December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Husband/Wife jailed for saying Clinton Sucks
by Elf 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- > From: Rich Graves <rich(a)c2.org> > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: Husband/Wife jailed for saying Clinton Sucks > Date: Wednesday, August 21, 1996 5:12 AM > > On Tue, 20 Aug 1996, Z.B. wrote: > > > Published in Washington, D.C. July 9, 1996 > > Insult to Clinton leads to 2 arrests > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > By Ruth Larson > > THE WASHINGTON TIMES > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > I think you should try a more credible paper. Say, Scientology's Freedom > Magazine, rather than the Moonies'. You are of course free to believe > whatever you wish. > > -rich Actually it very well could of happened. I am ex-Navy and for military peronell it is made clear that anyone military or not that slanders, degrades, or in any way threatens or degrades the President (commander in chief) is subject to arrest, imprissionment and/or fines. Of course this usually doesnt happen cause only the real wacked out Clinton rules gov. employees would enforce this. But you never know!

1 0

SSL: The early days
by pgut001＠cs.auckland.ac.nz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've been trying to find information about the early days of SSL for a paper I'm writing, but I'm finding that someone's comment about the net having a collective memory of about 12 months seems to be true - there doesn't seem to be anything available going back more than a year or so. In particular I'm interested in: - Why/how/when did Netscape decide on SSL? - How long did it take to design the first version? - I've heard a rumour that when it was first presented at a conference, two people independantly broke it before the speaker sat down. Is this true, and what conference was it? The later work on SSL (an open design process, contributions from cryptographers and security experts, IETF standards-track work, etc etc) is well documented, but information on earlier work is hard to find. Does anyone have any pointers to information I could work from? Peter.

1 0

Re: cryptoanalysis 002
by peter.allan＠aeat.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: Scottauge(a)aol.com > Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 18:36:45 -0400 > Subject: cryptoanalysis 002 > For example, if the crypto-alphabet for e is 23, 45, 190, 200, etc, one can > remove some of the frequency for a letter. This definately makes it harder > to attack with the frequency analysis method because the "resolution" of the > distribution for the letter is lessened to a near randomness. (So it looks, > there are still clues, eh?) I think (from memory) this is called "homoalphabetic". Encyclopaedia Brittanica (Cryptology - article by Gus Simmons) says that it is still vulnerable to frequencies of digraphs, trigraphs etc. But even Gauss was keen on it once. I guess it might have value as a part of another system, making a known plaintext into one of many. Whether it's worth the increased cyphertext size in a system you'd hope to be immune to known plaintext attacks anyway is another question. PA

1 0

Anonymous password changed.
by daemon＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You have requested the replacement or assignment of your anonymous password. Your password is now x4anarchy.

1 0

SpamBot
by blane＠aa.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well, with all the other noise in the list lately, I'll add a little of my own. I woke up today to find my mailbox filled with 20 messages from a 'careernetonline.com' offering to spread my resume across the net for $60. It was one of those terrorist spams where they apologize for wasting your time and tell you that you can stop getting spammed by replying to the message. Well, I really hate giving in to terrorists, no matter what form they take. And I'm sick and tired of spam. So, I'm starting a project called SpamBot. You feed it a message and a list of addresses and the bot send the message to those addresses until they reply with an appropriate message indicating that they are at least looking into the problem. Some people may say that this is sinking to their level. So it is, but I think its time that system administrators realized that there are people who don't appreciate being the target for shotgun marketing schemes (none of which have been of any use to me). Watch my webpage for more info on this helpful little bot. Brian ------- <blane(a)aa.net> -------------------- <http://www.aa.net/~blane> ------- "Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice" - B. Goldwater ============== 11 99 3D DB 63 4D 0B 22 15 DC 5A 12 71 DE EE 36 ============

1 0

Asia seen having appetite for Internet banking
by Joseph M. Reagle Jr. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> NEW DELHI, Aug 21 (Reuter) - Asian nations are eager to make >use of the Internet in the field of banking and finance to meet >individual country's needs, a senior official of computer group >Hewlett-Packard Co said on Wednesday. > ``The response through the region is quite phenomenal,'' Jeff >Ayton, the region's director of marketing in the financial >services division of Hewlett-Packard, told Reuters in an >interview. > He said a Hewlett-Packard roadshow he held across the region >revealed a keen interest in the use of Internet in banking and >insurance. Internet experts say customers can use the network to >transact business and banks can improve communications and >customer service with its help. > ``I don't think any Asian country wants to be left behind,'' >he said, but added that the exact level of sophistication in the >demand generated would depend on customer needs and >infrastructure facilities in each nation. > With even rural areas now linked via satellites, there is a >big potential for Internet-linked business in huge emerging >markets, he said. > ``Satellite technology is what will help in countries like >China and India,'' he said, referring to their own satellite >launch programmes. > Ayton said he had found interest in using the Internet in >banking in the Philippines, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Thailand, >Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea. > Hewlett-Packard officials say that countries like India >could leapfrog in computer networking technology because they >have not yet invested huge amounts in computer infrastructure. > Ayton said he was scheduled to meet Indian banking officials >next week to discuss Internet-related possibilities in the >field. > Kapi Attawar, a senior Hewlett-Packard official dealing with >emerging markets, said his company saw particular potential for >the ``Intranet''. The latter enables local networks within >companies to be linked to the worldwide information highway. > Many Indian companies already had local computing networks >using basic data transmission facilities which may be used to >hook on to Internet, Attawar said. > > > _______________________ Regards, Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm. -Ralph Waldo Emerson Joseph Reagle http://rpcp.mit.edu/~reagle/home.html reagle(a)mit.edu E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E

1 0

Re: Republican and Democratic party platforms on technology
by declan＠well.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dole's cosponsorship of Pro-CODE was a way to land some California votes and a way to differentiate himself from Clinton, nothing more. A statement he released on May 2 bashed the White House: "The administration apparently thinks very little of the right to privacy -- it presumes the government is entitled to all the so-called 'keys' or secret passwords which protect computer generate [sic] information from prying yes..." I predict that if he were to win, we'd see the fastest policy turnaround ever. The moment he was inaugurated, Dole would pick up where Clinton left off. Clipper IV, here we come... But the benefit of having a pro-privacy statement in the platform (which in fact was watered down significantly from that originally proposed by advocates on our side) is that the platform covers Republican Party candidates for any office, not just the presidency. I'm told that the a Dem convention speaker may talk about privacy issues, however. -Declan Tim writes, quoting me: >Sure, the rhetoric might be slightly different under a Dole presidency. The >focus would be on "halting the spread of abortion information on the Net" >and "plotting by Communists using unbreakable cryptography." > >>(Contrast both parties with the Libertarians, which have a sterling >>commitment to online civil liberties, reflected in the platform approved at >>their convention last month.) > >I certainly plan to vote for Harry Browne, their candidate, even if voting >only encourages the process. > >I first read Browne's stuff back in 1973, and, a few years later, his >wonderful and "Zen Calvinist" (my term) book, "How I Found Freedom in an >Unfree World," which I still recommend to people. As far as I'm concerned, >Browne is the strongest candidate ever fielded by the Libertarian Party.

3 3

Court rules faxes are not binding
by Joseph M. Reagle Jr. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> CINCINNATI, Aug. 21 (UPI) -- A federal appellate court in Cincinnati >ruled this week that faxes are not necessarily legally binding if the >receiving party does not know the communication is coming. > The case stemmed from a 1991-92 strike by 200 Clow Water System Co. >workers who were represented by the United Steelworkers. > The court ruled the Coshocton company, a division of McWane Inc., did >not violate federal labor law when it hired replacement workers after >the union transmitted an unconditional fax offer to return to work in >February 1992. > The union sent its offer by fax at 4:35 p.m. on a Friday, 25 minutes >before the plant closed for the day. The intended recipient claimed he >checked for any communications at 4:30, and when he saw there weren't >any, went home. > On Saturday, Clow hired 80 replacement workers. > The National Labor Relations Board later held that actual knowledge >of the fax was not required. The board said the parties had communicated >by facsimile during their negotiations, and that the facsimile was sent >and received. > But the appellate court said the union had sent only four facsimile >transmissions during 13 months of negotiations. > ``All of these facsimiles contained contract proposals -- a >communication intended to be examined and considered, not a >communication having legal import in and of itself,'' the court said, >ordering the NLRB ruling against Clow must be re-evaluated. > The court said facsimile and electronic mail are becoming >increasingly common forms of business communication, however, both >parties must agree to the use of such media and must be notified when >messages are sent. > ``The critical part of this case is that (the fax) was sent only 25 >minutes before the plant closed,'' David Peck, a lawyer with Taft, >Stettinius & Hollister, the law firm that represented Clow, told United >Press International Wednesday. ``Normal courtesy is to call first and >again after to confirm that a fax has been received.'' > The union claimed Clow committed an unfair labor practice by >permanently replacing economic strikers after the union made an >unconditional offer, as required by federal law, to return to work. > But the court said the fax transmission itself wasn't the issue. > ``The key to this case is simply fair notice,'' the court said in its >decision. ``If the parties did not agree to the method of communication >utilized, and if there is no pattern of conduct reflecting acquiescence >to the method of communication utilized, we will not impute notice of >the communication to the recipient. > ``Communication by facsimile has simplified and streamlined the way >in which business in conducted in this country,'' the court added. >``This technological advance provides a valuable service and benefit, >and our holding should not be taken as an indication that parties should >not use facsimiles to conduct their affairs.'' >-- > C O P Y R I G H T * R E M I N D E R > > This article is Copyright 1996 by United Press International. > All articles in the clari.* news hierarchy are Copyrighted and licenced >to ClariNet Communications Corp. for distribution. Except for articles >in the biz.clarinet.sample newsgroup, only paid subscribers may access >these articles. Any unauthorized access, reproduction or transmission >is strictly prohibited. > We offer a reward to the person who first provides us with >information that helps stop those who distribute or receive our news >feeds without authorization. Please send reports to reward(a)clari.net. >[Use info(a)clari.net for sales or other inquiries.] > > Details on use of ClariNet material and other info can be found in >the user documentation section of our web page: <http://www.clari.net>. >You can also read ClariNet news from your Web browser. > > > _______________________ Regards, Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm. -Ralph Waldo Emerson Joseph Reagle http://rpcp.mit.edu/~reagle/home.html reagle(a)mit.edu E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E

1 0

Re: Canada Imprisons People For Human Rights Activity
by koontz＠netapp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>OK, so what would happen if I organized a party with the proclaimed goal >of secession of Oklahoma from the United States? You'd be overwhelmed with contributions?

1 0

U.S. Army Private Faces Spying Charges
by Thomas C. Allard 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

source: http://www.yahoo.com/headlines/960821/news/stories/spy_1.html U.S. Army Private Faces Spying Charges WASHINGTON (Reuter) - The U.S. Army said Wednesday it had charged a 20-year-old computer specialist with espionage and computer crimes in a case that the soldier's parents said involved a Chinese national. Pfc. Eric Jenott of the 50th Signal Battalion at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, was formally charged June 28 and is in a Marine Corps jail in Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, awaiting court-martial, the army said. ``The case involves classified information and matters pertaining to national security,'' a three-paragraph statement from Fort Bragg, home of the Army's 18th Airborne Corps, said. It said many of the case's details were too sensitive to disclose. Jenott has been charged with giving ``secret computer passwords relating to the national defense'' to a Mr. Lee, ``a citizen of a foreign nation,'' his lawyer said, reading from the charge sheet. He also faces charges of destruction of government property and larceny. The charge sheet alleged Jenott disclosed the passwords between April and June ``with the intent or reason to believe it would be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation.'' It said the passwords ``directly concerned communications intelligence,'' among the most closely guarded U.S. secrets. Jenott is facing a general court-martial, the most serious kind, and a possible life sentence if convicted, his lawyer, Timothy Dunn, of Fayetteville, North Carolina, said in a telephone interview. He said his client was ``not a criminal'' but had broken into a supposedly impenetrable system after advising his superiors of defects in the security system. Dunn declined to discuss the system because of what he called the case's sensitive nature and national security implications. John Jenott said his son, a fluent Chinese speaker whom he described as a ``computer genius'' with a longstanding interest in China, had given a young Chinese friend what the son described as an unclassified computer code. He said his son knew the person to whom he gave the code from one of several trips he had made to China. His son, ``not your average kid-out-on-a-skateboard-type guy,'' could read and write Chinese and lived with a Chinese family in Vancouver, Canada, for about a year when he was in high school, the father added. He said his son told him that before giving away the code, he had been trying to show his superiors a security flaw in a sensitive communication system and eventually demonstrated he could get secret data without authorization. ``He was trying to say we have a weakness,'' John Jenott said in a telephone interview from his home in Graham, Washington. ``This stuff about being a spy -- it's ridiculous.'' His stepmother, Kelly Jenott, said, ``They're blowing this way out of proportion.'' His father said an Army major at Fort Bragg, whom he declined to name, had urged him to persuade his son to sign a confession, so prosecutors would not seek the death penalty. Jenott said his son had told him, ``Dad, I'd rather die than sign that.'' ``He said it's not true. He said, 'I'm not a spy. I didn't commit espionage. And I'm not going to sign something that says I did,''' Jenott said. -30- rgds-- TA (tallard(a)frb.gov) I don't speak for the Federal Reserve Board, it doesn't speak for me. pgp fingerprint: 10 49 F5 24 F1 D9 A7 D6 DE 14 25 C8 C0 E2 57 9D

2 1

"Freedom on Trial," from October 1996 Playboy
by declan＠well.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Some excerpts follow. Pick up the October issue for the full article. --Declan] Playboy, October 1996 "Freedom on Trial: how the communications decency act played in court" By Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) Day 1 (March 21) In the shadow of the Liberty Bell in downtown Philadelphia, the future of online liberty is being decided. A panel of federal judges has gathered to hear a challenge to the Communications Decency Act, which bans "indecent" or "patently offensive" material from being transmitted or displayed online where minors might access it. That means just about anywhere online. [...] Day 2 (March 22) A key witness today is Robert Croneberger of the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh. The judges are pleased with his description of the Internet as a library -- finally, someone who isn't using technobabble. Croneberger testifies about the difficulties and expense of implementing the CDA, noting that his library would have to hire 180 people to review and censor the 2 million listings in its catalog. Russotto, the government lawyer, is skeptical. During her cross-exam, she tries to make the case that the job wouldn't be so difficult as Croneberger portrays it. Q: Can you do a keyword search through your catalog for words related to sex or for the seven dirty words [to find material to restrict]? A: It depends. Q: But a keyword search on sex wouldn't turn up books about physics, would it? A: I doubt it. Q: And a search on sex isn't going to turn up books about gardening? A: Obviously plants proliferate and flowers grow, but it depends on the words you're using. Q: Would a search on sex turn up a biography of Abraham Lincoln? A: I've read many articles about his supposed sex life, or lack thereof. Q: Would a search on sex turn up any books about geology? A: Only if "rock" is put together with "roll." Croneberger's point is subtle but clear. Sex can't be taken out of a library any more easily than it can be separated from life. [...] Day 4 (April 12) The government witnesses take the stand. First up is Howard Schmidt, an Air Force special agent who says he has conducted 30 to 50 investigations of online porn. The judges are growing weary of demonstrations and sex, so when Schmidt offers to download provocative images from Usenet groups, the panel asks for G-rated animals instead. After the second or third waterfowl image, Judge Sloviter rules, "I think we've seen enough ducks." [...] Beyond its sheer stupidity, [Carnegie Mellon University computer scientist Dan Olsen's -L18 self-labelling scheme] seems to be built with prudery rather than technology. During cross-examination, the judges didn't appear to take him seriously: Q: If you thought about posting a centerfold from Playboy, would you think the image might be indecent or patently offensive for persons under 18? A; If we consider the local community that consists of Dan, Dan would be offended. Q: And how about the seven dirty words. A: Dan would be offended. Judge Buckwalter: Who's Dan? Judge Sloviter: Yes, who's Dan? A: That's me. I'm sorry. Judge Dalzell: Oh, he's the community. He is an expert on what would offend him. A: It's a relatively small community, but it's the one I know best. Buckwalter: I thought Dan was an acronym. A moment later, our lawyers show Olsen a list of Internet addresses and ask if they appear to be porn sites deserving of unsuitable-for-children tags. He hesitates, then says, "I don't know, but I wouldn't go there." Looking over the list, Judge Dalzell adds the punch line. "Chick of the Day could be poultry," he suggests. "You really are in for ducks and poultry," says Judge Sloviter. "It's a leitmotif." Bruce Ennis, counsel for the ALA, asks Olsen how content providers would verify the ages of those who visit their sites. Olsen stammers a bit and then hits on an idea. Ask the Social Security Administration! It keeps records of such things. Big Brother couldn't have said it better. Day 5 (April 15) The government has a tough road ahead. It has to convince three skeptical judges that enforcing the CDA would not become a boondoggle. Olsen, at least, believes it can be done. When asked if his rating system would slow the growth of the Net, he quickly responds, "Absolutely not!" But everyone in the courtroom seems to feel Olsen is being a weasel. Judge Dalzell, the most Net-savvy judge and the only one with young kids (I'm guessing the two are related), helps pin the inventor down. "Assume a chat group -- say, students from 13 to 18 -- is talking about the CDA. In the course of the chat, an 18-year-old is exasperated and types in 'Fuck the CDA.' Is it your proposal that before he types the message, he should tag it -L18?" Dalzell is paraphrasing Cohen v. California, a First Amendment case in which the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a teenager who wore a jacket that read "Fuck The Draft." Some of Dalzell's other questions were equally astute. "If in one issue of The Economist the word 'fuck' appears," he asks Olsen, "the library putting it online would have to go through the entire issue?" "Somebody would have to make that judgement," Olsen replies. He suggests that librarians band together to censor material. He insists his plan is "flexible." To that, Bruce Ennis reponds testily, "Is it flexible if you, the librarian, risk going to jail for two years if you make the wrong judgment and put material online that is found to be patently offensive for a minor?" [...] Sloviter isn't finished. After Olsen claims that a voluntary rating system developed at MIT is unfeasible because it will "slow the flow" online, she asks how an adult could show -L18 tagged materials to a mature teenager. Olsen replies that a "teacher or parent could log on." "Wouldn't that slow the flow?" the judge asks. Flustered, Olsen suddenly discharges a series of staccato high-pitched giggles. It's the damnedest thing that I have ever heard -- it sounds like a rabbit being tortured to death. The galley stares in horror. Thus ends the testimony of our best witness -- and we didn't even call him to the stand. Day 6 (May 10) During closing arguments, Justice attorney Tony Coppolino dances around providing a legal definition for indecency. He hints that it would include only hard-core porn but concedes the government can't guarantee that an ambitious prosecutor somewhere wouldn't take on an absurd case. Judge Sloviter is growing impatient: "I've been taking the position for 17 years that people should know what they can be prosecuted for," she says "I still don't understand" what indecency means under the CDA. "We've been trying to get at this for 40 minutes," grumbles Judge Dalzell. [...] EPILOGUE We have won -- for now. The government's appeal will reach the Supreme Court during the next few months. If the Court upholds the lower court decision, outraged right-wing groups will demand action. Congress will spring to attention. Bills will be drawn up, campaign funds raised, and porn once again waved in the Senate chamber. Censorship is often championed by adults who want to protect children from a world the adults do not understand. During the hearing, Judge Buckwalter raised this issue while discussing the computer gap between parents and children that helps fuel fears of online dangers. "In another generation that will fade from the picture, don't you think?" he asked. Archaic restrictions over what we can share online, however, may not. ###

1 0

Re: RC4 RC2 & MD5???
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:58 PM 8/21/96 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: >I assume then that the Netscape encryption is Symetric Key, so how do >RC4 RC2 and MD5 compare and contast? TIA RC2 and RC4 are both both variable key length cyphers developed by Ron Rivest for RSA Data Security Inc. They were both protected by trade secret, but both have been reverse engineered and posted to the net. Both of them have fast-path export approval if their key length is 40 bits or less. MD5 (Message Digest 5) is not a cypher but a secure hash. If takes an input of variable length and computes a 128 bit hash. Recently some weaknesses have been found in MD5 leading to the recomendation that new applications be coded to use SHA1 instead. As a note: Any good secure hash can be used as a symetric key cypher. Usually doing so involves considerably more computation than a symetric cypher of equal strength. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Cave ab homine unius lebri | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | [Beware the man of one | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | book] - Anonymous Latin | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

DOJ Scam!
by Vipul Ved Prakash 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Vipul wrote : > >I think its a DOJ's doing. They prolly want to show the courts how > >bad hackers can get so they can conjure up some support in forthcomming > >trials. C'mon the sysadmins aren't fools, they surely see their own site. Dungeon Master wrote: > this is a very highly possible conclusion... and I wouldn't go against it. > I the traditional since.. r00ts know there shit... and if the operator(s) of > DOJ didn't know how firewall down the country's own Justice web page.. then > we have some serious measures to be taken on lack of education in there > part.. and furthermore they would have portrayed it as lack of security > there and point the theoretical finger at the site admin.. but no, it > didn't happen. folks, I think its a scam... not only for these reasons... > but just look at the material that was altered... I am sorry.. but speaking > from some exp. here... if I had access to some place like that.. I wouldn't > have bothered de-facing what the public sees... I would rather have gone to > a more effective means of sabotage.. to the root of the system.. to data > storage and records.. the real hackers out there are the ones who don't > make themselves known. And particular thing to note is that *indecency*. - Vipul vipul(a)pobox.com

1 0

RFC1984 on Cryptographic Technology (fwd)
by Mark Rogaski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

An entity claiming to be RFC Editor wrote: >From majordom(a)ISI.EDU Thu Aug 22 13:27 EDT 1996 Message-Id: <199608201538.AA03394(a)zephyr.isi.edu> To: rfc-dist(a)ISI.EDU Subject: RFC1984 on Cryptographic Technology Cc: rfc-ed(a)ISI.EDU Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 20 Aug 96 08:40:50 PDT From: RFC Editor <rfc-ed(a)ISI.EDU> Sender: owner-rfc-dist(a)ISI.EDU Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary=NextPart Content-Length: 3011 --NextPart A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 1984: Title: IAB and IESG Statement on Cryptographic Technology and the Internet Author: IAB & IESG Date: August 1996 Mailbox: brian(a)dxcoms.cern.ch, fred(a)cisco.com Pages: 5 Characters: 10,738 Updates/Obsoletes: none URL: ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc1984.txt The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), the bodies which oversee architecture and standards for the Internet, are concerned by the need for increased protection of international commercial transactions on the Internet, and by the need to offer all Internet users an adequate degree of privacy. Security mechanisms being developed in the Internet Engineering Task Force to meet these needs require and depend on the international use of adequate cryptographic technology. Ready access to such technology is therefore a key factor in the future growth of the Internet as a motor for international commerce and communication. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list. Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list should be sent to IETF-REQUEST(a)CNRI.RESTON.VA.US. Requests to be added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST(a)ISI.EDU. Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending an EMAIL message to rfc-info(a)ISI.EDU with the message body help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example: To: rfc-info(a)ISI.EDU Subject: getting rfcs help: ways_to_get_rfcs Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to admin(a)DS.INTERNIC.NET. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to RFC-EDITOR(a)ISI.EDU. Please consult RFC 1543, Instructions to RFC Authors, for further information. Joyce K. Reynolds USC/Information Sciences Institute ... Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant Mail Reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the RFCs. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv(a)ds.internic.net" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <960820082910.RFC(a)ISI.EDU> SEND /rfc/rfc1984.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="rfc1984.txt"; site="ds.internic.net"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="rfc" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <960820082910.RFC(a)ISI.EDU> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- -- Mark Rogaski | Why read when you can just sit and | Member GTI System Admin | stare at things? | Programmers Local wendigo(a)gti.net | Any expressed opinions are my own | # 0xfffe wendigo(a)pobox.com | unless they can get me in trouble. | APL-CPIO

1 0

Re: Husband/Wife jailed for saying Clinton Sucks
by pjb＠ny.ubs.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jimmy carter proved that we anyone could be president, and it looks like clinton is proving that we don't really need a president. -paul > From cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com Thu Aug 22 03:09:20 1996 > X-Sender: jimbell(a)mail.pacifier.com > X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type> : > text/plain> ; > charset="us-ascii"> > Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 14:36:23 -0800 > To: Brian Davis <bdavis(a)thepoint.net> > From: jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> > Subject: Re: Husband/Wife jailed for saying Clinton Sucks > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Content-Length: 1492 > > At 02:47 PM 8/21/96 -0400, Brian Davis wrote: > >On Tue, 20 Aug 1996 Scottauge(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> Rush Limbaugh reports: > >> > >> That a husband and wife are being jailed for yelling to Clinton "You Suck". > >> > >> The Secret Service states additional words (yet un-uttered to the rest of > us) > >> were mentioned that they deemed threatening. > > > > > >"I hope you die." > > Doesn't sound much like a "threat" to me. > > > And the couple was arrestd for disorderly conduct by > >Chicago police. > > It sounds to me like the Chicops were just showing their "loyalty" by > sitting on somebody, not that they believed any real crime had been committed. > > > Any possible federal charges for threatening a president > >in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 871 await a determination of the > >seriousness of the statement, in context with the wife's conduct, by > >prosecutors. I predict no action. > > But it isn't even a "threat", regardless of how "serious" it was. The "I > hope you die" part is, presumably, a statement of fact: She did, indeed, > hope he dies. But I don't see how hoping this can be considered a threat, > or even SAYING she's hoping this is, likewise. > > > Makes me wonder whether visiting one of these appearances with a "Clinton > Doll" and a bunch of pins, and visibly inserting those pins into the doll > (while uttering various strange incantations), would constitute a "threat." > > Frankly, I'd rather have a president who didn't feel the need to be > protected by thugs. > > Jim Bell > jimbell(a)pacifier.com >

1 0

Re: [Noise] RE: Canada Imprisons People For Human Rights Acti...
by pjb＠ny.ubs.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

as i recall, you are free to advocate almost anything, as long as you don't advocate it by violent means. -paul > From cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com Thu Aug 22 03:09:01 1996 > Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 14:58:32 -0700 (PDT) > From: Michelle KC5KYO <mthompso(a)qualcomm.com> > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: [Noise] RE: Canada Imprisons People For Human Rights Acti... > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type> : > TEXT/PLAIN> ; > charset=US-ASCII> > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Content-Length: 1141 > > > I do not believe that freedom of speech in the U.S.A. extends to actively > > agitating for secession or the overthrow of the federal government. > > The right to discuss revolt or secession or the overthrow of the federal > government, it seems to me, is given below: > > "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created > equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable > Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of > Happiness - That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted > among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the > Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of > these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, > and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such > Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall > seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ... " > > Now this is the Declaration of Independence, and not the Constitution, but > it seems to me that the right to discuss "agitating for secession or the > overthrow of the federal government" is protected. > > Michelle > >

1 0

Re: Husband/Wife jailed for saying Clinton Sucks
by pjb＠ny.ubs.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

perhaps we should all add a line to our sigs to the effect that we hope he dies, and soon, natural causes, of course. Hmmm, what exactly does 'natural death' include? -paul > From cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com Wed Aug 21 18:31:29 1996 > Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 14:47:57 -0400 (EDT) > From: Brian Davis <bdavis(a)thepoint.net> > To: Scottauge(a)aol.com > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: Husband/Wife jailed for saying Clinton Sucks > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type> : > TEXT/PLAIN> ; > charset=US-ASCII> > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Content-Length: 661 > > On Tue, 20 Aug 1996 Scottauge(a)aol.com wrote: > > > Rush Limbaugh reports: > > > > That a husband and wife are being jailed for yelling to Clinton "You Suck". > > > > The Secret Service states additional words (yet un-uttered to the rest of us) > > were mentioned that they deemed threatening. > > > "I hope you die." And the couple was arrestd for disorderly conduct by > Chicago police. Any possible federal charges for threatening a president > in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 871 await a determination of the > seriousness of the statement, in context with the wife's conduct, by > prosecutors. I predict no action. > > EBD > > > > > Ahhh, good to live in a free country.... > > >

3 2

Re: HP supporting GAK, export controls
by pjb＠ny.ubs.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

HP seems to have outlived their usefulness. sad, isn't it, when a really first class operation has to die. and to go out in such a ignoble way. the `ole boys' must not be resting well in their graves. -paul > From cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com Wed Aug 21 18:31:33 1996 > Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 14:11:34 -0700 (PDT) > From: Lucky Green <shamrock(a)netcom.com> > Subject: HP supporting GAK, export controls > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type> : > TEXT/PLAIN> ; > charset=US-ASCII> > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Content-Length: 1394 > > [Sorry, the last one went out without a subject] > > HP is in the process of ramroding a pro-GAK, pro-export control > resolution through CommerceNet's public policy working group. > > Here are the details. > > HP is marketing several DES products that currently can not be sold > abroad. In order to be allowed to sell these products, HP is willing to > give the USG the following in return: > > > 1. Support by CommerceNet to have GAK built into the (inevitable) > domestic PKI. [Their presentation included the word "voluntary". When I > asked what was meant by that, I got the reply "There are many > interpretations of the word "voluntary"." Suffice to say there are > fundamental differences in what I mean by "voluntary" and what their > proposal would require the definition of "voluntary" to be.] > > 2. Support by CommerceNet for export restrictions on stronger forms of > crypto than DES as well as restrictions on export of crypto for products > not directly related (in HP's opinion) to ecommerce, such as email. > > This ill conceived attempt to use CommerceNet's clout as industry > organization to liberalize export rules on HP's products, and those of a > few other companies supporting HP in this effort, at a heavy cost to > everybody else, must be stopped. Please let HP know how you feel about > their initiative and encourage CommerceNet to adopt an anti-GAK, > anti-export control position. > > --Lucky > > > >

1 0

[NOISE] Mysterious Numbers in Hacked DOJ Pages
by Mark O. Aldrich 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This should be good for a conspiracy thread or two: I've noticed that nobody seems to be taking credit for the DOJ hack. In studying the hacked page (I thought maybe they'd leave a clue as to who they were), I noticed that on the top right corner of the page, there are two sets of numbers. The first says "1020" and the second says "757." The are stored in the same .JPG file, 1020757.jpg. In poking around the HTML source, the following appears in the source code, but not on the actual page when it's in a browser (HTML source comments): <! Why did you betray us? Why are you taking our rights? What ever happened > <! to the law of the land? 757 1020 > Note that this time, the numbers are in the reverse order. (Also note that 202.757.1020 does not appear to be the DOJ phone number - I tried). For all I know, these numbers are relevant to the CDA or some other legal/legislative source. Or maybe I'm missing something really obvious. Anyone have any insight into what the numbers actually mean? Could there be some crypto (key?) relevance here that we're missing? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Just as the strength of the Internet is |Mark Aldrich | |chaos, so the strength of our liberty |GRCI INFOSEC Engineering | |depends upon the chaos and cacophony of |maldrich(a)grci.com | |the unfettered speech the First Amendment|MAldrich(a)dockmaster.ncsc.mil | |protects - District Judge Stewart Dalzell| | |_______________________________________________________________________| |The author is PGP Empowered. Public key at: finger maldrich(a)grci.com | | The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author | | and my employer gets no credit for them whatsoever. | -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: Spamming
by John Deters 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:55 PM 8/22/96 +0000, Vipul Ved Prakash wrote: >> >> At 06:09 PM 8/20/96 -0700, Rich Graves wrote: [deleted] >> 1. Junkmail requires the SENDER to pay for it, not the recipient. > Internet pricing models are complicated and debatable, but you surely > end up paying for snail-junk-mail. Not directly, but hidden in the high > first-class mail costs. More mail, more infrastructure, higher costs. > This could be quite true for the net also, if we consider bandwidth costs > money. I beg to differ. The USPS considers "junk" mail their bread-and-butter. Huge mailings of all manner of bulk mail (especially those that are PostNet barcoded by the sender) pay the bills around the Post Office. Your "more mail, more infrastructure, higher costs" argument is flawed. The post office has many fixed costs related to maintaining their huge presence, delivering to so many rural addresses. If we had to pay a per-letter basis *discounting* the value provided by the infrastructure already in place supporting the bulk-mail handling systems, we'd be paying roughly Federal Express 2-day letter rates for each piece of mail (around $6.00, if memory serves correctly.) I do not say this to begin yet another "Privatize the USPS" rant. I also am not interested in whether or not the USPS should be privatized, have its criminal law protctions stripped, or even if the postmaster general should report our stamp purchasing habits to Janet Reno. All I'm saying is that the above statement ("junk mail = higher costs") is false. John -- J. Deters "Captain's log, stardate 25970-point-5. I am nailed to the hull." +-------------------------------------------------------+ | NET: jad(a)dsddhc.com (work) jad(a)pclink.com (home) | | PSTN: 1 612 375 3116 (work) 1 612 894 8507 (home) | | ICBM: 44^58'36"N by 93^16'27"W Elev. ~=290m (work) | | PGP Key ID: 768 / 15FFA875 | +-------------------------------------------------------+

3 2

Re: Spamming
by mccoy＠communities.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

vipul(a)pobox.com wrote: > > At 06:09 PM 8/20/96 -0700, Rich Graves wrote: > <Snip> > > No. I think we can all (most) agree that spam-email is like junk-snailmail. > > In that case there are a few things to consider: > > > > 1. Junkmail requires the SENDER to pay for it, not the recipient. > > Internet pricing models are complicated and debatable, but you surely > end up paying for snail-junk-mail. Not directly, but hidden in the high > first-class mail costs. More mail, more infrastructure, higher costs. > This could be quite true for the net also, if we consider bandwidth costs > money. Actually I believe that without "junk mail" costs for regular postage would probably be higher: less mail = fewer packages over which to amortize the cost of building the infrastructure necessary for ubiquitous messaging. Direct-mail organizations get a lower rate by doing a lot of the expensive parts of post office work themselves (pre-sorting the mail by zip code, barcoding messages, etc) and not necessrily just based upon volume. For all the bitching Americans do about the high cost of first-class mail it is still the least expensive of any western nation and offers fairly good service (and the USPS actually made a profit for the last two years so it is unlikely that the cost will go up for a while...) jim

1 0

Re: Spamming
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:55 PM 8/22/96, Vipul Ved Prakash wrote: >> > > Internet pricing models are complicated and debatable, but you surely > end up paying for snail-junk-mail. Not directly, but hidden in the high > first-class mail costs. More mail, more infrastructure, higher costs. Actually, precisely the opposite is true, according to a number of studies. "Bulk mail" is a major profit center for the Postal Service, thus subsidizing non-bulk /first class mail. -- Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: telco's vs x-phones
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:32 PM 8/21/96 -0400, John Brothers wrote: > >I think you both have good points here. I will redo the math. > >At 09:19 AM 8/21/96 -0700, Brian D Williams <talon57(a)well.com> wrote: >>In a reply to Vipul Ved Prakash, Jim Bell wrote: >>Siecore plain vanilla 36 fiber singlemode list $ 1.82 a foot, $5.46 >>a yard. > >Jim said $10/meter, so about 50% of his estimate. > > >> >>>Each fiber pair should be able to handle approximately 1 million >>>conversations at current data rates, or a total of 18 million >>>conversations for that 18-pair cable, or 9.5 trillion >>>conversation-minutes. >> >>At current data rates (OC-48 Sonet) 32,256 voice channels per >>fiber, 580,608 total for the fiber. > >Ok.. I think we're talking apples and oranges. Jim uses the term conversation, >which I assume is a 3 minute duration of time. Your OC-48 handles almost >precisely 1 million conversations per day. (32k DS0 x 24 * 60 * 20) My error was being off a deciminal point. I was thinking around 6.4 gigabits per second, which works out to 100,000 channels at 64,000 bits per second per channel, not 1 million. However, even my selection of 6.4 gigabits per second is arbitrary: I have seen at least two ads for 80 gigabit (8 channels/fiber at 10 gigabits per channel) for fiber optic systems. But my goal is not to make fiber look unrealistically good, but to generate a ballpark figure. >>>Multiply this cost by 10 for right of way, trenching, repeaters, >>>and other auxiliary hardware, or $100 per meter. This is probably >>>just a ballpark estimate, but... >> >>Off by a factor of at least 10 not counting switching equipment. > >So, assume that he's a long haul carrier, and doesn't have to buy any >switching equipment. Still, based on $500/meter, that means >that this network cost about 2.5 billion to build. Even long-haul carriers must have SOME switching equipment. But as you note, my point is that the difference between local and LD costs is simply the fact of the insertion of some arbitrarily large amount of fiber trunk between the local switches. LD companies still deserve to be paid, but the AMOUNT that they are paid maybe should drop to an arbitrarily low level as their costs drop. >So if the system was running at full capacity, 24/7/365, the LD will have >to charge $0.50/conversation, or $0.15/minute to make 2.5 billion per year. > >Even reaching 10% of that capacity is unlikely at $5/conversation. > >Which, clearly, isn't happening. I assume that either I have made a >mistake in my calculations, or the costs of laying fiber has been >grossly overestimated... Yes, I think the costs laying fiber are still a bit opaque. The main reason one of the first alternative telephone LD services (Sprint) was that it was the creature of Southern Pacific Railways, who (obviously) owned a large amount of (ta da!) RIGHT-OF-WAY. And, more particularly, right of way that was well-connected, easily accessible, and easily diggable to install the fiber. They decided they were going to put in a fiber communications system for the railroad, and at some (early?) point realized that since the cost of the trenching and fiber is basically fixed, so turning it into an LD service was going to be relatively straightforward. >Or, that since no-one is going around and buying >up 5000km right of ways, Sprint, MCI, AT&T and co. can lay fiber >much more cheaply. If we assume $50/meter, it will cost 250 million, and they >will have to charge $0.015/minute to break even at 100% capacity, or >$0.15/minute at 10% capacity - and we know Sprint charges less than that, >but if they can get more than 10% of the capacity --- although it is doubtful. (I think you still need to go back and re-check some of your figures. Yes, I did make that decimal point error, but I think you've added a few (different) errors of your own.) Now, keep in mind that a little perusing of these numbers (even if they are not exact) reveals an few interesting facts: The cost of doing the right-of-way/trenching is essentially independant of the number of fibers that you intend to lay. Moreover, the cost of the fiber itself is very low. In other words, everything being equal, you want to pack as many fibers into a trench as you can. Add to this, the fact that you can provide a way for fiber in a buried conduit, and later (years?) blow in new fiber. The line I saw installed, "up close and personal," had three separate ways for cable, and the one cable being installed immediately was 36 fibers. Had two similar fibers been installed in the other ways, that's 108 fibers, and at 2.4 gigabits per second, that's about 54x40,000 simultaneous bidirectional conversations, or 2.16 million. There are probably very few communications corridors that need more capacity than this. The obvious limit of this is that there is only a fairly limited demand for bit transmission (at least, compared with the capacities possible with fiber). In addition is the fact that once you have modern-quality fiber installed, you can increase capacity by changing the optics/electronics. It wasn't too many years ago that 400 (?) megabits/second or so was a fairly standard rate. 2.4 gigabits/sec supplanted it a few years ago, and speeds substantially greater than this are straightforward today. AT+T claims to supply fiber now, and electronics/optics within a few months, to allow 80 gigabits per fiber, or about 32 times more than 2.4. This should immediately explain why you aren't seeing a lot of trenching: Except for the natural desire among engineers to duplicate trenches along major routes to protect against "trencher fade" (accidental cuts), it won't really pay to put in more than a couple trenched routes between most major cities, if they're separated by "boonies." It's far more economical for multiple companies to share a single route, or a pair of routes. (there is an obvious exception if the whole area is developed, such as extended corridors like Washington/New York/Boston.) >My best assumption at this point is that we don't have to make back the entire >cost of the fiber per year to make a profit. if we only have to earn 20% >of its value to make a 10% profit, it would bring the price down to >$0.075/minute, and if we were to get OC-768 systems invented, we could reduce >that to $0.005/minute, which is approaching the values that Jim derived. The value of an investment is compared to the average interest rate paid. However, that's probably too conservative with a fast-changing market like telecom today. Even so, if a system paid back profit at 10% of the investment per year, it would probably be considered a very profitable investment, and I agree with your figure of 20% before fixed costs. >So, I hate to say it, but it looks like long distance is more expensive >than Jim (or I) thought. But, in a few years (say, 5) it will approach >ridiculously cheap. We can expect at that point that either >a) All (or most) long distance will be over the Internet >b) Internet phone will vanish as regular long distance becomes a flat fee > like local service. Probably closer to the latter. The main lesson from these calculations is that fiber's costs are almost entirely based on their one-time installation cost, not a continuing maintenance cost. True, the installation must be paid for, but that translates into an interest charge that is very low. In view of the fact that the billing for telephone is supposedly half of the phoneco's cost, it will make sense that all telephone service will turn into a flat monthly fee, "enforced" by the possibility of Internet telephone for the few recalcitrant companies/countries who resist the transition. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: USPS
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You didn't quote the full thing: At 5:14 PM 8/22/96, Bruce M. wrote: >Web Week, July 8, 1996, p3 > The Postal Service's attorneys have told the USPS that the tampering >part of the current federal law would transfer to the electronic space, >and that the mail fraud portion might also apply... > > "We're a trusted third party," Saunders said. "We don't have any >interest in learning your trade secrets. However, we do have an interest >in your reading habits, and we sometimes send, unsolicited, samples of >child pornography to our customers, and then notify the proper authorities >that one of our customers has taken the bait." (Though I made up this last part, it represents reality. Postal inspectors frequently collaborate with various national and international authorities on matters involving pornography, fraud, pyramid schemes, and the sending of various sorts of contraband. While FedEx, UPS, Airborne, etc., may occasionally cooperate when a crime is called to their attention, I know of no cases where Federal Express, for example, has become a willing and leading partner in setting up stings. This is why the "Postal Service," despite nominal status as a a quasi-independent corporation, is actually yet another enforcement arm of the government.) The Postal Service probably has zero chance of getting into the e-mail business in any fashion, much as they might want to. Businesses see too many advantages in direct transmission, and are unlikely to hand the USPS some money for the dubious benefit of slowing down the mail and (maybe) adding some kind of signature. This is a case where businesses are fully able to understand the role of independent encryption, signatures, credentialling agencies, etc. "Postal anarchy" is already the accepted norm for e-mail. --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Re: USPS
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> At 5:14 PM 8/22/96, Bruce M. wrote: > > >Web Week, July 8, 1996, p3 > > > The Postal Service's attorneys have told the USPS that the tampering > >part of the current federal law would transfer to the electronic space, > >and that the mail fraud portion might also apply... > > > > "We're a trusted third party," Saunders said. "We don't have any > >interest in learning your trade secrets... Back in June I attended a presentation on this from Paul Raines, who is running the program. As I recall, there were three services they were planning to offer. 1. A time-stamping service. This is basically a remailer - you would send email to the USPS site, which would add a digital timestamp and signature, then forward the message to it's ultimate recipient. Customers wishing to use the service would deposit a sum of money with the USPS, which would be debited for each use of the service (suggested cost was on the order of 25 cents/message) 2. A CA service. Keys would be signed at various levels of assurance. At least at the start, business strength keys would be issued only at Postal Business centers, which are in about 100 cities in the US. 3. An archival service. For a fee, the USPS would store copies of all of the email you send though it's remailer. Only the sender could retrieve it, short of a court order. In answer to a direct question, Raines said that user-encrypted data was OK. Raines claimed the following advantages: * The contents would be subject to the postal fraud statutes. * People would trust a message received through the remailer more than one which was not. * IRS tax filings sent through the Postal system can arrive after April 15, provided they are postmarked before that time. Tax filings sent by other methods must be received at the IRS before midnight on the 15th. * Approximate quote: "When business negotiate a deal, they do it over the phone, in person, etc. But when the deal is closed, what do they do? They write a letter, and send it via registered mail through the USPS." * As a CA, the USPS was a known and trusted entity overseas, unlike commercial CA services. Some specific counter arguments: Fraud protection: If a person was intending to commit fraud, why would he or she send the message through the USPS remailer? Since the service is costly, most email will never be sent through it, and there will not develop a tendency to regard non-USPS email as untrustworthy. IRS filings: If I send a tax filing to the USPS remailer at 23:45 on April 15th, it gets a pre-midnight timestamp and is accepted by the IRS as being on time. If I send an email tax filing directly to the IRS at 23:45, it is also accepted (and if I was that desparate, I could also bounce the message through Hawaii, or US Samoa, and get several more hours of grace) Also, I was under the impression that the IRS now accepted FedEx timestamps for tax filings. Finally, the amount of business which this represents is miniscule. Closing deals: Ever hear of faxes or FedEx? My personal impression was that Raines had been listening to his own propaganda for too long, and was rather out of touch with the way things are done outside of the Beltway. I got the feeling that the USPS was desperately trying to find a role in a time where it was becoming merely the cheapest and slowest player in the package delivery business. Peter Trei ptrei(a)acm.org [Disclaimer: I am not representing my employer.]

4 4