December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Security (Re: Encryption for DNS registration)
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Donald Eastlake posted this on the IAHC-discuss list. Cool stuff. >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:14:05 -0500 (EST) >From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee(a)cybercash.com> >To: iahc-discuss(a)iahc.org >Subject: Security (Re: Encryption for DNS registration) > >People may want to note that yesterday (Feb 11th) the IESG approved the DNS >dynamic update and DNS secure dynamic update (draft-ietf-dnssec-update-04.txt >and draft-ietf-dnsind-dynDNS-11.txt) as Proposed Standards. The base DNS >security protocol was approved some time ago and is now out as RFC 2065. TIS >is working on a government funded implementation which will be in the public >domain (http://www.tis.com/docs/research/network/dns.html) Their current >Beta implementation of the base DNS security has been approved for export. I >believe there is an independent implementation effort underway at Microsoft. > >While this was primarily motived by wanting to be able to securely do dynamic >updates of the DNS in connection with DHCP, it is a general facility and >could be one element of securely implenmeting a shared TLD. You would, >however, still need a way of sending general authenticated messages. PGP >seems like an excellent candidate for this as it is the de-facto standard >available world wide. > >Donald [ quotes from previous messages deleted -- Bill ] >===================================================================== >Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1 508-287-4877(tel) dee(a)cybercash.com > 318 Acton Street +1 508-371-7148(fax) dee(a)world.std.com >Carlisle, MA 01741 USA +1 703-620-4200(main office, Reston, VA) >http://www.cybercash.com http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html > > >

1 0

Private property & the cypherpunks list(s)
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(Readers curious about Jim Choate's list ownership/acceptable use policies might take a look at <http://www.ssz.com/ssz/conditions.html>.) Jim Choate wrote: > Please explain how making submissions de facto public domain censors > anyone? What the fuck is "de facto public domain"? It's public domain, or it's not. Your scheme imposes a cost (loss of intellectual property rights) against authors who would like to make themselves heard. It also prevents a certain class of messages (those messages whose status is "copyright claimed") from being distributed. Further, your suggestion that posters be required to include a "fair use header" is compelled speech. That's three flavors of "censorship" right there. I thought that the new list(s) were supposed to allow anyone to say anything they wanted. (Does "no fair use" count as a "fair use header"? It's not legally enforceable, but it seems like the easiest way to specify "minimum fair use required by law". If not, are you planning to moderate the list to make sure that people use only approved fair use headers? Hmm.) Even if the "copyright abandonment by implication" trick works (and I suspect it will not, given that an assignment or transfer of copyright must be in writing, 17 USC 204; and abandonment is essentially an assignment or transfer to the public domain), it will not apply to all text sent to the list. A person cannot abandon or assign something they do not have; so if someone sends a message to the list which contains text whose copyright is held by a third party, that copyright will still be valid. So what you've got is a list where you can't be sure that its contents are public domain, and a draconian rule requiring authors to give up their rights to what they've written. Do you imagine that all of the many-majordomo servers will implement your "public domain only" rule, or only yours? If the rule only applies to the ssz.com version, what's the point? If the rule is intended to apply to all servers, and servers aren't going to be allowed into the network without agreeing to implement it locally, um, tell me again about that "free speech" thing? Aren't you just taking advantage of your position as a person working on the many-majordomos project to impose your ideas about intellectual property on the rest of the list? Is such a strategy compatible with "free speech"? Also, how could a rule like this possibly be compatible with a Usenet gateway? There's no chance at all that you can expand a local rule on your system to all of Usenet through a gateway. And Declan McCullagh wrote: >I forward articles to cypherpunks that are copyrighted by my employers, or >magazines like Playboy and Wired for which I write freelance pieces. > >I like to think these articles have some value. I will not forward any of >them, nor would I be able to, if they magically became "public domain." Which are good points - also, don't forget that, from time to time, people have even posted code to the cpunks list, and many software authors like to retain copyright in their code so that they can insist on things like noncommercial distribtion or credit where the code is reused. If a work is truly "public domain", the author has no power to insist on those things. This proposed rule seems to limit postings to those which are perceived by their authors to be without commercial or reputational value. Is that a good idea? -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy gbroiles(a)netbox.com | in a nutshell: http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto.

1 0

Re: anonymity and e-cash
by Hal Finney 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Sean Roach <roach_s(a)alph.swosu.edu> > Here is another idea. > The merchant and customer agree on a price, with the merchant knowing that > the "bank" will take a cut for their services. > The merchant and customer both LOG IN to the bank seperately, each type in > their agreed upon price and cut & paste in the services rendered > information. If they match, the bank makes the necessary transaction > between the accounts, e-cash stash, etc. This provides no anonymity with respect to the bank, right? The bank knows who is paying whom. That's not very valuable IMO. The bank is still a centralized place where all this transaction information exists, a fat target for privacy opponents. I'd say that anonymity to the bank is more important than anonymity to the merchant for this reason. So I think you're going at this backwards. > Another idea that has been festering. If we could get a CPA involved in > this forum, I would be willing to have h[im/er] sign my key, (which is > seldom used, mostly because this is the only place I use e-mail), for that > reasonable fee that CPA's can charge. I know that it is not a standard, or > even legally recognized, post for CPA's, but I think that enough people > would trust them. The big question with identity certificates is what procedures were followed in verifying the identity when the cert was issued. If the CPA publishes some standard method, and his reputation is strong enough that people will trust him to follow it, then it might well be worth money to you to have him sign it. This is the traditional role of the Certification Authority. > This would take care of some of the "newly minted" key problems. Since > getting someone who is trusted to sign your key is a recognized method of > getting people to believe you are who you say you are. It depends on the circumstances where you expect to use your key. Within a small to medium circle of associates there may be some group members who sign keys and are trusted by other members of the group. There is no particular reason for it to be difficult. If you want a signature which will be accepted by everyone in the U.S. you have a harder problem. Hal

1 0

Re: 40-bit RC5 crack meaningless??
by ca3sal＠isis.sunderland.ac.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Strassmann wrote: >In summary: The claim of exportable cryptography being totally >insecure, because it can be cracked in 3.5 hours is not >realistic. The three clues announced in the contest >would not apply under infowar conditions. As the UK gets a lot of desktop PC software from the US, ie MS & Lotus we unfouantly have to live with the 40-bit limit. What the RSA Chalange and Ian Goldberg have achived is a couple of aritcales in the broad sheet papers http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/et?ac=000145546611023&rtmo=33032622&atmo=3303… P4_FOLLOW_ON=/97/2/4/ecfilm04.html&pg=/et/97/2/4/ecfilm04.html (ouch) and http://go2.guardian.co.uk/archive.html The competion has shown to the general populs and not just "experts" what a crap deal were getting. Three and half hours gets people thinking. Ste

1 0

Re: 40-bit RC5 crack meaningless??
by Stephen.George.Allport 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Strassmann wrote: >In summary: The claim of exportable cryptography being totally >insecure, because it can be cracked in 3.5 hours is not >realistic. The three clues announced in the contest >would not apply under infowar conditions. As the UK gets a lot of desktop PC software from the US, ie MS & Lotus we unfouantly have to live with the 40-bit limit. What the RSA Chalange and Ian Goldberg have achived is a couple of aritcales in the broad sheet papers http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/et?ac=000145546611023&rtmo=33032622&atmo=3303… P4_FOLLOW_ON=/97/2/4/ecfilm04.html&pg=/et/97/2/4/ecfilm04.html (ouch) and http://go2.guardian.co.uk/archive.html The competion has shown to the general populs and not just "experts" what a crap deal were getting. Three and half hours gets people thinking. Ste

1 0

Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut u
by chefren 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 11 Feb 97 at 3:54, John Gilmore wrote: > I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to host the > cypherpunks list any more. It's not the true assholes that brought me > to this decision; it's the reaction from the bulk of people on the > list: suspicion, flamage, and criticism with every attempt to improve > things. I noticed few people volunteering some of their own time, > money, or machines to help out. Almost all the suggestions were > advice for *other* people to implement: Hm... In the year 1513 or 1514 someone who could be an Honourable Member of this list (if one could be one...) wrote: > There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more > perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, > than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order > of things. <Niccolo Machiavelli, Il Principe> Please stop at looking too much on how people scream about your new ideas and continue this list the way you like it!!! I think it's Your Machine and we have to respect your decision to pull the plug, nobody should blame you for that, but please listen a little to the 1000+ people who don't scream and are obviously happy with the list and respected your right to do the "sandy filter experiment". +++chefren

1 0

Remailer Network Under Attack
by Wazoo MixMaster 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It looks like a new round of attacks against the remailer network is underway. Once again, the provocation is "abuse". Unknown persons have been using anonymous remailers and mail2news gateways to "plant" e-mail addresses in various NGs for the spam-bots to harvest and deluge with spam. The original intention appears to have been to "poison the well" for spammers by planting addresses that they'd get in trouble for sending their junk mail to. It appears that one or more copy-cats is now using the same methodology to plant the addresses of people who they'd like to see spammed. (I'm using the term "plant" rather than "forge" since the messages seem to contain sufficient disclaimers that the From: addresses are not genuine. Sufficient for a normal HUMAN reader, but not an automated address harvester, that is.) Within the last week or so, a chorus of complaints has arisen about this practice, orchestrated by about a half dozen individuals who meet an interesting criteria -- they all hold dual accounts on both Netcom and a small ISP known as DataBasix.com. The scenario is quite similar each time this has happened in the past, such as with the cross-posted pro-smoking/anti-smoking threads last year. One of the complainers politely asks that the abusers be identified and their abuse stop. This is, of course, impossible because the perpetrators are posting anonymously. The second step, which follows the first very closely, is a demand that the remailer be shut down with threats being CCed to sysadmins and upstream providers. Given the variety of addresses being "spam baited", the only logical target of this abuse is the remailers themselves. Both sides of certain heated controversies report being made the target of this spam bait, each side accusing the other of being responsible. The only question is whether the main group of complainers (the Netcom/DataBasix group) are merely innocent bystanders or whether they may have initiated the "abuse" as an excuse to shut down the remailers in furtherance of some unknown agenda. Either that, or someone else is attacking the remailer net and it's just a coincidence that a group fitting such a curious pattern (dual accounts on the same two ISPs) should step in and demand the dismantling of several elements of the remailer/m2n-gateway infrastructure. HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION: Would mentioning the "Reichstag Fire" invoke Godwin's Law prematurely? <g>

2 1

Re: How to make majordomo request confirmations of subscriptions?
by Michael H. Warfield 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ichudov(a)algebra.com enscribed thusly: > Hi All, > I would like to set up my majordomo to request subscription > confirmations from users, by sending them a cookie. Looking at the > majordomo config files, I have not found such option. Majordomo 1.94 and above... subscribe_policy = open+confirm Last I looked, majordomo does not have subscription expirations or periodic confirmations. A couple of months ago someone else on a large mailing list I help run suggested a package that would periodically mail a bounce probe. The probe would have explicit instructions to do NOTHING if you wanted to remain on the list, just ignore the message. If the message came back, due to an E-Mail bounce, vacation program, or someone who decided they didn't want to remain on the list after all, you toasted them off. Sort of an inverse confirmation message. I lost the message about the package before I could find it. It sounds like a great compliment to majordomo. Maybe should be another feature for majordomo? Anyone who has heard of this add-on, let me know. I'm still looking for it. > Ideally I would like to have a system that a) requires the > new users confirm new subscriptions and b) once in a while > as users to confirm their existing subscriptions. The instruction which go back with the job results and the confirmation need to be beefed up. I've had a lot of subscribers get "confused" when their STUPID windows mailer breaks their "auth" message into two lines and majordomo refuses to recognize it. Forwarding the confirmation message back or "replying" to it tend to screw up big time, so I modified the message in my version to instruct users to "create a new message with this line as the only line in the body". It's cut down on the screwed up subscriptions immensely. Majordomo also needs to be enhanced a bit to flush out bits and pieces of floatsam in the E-Mail address that are not valid E-Mail addresses... Example: "Michael H. Warfield" <mhw(a)wittsend.com> would result in messages going back to Michael, H., and Warfield, as well as mhw(a)wittsend.com. I'm planning on cleaning out any whitespace separated tokens which do not contain an embedded "@" followed by a least one "." and ending with an alpha or a ".". That's on my to-do list for this week or next... Along with upgrading to 1.94.1. > Is there any way to do it? > Thank you. > - Igor. > -- Michael H. Warfield | (770) 985-6132 | mhw(a)WittsEnd.com (The Mad Wizard) | (770) 925-8248 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/ NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471 | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!

1 0

Openmarket/128 bit export?
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just saw a newswire about Openmarket exporting 128 bit ssl for OM-Transact. Anyone have any details? Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

1 0

Re: [STATS] Tempest
by nobody＠wazoo.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Deceased L<oad> Villainous K<rud>OTM's father, an idiot, stumbled across Deceased L<oad> Villainous K<rud>OTM's mother, an imbecile, when she had no clothes on. Nine months later she had a little moron. o /\O/ O Deceased L<oad> Villainous K<rud>OTM 0 \\ | 0-# // | / \

1 0

Re: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997
by Pete Capelli 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jim bell wrote: > > At 03:25 PM 2/12/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: <Some deleted> > even more happy to pay, say, 10 cents to each recipient. At that rate, an average > person would probably receive enough "spam" to pay for his Internet > account, quite analogous to the way advertiser-supported TV is presented to > the public for no explicit charge. Yes, but why does monetary compensation make it then O.K.? I'd rather pay for my Internet access, then be bombarded by spam, no matter what they paid me! I think the best soln. is the one that is currently in place for phone calls - they can call once, but if I tell them not to call me again and they do, I can then begin legal action against them. I pay more per month for my phone service than my Internet service ( although in NY, *everything* is more expensive. ), and junk phone calls are way more intrusive then spam. > > Jim Bell > jimbell(a)pacifier.com -pete -- Pete Capelli, CNE UB Networks, Inc. pcapelli(a)ub.com ***** Finger pete(a)idaho.ubisg.com for my PGP Public key !! ***** They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin, 1759

2 1

Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s)
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is where the distributed nature of the list comes in. if someone disagrees with Jim's AUP, he or she can use soem other mailing list host. igor Greg Broiles wrote: > > (Readers curious about Jim Choate's list ownership/acceptable use > policies might take a look at <http://www.ssz.com/ssz/conditions.html>.) > > Jim Choate wrote: > > > Please explain how making submissions de facto public domain censors > > anyone? > > What the fuck is "de facto public domain"? It's public domain, or it's > not. > > Your scheme imposes a cost (loss of intellectual property rights) > against authors who would like to make themselves heard. It also > prevents a certain class of messages (those messages whose status is > "copyright claimed") from being distributed. Further, your suggestion > that posters be required to include a "fair use header" is compelled > speech. > > That's three flavors of "censorship" right there. I thought that the new > list(s) were supposed to allow anyone to say anything they wanted. > > (Does "no fair use" count as a "fair use header"? It's not legally > enforceable, but it seems like the easiest way to specify "minimum fair > use required by law". If not, are you planning to moderate the list to > make sure that people use only approved fair use headers? Hmm.) > > Even if the "copyright abandonment by implication" trick works (and I > suspect it will not, given that an assignment or transfer of copyright > must be in writing, 17 USC 204; and abandonment is essentially an > assignment or transfer to the public domain), it will not apply to all > text sent to the list. A person cannot abandon or assign something they > do not have; so if someone sends a message to the list which contains > text whose copyright is held by a third party, that copyright will still > be valid. > > So what you've got is a list where you can't be sure that its contents > are public domain, and a draconian rule requiring authors to give up > their rights to what they've written. > > Do you imagine that all of the many-majordomo servers will implement > your "public domain only" rule, or only yours? > > If the rule only applies to the ssz.com version, what's the point? > > If the rule is intended to apply to all servers, and servers aren't > going to be allowed into the network without agreeing to implement it > locally, um, tell me again about that "free speech" thing? Aren't you > just taking advantage of your position as a person working on the > many-majordomos project to impose your ideas about intellectual property > on the rest of the list? Is such a strategy compatible with "free > speech"? > > Also, how could a rule like this possibly be compatible with a Usenet > gateway? There's no chance at all that you can expand a local rule on > your system to all of Usenet through a gateway. > > And Declan McCullagh wrote: > > >I forward articles to cypherpunks that are copyrighted by my employers, or > >magazines like Playboy and Wired for which I write freelance pieces. > > > >I like to think these articles have some value. I will not forward any of > >them, nor would I be able to, if they magically became "public domain." > > Which are good points - also, don't forget that, from time to time, > people have even posted code to the cpunks list, and many software > authors like to retain copyright in their code so that they can insist > on things like noncommercial distribtion or credit where the code is > reused. If a work is truly "public domain", the author has no power to > insist on those things. > > This proposed rule seems to limit postings to those which are perceived > by their authors to be without commercial or reputational value. Is that > a good idea? > > -- > Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy > gbroiles(a)netbox.com | in a nutshell: > http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. > ====================================== > == This list is still experimental. == > == complain to ichudov(a)algebra.com == > ====================================== > - Igor.

1 0

No Subject
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There's a rumor that Tim May sells his dead relatives as fertilizer as they constitute the best shit in California. n ___ n H /. .\ H Tim May nHnn . nnHn <U U/ o \U U> / /\___/\ \

1 0

Dale-Further proof
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Yet another Dale day (blah): :Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:37:58 -0800 :From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> :To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com :CC: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com :Another blood stain on Gilmore's shroud, as it were. As further evidence that Dale is unworthy to participate in any socially interactive behaviour other than grinding (that is, grinding) his nose in the naysayers, collective ass, I submit that he posts mixed and otherwise unclear metaphores. Ipso facto. As difficult as the good doctor can be, Dale is not intellectually worthy to lick his boots, though he tries. And, cc: Doctor V., no less. What cabal is this with cc's in the clear? Love you, fella. (You can tell, can't you.)

2 1

Openmarket/128 bit export?
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just saw a newswire about Openmarket exporting 128 bit ssl for OM-Transact. Anyone have any details? Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

1 0

Transmission of Crypto material and ITAR
by Benjamin Grosman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear All, I have a question regarding the impossible enforcement of ITAR/EAR: Naturally I cannot download crypto software from the US, but most of these sites have mirrors in other countries, such as the UK for PGP, and sweden and finland for lots of things. However, with the way that information is routed throughout the internet from these sites, whenever I, in Australia, request packets containing this data from the UK etc, it invariably passes through the US from coast to coast! Therefore, if ITAR/EAR tries to govern that, aren't they really trying to enforce something totally unenforcable? Surely they cannot expect all gateways operated by, say, Sprint and MCI to packet sniff 'n' search? Can anyone tell me what the ruling is with regards to this? Yours Sincerely, Benjamin Grosman ---------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Grosman - Programmer, Magna Data Internet Solutions Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. [Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.] ----------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks"
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > ichudov(a)algebra.com writes: > > > 1. A newsgroup like comp.privacy.cypherpunks will be carried on a lot of > > > corprate news servers that don't carry alt.* (or even soc.*). Note that > > > soc.org.cypherpunks is inappropriate since cp is *not* an organization. :-) > > > Another possibility is sci.crypto.cypherpunks. (True, people whose corporat > > > newsservers don't carry soc.* and talk.* can use dejanews - provided their > > > firewall lets them.) > > > > > 2. It takes more work to create a comp.* newsgroup than an alt newsgroup. > > > It takes a vote. I'm willing to be one of the proponents and generally help > > > with the process. (Both I and Igor have been co-proponents of major Usenet > > > newsgroups - don't know about other people onthis list. :-) > > > > Not only it takes a vote. What is more important is what a vote gives: > > a good discussion of the newsgroup and the formal RFD/RFD/CFV process > > ensures that, on average, a good balance is found between various groups > > of readers. > > > > I am not concerned as to what the name of the group will be, it is > > not important. What is important is that it should be in a more or > > less flame-free zone. > > I'm concerned about smart people stuck behind corporate firewalls > and able to see comp.* and sci.*. Nearly every big Wall St firm > is that way. Did I ever relate to you the story how I had to > break through the firwall at GS to accomplish mywork? Would be interesting. > > It is too late to stop alt.cypherpunks, but if I had to make a > > prediction again, I would predict that soon posters will BEG to help > > them create comp.*.cypherpunks, because of spam and alt.flamage. > > Timmy has a valid point: the reason why a comp.* newsgroup might have less > cross-posted and "off-topic" crap is because net.cops would be more > likely to complain to posters' sysadmins. Having a charter state that > cypherpunks have technical means to ignore traffic they don't like, > and don't need anyone forging cancels or complaining to sysadmins > or otherwise getting silenced, is a good idea. It is not only because of that. There are two categories of people who simply do not visit com.* groups: sex spammers and trollers (who post articles like I RAPED A NIGGER CHILD to tens of newsgroups). If the group is created in a space that is isolated from them, that is already good. As for net.cops, check out what Scott Nudds does in comp.lang.c++ > What's going to happen when (not if) someone posts something in > alt.cypherpunks that Chris Lewis (spit) judges to be "spam" > and forges a cancel? Or someone posts a binary and Richard > "little dick" Depew forges a cancel? Chris Lewis can exclude newsgroups from his spam watch. I think that if cypherpunks put something forbidding third party cancels into the charter, he will not cancel stuff posted there. > > > 3. An unmoderated Usenet newsgroup would have even ore crap than this maili > > > list. I've been thinking of how to deal with crap, and with the obvious des > > > by some people to delegate their decision what to read and what not to read > > > to other people. > > > > It is alt.* and soc.* that has most crap, sci and comp are way better. > > There's a bunch of net.cops in e.g. comp.lang.eiffel that complain to > sysadmins of anyone posting to that newsgroup who's in a member of the > "in" crowd". It may or may not cut down on the crap, but is it worth it? Yes, there is a notorious net.cop The Right Reverend Colin James III (spit). A sample of his stukachestvo is attached at the bottom of this letter. >From ares.csd.net!cjames Fri Dec 8 00:00:29 1995 Return-Path: <cjames(a)ares.csd.net> Received: from ares.csd.net by espcbw.stat.ncsu.edu.stat.ncsu.edu with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0tNxjG-000EDPC; Fri, 8 Dec 95 00:00 PST Received: by ares.csd.net (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA08055; Thu, 7 Dec 1995 22:02:44 -0700 Message-Id: <9512080502.AA08055(a)ares.csd.net> From: cjames(a)ares.csd.net (Colin James III (The Rt Rev'd)) To: ichudov(a)espcbw.stat.ncsu.edu (Igor Chudov), postmaster(a)espcbw.stat.ncsu.edu, postmaster(a)stat.ncsu.edu, postmaster(a)ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Nauseating typedefs -- pros and cons Date: Fri, 08 Dec 1995 03:13:53 GMT Organization: CEC Services Reply-To: cjames(a)ares.csd.net References: <461dph$ske(a)saba.info.ucla.edu> <48np3j$1b4(a)solutions.solon.com> <4a 7rpv$fj(a)taco.cc.ncsu.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99b.112 Status: RO On 7 Dec 1995 23:02:23 GMT, ichudov(a)espcbw.stat.ncsu.edu (Igor Chudov) wrote with possible deletions: | Douglas Evan Cook (cookd(a)bert.cs.byu.edu) wrote: | * The real question comes down to: when do you need to | * use INT32 or INT16? Usually, you only need it when you are saving info | * to a disk or when you need to make sure that your numbers won't | * overflow. A little bit of hardware control is also given. But when you | * don't get those advantages, a plain int is just great. | | It is NOT great at all. Each variable is associated with a range of | values. This range of values comes from the requirements of external world. | Say, some program _must_ be required by business rules to store | $$ amount as an integer value, and it may be specified in the | requirements that $$amount cannot be more than $1,000,000. If I, | as a careless programmer, program variable dollar_amount as int | just because my RS6000 has 32-bit ints, this program will NOT be | portable to 16-bit computers. | | You can invent an untold amount of such situations. If I defined | DollarAmount_t as UINT32, I would effectively avoid this trouble. | | * So for your scanf | * vars, just use ints. Then do range checking and then assign them into | * the UINT16 type or whatever only if you need to. | | The solution is very simple and cool (IMHO). | | In the same file where you define INT16, UINT32, etc, add the following: | | #ifdef AIX | typedef long INT32; | #define F_INT32 "ld" | | typedef unsigned short UINT16; | #define F_UINT16 "u" | #endif | | #ifdef YOUR_FAVORITE_MACHINE | typedef short INT32; // Maybe for 64-bit machines, never worked with them | #define F_INT32 "d" | ... etc etc ... | | Then you define your user types: | | typedef INT32 DollarAmount_t; | #define DollarAmount_f INT32_F // You make it a rule to define | // formats right along with types | | Usually, in scanf (and printf) people write things like this: | | printf( "%ld is the dollar amount for customer %4.4d\n", | amount, cust ); | | Instead, you write | | printf( "%" DollarAmount_f " is the dollar amount for customer " | "%4.4" Cust_f, | amount, cust ); | | It is a totally portable code. All you need to port primitive types | is to recompile it. | | -- | - Igor. (My opinions only) http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/index.html | For public PGP key, finger me or send email with Subject "send pgp key" | | You know you have achieved perfection in design, not when you have nothing | more to add, but when you have nothing more to take away. | - Antoine de Saint Exupery. Kindly remove comp.lang.eiffel from distribution of this thread. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Colin James III, Principal Scientist cjames(a)csd.net CEC Services, 2080 Kipling St, Lakewood, CO 80215-1502 USA Voice: 303.231.9437; Facsimile: .231.9438; Data: .231.9434 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - Igor.

1 0

FW: I would like to be out of your mailing list
by Robert Nadra 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I would like to get out of your mailing list , please indicate the correct procedure. Thanks.

2 1

N.Y. judge rules for Planned Parenthood in web site case
by Vipul Ved Prakash 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

*** N.Y. judge rules for Planned Parenthood in web site case A federal judge has temporarily stopped an abortion foe from identifying his web site as belonging to Planned Parenthood and selling an anti-abortion book from that home page. The temporary restraining order, issued Wednesday, stops Richard Bucci from identifying his home page as "Planned Parenthood's Home Page" and using "plannedparenthood.com" as a domain name. Planned Parenthood, which has its own web site, sued Bucci for trademark infringement. The next hearing is slated for Feb. 20. For the full text story, see http://www.merc.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=1426121-b7e -- Vipul Ved Prakash | - Electronic Security & Crypto vipul(a)pobox.com | - Web Objects 91 11 2233328 | - PERL Development 198 Madhuban IP Extension | - Linux & Open Systems Delhi, INDIA 110 092 | - Networked Multimedia

1 0

FW: I would like to be out of your mailing list
by Robert Nadra 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I would like to get out of your mailing list , please indicate the correct procedure. Thanks.

1 0

Dale-Further proof
by Huge Cajones Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Yet another Dale day (blah): :Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:37:58 -0800 :From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> :To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com :CC: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com :Another blood stain on Gilmore's shroud, as it were. As further evidence that Dale is unworthy to participate in any socially interactive behaviour other than grinding (that is, grinding) his nose in the naysayers, collective ass, I submit that he posts mixed and otherwise unclear metaphores. Ipso facto. As difficult as the good doctor can be, Dale is not intellectually worthy to lick his boots, though he tries. And, cc: Doctor V., no less. What cabal is this with cc's in the clear? Love you, fella. (You can tell, can't you.)

1 0

Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
by Against Moderation 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:24:57 -0500 (EST) > From: aga <aga(a)dhp.com> > > Well, the fact remains that the homos are instrumental in creating and > forming a cliquish and censored usenet. There is just no question > about that. Remember the previous cypherpunk who stated that the > gays "created and run usenet." No. Who said that, and why do you think the person was serious, let alone telling the truth? > Your assumption that I am a "bigot" makes it you appear uninformed. > Sexism is good, but racism is bad. A sexist is not a bigot. > > The only one who qualifies as a "bigot" is a racist. According to the American Heritage dictionary: bigot n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. According to Webster: bigot n. One obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions and prejudices I see nothing that limits bigotry to racial intolerance. > It is very logical and wise to discriminate on the basis of sex. Most would disagree, and decide based on that and other statements you have made that you must be an extremely unpleasant person. If you want to fight censorship effectively, going around telling people "You're a shit-eating faggot you fucking cock-sucking homo censor" in public forums is not going to win you many points. Instead, it will quickly land you in many people's killfiles, and will eventually lead some people with bad client software to wonder if it wouldn't be worth giving up some freedom of speech for the benefit of not having to see your rants any more. I'm not saying you don't have a right to express your opinions. I'm just remarking that you appear to be more in the business of inducing censorship than fighting it. If that's the case, so be it; someone has to get censored in order for people to fight censorship, and exposing people's willingness to censor is not necessarily a bad thing in itself. Unfortunately, it sort of makes life harder for those who actually fight the censorship when you pretend to be one of them. Your argument seems to run something like, "To protect freedom of speech, bad all faggots from the net, and especially don't let them run any mailing lists." If this offensive and highly noticeable argument eclipses many of the important, fundamental ones as the censors would like it too (why do you think your articles make it to cypherpunks- flames while mine only get as far as -unedited), you will end up not only inducing censorship but also seriously hampering the efforts of those who are legitimately fighting that censorship. > I am not a racist, so therefore I can not be a "bigot," regardless of > my views on homosexuality. See above.

5 9

Keep it Simple and the Cypherpunk Way
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks) At 11:42 AM -0500 2/13/97, Derek Atkins wrote: >Unfortunately, the messages that make it through to the cypherpunks >list have their MessageID changed when they get approved. So, >checking for duplicates by MessageID fails, given the current approval >mechanism. :( > >I've informed Sandy of the problem, but he doesn't know how to >preserve the original MessageIDs. I will phrase my message here as respectfully as possible vis-a-vis the goals of the moderation experiment. That is, I will only deal with one aspect, the one of _costs_ of the moderation experiment. To wit, the _costs_ of the moderation experiment--Sandy's time, our time spent debating moderation, and now the issues raised by Michael Froomkin and others about dealing with the chaos of multiple, overlapping lists--greatly exceed the relatively small amount of effort it took anyone to simply delete the insult posts, the ASCII art posts, etc. I respectfully submit that the huge costs incurred on several parties have cumulatively far exceeded the minor savings of not having a handful of the 'bot-generated insults of the day and some of the ASCII art generated. As to the "comity" of the list, the moderation experiment has clearly had just the opposite effect, predictably. (Imposing comity is rarely easy, especially given an independent bunch of folks who are suspicious of moderators screening their words for evidence of non-comity!). And the ill will generated toward certain folks has been regrettable, and vastly more costly than any minor savings in not having to see a few messages. "Keep it simple, stupid," the oft-quote KISS principle. A moderation scheme--except perhaps those run very tightly a la Peter Neumann's RISKS list--almost always bogs down into debates about the moderation criteria, the acceptability of certain posts, and so on. Now we see another effect: multiple lists and a confusing array of cross-posts, mail-to-News gateways, News-to-mail gateways, etc. The "Cypherpunks Way" is to encourage and empower people to filter their own stuff, or to hire outside contractors to do it for them. Failing that, to let them twist slowly in the wind. "Think of it as evolution in action." The Cypherpunks Way is also the simplest system. I hope this episode has reminded us of this lesson. --Tim May -- Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we 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: distributed mailing list architecture
by pdh＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:11 PM 2/7/1997, Adam Back wrote: >Igor Chudov <ichudov(a)algebra.com> writes: >> I'd suggest a simplier solution: to connect each server with a couple, >> or maybe three, other servers. This scheme is rather robust, does not >> consume too much CPU time and bandwidth, and is easy to implement. > I'm not sure what the architecture you are suggesting is, but this is > what I suggest as the simplest to set up. > Have one main majordomo. > Have many mail-exploders. > You subscribe to the main majordomo request address, and it forwards > your subscription request to a random mail-exploder. > You unsubscribe to the main majordomo request address, and it forwards > your subscription to all the mail-exploders request addresses > (unsubscribe traffic is low anyway, keeping track of who is subscribed > where at the main major domo doesn't seem worth it). > Each person who wishes to run an exploder is subscribed (manually) to > the main majordomo. > You submit articles to the main majordomo, and it sends copies of the > articles to it's subscribers (the mail-exploders). > The mail-exploders send mail to the address on their subscriber lists. > (John Gilmore suggested this architecture, as a simpler alternative). This mostly solves the performance problem, but performance was not the only choke point. It is important to have many machines which accept posts and which send them to other machines. (Also, many interconnections means that few messages have to go through more than two machines which should make message distribution extraordinarily fast and highly redundant. Standing in the way of the cypherpunks list will be like standing in the way of the wind.) I suggest we consider the problem of subscriptions to be independent of the problem of posting and distributing messages. Some machine owners may wish to pool subscription activities. The fast and easy approach is to have an official cypherpunks subscription page which lists all of the mail servers which will accept new subscribers. (The person who maintains this page would ideally not be somebody running a mail server.) The interested person looks at the page and then picks a majordomo to subscribe to. It seems beneficial to me from a technical and social standpoint to have a web of relationships between list managers and subscribers. If as a subscriber you have some sort of problem (technical or social), it will work better if there is just one person to talk to rather than a loose network of volunteers. Peter

1 0

Re: Cypherpunks-announce? Do we need to recreate this?
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Now that cypherpunks is moving, to both a newsgroup and one or more > mailing lists, there's still a need for cypherpunks-announce or > something like it. So far it's carried 1-2 announcements per month. > > Should we create it as a mailing list, moderated or unmoderated, > or as a newsgroup? (It's been a moderated mailing list, run by John and > Hugh.) I newsgrouped several sub groups along with alt.cypherpunks. alt.cypherpunks.announce alt.cypherpunks.social alt.cypherpunks.technical but they do not appear to have taken effect (my local news server refuses to see them). Can anyone else see them? - If not I`ll have a word with my newsadmin. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0