diff for duplicates of <4BF23E03.40902@osadl.org>

diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt
index 14f761b..d3c4538 100644
--- a/a/1.txt
+++ b/N1/1.txt
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 On 05/18/2010 08:45 AM, Dmitry Gromov wrote:
 > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 01:07, Wan, Huaxu<huaxu.wan@intel.com>  wrote:
 >> The TjMax of N270 is 90C, according the official documents [1][2].
->> [1] http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id6331&processor=N270&spec-codes=SLB73
+>> [1] http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=36331&processor=N270&spec-codes=SLB73
 >> [2] http://download.intel.com/design/processor/datashts/319977.pdf
 >> Thank you, this is exactly why I'm asking. I think, "guessing" values here
 > can be dangerous - who knows what critical apps they will relied upon.
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ value. I only wanted the temperature reading to be plausible.
 > And 90C seems to be good for N200 series of Atom CPUs only - I could not
 > find TjMax value published for N330 Dual Core  (quite popular one). Intel
 > only published Tcase for it:
-> http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id5641
+> http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=35641
 > So, if for N270 Tcase = TjMax = 90C, then, I'd suggest to use Tcase = 85.2C
 > for N330 TjMax value.
 They have the same CPU model ID:
@@ -28,8 +28,3 @@ I would like to propose to use the patch as it is. It's the best
 version we ever had.
 
 	Carsten.
-
-_______________________________________________
-lm-sensors mailing list
-lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
-http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest
index 83f90ef..c80f958 100644
--- a/a/content_digest
+++ b/N1/content_digest
@@ -5,8 +5,8 @@
  "ref\0625BA99ED14B2D499DC4E29D8138F150181F574C31@shsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com\0"
  "ref\0AANLkTimQnaUvXs75rpTOcW7CODXWgUfzekY9FCDa5S8P@mail.gmail.com\0"
  "From\0Carsten Emde <C.Emde@osadl.org>\0"
- "Subject\0Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH 0/2] hwmon: Update coretemp to current\0"
- "Date\0Tue, 18 May 2010 07:13:07 +0000\0"
+ "Subject\0Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH 0/2] hwmon: Update coretemp to current Intel processors\0"
+ "Date\0Tue, 18 May 2010 09:13:07 +0200\0"
  "To\0Dmitry Gromov <gromovd@gmail.com>\0"
  "Cc\0Wan"
   Huaxu <huaxu.wan@intel.com>
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
  "On 05/18/2010 08:45 AM, Dmitry Gromov wrote:\n"
  "> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 01:07, Wan, Huaxu<huaxu.wan@intel.com>  wrote:\n"
  ">> The TjMax of N270 is 90C, according the official documents [1][2].\n"
- ">> [1] http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id6331&processor=N270&spec-codes=SLB73\n"
+ ">> [1] http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=36331&processor=N270&spec-codes=SLB73\n"
  ">> [2] http://download.intel.com/design/processor/datashts/319977.pdf\n"
  ">> Thank you, this is exactly why I'm asking. I think, \"guessing\" values here\n"
  "> can be dangerous - who knows what critical apps they will relied upon.\n"
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@
  "> And 90C seems to be good for N200 series of Atom CPUs only - I could not\n"
  "> find TjMax value published for N330 Dual Core  (quite popular one). Intel\n"
  "> only published Tcase for it:\n"
- "> http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id5641\n"
+ "> http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=35641\n"
  "> So, if for N270 Tcase = TjMax = 90C, then, I'd suggest to use Tcase = 85.2C\n"
  "> for N330 TjMax value.\n"
  "They have the same CPU model ID:\n"
@@ -44,11 +44,6 @@
  "I would like to propose to use the patch as it is. It's the best\n"
  "version we ever had.\n"
  "\n"
- "\tCarsten.\n"
- "\n"
- "_______________________________________________\n"
- "lm-sensors mailing list\n"
- "lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org\n"
- http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
+ "\tCarsten."
 
-9ff50f0b6d4ec117062c2b0108dd36b9985a460b2c97e0a65a82fd0f6fe5d86a
+b6e23b2b8c43c1d119b90247a4345f1f9b6eab4425877d40e98f7ff0bafa711d
