December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Take it to sci.math
by winsock＠rigel.cyberpass.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Will all those people who are talking about set theory and the countability of various number systems take their discussion to sci.math, please? 'Cuz 1) All that stuff is irrelevant to crypto, its science or politics. 2) Not a single math comment made by anybody on any of those threads is even remotely correct. 3) You will recieve your proper chewing out on sci.math and 4) This bullshit is extremely annoying to those of us who has some real training in math, even more so than the regular bullshit on this list. Hey Sandy, you gonna censor these creeps once you start censoring?

2 1

Re: Dedikend Cut's and such
by Kent Crispin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate allegedly said: > > > Hi, > > Did a little research, Dedekind Cut's and such use Integers to define a > SPECIFIC Real to a arbitrary BUT FIXED resolution. They do not define the > set of Reals. They do. The set of all numbers representable by a DC is precisely the set of reals. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F

1 0

Re: Newt's phone calls
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:44 PM 1/17/97 -0600, Igor Chudov wrote: >It is my understanding that an ordinary banking consumer that >uses "pay bills by phone" service cannot transfer $$ to any arbitrary >account. There is a limited list of permitted accounts, such as utility >companies. Therefore, the risk of unauthorized transfer is very >limited. It is limited, both accounts have to have the same password, (four character, numeric.) If I want to transfer funds from another persons account to one that I control, all I have to do is change the password on one of them to that of the other, transfer funds, and change the password back. By the time that my victim found out, (via the little letter "per your request, $xxx was transferred to accnt#123456 from accnt#7890"), I would be long gone.

1 0

Re: 'Monster' numbers
by WinSock Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:08 PM 1/19/1997, Jim Choate wrote: >In reference to numbers which you can't describe, if you examine the work >they are ALL in the Complex domain, none of them are Real's. This is incorrect. The argument outlined applied to real numbers only. If you wish to refute the argument please do so. You might find it helpful to review the reference in Smullyan's book. >If there existed a Real for which we could not describe this would imply >that we could not draw a line of that length. The subtlety of the idea lies in the fact that you can't make a statement like "$foo is not describable" where $foo means anything. Any number for which you can say, "I can draw a line which is $bar units long" is describable. Math Man

1 0

Re: IMDMP: SOURCE CODE RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENT
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dale Thorn wrote: > > AIDAS wrote: > > On Sat, 18 Jan 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > > > > > Personally, I wish they'd hurry up. I'm getting rather annoyed with the > > > > > > spam, the "you're all homosexuals" postings, the posts by morons that > > > > > > can't figure out Majordomo or their mailers, and so on and so forth. > > > > > > Not sure about "all", but someone whose name sounds like AIDS, and who > > > > > advocates censorship, most likely is one.[snip] > > Ah, very strong response indeed. I feel as if shot down in flames, > > and my mind aches from the slice of your wit. Deliver us, oh Vulis, > > for we are in need! > > It still looks like Sandy to me. Writing style for one, unwillingness > to drop an argument for two, and the use of the name AIDAS is *very* > suspicious. But Sandy gave his word publicly that he was not AIDAS! - Igor.

1 0

Re: infinity & set membership
by Huge Cajones Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:36 PM 1/19/1997, Jim Choate wrote: >"The least upper bound of a set of real numbers is often called the >supremum, the greatest lower bound its infimum. In general the supremum and >infimum of a set ARE MEMBERS OF THE SET or at least LIMITS OF SEQUENCES OF >MEMBERS OF THE SET." > >[capitalization is mine] > >In this case the suprenum is infinity. > >Introduction to Calculus and Analysis >Courant and John >Vol. 1, pp. 97, Section e. >1965 Edition >Library of Congress: 65-16403 I presume this is a reference to Jim's earlier post: At 1:19 PM 1/19/1997, Jim Choate wrote: >Forwarded message: > >> Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 12:20:45 -0600 >> From: Sir Robin of Locksley <tozser(a)stolaf.edu> > >> >Is it possible to prove that number 0.1234567891011121314151617181920... >> >iz irrational? >> >> Most definately. All you need to do is prove that the set of this number is >> uncountable, ergo is irrational. If you have friend who have done math in real >> analysis they can explain more. > >irrational means 'not expressible as the ratio of two integers', this does >not imply uncountable. > >Whether 0.12345678910111213... is irrational or not depends on how we choose >to define a rational number where the denominator and numerator are both >approaching infinity and how quickly those approaches occur. > >[ What is your definition of infinity/infinity ?] > >As alluded to before, > > 0.12345678910111213 = 12345678910111213.... / n > > (where n = infinity) > >0.123456789101112... is certainly countable because by the definition of >countable it must be 1-to-1 with the counting numbers (ie non-negative >integers), which this one clearly is since it contains each positive >non-zero integer (ie the set of numbers required to produce the number are >clearly less, 1 less to be exact, than the counting numbers). Of course this same argument could be used to claim that pi is also rational. pi = 314159.... / n (where n=infinity). What could be the problem here? One problem might be that an integer (not including infinity) divided by "infinity" should be 0. The p/q definition of rational numbers does not rely on "infinity" being a member of the set of integers. Also, we rarely hear this dialogue: "Give me an integer." "Okay - infinity!" Still, let's define a set which contains the integers as well as positive and negative "infinity". I will call this set the "Choate-integers." Let's add some reasonable rules for working with +inf and -inf. n is a non-zero positive traditional integer. a. -inf = +inf * -1 b. +inf * n = +inf c. +inf + n = +inf d. +inf / +inf = 1 Operations involving multiplication or division of +inf and zero are undefined. Using these definitions, you will find that the p/q definition of rational numbers operates as expected on the set of Choate-integers. The argument I supplied earlier for the rational nature of 0.1234... still holds. Math Man

1 0

Debt (calling) Cards Re: Newt's phone calls
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:58 PM 1/17/97 -0800, Rich Graves wrote: >What does concern me is personal privacy. I don't want people tracking >my movements or purchasing patterns, so I prefer to use cash or >pseudonymous debit cards. This reminds me, I got a sprint 5 minute sample calling card when I got my college texts. I suspect that other people on this list got one as well. Mine is completely unused and although transferring the actual cards would cost, (the stamp and envelope), would anyone be interested in trading the numbers? This one is registered as being handed out in Weatherford Okla. Five minutes of long distance is trivial, so I would be willing to trade in regular e-mail, as opposed to through a middleman.

1 0

Take it to sci.math
by WinSock Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Will all those people who are talking about set theory and the countability of various number systems take their discussion to sci.math, please? 'Cuz 1) All that stuff is irrelevant to crypto, its science or politics. 2) Not a single math comment made by anybody on any of those threads is even remotely correct. 3) You will recieve your proper chewing out on sci.math and 4) This bullshit is extremely annoying to those of us who has some real training in math, even more so than the regular bullshit on this list. Hey Sandy, you gonna censor these creeps once you start censoring?

1 0

Re: Sandy and the Doc
by WinSock Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Frantz <frantz(a)netcom.com> writes: > I hope if such a system is set up, people who use it will realize that > email is not 100% reliable. Just because algebra.com sent mail to > toad.com, doesn't mean that toad.com actually received it. A small > fraction of a percent of these messages will be lost. Failing something catastrophic like a disk failure or a host down for more than a week, this should not be the case. Almost every site running sendmail has the Os ("SuperSafe") option set. That means sendmail will not respond to a "." at the end of a DATA command with SMTP code 250 until it has written the incoming message (and queue info) to disk and called fsync. Thus, you may get 2 copies of a message, but mail messages should not just disappear regularly at all, even if the network goes down or a machine crashes. Non-sendmail MTA's tend to be even more strict about this, not even allowing this behavior to be disabled.

1 0

Re: Airport security [no such thing]
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:04 PM 1/17/97 EST, Dr.Dimitri Vulis wrote: >snow <snow(a)smoke.suba.com> writes: > >> > I say we make people fly naked and ship their stuff via UPS ;). >> >> >>shudder<< >> >> No!. A clear case of the cure being worse than the disease... > >Why. it might be fun - those long flight can be so boring with clothes on... > Wouldn't work. A sworn member of the holy order of the restitution for the crimes of my enemies, has an explosive device buried within h[is/er] bowels. When (s)he goes up, alone, (s)he will take 100+ enemies with h[im/er]. Of course (s)he has to be willing to die, or be duped into thinking that (s)he really has appendicitis. So a courier would still be easy to find. Or, a cancer infected member of said religious cult, knowing that (s)he will soon die anyway, and probably atone for h[is/er] many sins, ((s)he hasn't really done anything rightous, like kill one of the enemy), chooses to have h[is/er] cancerous bowels, up to the stomache, removed, and replaced with a bomb. (s)he then heals up a little while, being fed intraveinously, until the time of h[is/er] atonement. A makeup artist erases the signs of disease that (s)he carries and a large dose of pain killer is given to h[im/er] to take right before entering the airport. (s)he dies knowing that (s)he is going straight past heaven to an even higher level.

2 1

Re: Take it to sci.math
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, WinSock Remailer wrote: > > Will all those people who are talking about set theory and > the countability of various number systems take their discussion > to sci.math, please? 'Cuz > ... > Hey Sandy, you gonna censor these creeps once you start censoring? I won't be censoring anyone. I will, however, be sorting posts into the three lists. As I work my way into moderation mode, I don't expect to sort math or other off-topic posts into the flam (flames & spam) list. In retrospect, the previous "creeps" comment should probably have gotten the post sorted to the flam list. Oh well, I'll get up to speed pretty soon, I hope. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: Take it to sci.math
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:01 AM 1/20/1997, WinSock Remailer wrote: >Will all those people who are talking about set theory and >the countability of various number systems take their discussion >to sci.math, please? 'Cuz What a joke! Of all the messages to whine about this guy picks the math thread. Somehow that wouldn't have been my first choice. >1) All that stuff is irrelevant to crypto, its science or politics. No, but it's interesting to many readers of this list and it builds community. >2) Not a single math comment made by anybody on any of those > threads is even remotely correct. >3) You will recieve your proper chewing out on sci.math > >and > >4) This bullshit is extremely annoying to those of us who has some real > training in math, even more so than the regular bullshit on this list. I don't get this at all. You have particular knowledge in the field, but instead of sharing the information with the rest of us, you find our (apparently) pathetic attempts to gain understanding to be "extremely annoying" and imply we need to be chewed out. Commander Zero

2 1

No Subject
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim C[reep] May likes to lick the semen-shit mixture that accumulates in the crack of his mother's ass. ,_ o / //\, Tim C[reep] May \>> | \\,

1 0

Re: Take it to sci.math
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:01 AM 1/20/1997, WinSock Remailer wrote: >Will all those people who are talking about set theory and >the countability of various number systems take their discussion >to sci.math, please? 'Cuz What a joke! Of all the messages to whine about this guy picks the math thread. Somehow that wouldn't have been my first choice. >1) All that stuff is irrelevant to crypto, its science or politics. No, but it's interesting to many readers of this list and it builds community. >2) Not a single math comment made by anybody on any of those > threads is even remotely correct. >3) You will recieve your proper chewing out on sci.math > >and > >4) This bullshit is extremely annoying to those of us who has some real > training in math, even more so than the regular bullshit on this list. I don't get this at all. You have particular knowledge in the field, but instead of sharing the information with the rest of us, you find our (apparently) pathetic attempts to gain understanding to be "extremely annoying" and imply we need to be chewed out. Commander Zero

1 0

Re: Numbers we cannot talk about
by Paul Elliott 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Some of the applications of these theories are very relevant. For > example, a theorem that proves that it is impossible to write a program > that would determine if any other program would stop or loop forever, is > very relevant and interesting. > > - Igor. Well, yes, but a scientist can only make a finite number of measurements. A computer used for crypto can only have a finite number of states. All this talk about transfinite numbers does not have any effect on arithemetic truths. What good is an axiom system which asserts (internally) that there are uncountably many reals if that same axiom system has a countable model? - -- Paul Elliott Telephone: 1-713-781-4543 Paul.Elliott(a)hrnowl.lonestar.org Address: 3987 South Gessner #224 Houston Texas 77063 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: cp850 iQCVAgUBMuMw8vBUQYbUhJh5AQFJYgP/a05CTNOG7zYJxcLBFU6JdzNItGUik7pi fbor6p9l6FDgCwSSRIB59ApRIwKFscGLHVT/mAIi5Ofbnbn/wsm9p35ZNlY0YeDd nPf171quOh7d91W6FXOUwhKSfehbAACbsapN5yaf2vtldpTb/LpdA+xvKTFgiRvg 4/8+yhyfp34= =npw2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Too much week at the end of your paycheck?
by remove＠structuremg.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Do you need to supplement your income? Are you paying out in bills more than you make? Have you thought about a second job but wondered when you would have time? What if you could supplement your income in only 5-6 hours a week and if you could do it in the privacy of your own home at your computer? Would you try it? Find out how you can supplement and eventually replace your current job. We are looking for 6 new people willing to take a new opportunity and make it their goldmine. If you are open-minded, have internet access at home, and are ready to change your life don't pass on this opportunity. Help us change families financial futures for the better. Get more info from our autoresponder - info(a)structuremg.com or from our website - http://www.structuremg.com (signup here too!) ************************************************************** If you wish to be removed from our future mailings simply reply with "REMOVE" in the subject and place your email address in the body. You must do this correctly to be removed. **************************************************************

1 0

RE: THIS IS THE FIRST MESSAGE TO THE MODERATED CYPHERPUNKS LIST
by Butler, Scott 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Gilmore wrote: > >>Welcome to (what I hope is) a more useful and less confrontative >>cypherpunks list. Now, can we get back to talking about cryptography? > > "can we get 'BACK' to talking about cryptography?" You seem to have misspelled START. >Scott

1 0

FW: AUTO ANSWER MESSAGE.
by Butler, Scott 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have set up an autoresponder to bounce back all of this jerks responses. Like a game of e-mail tennis ! I'm sure that he will get sick before I do ! Scott >---------- >From: Gerardo_NUNO@bourns.com[SMTP:Gerardo_NUNO@bourns.com] >Sent: 17 January 1997 18:38 >To: Butler, Scott >Subject: AUTO ANSWER MESSAGE. > > > > From : "Gerardo NUNO"@[PRCL/01] Please check the name and e-mail address of the person that you're looking. Since gerardo_nuno is out of the system temporary. attn. System Administration.

1 0

test message
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is sent to cypherpunks-outgoing-ksiuw. Will it make it to the cypherpunks list?

1 0

Re: One time pads and randomness?
by Rick Osborne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>[Blurb on OTPs ...] I realize this has a limited amount of >messages before it is used up. But would this be secure? >Any suggestions, complaints, big gapping holes I missed? TMK, this is as close to a perfectly secure system as can be achieved. *AS LONG AS* the disks/discs are never compromised and never reused. As an interesting sidenote, if you read Tom Clancy's "Sum of All Fears" this is the type of system the CIA wants to implement even though the NSA doesn't want to back them because they think their (compromised) sytem is secure. Don't we all wish... _________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ "I thought your patience was infinte?" 'Since space and time are curved, the infinite sooner or later bends back upon itself and ends up where it began and so have I.'

1 0

Re: Dr Vulis's crypto experiment (Re: IMDMP: SOURCE CODE RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENT)
by Casey Iverson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dimitri is a low life piece of Russan shit who is trying to distroy this list because he has serious mental problems or he is a tool of the NSA. What part of his vicious personal and anomyous attacks against members of the list 'are not being read correctly'? What part of his calling everyone on this list that won't put up with his deliberate abuse, "fagots", 'are not being read correctly'? If you don't get it, you are a *really dumb fuck* or a KTOM tool. At 09:42 PM 1/16/97 GMT, you wrote: > >It's occured to me recently that Dimitri's posts are not being read >correctly, it is not the content which is the point, nor the >superficial lack of crypto relevance. > >Dimitri is an intelligent guy, and has a high level of crypto >expertise (he has a PhD on a cryptography topic). It is my belief >that his posts can only be understood in a "meta" sense -- he is >engaged in a highly complex cryptographic experiment. People who read >and respond to his individual posts are the unwitting subjects in his >experiments. His posts and the responses to them are actually the >data-set for a thorough cryptanalysis of mailing list threats. His >current topic under investigation is Denial of Service (DoS) attacks >on mailing lists. > >Denial of service on mailing lists is a complex business, and requires >expert human input to be done properly. > >Dimitri has systematically explored these types of posting behaviour: > >1. Posting only crypto relevant material. >2. Interspersing crypto relevant posts with hand personalised flame bait. >3. Interspersing crypto relevant posts with bot generated flame bait. >4. Interspersing crypto relevant posts with news stories. >5. Posting only non crypto relevant material. > >The alert reader will recall these phases of posting style (currently >we are in sub experiment 5, the other phases have occured over a >protracted period of intensive experimentation, and some newer readers >may have missed earlier phases). > >There were other experiments which may or may not have been part of >Dimitri's series of DoS experiments: > >6. Subscribing the list to itself (testing list resilience to recursion) > >7. Forging posts to carefully selected newsgroups with >"cypherpunks(a)toad.com" as the sender (this indirectly adds user >"cypherpunks(a)toad.com" to many direct marketing lists as direct >marketers make use of email addresses scanned from newsgroups). > >8. The "UNSCRIVE" and other spelling variations of "unsubscribe" epidemic, >and ensuing instructions and discussion > >9. Subscribing the list to other lists > >10. Bot generated flame bait posted anonymously (with ascii art) > >>From the post I am following up to the reader will observe an oblique >reference to the transition from phase 4 of the experiments to the >current phase, phase 5 (the reader will also note references to experimental >results c and d described below): > >Dimitri Vulis <dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com> writes: >> One memorable "censorship" incident occurred when the lying cocksucker >> John Gilmore (spit) forcibly unsubscribed me from this list because he >> didn't like the contents of my submissions - or did you forget already? >> Look up Declan's disgraceful writeup on Netly News archives. >> >> At that time most valuable contributors to this list (such as myself) >> resolved not to contribute crypto-relevant content to a censored forum. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >More widely read cypherpunks will know that Dimitri has performed >similar experiments in other fora -- his systematic experiments in >numerous USENET newsgroups resulted in the his receiving the >prestigious KOTM ("Kook Of The Month") award. > >His main experimental results to date with the cypherpunks mailing >list series of experiments have been: > >a) many cypherpunks publically announcing kill filing him > >b) numerous cypherpunks suggesting censoring him (a particularly >interesting result considering the libertarian leanings of many on >this list) > >c) the outstanding experimental result of being forcibly unsubscribed >from the list, and of being barred from resubscribing by John Gilmore. >(creator of alt.* USENET newsgroup hierarchy, and well know freespeech >advocate) > >d) another interesting, incidental experimental result was provided by >Declan McCullagh in his Netly News piece in prematurely, and entirely >unwittingly, publishing some of Dimitri's expermiental data-set. > >e) the main experimental result: the list shortly moving to a >moderated form, seemingly at the request of Sandy Sandfort, with >agreement from John Gilmore. > >These experimental results are quite significant, when taken in the >context of the anti-censorship, libertarian, pro-freespeech >environment of the cypherpunks mailing list. Dimitri should be >congratulated on his outstanding work. > >I await with interest the last phases of Dimitri's experiment, when >the cypherpunks list becomes a moderated forum. My suggestions for >interesting experiments during the moderated phase are: > >1. Testing the limits of Dale Thorn's anti-censorship sentiments (for >those who don't read Dale, he is subscribed to "cypherpunks-unedited" >in preparation for the moderation). > >2. Testing Sandy Sandforts rejection criteria. > >3. Testing Sandy Sandforts rejection rate for long crypto relevant >posts interspersed with irrelevant flame bait. > >4. Testing Sandy Sandforts rejection rate for posts with flame bait .sigs > >I hope Dimitri's selfless efforts in furthering understanding of DoS >attacks on mailing lists is properly acknowledged when he publishes >his findings on completion of his experiments. I also hope that >Dimitri will document his recommendations for mailing list >configuration and management in light of his experiments. > >Adam >-- >print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> >)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc` > >

2 1

List of reliable remailers
by Raph Levien 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I operate a remailer pinging service which collects detailed information about remailer features and reliability. To use it, just finger remailer-list(a)kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu There is also a Web version of the same information, plus lots of interesting links to remailer-related resources, at: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~raph/remailer-list.html This information is used by premail, a remailer chaining and PGP encrypting client for outgoing mail. For more information, see: http://www.c2.org/~raph/premail.html For the PGP public keys of the remailers, finger pgpkeys(a)kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu This is the current info: REMAILER LIST This is an automatically generated listing of remailers. The first part of the listing shows the remailers along with configuration options and special features for each of the remailers. The second part shows the 12-day history, and average latency and uptime for each remailer. You can also get this list by fingering remailer-list(a)kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu. $remailer{"extropia"} = "<remail(a)miron.vip.best.com> cpunk pgp special"; $remailer{"mix"} = "<mixmaster(a)remail.obscura.com> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek ksub reord ?"; $remailer{"replay"} = "<remailer(a)replay.com> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut post ek"; $remailer{'alpha'} = '<alias(a)alpha.c2.org> alpha pgp'; $remailer{'nymrod'} = '<nymrod(a)nym.jpunix.com> alpha pgp'; $remailer{"lead"} = "<mix(a)zifi.genetics.utah.edu> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"exon"} = "<remailer(a)remailer.nl.com> cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"haystack"} = "<haystack(a)holy.cow.net> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"lucifer"} = "<lucifer(a)dhp.com> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"jam"} = "<remailer(a)cypherpunks.ca> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"winsock"} = "<winsock(a)rigel.cyberpass.net> cpunk pgp pgponly hash cut ksub reord"; $remailer{'nym'} = '<config(a)nym.alias.net> newnym pgp'; $remailer{"balls"} = "<remailer(a)huge.cajones.com> cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"squirrel"} = "<mix(a)squirrel.owl.de> cpunk mix pgp pgponly hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"middle"} = "<middleman(a)jpunix.com> cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek reord ?"; $remailer{'cyber'} = '<alias(a)alias.cyberpass.net> alpha pgp'; $remailer{"dustbin"} = "<dustman(a)athensnet.com> cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek mix reord middle ?"; $remailer{'weasel'} = '<config(a)weasel.owl.de> newnym pgp'; $remailer{"death"} = "<x(a)deathsdoor.com> cpunk pgp hash latent post"; $remailer{"reno"} = "<middleman(a)cyberpass.net> cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek reord ?"; catalyst(a)netcom.com is _not_ a remailer. lmccarth(a)ducie.cs.umass.edu is _not_ a remailer. usura(a)replay.com is _not_ a remailer. remailer(a)crynwr.com is _not_ a remailer. There is no remailer at relay.com. Groups of remailers sharing a machine or operator: (cyber mix) (weasel squirrel) The alpha and nymrod nymservers are down due to abuse. However, you can use the nym or weasel (newnym style) nymservers. The cyber nymserver is quite reliable for outgoing mail (which is what's measured here), but is exhibiting serious reliability problems for incoming mail. The squirrel and winsock remailers accept PGP encrypted mail only. 403 Permission denied errors have been caused by a flaky disk on the Berkeley WWW server. This seems to be fixed now. The penet remailer is closed. Last update: Mon 20 Jan 97 6:47:59 PST remailer email address history latency uptime ----------------------------------------------------------------------- nym config(a)nym.alias.net +#+-*******# 4:38 99.99% weasel config(a)weasel.owl.de +++++-+++++ 1:34:36 99.95% lucifer lucifer(a)dhp.com +++++-++++++ 36:32 99.94% balls remailer(a)huge.cajones.com *+ ********* 3:01 99.94% cyber alias(a)alias.cyberpass.net * +*++++*+** 35:08 99.88% exon remailer(a)remailer.nl.com * ++##*###*# 1:14 99.86% winsock winsock(a)rigel.cyberpass.net ----------- 2:02:21 99.86% dustbin dustman(a)athensnet.com -++--+.--+- 3:01:52 99.74% squirrel mix(a)squirrel.owl.de ++ + ++ +++ 1:35:05 99.41% lead mix(a)zifi.genetics.utah.edu +++++-++*+*+ 39:30 99.35% extropia remail(a)miron.vip.best.com ----------- 5:06:43 98.93% haystack haystack(a)holy.cow.net +* .-####+# 2:24:43 98.64% replay remailer(a)replay.com +*+******* 15:38 98.25% reno middleman(a)cyberpass.net + + -+-- 1:51:15 92.61% middle middleman(a)jpunix.com ++ -+ .-- 1:48:09 67.78% mix mixmaster(a)remail.obscura.com .-++-+. 4:35:20 50.49% History key * # response in less than 5 minutes. * * response in less than 1 hour. * + response in less than 4 hours. * - response in less than 24 hours. * . response in more than 1 day. * _ response came back too late (more than 2 days). cpunk A major class of remailers. Supports Request-Remailing-To: field. eric A variant of the cpunk style. Uses Anon-Send-To: instead. penet The third class of remailers (at least for right now). Uses X-Anon-To: in the header. pgp Remailer supports encryption with PGP. A period after the keyword means that the short name, rather than the full email address, should be used as the encryption key ID. hash Supports ## pasting, so anything can be put into the headers of outgoing messages. ksub Remailer always kills subject header, even in non-pgp mode. nsub Remailer always preserves subject header, even in pgp mode. latent Supports Matt Ghio's Latent-Time: option. cut Supports Matt Ghio's Cutmarks: option. post Post to Usenet using Post-To: or Anon-Post-To: header. ek Encrypt responses in reply blocks using Encrypt-Key: header. special Accepts only pgp encrypted messages. mix Can accept messages in Mixmaster format. reord Attempts to foil traffic analysis by reordering messages. Note: I'm relying on the word of the remailer operator here, and haven't verified the reord info myself. mon Remailer has been known to monitor contents of private email. filter Remailer has been known to filter messages based on content. If not listed in conjunction with mon, then only messages destined for public forums are subject to filtering. Raph Levien

1 0

Re: Dedikend Cut's and such (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > > Did a little research, Dedekind Cut's and such use Integers to define a > > SPECIFIC Real to a arbitrary BUT FIXED resolution. They do not define the > > set of Reals. > > They do. The set of all numbers representable by a DC is precisely > the set of reals. Then you are saying that using Dedekind Cut's it is possible to define the ENTIRE set of Reals? I am assuming that entire includes all those Reals which aren't representable by any algorithm and of which we can't even speak (even though we are). Another pretty nifty trick. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: [Math Noise] (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Infinity does not have a predecessor, so it makes no sense to > count back from it a finite number of steps. If infinity does not have predecessors (ie is immune to normal arithmetic operations) then it is not possible for a sequence to approach it by adding a finite amount to succesive terms in order to approach it. This means that a sequence can not meaningfuly be asymptotic with infinity (meaning I have to be able to draw a asymptote, at least in theory, in order to demonstrate the limit). > If one constructs the Ordinals, which are isomorphism classes of > well-ordered sets, and the Cardinals, which are equivalence > classes of equipotent sets, one will automatically end up with > all sorts of transfinite numbers. If infinity is not a number, how is it possible to have a definite number (ie transfinite) which is larger than it? My contention is that number theory as you present it is playing fast and loose with the concept of infinity not being a number or visa versa. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

RE: infinity & set membership
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>The argument I supplied earlier for the rational nature of 0.1234... >still holds. >Math Man Aleph-Naught bottles of beer on the wall. Aleph-Naught bottles of beer. If some finite subset should happen to fall, There'll be Aleph-Naught bottles of beer on the wall. For those really long road trips, or when you choose to read all the cypherpunks traffic. James Q 1. Describe the history of the papacy from its origins to the present day, commenting specifically but not exclusively on its effects on the development of 14th century South America. Describe in detail. Be brief concise and specific. Give examples.

1 0