor's own browser so that the reply can set a cookie
to identify that browser for later advertising. I wouldn't be surprised to see
this show up alongside Google AdWords'/DoubleClick's web remarketing product
now that Google's shut out the rest of the industry.

------
Pxtl
Seems pretty trivial for marketers to work around by making each image request
a unique URL per-recipient. Assuming Google's proxy fetches the image _when_
the user opens the email, you could use that technique to find out when a user
reads the sent mail.

You wouldn't get the IP address like you would with conventional bugging, but
you could still find out how many users read the mail and what time they did
so.

~~~
bo1024
Mmm, it sounds like Google might deduplicate the images....

~~~
azakai
I thought that at first too, but to deduplicate, they still need to first
issue a request for each, download, and compare. So the requests have already
been made, and the marketer received their information.

~~~
bo1024
If you request every image (regardless of if the email was opened) and then
dedup, then I don't think the marketers get much info.

------
killertypo
holy smokes google is going to further grow their monopoly and try to take
over the advertising market with this.

They'll cache and own even more of your data and keep it out of the hands of
spammers - in turn spammers will have to buy into google to get data about
you.

This isn't for us, this was done to make money off of us.

~~~
eddieroger
Google is a corporation. Everything they do is to make money.

The images they're caching aren't mine, anyway, and in many cases they're
unsolicited. Sure there's the evil aspect to this (they own advertising), but
there is the potential good of obfuscating your actually private data - the IP
you check your mail from, when you check it, anything you send back with an
HTTP request - from marketers. On solely that note, I'm all for it. But I'm
also one of those who like the new Tabs setup, and rarely loaded images for
emails from people I don't know.

~~~
vidarh
But in many cases they _are_ solicited, and people _want_ the behavior that
gets triggered by knowing about opens:

You always opens our offer e-mails? We'll send you more of the same of what
you open, and less of what you don't, increasing the chance you'll find
something you like.

Stopping web-bugs from the spammers will improved things, but stopping it from
legitimate opt-in marketing mails will make the experience worse and less
targeted for people.

The company I work for send millions of e-mails on behalf of customers. All
opt-in, and I spend far more time than I'd like making sure we comply with all
expectations of the mail providers and ISPs...

But I'm all for Google proxying and hiding IP, cookies etc - I wrote a webmail
solution back in the day, and co-founded a company to run it, and frankly I
pretty much assumed Google did this already; we did that back in '99 because
it was the obvious thing to do.

------
etanazir
When will Google scripts begin to edit the content of a lover's letter in
order to protect its users from psychological harm?

------
kevrone
Holy crap. If I'm reading this right, this basically destroys all pixel
tracking, so no more email open stats, no nothing.

~~~
typpo
Not quite. According to testers in the other thread[1], Google pulls images on
mail open. This means marketers will get more accurate email open stats
because now the default behavior is to load images. However, they don't get
cookies, IP, etc so they lose some of that capability. Not all bad for
marketers and spammers.

I tried to opt-out of external content in Settings > General but unfortunately
it's still loading images.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6895606](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6895606)

~~~
kevrone
Very interesting. And seems like it doesn't affect most mobile users since
they use a default client, for the most part.

------
gfodor
This could be anything from wildy good to wildy terrible for e-mail marketers,
depending on how this ends up working. If Google makes a request for an image
when the user opens the e-mail, this will be really good for e-mail marketers
since now they will get accurate open stats, whereas before they only got
stats for people who hit "Display Images" (surely a minority.)

On the other hand, if Google (either now or in the future, crucially) alters
the behavior to be smart about pre-caching images, then e-mail marketing is
screwed. It will likely make sense at Google to do this, since it will improve
the user experience to have the images be pre-fetched to the proxy server
before they open an e-mail.

In other words, e-mail marketing vis a vis gmail is now in a Schrodenger's
cat-like situation. We can't know if Google is now fully, partially, never
will, or will in the future pre-cache images, so for all intents and purposes
e-mail marketing data is both highly accurate and completely worthless at the
same time :)

------
possibilistic
AdSense. This is all about pushing dollars to AdSense.

First they started filtering marketing messages into separate tabs, which I'm
assuming dramatically cut readership. Now they're going to make it impossible
to "bug" emails for read receipts. The only metric left is the "click".

Email marketing just became a whole lot less valuable.

------
YourSexyMama
So there is something I'm not seeing this being discussed anywhere. What about
the idea of only storing one image for any and all recipients? Yes I know that
the file name is changed based on recipient to try and track the users viewing
of the image. But a simple md5sum of the file will indicate that it is
potentially the same file as others being cached. Google would only need to
store the references and the one file. Thus, the first person to view the file
(per maximum cached time-frame) would indicate a viewing of the file, but
subsequent users would never be identified as having viewed the file.

I recognize that there are a couple potential downfalls to this thought. 1)
The time/processing it takes to determine the md5 could be problematic on such
a large scale. 2) I have no idea how easy it is to change an image to be
unique for each user.

~~~
badman_ting
But this only addresses the storage side. A request must still be issued for
each unique URL in order to de-dupe.

~~~
YourSexyMama
Damn, I didn't think about that...

------
forgotAgain
_In some cases, senders may be able to know whether an individual has opened a
message with unique image links._

[https://support.google.com/mail/answer/145919?p=display_imag...](https://support.google.com/mail/answer/145919?p=display_images&rd=1)

------
ErikAugust
Speculation: how many steps away are we from some sort of AdWords for mass
emailing?

~~~
notatoad
Gmail already delivers paid advertisements through the promotions tab. I'm
sure Google gives those advertisers plenty of metrics

~~~
ErikAugust
True. A lot of marketing emails also tend to be sorted there.

I wonder if the Promotions tab gets a lot of attention from users? I archive
everything in there as fast as possible.

------
jrockway
It's important to keep in mind that in the past, viruses have successfully
propagated through bugs in image decoders. Proxying the images provides an
opportunity to remove malicious ones.

------
petercooper
Give it a while and we'll probably get embedded Adwords ads inside e-mails
replacing existing third party ads in order to "protect" you.

------
paul_f
In my opinion, Google doesn't care abut the tiny tracking images. It does care
about 2M jpegs. So, while email marketers might be up in arms, this won't
affect them at all it appears. If anything, they should be thanking Google for
reducing their bandwidth.

~~~
wingerlang
They'll still have to serve the image to google though.

------
agotterer
_if you had a Gmail folder named "Ars Technica" and loaded e-mail images, the
referral URL would be
"[https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#label/Ars+Technica"—the](https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#label/Ars+Technica"—the)
folder is right there in the URL_

That just isn't true on gmail. The whole service is served over https and
won't pass referral information.

Not to mention your IP and whatever other information they feel like embedded
in links will still passed along when you click. So theres still some tracking
going on, but they miss out on open without action emails (which is of course
useful information to marketers).

------
mattdeboard
All tracking cookie/email marketing/whatever other fluffy stuff aside, I'd
love to hear about technical hurdles & challenges from Google engineers on
this. Sounds like a very damn interesting/challenging task to undertake.

------
mnutt
Some other technical aspects of this:

GMail serves all images from a datacenter in Mountain View, CA, so if your
email's images were served from multiple datacenters or a CDN, there is a good
chance they will load more slowly, depending on your caching headers. They
optimize images on the fly, which may introduce more latency. Their optimizer
doesn't take into account whether the optimized image is smaller than the
original, so the image they serve is occasionally larger (and/or looks worse)
than the original. The maximum image size seems to be about 10MB.

~~~
raldi
_> GMail serves all images from a datacenter in Mountain View, CA_

Citation needed.

~~~
mnutt
A clarification: GMail's proxy is in two pieces; your email client connects to
GMail's CDN, but in order to load content from the origin it passes through a
pool of servers in Mountain View. My guess is that the transcoding servers are
all located there.

~~~
jrockway
Why do you think the servers are in Mountain View?

~~~
mnutt
I set up some servers in the US and Asia and had some images proxied to them
through GMail's proxy. The traceroute paths and latencies from the requesting
IPs lead me to believe that the servers were in the US, most likely Mountain
View.

I probably shouldn't have asserted Mountain View, as it's more of an educated
guess.

Edit: here's a traceroute from Hong Kong to the Google server that made the
proxy request. Is there a flaw in this method?

    
    
      @hongkong:~# traceroute 66.249.88.203
      traceroute to 66.249.88.203 (66.249.88.203), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
       1  119.9.72.2 (119.9.72.2)  1.168 ms  1.130 ms  1.122 ms
       2  119.9.64.64 (119.9.64.64)  1.092 ms  1.058 ms  1.052 ms
       3  vl902.edge3.hkg1.rackspace.net (120.136.47.19)  1.307 ms  1.205 ms  1.304 ms
       4  RHI-0001.gw2.hkg3.asianetcom.net (203.192.178.65)  1.169 ms  1.148 ms  1.123 ms
       5  google.gw2.hkg3.asianetcom.net (203.192.178.30)  1.782 ms  1.755 ms  1.741 ms
       6  209.85.248.62 (209.85.248.62)  6.716 ms 209.85.248.60 (209.85.248.60)  17.183 ms 209.85.248.62 (209.85.248.62)  2.105 ms
       7  66.249.94.31 (66.249.94.31)  81.019 ms  80.999 ms  80.966 ms
       8  64.233.175.1 (64.233.175.1)  53.256 ms  53.077 ms  53.060 ms
       9  209.85.245.206 (209.85.245.206)  72.528 ms  72.488 ms 72.14.239.55 (72.14.239.55)  80.903 ms
      10  209.85.242.89 (209.85.242.89)  150.251 ms  148.859 ms 64.233.174.176 (64.233.174.176)  149.147 ms
      11  72.14.239.80 (72.14.239.80)  215.363 ms  215.368 ms 72.14.239.82 (72.14.239.82)  201.955 ms
      12  209.85.249.45 (209.85.249.45)  223.694 ms 72.14.237.119 (72.14.237.119)  211.817 ms  212.567 ms
      13  64.233.174.117 (64.233.174.117)  212.505 ms 216.239.48.103 (216.239.48.103)  215.874 ms  213.109 ms
      14  * * *
      15  google-proxy-66-249-88-203.google.com (66.249.88.203)  211.877 ms  212.484 ms  212.371 ms

~~~
mnutt
Second edit: d'oh, I meant where ever Google's main west coast datacenter is,
maybe Oregon? The point being that it appears that all of the traffic goes
through a single geographic location.

~~~
raldi
Okay, you've earned a couple upvotes.

------
c_magg
I understand why this feature was implemented. This feature is less private
than not showing images. However, the general population cares more about
convenience than security or privacy. What I don't understand is why they
couldn't give me a "No thanks" option. Why am I automatically opt in? A "no
thanks" button would not hinder the usability for those who care more about
convenience than security, and it would allow people who are concerned about
privacy to continue browsing as they always have.

~~~
wjk
Please explain why you seem to think that this is less private than not
showing images.

------
coffeecheque
Longer discussion here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6895606](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6895606)

~~~
nanidin
Hmm - so we can flood Google's cache by sending an email full of links to
procedurally generated images?

~~~
ricardobeat
You'd never win that race.

~~~
zv
Who said that you have to submit link to your server? Just force it to load
large images from other servers. Well you can use help from Google search.

------
natch
Google could impose a spam scoring penalty.

Penalize mass emails containing unique identifying image URLs for identical
images.

Where identical means virtually identical.

------
drill_sarge
What is e-mail marketing? this is a serious question. As someone who has
nothing to do with marketing, advertising and all that stuff for me "e-mail
marketing" is just spam. or what is it? newsletters? Does it mean that you buy
mail addresses from someone and send your stuff to them and see if someone
opens it?

~~~
thmcmahon
It's when people subscribe to your email lists and you send them marketing
messages. For example, you might sign up to an email newsletter from a shop
you go to, and they will send you emails with marketing messages (sales/new
products etc.)

------
durrrrrrr
From the google post about why they don't display images by default: "We did
this to protect you from unknown senders who might try to use images to
compromise the security of your computer or mobile device."

Surely it's this same technology google themselves use more than anyone else
to identify users?

------
d0ugie
Oh please Google, I know you're listening: Transcode the cached images into
WebP for Chrome and compatible mobile apps. Seems like a very, very good
opportunity to evangelize the format and push it another notch toward ubiquity
(while saving lots of bytes and improving email experiences)...

~~~
fleitz
Yes, this is a good idea, hotmail should do the same to promote whatever MS is
promoting ATM.

~~~
snogglethorpe
To be fair, MS's "new image format" (JPEG XR) actually seems quite a bit
better than Google's "new image format" (WebP)...

JPEG XR actually adds significant features like OpenEXR- and radiance-
compatible HDR encoding, whereas WebP is basically the same old 1980s
functionality with better compression.

So while there's something slightly sketchy about doing this, I'd say the
world would benefit more from MS doing it than from Google doing it...

[I use gmail and other Google stuff, and have an Android phone, and generally
hate MS, but it's very hard to be enthusiastic about WebP...]

------
zaroth
Depending on Google's caching strategy and deduping capabilities, I wonder if
longer term any embedded IMG link will start to count towards your quota...

In order to maintain privacy it's been well discussed they would have to cache
always and forever. So large images will definitely add up over time.

I also wonder, even if they have a persistent cache, you might still want to
check the Last-Modified and Etag of the URI. I don't think many people embed
dynamic images like this, and I'm not sure how most clients would handle it,
but it's an interesting corner case.

Seems like a safer first step would have been turning on the Silk-like proxy
and keeping image display logic the same. Then you have only benefits due to
reduced Cookie, Referral, and IP masking, and could also look for corrupt
images which are actually JavaScript and that sort of thing. This wouldn't
have been a shot across the bow of the golden goose of open tracking, which
imputes Google's true motives.

Saying that the proxy is enough to require everyone to opt-out of auto-images
may be a bridge too far, especially when there are ways to register your
domain so that inline-images ARE automatically displayed, which IMO is what
they should be encouraging.

Another way at this would be to find a UI widget which helped users actually
understand the possible tracking info they would be giving up to the sender.

Still further putting control in hands of the sender would be a data tag on
the IMG which told Google they should cache, and in exchange would result in
wider image viewership. Tracking opens, actions, and coverts is the most
important metrics to providing feedback to improving copy, it's devious for a
display ad company to fuck with this on shaky privacy grounds. I guess at
least they do provide an opt-out, which will be used by ~0.1% of users...

------
msantos
This is what I'm seeing when testing it and found that all my tracking images
(tracking pixel) have hits as below.

Remote address: 66.249.x.x [any google ip]

Referer: [not set]

User-Agent: _Mozilla /5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.9.0.7)
Gecko/2009021910 Firefox/3.0.7 (via ggpht.com)_

~~~
rplnt
Browsers do not send referer over https, I don't know where they got the idea.

------
Gustomaximus
I'm not a technical person so forgive me if this is a silly question but would
X-Forwarded-For help maintain tracking with this change?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Forwarded-
For](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Forwarded-For)

------
archonjobs
I guess you could say that email marketers are getting Scroogled by
Microsoft's ads. ;)

------
soundlab
So how does this affect various email template applications such as Tout or
Hubspot's Signals? IIRC Tout drops a pixel in each email and uses that as a
primary tracking source for opens/CTRs etc...

~~~
medell
I'm pretty sure this kills Tout's tracking when sending to Gmail users.

------
PeterisP
Excellent, I've always wanted e-mail clients to do it this way.

You send me a mail - you've no business being able to track if/when/how I open
the envelope, unless I explicitly wish to inform you.

~~~
dsaber
I think it's the opposite. With Google's change, the sender can more
accurately find out if you've opened the email, since a request to download
the image will be made as soon as you open the email. However, what the sender
doesn't get now is IP, location, and browser data.

~~~
PeterisP
Well, an appropriate solution would be to 'open, package and store' the email
at the time of receipt, not reading - that may cost some resources of extra
bandwidth and storage, but would provide a better functionality and permanence
in case of opening that email two years later when the sending company and
their servers may be out of business.

------
juanriaza
If you use django: [https://github.com/juanriaza/django-
tempus](https://github.com/juanriaza/django-tempus) allows you to generate
unique links

------
ValentineC
Does anyone know if this is just on the web client, or if it also affects
emails retrieved from Gmail via POP/IMAP?

I'm not too keen on the idea of Gmail modifying the body of emails sent to me.

------
mattbarrie
A side effect of this is you will never be able to send images to someone as a
cut/paste if they are behind http auth since google can't log in and see them.

------
SwaroopH
Aside from the negative effects, at least we will no longer see HTTPS warnings
on the web UI due to any non-ssl images being served by the email sender.

------
paulasmith
I know Google doesn't like to give numbers, but I would be very curious to
know how much storage/bandwidth they use to implement this.

------
Houshalter
Why aren't images and other content included in the email itself? It seems
silly to send a link to an image rather than the image itself.

~~~
orthecreedence
Images are the "ping" marketers use to track opens. So you'd have an image
_link_ back to
`[http://mysite.com/tracking?email=joe@stuff.com`](http://mysite.com/tracking?email=joe@stuff.com`)
which will alert them that Joe actually opened the email. This can give them a
conversion rate: for the 5000 people we emailed, 230 of them opened the email,
and 67 actually followed the link back to the site.

------
greglindahl
Cool. So it used to be the case that my AdBlock configuration got to filter
the image loads in gmail, and now... not so much. Thanks, Google!

~~~
jpadkins
or you could just go to settings and disable image loading.

------
fleitz
Just encode the random information in the domain :)

------
pessimizer
Aren't people just going to start fuzzing the images? This sounds like the
beginning of another arms race.

------
w_t_payne
As a user of email, I welcome this move. If I were an email-marketer, though,
I would be livid.

------
mytummyhertz
unless they are implementing this for fake email addresses, this is TERRIBLE!

it makes it super simple to enumerate valid email addresses.

patch it to fetch the images on valid+invalid email addresses, then we'll talk

~~~
MartinCron
As others have pointed out, I don't think it's that difficult for you to
enumerate valid gmail email addresses at the moment.

------
wfunction
Great, now spammers will know my email account is legitimate.

------
namuol
The EU Antitrust Ogre is surely grumbling about this...

------
treelovinhippie
So now only Google will know everything about you...

------
cmsdog
This is going to affect companies like yesware.

------
mariuolo
Can it be opted out by the user?

~~~
jribeiro
According to reports, the inverse question is now asked on the email header.

------
api
Good.

------
TeMPOraL
Good riddance, Google!

------
darkhorn
Facebook is doing this from decades.

~~~
dangrossman
Facebook isn't one decade old yet.

~~~
darkhorn
I know, what I mean is it is doing it for a very long time.

