March 1993 - cypherpunks-legacy

the recent mailing list flames
by hughes 16 Mar '93

16 Mar '93

A word from your list maintainer. Some people have no patience. I was at CFP for three days last week, soda has crashed twice (and is still down as of this writing), I've had house guests. I just this morning finished all the pending list requests. (All the deletions I did yesterday.) One of the two loud complainers, mbrennan(a)netcom.com, had actually doubled subscribed himself to the list. I had already removed him once, so I thought; I had moved him over to the -announce list. Since we don't believe in security by obscurity here, the following will generate a mail bomb for the next time _you_ want to be an asshole: yes "UNSUBSCRIBE ME\!\!\!" | head -30000 The program 'yes' (be repetitively affirmative) goes into an infinite loop printing its argument. When the pipe buffer fills up, the kernal blocks the 'yes' process and invokes 'head', which partially empties the buffer; 'yes' refills it. This goes on until 'head' has seen enough lines and terminates and closes the pipe. Closing the pipe then causes 'yes' to terminate. So even though 'yes' is nominally an infinite loop, when bound to a pipe and to a program which accepts a bounded number of lines, it stops being an infinite loop. I consider this clever. Enjoy, but do not deploy this one. Eric

1 0

PGP 2.2
by ORNTS188＠ksuvxb.kent.edu 16 Mar '93

16 Mar '93

Hello, from reading some of the postings, I gather that there is another list that deals more with just PGP. If so could someone send the address to me. Thanks..... Dan :)

1 0

alternate US site for pgp22
by Pat Farrell 16 Mar '93

16 Mar '93

Hi, Can someone point me to another US FTP site with PGP22. I've downloaded it a couple of times from soda.berkeley.edu, and can't get it unzipped. I've tried all known combinarions of binary, non-binary, etc. The file, once it reaches my PC is 209409 but pkunzip 204g says it is broken. If I use pkzipfix, I can get some of the files, docs, keyserver, etc. but it always fails with a CRC error on or after exploding LANGUAGE.TXT One piece of tech info: I have to FTP to a SUN server, and then use Kermit to bring the file to my PC. This has worked many times for many other files, but there could be some user error in here. Thanks Pat Pat Farrell Grad Student pfarrell(a)cs.gmu.edu Department of Computer Science George Mason University, Fairfax, VA PGP Public key availble via finger #include <standard.disclaimer>

2 1

volunteers and standards
by Al Whaley 16 Mar '93

16 Mar '93

I apologize for sending this broadly for it will not apply to most of you who work with and understand the meaning of standards... If a person sticks his/her neck out to let you volunteer for a desirable event, and you don't hold up your end of the bargain, you can expect your own treatment back in the future. Anyone wanting to receive a scholarship or volunteer for the Computers, Freedom and Privacy '94 conference should please contact George Trubow at g.trubow(a)compmail.com He'll also have a WELL account soon. I suggest that he's not facile with email yet, so you're welcome to copy me with your notes and I'll also make sure he gets them for now. Despite controversy about its cost, it will continue to cost about the same amount next year as this year, with the probable exception of adding student rates (yes, you'll have to be full time at some school/university/college). Thanks. judi -- Al Whaley al(a)sunnyside.com +1-415 322-5411(Tel), -6481 (Fax) Sunnyside Computing, Inc., PO Box 299, Palo Alto, CA 94302

1 0

Community standards for email anonymity
by Marc.Ringuette＠GS80.SP.CS.CMU.EDU 16 Mar '93

16 Mar '93

Good point, Ted, what we're after is some "community standards" for cyberspace, and what I'm suggesting is the fairly libertarian standard that goes like this: Prefer technological solutions and self-protection solutions over rule-making, where they are feasible. This is based on the notion that the more rules there are, the more people will call for the "net police" to enforce them. If we can encourage community standards which emphasize a prudent level of self-protection, then we'll be able to make do with fewer rules and a less intrusive level of policing. Some more specific versions of this: Self-protection Protection via rules --------------- -------------------- "Don't read the newsgroup Forbid all newsgroups which a if it offends you" reasonable person would find offensive. Allow anonymous posting Use software to Forbid all in all newsgroups; use allow anonymity in anonymous posting. information filters. some groups only. Handle volume bombs by Track down volume bombs using digital postage and and disconnect the offender. information filters. Trace harrassing notes to Tell people to just ignore or filter the source. out harrassing material. I guess it's a matter of preference. I wonder if it's asking too much to achieve general agreement among us cypherpunks? -- Marc Ringuette (mnr(a)cs.cmu.edu)

2 1

crypto poem
by gnu＠cygnus.com 16 Mar '93

16 Mar '93

To: rms(a)ai.mit.edu Subject: crypto poem From: pgut1(a)cs.aukuni.ac.nz Date: Sun, 14 Mar 93 15:17:29 -0800 Subject: And now for something completely different... PGP or not PGP (from Hamlet Act III Scene I) -------------- PGP or not PGP - that is the question Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous patents, Or to take arms against a sea of lawyers, And by encrypting end them? To crypt, to sign No more; and by a program to say we end The patents and the export restrictions That RSA is heir to - 'tis a consummation. Devoutly to be wish'd. To crypt, to sign. To crypt - perchance to pem-code: aye, there's the rub! For in that test of wills what lawyers may come When we have shuffled off this PGP business, Must give us pause. There's the respect that makes calamity of such legal restrictions. For who would bear the whips and scorns of Leavenworth Th'patent systems wrong, the export laws worse, The pangs of despis'd lawyers, the NSA's delay, The insolence of Sternlight, and the spurns That patient usage of PGP takes When he himself might his quietus make with PEM? Who would this program bear, To grunt and sweat under a weary system, But that the dread of something after PEM The undiscover'd country, from whose bourne No cryptographer returns -- puzzles the will, And makes us rather bear those ills we have Than fly to others that we know not of? Thus conscience does make cowards of us all, And thus the native hue of resolution Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, And enterprises of great pith and moment With this regard their currents turn awry And lose the name of action. - Apologies to Bill Shakespeare

1 0

We have a verdict. (fwd)
by wixer!pacoid＠cactus.org 16 Mar '93

16 Mar '93

For Lists That Care About Computer Privacy: In case you didn't catch this elsewheres.. I've been covering the SJG vs. SS trial for certain magazines. Hopefully you'll be able to read soon an in-depth, first hand account of the fiasco our paid officials attempted to conduct during the SS trial. The bueno news is that individuals and small companies can actually sue the US Fed govt for privacy violations, and win. Judge Sparks didn't give a whole lot of airplay to the *damages* sustained, but this is an important step forward. The flood gates are opened.. pxn. ---- Forwarded message: > From cs.utexas.edu!tic.com!sjackson(a)cactus.org Sun Mar 14 16:25:06 1993 > Date: Sun, 14 Mar 93 15:05:19 -0600 > From: tic.com!sjackson(a)cactus.org (Steve Jackson) > Message-Id: <9303142105.AA17568(a)aahsa.tic.com> > To: ... > Subject: We have a verdict. > > We won. > > Pete Kennedy, our attorney at George, Donaldson & Ford, called me > with the news about 3:30 today. Apparently the decision came in late > Friday while Pete was at the CFP. > > The judge ruled for us on both the PPA and ECPA, though he says that > taking the computer out the door was not an "interception." (I have not > read the decision yet, so no quotes here.) > > He awarded damages of $1,000 per plaintiff under the ECPA. > > Under the PPA, he awarded SJ Games $42,259 for lost profits in 1990, and > out of pocket costs of $8,781. > > Our attorneys are also entitled to submit a request for their costs. > > No word on appeal yet. > > Look for a more complete and coherent account after we all read > the decision. > > Please copy this announcement to all electronic and other media. > > Thanks for your support through all this!

1 0

soda.berkeley.edu
by Peter shipley 16 Mar '93

16 Mar '93

1 0

PGP: PGP & WAFFLE??
by edgar＠spectrx.Saigon.COM 16 Mar '93

16 Mar '93

The SYSOP of this system posted the following enquiry to me: I've heard that there is a program to allow pgp stuff online with waffle; if you know of such a thing, please point me towards it. I'd like to be able to secure this site for people who want it. I haven't heard of any such program, but if you have, please reply by E-mail to edgar(a)spectrx.saigon.com (Edgar W. Swank) -- edgar(a)spectrx.saigon.com (Edgar W. Swank) SPECTROX SYSTEMS +1.408.252.1005 Silicon Valley, Ca

1 0

Re: Threat of restoring the status quo
by Al Billings 16 Mar '93

16 Mar '93

Forwarded from news.admin.policy where this individual is threatning to set up a cancel message generating script to kill all posts from Julf's Anon Service. In article <C3tzLF.5ou(a)redpoll.neoucom.edu> Richard Depew <red(a)redpoll.neoucom.edu writes: >Hi David, > > I hope you don't mind my changing the title of this thread... I >didn't care for the one you were using: >Re: Threat of mass cancellings was Re: Anonymity is NOT the issue > > Tisk, tisk... you make it sound as if masses of postings are >threatened. Have you *looked* for anonymous postings in the "sci" >hierarchy? There are really very few. Only two, for Friday: ><1993Mar12.010241.2849(a)fuug.fi> ><1993Mar12.061727.9451(a)fuug.fi> > > The best time to put out a fire is while it is still small. :-) > >In article <1nq1f2INNfed(a)flash.pax.tpa.com.au> dclunie(a)pax.tpa.com.au writes: >[...] > >>I presume that cancel messages can be cancelled ... though I haven't >>experimented with this yet, but it looks like I might have to. In fact I >>think I will probably just turn off response to cancel messages totally if >>you go ahead with this scheme, and I encourage other news administrators >>to do the same ... they were a bad kludge in the first place and still are. >>It seems to me they are rarely used for other than controversial purposes >>like you are proposing (I don't like other people's postings so I won't let >>anyone else read them). > > That (disabling cancel messages) would be unfortunate. They have >many legitimate uses. Cancelling inappropriate postings is one of >these legitimate uses. Controversial, sure, but my reason for >activating the Automated Retroactive Minimal Moderation script, if >Julf remains unwilling to accept any compromise, is simply to >demonstrate that the status quo with regards to anonymous postings from >a particular site *can* be effectively enforced. As I have said many >times before, I do *not* object to anonymous postings in newsgroups >that invite them. However, I think it *is* important to demonstrate >that USENET *does* have a defense against a self-styled cyberpunk >who refuses to cooperate with the rest of the net. Whether USENET can >find the *will* to oppose him remains an open question. I simply >intend a brief demonstration of one defense mechanism. > >>I really think you are getting carried away with a non-issue here, and >>inflamming the situation is going to make you extremely unpopular, and >>undoubtedly start a "cancelling war" at the very least. > > The issue of an irresponsible system administrator trying to >impose his anonymous server on readers of thousands of newsgroups is >not a trivial one. My proposal to restore the status quo in a >hierarchy that has protested anonymous postings may not make me >popular with anonymous posters, but I haven't seen a single message >claiming that any sci newsgroup has invited anonymous postings. If >there is to be a "cancelling war", it will be very brief. If I >activate the ARMM script, it will only be for the weekend. > >>No-one has appointed you as the moderator of all the non-alt groups >>retrospectively or otherwise, and no-one is likely to appoint anyone else >>in such a position either. > > You are right, no one has appointed me to the post of >minimal-moderator. It is a volunteer position with, I assure you, >miserable fringe benefits. I will gladly relinquish the position when >the opportunity arises. :-) > >[...] >>> There shouldn't be much controversy over this, but there will be >>> anyhow. :-) >> >>There should be and there will be ... you are way out of line here Richard, >>regardless of how many smileys you tack on the end of your message. > > No. It is Julf who is way out of line here... and has been for >four months, now. He has finally met someone who has gotten fed up >with his silly game, and is willing to call his bluff. > >>I hope you are prepared to take responsibility for what is going to happen >>to your institution's news and mail servers if you go ahead with this plan. > > I hope you didn't mean that the way it reads... as a threat. I >thought you were more responsible than that. Perhaps I am wrong. You >*have* been one of Julf's strongest supporters in this newsgroup, >urging him to ignore the advice of the experienced news administrators >in this group. To date, this has been an argument between, if not >friends, then at least respected opponents. Most of us have the best >interests of the net in mind, agree that anonymous postings have their >place, and agree that cooperative anarchy is a wonderful experiment. >You may not like my "Automated Retroactive Minimal Moderation" script, >but you must at least admit that it is simply an automated version of >moderation - a well-accepted practice in newsgroups that want to keep >an acceptable signal/noise ratio. You may protest that I have >bypassed the usual mechanisms for establishing moderation, and you >would be right. I have brused some USENET traditions while trying to >protect others. However, threats against the integrity of internet >sites are a far more serious matter. I sent a long note to the >system administrators of my feed site, explaining my proposal and >pointing out some of the threats that might affect them. We then >had a long talk. They were, as you might expect, less than thrilled >at my rash proposal, which received a decidedly mixed reception. They >were even less thrilled at the prospect of being the recipient of >denial-of service attacks. They will take any such attacks seriously, >indeed. > >[...] >>I am sure you don't want to become Usenet's next "J Palmer" in terms of >>reputation. (This is reference is becoming a bit like the "who is John Galt ?") > > Glad to see you haven't lost your sense of humor. :-) > >Regards, >Dick >-- >Richard E. Depew, Munroe Falls, OH red(a)redpoll.neoucom.edu >"Leap years are a pain; the earth should be stabilised." - Geoff Collyer > and Mark Moraes in getabsdate.3

1 0