>>1611336 (lb)
that was a misfire, that reply (re_read crumbs) wasn't intended for you. see: >>1611291 (lb)
>SEC Conf will be analyzed.
That's been happening (security confirmation being analyzed/discussed on the board) since the last post may 22, where we were told that the
>Last post was simply for IDEN_reconf.
was regarding pics related.
Sec Conf also regarding the upcoming (scheduled/planned) maintenance?
Lines up for me.