11 ms·

Tarsnap – Online backups for the truly paranoid

• tete 13y ago
  OP here. I found them looking for a good backup solution. They look amazing. Bug bounties for everything (including cosmetic stuff), completely transparent architecture, data deduplication and compression on the fly, they will be up even if two of Amazon's data centers fail, one pays per byte (traffic/store) and for all that they are pretty cheap.
  • DanBC 13y ago
    Tarsnap is brilliant. cperciva is a well known and respected HN user too. (https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=cperciva https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=cperciva)
    • herenowgonenow 13y ago
      > cperciva is a well known and respected HN user too. Irrelevant.
      • Ecio78 13y ago
        But maybe the fact that he has been a Security Officer of the FreeBSD project for many years is relevant (for those concerned of privacy/security): http://www.nux.ro/archive/2012/07/Colin_Percival_no_longer_Security_Officer_for_FreeBSD.html http://www.nux.ro/archive/2012/07/Colin_Percival_no_longer_S...
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  • ra 13y ago
    Tarsnap is by prolific HNer (cperciva). It's been on HN, literally, hundreds of times: https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=tarsnap https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=tarsnap
  • jacques_chester 13y ago
    I've used tarsnap for a few years. It's good. Tip: forget everything you knew about scheduling full and incremental backups, because you don't have to. Tarsnap provides logical snapshots and does all the diff magic for you. (Hence tar ... snap)
• tigerweeds 13y ago
  quick question here: is there a delay in Recent Activity? I just signed up and used it on two servers like 30 minutes ago, but I don't see anything in the account activity except the payment info. I'm quite sure my servers sent stuff because I monitored b/w usage
  • cperciva 13y ago
    The accounting data updates at midnight UTC -- so yes, there is a delay.
    • tigerweeds 13y ago
      roger, thanks!
• olalonde 13y ago
  http://www.tarsnap.com/legal-why.html#BCPSTISSTUPID http://www.tarsnap.com/legal-why.html#BCPSTISSTUPID I see what you did there :)
  • cperciva 13y ago
    Well, the BC PST is stupid. I find it amazing that during the HST referendum campaign a large number of people said they thought the HST was good, but they were going to vote against it anyway to punish the BC Liberal government... and now we don't have the HST, the the government they wanted to punish has gotten re-elected.
• hazz 13y ago
  One of the things I love about Tarsnap is the bug bounties, which range from $2000 for being able to decrypt user data right down to $1 for cosmetic issues.
• awayand 13y ago
  try crashplan with boxcryptor
• kogir 13y ago
  Tarsnap works really, really well. Just make a consistent snapshot of your data (I'm using UFS snapshots), point Tarsnap at it, and you're good to go. The documentation is thorough, and Colin (the owner/operator/author) responds quickly to emails. Finally, compression and deduplication is amazing: [nick@home ~]$ sudo tarsnap --print-stats Total size Compressed size All archives 348 GB 76 GB (unique data) 34 GB 6.3 GB Yep, I've backed up 350GB of data, but since most of it is duplicated, I pay for storing 6.3GB. Win. One word of caution though - this isn't a mainstream consumer backup service. If you lose your keys you lose your data. No chance of recovery. So make sure you back those up properly too, ideally in a different geography.
  • cperciva 13y ago
    Just make a consistent snapshot of your data (I'm using UFS snapshots), point Tarsnap at it, and you're good to go. You're using the --snaptime option, right? It's necessary when you're backing up a filesystem snapshot in order to work around a race condition with them -- if a file is modified, the filesystem snapshot is created, and then the file is modified again, all within a single time quantum, it can trick Tarsnap into thinking that the file hasn't been modified later (which triggers an optimization of "this must be the same blocks as it was last time" in place of the usual "read the file and split it into blocks" behaviour). Finally, compression and deduplication is amazing: Well, if we're going to be posting statistics here... Total size Compressed size All archives 269 TB 121 TB (unique data) 177 GB 72 GB That's 269 TB of data backed up from my laptop, deduplicated and compressed down to 72 GB. This is what I get for taking a backup of my entire home directory every hour...
    • kogir 13y ago
      > You're using the --snaptime option, right? Yep, emailed you about this in fact, and appreciated your detailed response.
      • 13y ago
• skarmklart 13y ago
  I'm thinking of using Tarsnap. Can I absolutely, positively, definitely trust that everything on Tarsnap's end is encrypted to best practice standards and that there is no reasonable way to get to my data (outside of the usual contract provided by encryption I mean)? I don't have the option to know for sure by analyzing the source code myself so I'll have to trust the popular opionion of Very Smart People here on HN (well, I suppose I could if I spent a non-trivial chunk of the coming year reading up on crypto stuff).
  • glurgh 13y ago
    The encryption happens on your end, not Tarsnap's. The bar you're setting, though, is impossibly high. Can you absolutely, positively, definitely trust that your machine is not rooted and some nefarious entity isn't quietly collecting your every keystroke and snickering in the dark while stroking a white cat? At that level of paranoia, you're probably best off using a device personally soldered together with hand-selected transistors that XORs all your backups with the white noise collected from your tv (while disconnected from cable, of course).
  • icebraining 13y ago
    Well, the guy who wrote Tarsnap is himself a Very Smart Person here on HN, so I'd say the answer is yes, by definition ;)
    • Steko 13y ago
      "a Very Smart Person" Did he win the Putnam? spoilers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35083 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35083
  • Ecio78 13y ago
    See my reply here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5768024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5768024
• alanh 13y ago
  This is absurdly expensive. If you have a 400GB laptop, fully backed-up and with negligible deltas, you are paying $1440 a year. (400GB is not an absurd amount, either. I personally would ideally have about that much in my off-site backup.)
  • snuxoll 13y ago
    You're missing the value-added component here where tarsnap compresses and deduplicates data.
    • wmf 13y ago
      That's not exactly rocket science these days (see bup). What you're paying for with tarsnap is making it totally rock solid and as usual the last 90% of the work is also 90% of the cost.
      • elangoc 13y ago
        The point that suxnoll is making, though, is that the cost is not nearly high to begin with, b/c the data is dedup'ed and compressed. You're justifying an issue that doesn't quite exist. The query that suxnoll responded to supposed that you have 400 GB of data with small deltas. But that's only possible if you're filling your harddrive with files created from random noise from /dev/random and updating all your files monthly by more random noise.
      • jacques_chester 13y ago
        > That's not exactly rocket science these days (see bup) Actually, combining crypto and dedupe in such a way that the server can never tell what's on the client computer but the client can still reliably pick what's changed and dedupe it? That's honest-to-goodness computer science. And Colin is the guy who invented this stuff.
    • Paul12345534 13y ago
      Crashplan does that to save you bandwidth and them space but you get unlimited space for the same price.
• tonywebster 13y ago
  I understand data is encrypted before it ever leaves your machine, but I certainly wouldn't want encrypted data at-rest being exposed. Which gives me concern about Tarnap's terms: "I may provide information concerning your account and your use of the service to 3rd parties, at my sole discretion, if ... It is requested by law enforcement authorities ..." note - no requirement for a court order or subpoena. https://www.tarsnap.com/legal-why.html#PRIVACYLAW https://www.tarsnap.com/legal-why.html#PRIVACYLAW
  • cperciva 13y ago
    Note the last paragraph of that: However, I'm serious about saying "at my sole discretion" — if a law enforcement agency wants information, they'd better have a good reason for asking for it... and I don't consider the NSA saying "we want to have all the information you have, just because we feel like it and someone somewhere might be a terrorist" to be a good reason. Also note that unlike the situation with certain illegal wiretaps, I can't give your data to anyone, because it's all encrypted such that I can't read it. This situation has never arisen, but if I'm confronted by a police officer and enough evidence that I'm sure they could get a court order, I'd rather be cooperative than force them to go through the courts. This doesn't mean that I'd give them any more data than they would get from a court order -- in fact, quite the opposite, since police tend to err on the side of requesting more than they need when going through the courts, and cooperating could change "seize a server" into "get a copy of the required data".
    • nuttendorfer 13y ago
      Why would you comply with foreign government agencies?
      • cperciva 13y ago
        If the Libyan, or Iranian, or Chinese, or Russian police come knocking, I probably wouldn't. Beyond that, it's a judgement call. Lots of countries have agreements to assist each others' police forces in obtaining evidence.
• nuttendorfer 13y ago
  I'm still not sure whether I can trust somebody else with my data, but I'm growing more and more concerned of hardware failure of my own backups. Might try Tarsnap one of these days.
  • marcosdumay 13y ago
    It aledgely encripts all your data at the local machine, before sending it to the server. Now, of course, if you are truly paranoid, you'll want to review their code first. I don't get why I can't simply mount a volume with encription and write there. Using code that is already on my machine (on the kernel, nonetheless) would make it a much simpler decision.
    • profquail 13y ago
      Did you just assume the source code wasn't available? It's not linked from the front page of the site, but if you go to the 'Download' page, it's right there for your review: https://www.tarsnap.com/download.html https://www.tarsnap.com/download.html
    • cperciva 13y ago
      I don't get why I can't simply mount a volume with encription and write there. You can (and you could even use tarsnap to back up the encrypted filesystem image if you want), but writing your data to an encrypted filesystem tends to expand the amount of data changing -- in the extreme case, if you create a copy of a file you'll write that many blocks of new encrypted data which needs to be backed up, whereas tarsnap would just say "hey, I recognize all these blocks, it's those ones I backed up earlier" -- so Tarsnap's encrypted backups of a filesystem tend to be many times more efficient than backups of an encrypted filesystem.
    • objectivefs 13y ago
      I don't get why I can't simply mount a volume with encription and write there. If you want to mount an encrypted filesystem stored on S3, you might want to try ObjectiveFS. https://objectivefs.com https://objectivefs.com
• e40 13y ago
  why Tarsnap pricing is defined in terms of picodollars per byte rather than dollars per gigabyte: Tarsnap's author is a geek. Applying SI prefixes to non-SI units is a geeky thing to do. I find that so amazingly annoying. To me it says "yeah, I know many people might find it hard to get their head around the units I defined, but I don't really care about that because I find it cool." We have standard units for a reason, because people can immediately get the scale of something in their mind. With this, you can't. I went to their site open to what they were selling, but I'm very turned off by this.
  • to3m 13y ago
    But the price is also given in $/GB-month, so you can at least figure it out using units that people will probably find more convenient. I couldn't see the quoted comment on the opening page, which is probably lucky, because it annoys me more than simply giving the prices in picodollars/byte. (Pricing it like that at least reveals that the pricing is actually per byte, rather than being, say, $0.30/GByte with some kind of rounding.) More generally, I've always found it to be a good idea to be at least somewhat circumspect if you're going to have some kind of an asocial relationship with somebody (e.g., getting them to give you money). It's impossible to foretell what people will get annoyed by, so you might as well give them as few things to get annoyed by as possible. (I suppose this is the "better to keep quiet and be thought a fool..." principle, in a way, though obviously foolishness is not the precise issue here. Oh well. I don't claim to be original.)
  • alecdbrooks 13y ago
    I get how it could seem too self-induldgent, but I think that was mostly meant tongue-in-cheek. The real reasons are right below: If prices were listed in dollars per GB instead of picodollars per byte, it would be harder to avoid the what-is-a-GB confusion (a GB is 10^9 bytes, but some people don't understand SI prefixes). Picodollars are perfectly clear — nobody is going to think that a picodollar is 2^(-40) dollars. Specifying prices in picodollars reinforces the point that if you have very small backups, you can pay very small amounts. Unlike some people, I don't believe in rounding up to $0.01 — the Tarsnap accounting code keeps track of everything in attodollars and when it internally converts storage prices from picodollars per month to attodollars per day it rounds the prices down. Plus, as others have pointed out, prices are listed in standard units (dollars per GB) just below the oddball ones.
• lbatista 13y ago
  I've been using http://labs.bittorrent.com/experiments/sync.html http://labs.bittorrent.com/experiments/sync.html for a while and it is as reliable as you need.
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  • nonane 13y ago
    Sync is not backup. For backups you also need the ability to look back at the previous versions of your files. For example in your sync solution if a file gets corrupted, all copies of the file will also have the corrupted bytes sync'd. With a backup solution you'll be able to rollback to a previous non corrupted version.
• ozataman 13y ago
  As an alternative, I use Arq continuously on all my computers and I highly recommend it (Sorry I'm on my iPhone and won't be able to give a link). It lets you use your own AWS credentials for backup and you can encrypt the data before it is sent to AWS. The issue I have with Tarsnap is that the data is still at the hands of a small operation, as far as I can tell, and honestly I'm afraid we won't get our data if something happens to the guy. This is fine of course for many services, but data backup is inherently as mission critical as it gets. The whole reason for it is reliability, assurance and redundancy. It is not a nice to have, it is for many people the only place they fully trust to keep their data forever. I wish Tarsnap had an innovation that made it possible to use it with one's (or an organization's) own AWS credentials. An on-site mode, if you will. Otherwise it has always seemed to me like a great piece of software.
  • profquail 13y ago
    Have you discussed your reservations with cperciva (the guy behind Tarsnap)? I'm sure he'd be happy to address them if you just ask.
    • ozataman 13y ago
      Haven't thought of that tbh. I only have a single reservation that I mentioned in my above post. Not to put any words in his mouth, but I'm not sure there can be a solution to it given his current architecture of the system. It is inherently a multi-tenant SaaS backup service...
      • profquail 13y ago
        Well, there's only one way to find out if there's a solution -- contact cperciva and ask him :)
        • juanrossi 13y ago
          I've just sent an email to Colin about this. Will edit my comment as soon as I have a response. EDIT: Wow, got a response in less than 5 minutes: It's not something I'm looking at doing right now. The way the Tarsnap server side is designed, in order to keep costs low (and performance high), data is aggregated between multiple Tarsnap users and stored in S3 as large chunks; keeping each user's data segregated would add a lot of additional complexity and cost.
• spindritf 13y ago
  All the data is encrypted before it ever leaves your machine. Not even cperciva should be able to read it. You can also create a write-only key. If you run tarsnap from a server which gets pwned, the attackers can't touch the existing backups. Don't be the next Astalavista[1]. [1] http://joncraton.org/blog/49/analyzing-the-astalavista-hack http://joncraton.org/blog/49/analyzing-the-astalavista-hack
  • neeee 13y ago
    I would have trusted that more if the tarsnap client had source code available.
    • bliving 13y ago
      "At the present time, pre-built binaries are not available for Tarsnap — it must be compiled from the source code." https://www.tarsnap.com/download.html https://www.tarsnap.com/download.html
    • lambda 13y ago
      The source code is available; it's available under a "shared source" license rather than free software/open source (you can look at it, but not modify it), but it is available for review. https://www.tarsnap.com/download.html https://www.tarsnap.com/download.html He also has a bug bounty http://www.tarsnap.com/bugbounty.html http://www.tarsnap.com/bugbounty.html, and several substantial security bugs have been found and fixed due to the bug bounty (http://www.tarsnap.com/bounty-winners.html http://www.tarsnap.com/bounty-winners.html). In fact, the first of those, the AES CTR nonce bug, was found before he had offered the bounty program; the bounty program was inspired by that bug, and has since led to the discovery of several other more minor issues. So, the source is available, and there's a bounty out for discovering bugs ranging from cosmetic issues to major security issues. Feel free to review it and submit any bugs you find!
    • wglb 13y ago
      Er, https://www.tarsnap.com/download.html https://www.tarsnap.com/download.html
  • 13y ago
• zenocon 13y ago
  A secure online backup service for Minix -- FINALLY!!
  • cperciva 13y ago
    I'd like to support GNU Hurd too, but they make some unusual (but still POSIX compliant!) choices and I haven't had the time to work around them.
• trhtrsh 13y ago
  Interesting. Tarsnap and rsync.net seem to alternate coverage on HN, and for the longest time I kept forgetting they were different, even though I had vague sense of confusion. This one is Colin Percival's project.
  • rsync 13y ago
    We hold tarsnap in high esteem and wish Colin the best of luck. Further, we appreciate all of the good work Colin has done for the FreeBSD project. Glad to see you on the front page.
  • cperciva 13y ago
    Nope, I'm not rsync.net, but they provide a great service and contributions to FreeBSD, so they're obviously awesome people.
• tbassetto 13y ago
  I would love to have something like the Backblaze client but working with Tarsnap as a backend: you install it and you forget about it. The sensible default configuration is good enough for average joe but you can tweak it if you want.
  • philfreo 13y ago
    Check out Arq http://www.haystacksoftware.com/arq/ http://www.haystacksoftware.com/arq/
    • micro-ram 13y ago
      +1 for ARQ. Best S3 backup I have found on OSX. Sorry TARSNAP, I will only backup to an account I control.
    • tbassetto 13y ago
      Well, it is not using Tarsnap as a backend and it seems that you have to add folders on the first launch, that is definitely not what I am looking for :) Time Machine and Backblaze know how Mac OS is architectured and backup everything but useful files (logs mainly).
• bernatfp 13y ago
  Truly paranoids are/will/should use Bitcoin or Litecoin. I don't get why pricing is USD$ only, it just seems that cryptocurrencies are perfect for this kind of service.
  • glurgh 13y ago
    It's how your data is actually stored that protects it, not whether you've paid for the storage in tinfoil shekels or picodollars.
    • deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    • ethanaustinite 13y ago
      The "truly paranoids" probably have plenty of bitcoin burning a hole in their digital wallets.
  • cperciva 13y ago
    I'm considering taking BTC in the future. If coinbase were easier to integrate I would have done it already, in fact.
    • glurgh 13y ago
      Perfectly serious snarkless question - how would that work, financially? You're reselling S3 storage with your value-added service on top - obviously you set your prices in a way that pays for your costs, time and generates some sort of profit. Short of adjusting your prices on a daily (or hourly!) basis, how would you be able to accept payment in a currency of such extreme volatility?
      • cperciva 13y ago
        This is why I don't accept BTC yet -- unless the exchange rate settles down I'm only going to be able to do it via a service which lets me say "I want X USD; make it happen". Coinbase comes close -- the only thing they don't do is allow me to specify at run-time how many USD I want; for some odd reason they need you to "create a button" with an API call before displaying that button on your site, which is a pain to deal with when you have variable payment amounts.
• mhartl 13y ago
  I believe Tarsnap's only flaw is that it hasn't yet solved the cperciva-gets-hit-by-a-bus problem. Or perhaps I am mistaken?
  • cperciva 13y ago
    That is indeed a problem which has yet to be solved. Or a potential problem, rather... I'm rather hoping it will never actually happen. ;-) Seriously though, it is on my list of issues which needs to be addressed. Bringing in someone else and getting them up to speed on how to run everything is an expensive prospect, though.
    • aaronbrethorst 13y ago
      Charge more.
    • carterschonwald 13y ago
      Have you considered some sort of "enterprise" variant where large organizations use their own storage backend? Just 1-4 serious enterprise sized customers would cover the salary and overhead of 1+ good engineers. There's a lot of opportunity in that direction. Like any medium sized or larger company that needs to deal with compliance with education or medical privacy regulation, your tech is a great backup solution, and if carefully done doesn't increase your overheads much/ at all. Otoh, I am just speculating :-)
      • cperciva 13y ago
        Setting up tarsnap to use non-AWS infrastructure would be a significant amount of work. Setting up a "private" Tarsnap (but still on AWS) is something I could do for a company needing to store a large amount of data (say, 10+ TB).
        • carterschonwald 13y ago
          doesn't AWS have some special clouds for companies that have compliance needs? Either way, it might be worth looking into even just the "private" Tarsnap on AWS business direction as a way of growing revenue in a way that isn't tied strictly to data storage volume. One way to go about this is to ask some of your larger business users if they would be interested in such a "private for them" self hosted Tarsnap variant. I think many of them would love a way to help you have revenues sufficient to support having an additional engineer (or two) working with you, which isn't possible for them to do with your current usage based revenue model. Point being, theres probably an "enterprise" business model that stays true to your quality goals, but gives you more ahead of time revenue by a substantial amount. For some of your customers, there might be more value in supporting you being able to hire some engineers than there is in the cost savings element of the current revenue model. This can be an ancillary product that isn't the core one, but which still helps you have more resources to make the core better. Talk with your larger customers, they're probably happy to chat with you given the chance.
• nkabbara 13y ago
  Tarsnap has been working really well for us, but one huge downside that we've noticed is how slow it is to restore data from say a 1TB archive. Sometimes it takes more than 3 hours to restore a customer's 40MB directory. If we were to have a full HD failure and had to restore the whole 1TB, that would probably take days. Days of downtime for us. So depending on your situation, this might not be ideal. I contacted Colin about this a few months ago and he mentioned that he is working on a faster version.
• Ecio78 13y ago
  Anyone has experience with Duplicity? http://duplicity.nongnu.org/ http://duplicity.nongnu.org/
  • diarmuidie 13y ago
    I use it to keep incremental backups of my VPS. It lets you use S3 as your backup destination and uses GnuPG to encrypt all files.
  • dnr 13y ago
    I use it to save backups of my desktop and laptop home directories to a home NAS mounted with NFS, which later gets synced to another NAS. It's a decent tool. I encrypt with a separate gpg key, do mostly incremental backups, and a full one every few months. Incremental backups take under a minute on my desktop (100K files, 11G). Full ones are kind of slow (which is why I set it to only do it every few months). I haven't used the S3 support.
  • locusm 13y ago
    Have used Duplicity for a couple of years now, works very well although tricky to get it to store data other than in the US-East region. Currently backing up about 8 servers with it, mix of Ubuntu & Amazon Linux.
• sdfjkl 13y ago
  How does this compare to dump | aespipe | s3cmd?
  • wmf 13y ago
    If none of those commands perform dedupe and compression then tarsnap is much cheaper (like 20x cheaper).
    • sdfjkl 13y ago
      It's safe to assume a bz2cat can be thrown in there. And I'm not sure how deduplication can work on encrypted dumps/files?
      • cperciva 13y ago
        Tarsnap deduplicates first, then it encrypts.
        • sdfjkl 13y ago
          I see, that makes sense. Any word on how it compares to simply shipping encrypted dumps to S3?
          • cperciva 13y ago
            Depends how much tarsnap manages to deduplicate, really.
• aaronbrethorst 13y ago
  Colin - I dig what you're doing, but every time I go to the Tarsnap website, I'm turned off from using it for all of the reasons that have been discussed here ad nauseum since 2009. I'd love to see you succeed more; I think you deserve it, and I wish you'd just grab it. see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=820705 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=820705 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1639277 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1639277, e.g.
• andrewcooke 13y ago
  i've been poking round the site and i couldn't see an answer to this question - why do you need to encrypt the communication if the data themselves are encrypted? maybe i am misunderstanding, but it seems like each block is encrypted and the pipe between client and server is encrypted. is it because there are additional interesting metadata (if so, what)? or have i misunderstood?
  • cperciva 13y ago
    There is metadata; whether you consider it interesting is up to you. The tarsnap client has to say "I'm machine X, and I want to store a block of data with tag Y"; and when you extract an archive, "I'm machine X, and I want to retrieve the block of data with tag Y". This could allow someone to figure out (a) that it's the same machine, and (b) that you're extracting an archive which contains data which was stored at a particular point in time. Paranoia means encrypting everything which might be sensitive, even if you can't see any way for it to be abused.
    • andrewcooke 13y ago
      thanks. (i understand the point about metadata; to be honest i was more worried i had misunderstood).
• Paul12345534 13y ago
  $0.30/GB/month is pretty steep :) You can use your own private keys with Crashplan, $60 a year for unlimited storage/bandwidth.
  • Paul12345534 13y ago
    Crashplan also does dedupe and compression. The only downside is the client program uses a lot of RAM.
    • dublinben 13y ago
      I concur. I've been very happy with the price and features, but the ever increasing amount of RAM (the larger your backup, the larger its RAM use) is worrying.
• Freaky 13y ago
  Cyphertite may also be of interest: https://www.cyphertite.com/ https://www.cyphertite.com/ Client-side encryption and deduplication, with source code. 8GB free, $10/mo for personal unlimited use, 10c/GB/month for business/enterprise. My main reservations are they seem to be based in one datacenter, and don't seem to have support for multiple keyfiles with separate read/write/delete/machine restrictions. Also not in FreeBSD ports :P
• krasin 13y ago
  The "legal" section of the site is confusing. "1. You may only access the service using unmodified Tarsnap client code which I have distributed" -- really? no API and no custom clients?
  • taralx 13y ago
    I imagine that if you want an API you could ask nicely... :-)