December 2000 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Signatures and MIME Attachments Getting Out of Hand
by Riad S. Wahby 11 Dec '00

11 Dec '00

"Sean R. Lynch" <seanl(a)literati.org> wrote: > Ummm, Mutt *does* sent the message body as text/plain, and the content-type > of the entire message is multipart/signed. Not sure what you're talking > about here. The content-type of the signature is > application/pgp-signature, which should just be ignored by MUAs that don't > understand RFC2015. That's assuming they recognize multipart/signed as containing parts that can be displayed. The entire problem is that Eudora et al. do not---multipart/signed is unrecognized, so the entire message is treated as unopenable and displayed as an attachment. > And I hope they never add your patch, because people who use broken MUAs > need to suffer, because they're not playing nice with the rest of us. I hope you don't mean this. I don't think there is a Windows MUA that supports RFC2015 at all---are you saying that all Windows users need to suffer? I don't like Windows, but lots of people just can't or don't want to handle anything else. And speaking of not playing nicely, what do you call "...people who use broken MUAs need to suffer..." ? > Thanks, but no thanks, I will *not* break my own MUA to help other people > continue using their own broken MUAs. The Internet is based on standards, > and it's been too long that we've been suffering for those who break the > standards. Witness, for instance, all the pipes that are clogged with > traffic from Windows boxes because they fast start too fast due to their > broken implementations of PGP. I am *sick* and *tired* of people telling > me that I'm somehow sending my messages as attachments when their > content-disposition is inline making them *not* attachments and the > accusors obviously don't have the first clue about MIME works. > > Sorry, I'm just tired, and I want this crap to end. Tim May seems to think > you "acknowledged that we were sending our messages as attachments" and now > considers that carte blanche to filter out RFC2015 messages. He can do > what he likes, but I am upset that he somehow now feels morally justified > doing that due to your harmless little hack. The Internet is based on _suggested_ standards such as RFC2015 (note its disposition---it's not an official standard). No one is forced to comply with them, and those who wish to communicate effectively do their best to use their software in such a way as to be able to do so. It is obvious that you have no wish for the majority of people to be able to read your mail, as you refuse to acknowledge that your messages are not in a format that people support. You hide behind RFC2015, saying "look, I'm following the standard. I must be right." The fact is, there's no "right." It comes down to what you're trying to accomplish. If you're interested in pissing people off and being ignored, then you're doing OK. Otherwise, you might consider backing down on this one. The only thing you're going to acheive is an inability to communicate with the majority of internet users. -- Riad Wahby rsw(a)mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002 5105

1 0

Datamarc- We Buy Surplus
by BuySellHardware＠netscape.net 11 Dec '00

11 Dec '00

1 0

Re: Hettinga does *nothing* but hand-waving, folks...
by R. A. Hettinga 11 Dec '00

11 Dec '00

--- begin forwarded text

1 0

Homeworker
by Mona Singhal 11 Dec '00

11 Dec '00

Dear Sir, I am quite serious in working for you. please send me the details of your work. Thanks. Mona Singhal. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/

1 0

CDR: Sunders point on copyright infringement & HTML
by Jim Choate 11 Dec '00

11 Dec '00

Sunder raises a good point about Netscape (and potentially other software as well) amd forwarding URL's with attached content. Why is the page attached? Because Netscape attaches the page and doesn't offer a way to send only the URL from right click -> send page. There isn't a switch to set default behaviour (and there should be). So, if you got a bitch about your copyright being infringed, take it to Netscape since they wrote the program without a mechanism that prevents users from committing copyright infringement. Of course this opens a perfect opportunity for LEA's to justify setting at least some basic programming guidelines that we'd all have to comply with... As to using HTML, this is 2000 (soon to be 2001). Get used to it. Hell, I might start embedding ANSI VT100 color codes and the occassional ^g. Animated ANSI would be pretty cool too. If I get the time I might even install TurBoard and MGE under an emulation and start including NAPLPS graphics while I'm at it. I don't have words to express the frustration I have with straight ASCII text and doing technical work at times (but that's another issue). ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

13 21

THE NEXT BLACK MUSIC FAZE-OUT // SPORTS & SOCIETY
by urban247 11 Dec '00

11 Dec '00

1 0

Re: Hettinga does *nothing* but hand-waving, folks...
by Somebody 11 Dec '00

11 Dec '00

Note: This is off-list. I don't care if you post it back there, but I don't see the need to take it there. You have said repeatedly: "...and, two, that our social structures map directly to our communication architectures..." I've been doing some thinking about this, and it seems to me that you are about 95% correct in this, you just don't take it far enough. It seems to me that what we think of as society is our communication. Social structures don't just map to the communication infrastructure (architecture, whatever), the communication infrastructure IS the social infrastructure. Society is Communication. Communication is Society. You can't have society without communication. As soon as you have any communication, you include (or are included) in the society of the person you are communicating with--and as soon as the communication is stopped for any length of time you are not apart of it any more. <Somebody's .sig> --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Re: Hettinga does *nothing* but hand-waving, folks...
by Somebody 11 Dec '00

11 Dec '00

Note: This is off-list. I don't care if you post it back there, but I don't see the need to take it there. You have said repeatedly: "...and, two, that our social structures map directly to our communication architectures..." I've been doing some thinking about this, and it seems to me that you are about 95% correct in this, you just don't take it far enough. It seems to me that what we think of as society is our communication. Social structures don't just map to the communication infrastructure (architecture, whatever), the communication infrastructure IS the social infrastructure. Society is Communication. Communication is Society. You can't have society without communication. As soon as you have any communication, you include (or are included) in the society of the person you are communicating with--and as soon as the communication is stopped for any length of time you are not apart of it any more. <Somebody's .sig> --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

10 Million E-Addresses, Stealth Mass Mailer & More.. 19440
by xs24＠netease.com 11 Dec '00

11 Dec '00

1 0

Re: Gates to Privacy Rescue? Riiight!
by Tim May 11 Dec '00

11 Dec '00

[cryptography(a)c2.net removed from the distribution list. They claimed not to want any politics discussion, and they are a closed list, so why is political discussion going to it?] At 11:50 AM -0500 12/8/00, Adam Shostack wrote: >On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 09:07:38AM -0500, R. A. Hettinga wrote: >| >| At 8:30 AM -0500 on 12/8/00, BNA Highlights wrote: >| >| >| > THOUGH TECHNOLOGY MIGHT HELP PRIVACY >| > A meeting of business leaders in Redmond, Washington led to >| > a frank debate over the insufficiency of North American >| > action on consumer privacy and the potential for technology >| > to play a key role in protecting such privacy. For example, >| > Bill Gates announced that the next version of IE would >| > better allow consumers to ascertain Web site privacy >| > policies. >| > http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/08/technology/08SECU.html > >http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/20001207/tc/forrester_exec_injects_security… > >REDMOND, Wash. -- Just a few hours after Bill Gates opened Microsoft >Corp.'s (Nasdaq:MSFT - news) SafeNet 2000 security summit here >Thursday on an optimistic note, Forrester Research Inc.'s (Nasdaq:FORR >- news) John McCarthy blew it all up. I read the article (thanks for the URL). Nothing new, and, in fact, several of the old chestnuts about why regulation is needed. The author also mentions that consumers dislike (so?) tracking of their purchases...and then in the next paragraphs cites the Firestone tire recall as an example of better policy than most Web sites have (or something like this...I re-read his analogy several times and still wasn't sure what his claim was). But the irony of juxtaposing Firestone and "customers dislike tracking" is delicious indeed! It is the existence of customer records--generally voluntarily provided by the customer--that allowed Firestone and Ford to contact hundreds of thousands of Explorer owners. I wonder if the author appreciates the irony here? All of this folderol about laws being needed to control privacy must be fought at every stage. --Tim May -- (This .sig file has not been significantly changed since 1992. As the election debacle unfolds, it is time to prepare a new one. Stay tuned.)

3 5