100's of aliases!

While searching a number (2007) in spotlight, it found 100's of broken aliases to various jpgs, pdfs, etc. files. Of course, some active files also show up. Any number I enter into spotlight does the same thing. Some are old files I recognize, most are not. Clicking on the "dotted lined" broken aliases produces the usual "delete" or "fix" alias. I tried deleting some of them, but they still show up on the very next spotlight search. Additionally, there's too many of them to do this individually!
Three questions:
1) has anyone else noticed this phenomenon?
2) could this be taking up significant HD space. I've posted previously that I was having a problem with missing HD storage;
3) is there any way to delete broken aliases en masse?
I would appreciate any help!
CC

sorry it's been so long since responding. I have been out of town and upon returning home, Hurricane Ike visited and left me powerless and appears to have sent my G4 to the great computing grounds in the sky (see my post on other hardware forum: http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=8097189#8097189).
Although it may be a mute point at this time, before the untimely passing of my computer, I discovered something very interesting about the many alias' on my machine. For some reason, files with numbers in their title in my administrative account had matching, nonworking alias' in my non-administrative account! In other words, to see private file names in my administrative account, all I had to do was put a number into Spotlight in my non-administrative account! This greatly decreases the privacy of this administrative account! If I have a jpeg named "photo of boss in compromised position 2007", I can see an "alias" of that file in the other account by searching for "2007" in Spotlight! Has anyone else noted this? Can someone explain this to me? This seems like a really bad idea to me.

Similar Messages

Interactive Report row filter item aliases

When trying to use row filtering on an interactive report that selects over 100 items, the aliases are alphabetic for the report columns but once they get as high as FZ they stop and are all aliased as \\ and become unusable. Is this a limitation in the IR?? Has anyone gotten around this???
Thanks,
Andrew

Jeff,
Thanks again for the response and for looking into it. However, if I am not mistaken, the url in that excerpt does the same thing as the URL I posted except that you used IREQ_COLNAME instead of IR_COLNAME (which defaults to EQ I believe).
I want to see if a value is in column a OR column b, etc. The "OR" is the all important caveat.
I would settle for being able to pass a value to the IR's main search box (that searches all columns of all rows) if I cannot do a targeted row level filter on a few select columns.
If anyone knows how to do either of those things, that would be great information to have.
Thanks,

Performance concerns about NSVs in large RT applications

Hello,
The end of http://www.ni.com/white-paper/12176/en says "...misuse of Shared Variables in a LabVIEW Real-Time application can result in poor machine performance.... Typical misuses include using too many Shared Variables.... In applications deployed to small Real-Time targets such as Compact RIO or Compact FieldPoint, no more than 25 variables should be used."
Does this apply to network-published I/O Aliases as well? I was planning to have ~100 I/O Aliases (cRIO-9082 + 2x NI-9144), exposed to a Windows PC for DSC logging and/or alarming -- would that be a problem?)
Solved!
Go to Solution.

Hi JKSH,
Using the 9082 cRIO you should be more than ok to host that many I/O Aliases. Depending on the controller you could run into issues where there are memory limitations on the controller. However, that controller should have more than enough memory to support that many variables. The best way to get an idea of how the variables are affecting your system is to monitor the CPU and memory usage in MAX. I would also recommend only installing the necessary software onto the cRIO and not everything that is possible. I hope this helps and if you have any more questions please let me know.
Patrick H | National Instruments | Software Engineer

Need to put HD clips in SD sequence without aliasing, any way to do this without converting clips to ProRes?

Editing a 1080p project shot with Canon 5DMkii.
Have a 1080p H.264 sequence that I planned to change to ProRes when all finished, before exporting to make a DVD.
Many shots have problems, and the only way to get around them is to reframe.
I figured, no problem, DVD video is SD, so I have 600+ pixels of frame-height to play with.
Now I have a rough cut and I have put some clips into a sequence preset to 720x405.
Unfortunately, when the original clips are anything other than 100% of their 1920x1080 size, it’s aliased as heck.
EXCEPT when you convert the original clip to ProRes.
I didn’t convert to ProRes before editing because it quintuples the size (the project has 45GB of footage and my internal 1TB HD has limited space), plus on this project the small difference in final-product quality that converting before editing brings wouldn’t matter.
I really do need to reframe many of the shots, and I wouldn’t terribly terribly mind converting to ProRes now, except that when you do, Compressor adds “ProRes…” to the new clip name, so you couldn’t just reconnect the already-edited sequence with the newly converted clips (or could you)?
So,
Can the downsizing of HD clips in an SD sequence be done without aliasing?
If not, can a whole sequence (15 minutes) be reconnected to clips to clips that
have the “Apple prores 444 hq” added to their name? (I tried and the converted clip is grayed out, can’t select it)
3. If not, can the whole 45GB of footage be converted to ProRes, but keep original names unchanged?
If none of the above is possible, any other solution?
Thank you very much

That is a non-standard sequence setting. SD in NTSC land isn't 16:9. It is 4:3 anamorphic. 720x486...anamorphic (squeezed).
Editing H.264 straight from the camera is wrought with errors. Besides the sluggishness of it, the non-RT playback...exporting has all sorts of issues. Not exporting proper sections of footage, not exporting the full sequence (the tail might get cut off), loss of sync upon export...much more. All of those issues have been mentioned on various FCP forums. H.264 is not a codec FCP 7 deals with well at all.
Converting to ProRes before editing is your only way to ensure vary little issues. And converting to ProRes 422 is recommended. Not HQ...not 4444. Your footage will not see any benefit from those formats, even though they sound more impressive. All you will get is larger files. Heck, since you are going to DVD, ProRes LT would be the optimal choice. Even if you went to BluRay, ProRes LT would be fine for that format. H.264 is an 8-bit format...ProRes LT or 422 will get it to 10-bit, and allow for better grading. But ZERO benefit will be had with HQ or 4444...those are for other uses...with higher end formats.
Not enough space? Get another drive. Internal SATA, if you have a MacPro...are 2TB for under $150. You can get an external 2TB for $200-$300.
3. Yes...use MPEG STREAMCLIP to convert the footage to ProRes. 422 or LT are recommended. Then you can reconnect, but you will need to make a new sequence that is ProRes...not H.264.

Updates to aliases seems not to be taken into account

Hello,
After having re-installed my email server on a macosx server snow leopard leopard, I tried to setup again my use emails accounts by modifying the aliases files, re-generate the aliases.db file, restarting the email service. Initially, I have an account where the email account is "firstnamelastname". I then added a line in the aliases file like:
<<
firstnamelastname: firstname.lastname, firstname, info
>>
Doing so, I should have 3 new email aliases
Then I re-generated the aliases database using "newliases" (or "postalias" to re-create the db).
Finally, I restarted the service and tested out the aliases.
results:
A trace in the smtp log like "No record for user firstname.lastname"
Any ideas? Thx
Regards,
Daniel

For that group, you need 2 counting rules:
- one for Holiday Class 0 (not a public holiday) and Day Work Schedule Class 0 (not a working day)
- one for Holiday Class 0 (not a public holiday) and Day Work Schedule Class 1 to 9 (a working day)
If you want, you can add an other one or two for Holiday Class 1 to 9 (public holiday)
extract from our T556C
2       1   10 Q      10 Sick leave deduct from quotas (incl personal/spec) XXXXX   X X    XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX X X        XX XX    100.00 100.00              1     1       10
2       1   10 Q      11 Sick leave deduct from quotas (incl personal/spec) XXXXX   X X    XXXXXXXXXX X          X X        XX XX      0.00    0.00              1     1       10
2       1   30 Q      10 Special leave with pay (with quotas deduction)     XXXXX   X X    XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX X X        XX XX    100.00 100.00              1     1       30
2       1   30 Q      11 Special leave with pay (with quotas deduction)     XXXXX   X X    XXXXXXXXXX X          X X        XX XX      0.00    0.00              1     1       30

Aliased text on PDF export with blending modes

So I've had this issue with a pdf, I tried to export it CMYK, RVB, interactive pdf, regular pdf, with tons of different other options, the text was still very aliased.
I decided to take it back from scratch, openned a new document with the same size, and copied/pasted element after element from the old one to the new one, exporting as pdf between each copy/paste. The first exports went really well, the render was great… until I pasted a vector element that was applied with a blending mode (overlay).
When I switched it to normal, the pdf export was smooth again. Tried every blending mode, everyone makes the text jaggy. Switch back, it's ok. So I'm 100% sure that this comes from blending modes, as opposed to what I could have read on other forums.
This is a request, please, InDesign team, take care of this problem, this is quite annoying in many cases.
Thank you for your attention!
Twitted here as well : https://twitter.com/grinderlabs/status/448381486627311616

To minmize the possibility of rasterizing or outlining text when transparency is flattened, keep the text above any transparent objects. Blending modes, along with most effects, use transparency.
You can also minimize the risk by exporting the PDF with live transparency, which is supported in Acrobat 5 or higher compatibility.

Database adapter and column aliases in the select statement (10.1.3.1)

Hi,
Is it possible to use column aliases in the select statement for a database adapter to return an xml element name which is different to the column in the queried table?
I have tried using
SELECT EMPLOYEE_ID, FIRST_NAME AS MYNAME, LAST_NAME, SALARY, DEPARTMENT_ID, PHONE_NUMBER, EMAIL, HIRE_DATE FROM HR.EMPLOYEES WHERE (DEPARTMENT_ID = #DEPT_ID)
but I get the following XML fragment returned
<Employees>
<employeeId>100</employeeId>
<firstName xsi:nil="true" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"/>
<lastName>King</lastName>
<salary>24000</salary>
Any pointers appreciated.
Joel.

That is really interesting.
When I use the "custom sql" option in the DB adapter wizard, it used the aliases just fine in the return schema.
Marc

Trouble with the image quality when viewing under 100%. First time posting on the forum.

Hello everyone. I am sorry we have the get acquainted this way but I am having some issues and this is one of my last options of getting help.   Allow me to explain the problem.    When viewing a file under 100% zoom, everything looks jagged like the anti aliasing is missing. Once I zoom in to 100%, everything looks the way it should. The saved file ( jpeg format for instance) is okay. I can zoom out and it still looks true to the image. The problem is related to photoshop. I installed my latest GPU drivers twice just to be sure and it was not from that.   This problem started last night and I don`t quite know how to solve it. If I work on small resolution images, it isn`t such a bad problem because I will be working on 100% zoom, but I am working on high resolution images/ paintings. Somewhere around 8000x5000 pixels thus, working at 100% is not that doable. I attached an image that shows this issue. The one on the right is the zoomed out version and the one on the left is the zoomed in version. Yes, the noise is affected by this, badly, but this started last night. up until then everything looked good even with noise or an out of this world sharpness. I can`t imagine what I could have done to trigger this.
   This being said, I am at the mercy of the more knowledgeable folks from around here. I do hope I posted this question in the right section. This is my first post here so sorry if I messed something up.   Looking forward to your replies.

Here is a simplistic view that I feel may help you understand reality.
The only time you're looking at your image pixels in Photoshop is when you're zoomed in to 100%,   There your look at the actual image pixels Photoshop has for your image at your displays resolution.
At any other zoom level you are looking a scaled image that has more or less pixels than your actual image these too are displayed at your display resolution.
The scaling done by Photoshop is done for displaying your image is done for good performance not for the best image quality a quick interpolation.   Therefore at some zoom levels image quality looks poorer than at other zoom levels.
High resolution Display have now add a new wrinkle.   User interfaces were designed for displays with resolutions around 100 PPI elements like text, icon, and other things like checkboxes, buttons etc. were created so there size would be useable are this more or less fixed 100 PPI resolution.   While Photoshop was designed to scale your images so you can work well on it is was not designed with a scalable UI. Photoshop can not scale its user interface independently from its image display display window for you displays high resolution. Photoshop's Image display area has the same resolution as the rest of Photoshop User Interface. Just like there is only one resolution in all layers in a document. CC 2014 2xUI changes that. PS UI is scaled to 1/2 resolution the image Area is at the displays actual resolution.
Photoshop CC 2014 2x UI scales all of Photoshop User Interface including the image display to 200% which is 1/2 your display resolution effectively cutting you display pixel count to 1/4 its actual pixel count.   Your once again running on a low resolution display.     If your display has a native resolution 200 PPI you're running it at 100 ppi if your display has a 300 PPI resolution you're running it at 150ppi.    Which defeats the reason of having high resolution. Which is you would like to be able to edit your images at print resolution. Adobe cc2x UI scales the UI but not the image window soa inage is 216ppi on the Surface Pro 3 the UI is large and dpoes not fit. screen
To be able to edit your images at print resolution you need a display the has a print resolution and you need and application the can scale its image display and its UI independently.
Current there is no OS interface for having multiple resolutions areas on a display and applications like Photoshop can not scale UI and Image independently. OS and Photoshop can scale what is displayed. Adobe Photoshop executable is coded in a way that it tell Microsoft Windows OS that it will handle display scaling so it can using your displays native resolution. Currently Only Photoshop CC 2014 Provides you with the option of running you display at half resolution.
Windows can scale you display to many resolution and as several presets. like 100%, 125%, 150% and like Adobe 200% half resolution.    You can make a Windows Registry and add an External Photoshop Manifest file the tell's Microsoft Windows to handle display scaling. I have a Microsoft Surface Pro 3 m windows machine. Its LCD has a 216PPI resolution. Windows 8.1 had 4 preset for scaling its LCD.
Surface Pro 3 LCD Display 12" IPS display 3:2 aspect ratio 9.984603532054124" Wide, 6.656402354702749" High 216.3330765278394 PPI
Microsoft Preset Display scaling
100% 2160x1440   216 PPI
125% 1728x1152   173 PPI
150% 1440x960    144 PPI SP3 Default setting
200% 1080x720    108 PPI
Most user these days has 1024x768 or better displays and Web pages are often authored for 800x600 pixels pages. So the give you a better handle on Resolution and scaling I have edit a 800x600 document with 25x25 px grid one my Surface pro 3
using Windows 4 scaling presets and captured the 2160x1140 scaled screens Only at the 100% preset does the image window have a 216ppi Also note @ 2x UI Photoshop UI doe not fit on screen
Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 2xUI Scales the UI to a display 1/2 resolution but does not scale the Image area uses actual screen resolution. Photoshop Help system info show the screen i 1/2 resilution 1080x720 but scalet the imase to the real resolution 2160x1440. however the image window is the 216ppi the ui 108ppi via scaling

Any way to standardize desktop (dock, Aliases) between several Macs?

I use 5 different Macs, and would like to make all the desktops look exactly the same. The apps are mostly the same, but I can't just use a clone of the disk because the data (and disk size) are all different. All I want is for my dock (with the folders containing aliases to apps) and other aliases to apps on the desktop to be the same on all so that everything is where I expect to find it no matter which machine I'm sitting at. Is there any such convenient solution? Other than cloning the whole disk, surely someone who manages a lab of 100 Macs for students or something like this has a clever way of deploying the same experience for multiple computers?

I do that by syncing my laptop iCal with my iPod, and then moving my iPod to my desktop and importing the calendars. The way this works is kind of clumsy, maybe because I don't know better. But what I have to do is delete the calendars from my desktop computer that I want to update, and then import the new ones from the iPod. Then I have to reset the colors on the calendars I just imported. It's not a perfect solution, but it works well enough.

How to view an image @ 100% ?

When I do some editing in iPhoto, especially sharpening, I'd like to see it @100%.
There is no indication at what % I'm viewing the image.
Is there any way to know that ?
When clicking "edit" on the bottom, at what size the image opens?
Thanks!

ok, I found an Apple article from 2007 which explains how to do that. I'm posting it here for others:
===================================
iPhoto: Sharpness adjustment may not be apparent when viewing at less than 100 percent
Last Modified on: July 13, 2007
Article: 301425
When you view an image at less than full size, iPhoto smooths it (a technique known as anti-aliasing) to get rid of artifacts that result from scaling down the photo. The relationship between anti-aliasing and sharpening is a trade-off; although anti-aliasing does not modify the actual image file, it does counter the effect of sharpening when viewing the image at less than full size.
Because of this, if you sharpen a photo, close it, then reopen it again at a less than 100-percent view, you may get the impression that your sharpness changes were not saved. In reality they were, but since the image has been re-aliased to fit your screen, the image's true sharpness may not be apparent.
To evaluate whether an image is sharp or needs sharpening, you should view the photo at 100 percent/full size while editing in a separate window. To open the photo in a separate window, you can either Control-click the image and choose "Edit in a separate window" from the shortcut menu, or change your iPhoto preferences:
From the iPhoto menu, choose Preferences.
In the General pane, locate the preference for "Double-click photo."
Set the radio button to "Opens photo in edit window."
Close the preferences window.
Now photos will open in a separate window when you double-click them. Once in the separate window, choose 100% from the Size pop-up menu. If you don't see the Size menu, widen the window until it appears.
Tip: If you are editing the photo from one of the other view options, you can press the 1 key to quickly jump to 100 percent view.
Other applications, such as Adobe Photoshop, handle anti-aliasing differently, so the degree of apparent sharpness can vary from one application to the next when viewing an image at a scaled-down size. You should see consistency when comparing the image at 100 percent across other applications.
Important: Information about products not manufactured by Apple is provided for information purposes only, and does not constitute Apple's recommendation or endorsement. Please contact the vendor for additional information.
========================================

Aliasing in after effects

Hey! I am new with editing and need some help!
When I edit my video files in Premiere they look great. In fact, when I edit my video files in after effects, they look great too.
BUT
When I edit my files in Premiere, save as an Adobe Premiere Project and then import it into After Effects I get a problem.
At first it is horizontally squished. So I press the Toggle Pixel Aspect Ration button and the resolution seems correct, but
it has aliasing.
I have some screenshots.
Nice looking file in premiere:
http://www.antosiafiedur.com/prem.png
Aliased file in after effects
http://www.antosiafiedur.com/after.png
Please help!
I am using CS 5.5 and video from a Canon 5D Mark II (1080p)

Perfectly normal. AE has always behaved this way. If you wnat to get better quality, increase the pertinent pref setting/ hack the prefs file. Also your preview is not 100% zoom and 100% resolution. Furthermore things like footage interpretation for fields would matter. Nothing that would put any longtime AE user on alert. It just is that way.
Mylenium

Aliasing In AVCHD Footage, Not In FCP7!

Hi,
I'm working with some AVCHD 1080p Footage in Premiere CS6. I made the move away from FCP7 hoping I could get high quality results in Premiere.
However...
In both "natively editing" and via Prelude Ingesting the AVCHD to ProRes422, the footage is Aliased (a.k.a. Jaggies). Both in the Program Monitor AND after Export.
However, a side-by-side comparison to the same footage Log & Transferred in FCP7 shows that the FCP7 footage is not Aliased! Same settings. The files are the same size, and the same Data Rate. This only happens in the Adobe Workflow.
In my Media Encoder settings, I have tried both Maximum Render Quality and Render At Maximum Depth. Neither of these make a difference.
The footage is also set at Progressive 29.97. Quality 100%. Square Pixels 1.0.
Has anyone else experienced this?
Here is a 100% size screenshot of the two clips opened side-by-side in Quicktime. Have a look.
http://www.carlkingclients.com/premiere484/Premiere_Aliasing.png
-Carl.

So you're taking your original progressive AVCHD content that hasn't ever been transcoded by prelude or anything else and pulling it straight into premiere now right?
Okay so if I'm understanding correctly you now tried to make a progressive sequence then place your progressive footage in the timeline then export it as progressive from Premiere pro's progressive timeline? Then after you do this is it messed up in both VLC and Quicktime? If you have done this just for fun I'd like to have you just use the upper field first sequence you said it creates you and try exporting to both progressive and upper just to see if this changes anything.
Also when you right click the clip in your footage bin and click "modify>interpet" what does it say the field order is (next to "use field order from file" or w/e)
I just want to be sure I am understanding you. However If you could please upload a very small portion of the original .MTS AVCHD footage you're using that hasn't been altered for testing purposes that would be great I'm intrested to see for myself If I can find/reproduce the problem you're experincing.
I haven't ever seen this occur before unless some sort of setting is incorrect somewhere. (Except when I have scaled something but even then there is always a workaround. )

About CS6 save for web quality.Always aliasing.

I used to save JPEG or PNG by save for web before(CS5).
I found out beside the "save for web" interface changes and the quality become very low in CS6.
No matter setting high quality 100%. it is sill aliasing.
I know if use "export" it colud be better. BUT I can't set the image size.
I have to edit artboards or resize in photoshop.
I want to make sure what worng with my cs6 save for web. it's my computer problem or does anyone else have the same problem??
Thanks.
mac pro os x 10.8.3 / cs6

save for web setting
I tried optimized and matte...same result.
save-for-web-seeting-300%forview
result_save-for-web

Severe anti-aliasing when exporting via compressor

Hello all, can't seem to find anything to answer this in a search, so any help would be much appreciated.
I seem to be getting severe anti-aliasing whenever I export anything from FCP to compressor. At first I thought the problem was with compressor, because everything looks and exports directly from FCP perfectly. But if I open compressor and import/open the exact same movie directly, compressor seems to do its job as expected, so I'm pretty sure I've narrowed it down to when I export something 'using compressor'
I've tried various different codecs and sequence settings including totally 100% uncompressed, I've also tried upping the bit rate and everything still comes out looking exactly the same.
I have a feeling I've accidentally changed some setting(s) somewhere (although I can't think where or how) because until a few weeks ago, everything worked just fine.
I think I'm going to have to re-install everything, which I'd obviously like to avoid, so if anyone has any advice or suggestions I'd be very grateful.
Thanks in advance.

The anti-aliasing preference setting in both Illustrator and Acrobat is just a preview on screen.
If you're going to print it preserving the jagged nature you could apply Effect > Rasterize with appropriate settings in Illustrator, for example.

Image aliasing when exporting print PDF at 300 ppi (bicubic downsampling)

Hello,
i am trying to describe a problem which persists since version CS3 of InDesign. It's about aliased edges in images in a certain angle; occuring when exporting the brochure as PDF file (at 300 ppi). The placed images are always at a higher quality than needed (for example 780 ppi effective). The aliasing is not there when opening the original image files in photoshop (viewing at 100%).
The PDF export settings are:
- Compression: Bicubic downsampling to300 ppi for images above 350 ppi (for color images, grayscale images and monochrome images)
- Crop Image data to frames
- Marks: Crop Marks and Page Information
- Output: No Color Conversion
- Advanced: Transparency Flattener: High Resolution
- Compatibility: Acrobat 4 (PDF 1.3)
- PDF /X-3:2002
Below are two screenshots
- The left one was the original image, downsampled to 216 mm in width using automatic bicubic downsampling
- The right one is the result when exporting a InDesign Document with the same width to a PDF with the mentioned settings
Downsampled in Photoshop CS6 to 216 mm width
Exported from InDesign CS6 with mentioned settings
I have no clue what happens here, but it looks like the internal downsampling of InDesign CS6 is not very good.
When i write a PostScript file of the brochure and put it in Distiller (with the same PDF Preset as above), the image looks like the one made with Photoshop. So this problem has to lie somwhere deep in InDesign or it's settings.
Anybody with similar experiences?

Rob Day wrote:
Something about your test looks off. The export from ID and export from PS PDFs are both zoomed at 1200%, but the export from ID vrsion is 90% smaller.
Yeah I noticed that I actually had the image in InDesign scaled @ 90%, so the effective ppi was around 650. I get the same jagged results when I use anything other than a 300 or 600 effective ppi. Whereas if I use a 650ppi image in Photoshop and export to PDF, it downsamples smoothly.
Rob Day wrote:
The diagonal lines in your test are 1 pixel so at 300ppi to an offset press at 150lpi, the lines would be less than a halftone dot so I'm pretty sure you would need a loupe to see any difference. Maybe with a stochastic screen there would be better resolution but still difficult to see. So if the printing is that good I would just export without down sampling. With disk space running at 15 cents a gigabyte there's not much to gain with a downsample.
It becomes noticeable with some images more than others, but I'm printing a lot of images of buildings and drawings with sharp lines that converge to a point, or are distinguishable in the full size image but indistinguishable when downsampled. This can introduce distracting patterns when they aren't downsampled smoothly, something like this:
Unfortunately the printers near me aren't very good, so I'm having things printed online, and this particular printer (blurb.com - for a small job) won't accept large PDFs without compressed/downsampled images :/ I'm making 300dpi versions of the really crucial images for the time being, but I'm hoping there is a better solution!
The other issue is exporting the PDF for use on the web, either as a download or on an online PDF viewer like issuu.com. The two PDFs on the right side of my test look much better in these situations. Is there any disadvantage to using Distiller to make my PDFs for this purpose using the Device Independent setting? I don't have any special interactive elements.

100's of aliases!

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for