December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: (Fwd) Re: Mr. May's Posts. Other Things.
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:33 PM 12/30/96 -0800, Ross Wright wrote: >This is the message I got in response to my post regarding Mr. May's >offensive, racist, and bigoted post about ebonics. His comments were not "offensive, racist, and bigoted." They were funny, intentionally so. The whole "Ebonics" issue is a hilarious example of political-correctness gone mad. Interestingly, Jesse Jackson tried to make it look like the blacks were the victims, the ones most offended by the actions of the Oakland schools people. Embarrassed, maybe, victims no. (A friend of mine greatly prefers the term, "Niglish." I try hard to not be so...coarse.) Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Responsibility
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike Duvos writes: >Brent E. Turvey (bturvey(a)connix.com) wrote: > >: This NG is not a certified twelve-step program operating under >: anonymity. This is not even a group of people in recovery operating >: under any kind of professional guidance at all. It is in essence a >: PUBLIC FORUM on a given topic. There are no secrets, and no reasonable >: expectation of privacy. There is also no necessitation for legal >: confidance. > >This has been discussed before. Most people are aware of how Usenet >works, and people who don't want their posts linked to their real >life identities can post anonymously. > >: It's also unmoderated. Anyone can look in at any time that they want and >: review any posts current and past that they see fit thanks to the good >: people at Dejanews. And anyone can post whatever they want. > >Yup. > >: However there are a number of individuals engaged in exploitative >: behaviors with the survivors here and other places on the net. Any >: therapist or other certified mental health professional can give you a >: better and more complete definition of "exploitative behaviors" than I >: could do here. > >Changing our tune a bit, aren't we Brent? The infamous list was >advertised as a list of predatory offenders and abusers. Now it >seems to be just a list of people whose Usenet interactions with >others you choose to characterize as "exploitative." > >: It is mainly for the reason of professional ethics and responsibility >: that I posted the list of people to be careful of earlier this month. >: Incumbent in that responsibility is my desire to offer potential victims >: a survival tool. > >Quite frankly, Brent, you offering the survivors in this newsgroup a >"survival tool" is much like a person on fire offering a gathering of >penguins an ice cube. The patrons of this newsgroup are Past Masters >of survival. You, on the other hand, are a master only of sticking >your foot into one bodily opening, while simultaneously sticking your >head up another. > >: By posting that list, I made it totally available to not >: only the frequent and infrequent subscribers to aar, to explore on their >: own as they see fit, but to the law enforcement agencies who now monitor >: usenet as well. > >Who, I am sure, are laughing hysterically at all of this. Please >continue to pee on your chances of ever doing this professionally >at every opportunity. > >: No strict personal agenda; only a professional one. No personal attacks. >: Just observations of behavior. > >Goodness Brent, do you really think we need you to observe peoples >behavior for us? Most of us who have been around the Net since the >clever little protocols were designed by the engineers, and who can >even remember events like "The Great Renaming", and the origins of >Kibo, are fairly astute judges of human behavior. We have seen >all sides of every imaginable issue argued from every conceivable >perspective, and we know the names of all the major players and >where they stand on each one. > >: -- >: Brent E. Turvey, MSc Forensic Science >: bturvey(a)connix.com >: http://www.connix.com/~bturvey/profile.html > >Anyone want to join me in nominating Mr. Turvey for the coveted "KOTM" >degree? I think... > > Brent E. Turvey, MSc Forensic Science, KOTM Usenet > >has a very nice ring to it. He's definitely goofier than Drs. Grubor >and Vulis. I also suggest you visit his unintentionally funny writings >on autoerotic asphyxiation on the Web. Brent is a man of many talents. :) > >-- > Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ > mpd(a)netcom.com $ via Finger. $ > Is Brent as goofy as the ASALA terrorist (about to be fired by Earthweb for net-abuse), or even goofier? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

3 3

Building PGP on Freebsd?
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I get this message at the end, for building with the netbsd or the 386bsd config file. I know theres a simple tweak, can someone remind me what it is? Thanks, Adam gcc -o pgp pgp.o crypto.o keymgmt.o fileio.o mdfile.o more.o armor.o mpilib.o mpiio.o genprime.o rsagen.o random.o idea.o passwd.o md5.o system.o language.o getopt.o keyadd.o config.o keymaint.o charset.o randpool.o noise.o zbits.o zdeflate.o zfile_io.o zglobals.o zinflate.o zip.o zipup.o ztrees.o zunzip.o rsaglue2.o _80386.o _zmatch.o ../rsaref/install/unix/rsaref.a rsaglue2.o: Definition of symbol `_NN_ModExp' (multiply defined) -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

2 2

Re: (Fwd) Re: Mr. May's Posts. Other Things.
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 30 Dec 96 at 18:16, jim bell wrote: > At 04:33 PM 12/30/96 -0800, Ross Wright wrote: > >This is the message I got in response to my post regarding Mr. > >May's offensive, racist, and bigoted post about ebonics. > > > His comments were not "offensive, racist, and bigoted." They were Be that as it may, it is still no call for threats of gunplay! That is NOT funny. I take such things very seriously. =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

4 3

Re: (Fwd) Re: Mr. May's Posts. Other Things.
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 30 Dec 96 at 19:12, Ross Wright wrote: > On or About 30 Dec 96 at 18:16, jim bell wrote: > > > At 04:33 PM 12/30/96 -0800, Ross Wright wrote: > > >This is the message I got in response to my post regarding Mr. > > >May's offensive, racist, and bigoted post about ebonics. > > > > > > His comments were not "offensive, racist, and bigoted." They were > > Be that as it may, it is still no call for threats of gunplay! That > is NOT funny. I take such things very seriously. Funny, yeah real funny. In other words: I'll popa cap in the motherfuckers ass just for him thinkin he gonna draw down on me! It just makes me more and more pissed off! I gotta have a cuppa coffe, and calm down! Ross

2 1

RE: (Fwd) Re: Mr. May's Posts. Other Things.
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 30 Dec 96 at 18:03, Blanc Weber wrote: > You have to understand - Tim is from California. > If you choose to carry, you will be held to a higher standard of > behavior > than those that don't. Yes, part of that "higher standard" is to keep your fucking mouth shut about that piece in your sholder holster. Those that brag that they are packing and won't hesitate to use it are usually those that freeze under fire or snap at the workplace. A true shooter shut's the fuck up and if needs be, let's the weapon do the talking when the time is right. That mutually assured destruction shit only works for governments. In this day and age you better think EVERYONE'S packing, and if you shoot your mouth off about your little pea shooter you just make yourself a target for the first shot fired. Ross =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

3 2

Re: Crypto reg clarification from Commerce Department
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I believe that Kutz is speaking the truth. Keep in mind the paragraph with which you're concerned is not the meat of what's being amended. That lies in the next line, Section 736.2(b)(7)(ii), which reads: You may not, without a license from BXA, provide certain technical assistance to foreign persons with respect to encryption items, as described in Sec. 744.9 of the EAR. "Technical assistance" is still troubling, but not as much as investment would be. Assistance is aimed at training, and the regulations somewhat exempt classroom discussions. Of course, the uncertainty and the potential chilling effects are good reasons to continue with the court challenges. -Declan --- > I just got of the phone with Bruce Kutz, Export Policy Analyst, Office of > Strategic Trade and Foreign Policy Controls. (202) 482-0092. He seems to be > the contact person for the new regs. > > I pointed Mr. Kutz to the section that alarmed me: > > Sec. 736.2 General prohibitions and determination of applicability. > > * * * * * > > (7) General Prohibition Seven--Support of Certain Activities by > U.S. persons--(i) Support of Proliferation Activities (U.S. Person > Proliferation Activity). If you are a U.S. Person as that term is > defined in Sec. 744.6(c) of the EAR, you may not engage in any > activities prohibited by Sec. 744.6 (a) or (b) of the EAR which > prohibits the performance, without a license from BXA, of certain > financing, contracting, service, support, transportation, freight > forwarding, or employment that you know will assist in certain > proliferation activities described further in part 744 of the EAR. > There are no License Exceptions to this General Prohibition Seven in > part 740 of the EAR unless specifically authorized in that part. > > Mr. Kutz seemed surprised. Apparently he had not been aware that this > section was included in the new crypto regs. He then assured me that > > 1. Proliferation in the context of this paragraph applies only to > proliferation of > a) nuclear (bomb) technology > b) missile technology > > He read to me EAR Sec. 744.6 (a) or (b), which are referred to in the > paragraph in question. Sec. 744.6 (a) or (b) seems to support this view. > However, he did not explain to me why the paragraph was included in the > crypto export regulations when it only applies to nukes and missiles. > > 2. The Department of Commerce has no intention of banning the financing and > contracting of non-US crypto development. > > 3. Technical assistance to non-US parties requires a license. > > Mr. Kutz encouraged me to make use of the public comment period and ask > Commerce to clarify the section. Public comments will be accepted until > February 13, 1997. [Public comment is requested only after the new regs > took effect...] > > I received the impression that Mr. Kutz genuinely believes that the section > in question does not apply to crypto. If I was concerned about potentially > violating the regulations, I would try to get a written statement from > Commerce that Mr. Kutz's view is indeed correct. As always, IANAL. > > > > -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred > Make your mark in the history of mathematics. Use the spare cycles of > your PC/PPC/UNIX box to help find a new prime. > http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm > > >

1 0

Re: (Fwd) Re: Mr. May's Posts. Other Things.
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 30 Dec 96 at 20:29, Graham-John Bullers wrote: > You mean we cannot choose to be RACIST BIGOTS shame on you. Sure you can, I got no problem with open disscussions of views. Any views! But a private threat of gunplay, that you have no right to! > > http://www.free > net.edmonton.ab.ca/~real/index.html > > : > real(a)freenet.edmonton.ab.c > a > Graham-John Bullers email > : > ab756(a)freenet.toronto.on.c > a > > Of course, I'd treat a "slapping" as an assault. I'd love to put a > > clip of hollowpoints through your chest. > > > > Your place or mine? > > > > ---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, > > digital =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

2 1

Happy New Year
by secure＠access.usa.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Friend, If you are interested in increasing your income by using your personal contacts, Please Consider this... Make up to $400.00 per deal by giving away security systems Secure America Highlights 1. It only cost $45 to become a distributor and for that you receive a black glove leather brief case with everything you need to get started; forms, full color brochures, and a video tape telling you about the company, its product and marketing plan. 2. The company offers 100% financing to those buying the product- they have four institutions and can finance most everyone. If your prospective customer gets turned down, then with a small down payment, the company will finance them - IN OTHER WORDS, - ALMOST NO TURN DOWNS! Each source, including the "company carried' contracts, will be reported to TRW; thus helping people, who have bad or no credit, gain the good credit they deserve. 3. The customer receives the system for FREE when they agree to a $29.95 per month-four year monitoring agreement, which is standard cost for a 2-way voice monitoring. They need to agree to either a debit from their checking account or credit card each month. 4. You as the distributor receive a commission of up to $400 - once the buyer is approved and financed. The company pays commission weekly. The commission is paid even before the buyer makes their first payment. And this is important. There are never any charge backs! 5. You, as the distributor can sign up others distributors and receive bonuses of $120 to $320 per sale from distributors under you. The marketing plan offers a very attractive bonus plan. By signing up one new distributor, who does the same within a month, and this pattern continues with each new person only bringing one new distributor, there would be more than 4,000 distributors in your organization at the end of a year. Keep in mind that you only brought in one person each month. If each person in your organization sold only one system per month, your income would be more than $800,000 the first year! What if your organization only did 1/3 of that? Would you be excited? 6. You can set up businesses who can give these away as premiums to their customers, Carpet dealers, appliance dealers, auto dealers, real estate offices, home improvement companies, just to name a few, can give their customers a certificate for a free system upon activation of a four year monitoring contract. The certificate will have your name on it and all they have to do is contact you for the system. You get them approved and get the commission - It's that simple! If you want, you can pay the business a referral fee of say $25, $50, or $100 or even better yet sign them up as a distributor and get continuing overrides and bonuses on them. 7. No Installation worries on your part. The system is wireless, needs no professional installer and comes with an installation video that walks the customer through the installation process. Installation will take about 20-30 minutes. 8. You can market to both home owners and renters - in fact, nobody is going after the rental market at this time. Think about it, do renters want any less protection than homeowners? What a gold mine! When someone moves, they take their security system with them and set it up, with our nationwide monitoring company, at their new location (keep in mind that the system is hooked up to the customers' regular phone line). 9. No Inventory. You do not have to buy anything or make a huge investments in products just to store them in your garage. Once you sign someone up for a system, you turn the paperwork into the company, they process the application (usually within 48 hours), and ship the system to the customer - no deliver or installation hassles for you! 10. No Accounting. The company keeps track of everything for you and give you a computer printout of your sales and organizational activity each month. 11. The Need. September 17, 1996 U.S. Justice Department statistics show that last year burglaries, theft, and theft of motor vehicles were 288 per 1,000 households and yet only 15% of the homes in America have security systems. We can offer monitored protection and peace of mind for only $1 a day and save 10-20% on home insurance premiums. 12. The Equipment. TWO-WAY VOICE systems let the monitoring company listen throughout the home (after alarm activation) for burglaries, medical, or emergency needs, or fire department help. In fact more and more cities are starting to charge non two-way system owners for false alarms. 13. The Company. Secure America has spent more than two years in developing this state of the art equipment system, marketing plan, and available $100 million in financing. This is a one of a king company - no inventory to stock - no huge investments - no money up from the buyer - weekly payment of sales bonuses - and there is NO Competition for this type of system at this price. 14. The Opportunity. What a great feeling! We get to Give Away a system that can do so much for family safety and peace of mind. And whether you would like to make an extra $300 a month or have visions of grandeur, this program can satisfy your needs. The financial bottom line... There will be many millionaires made through Secure America in the next few years. ________________________________________________ Product Package Information: 3000M Gardsman Alarm System - Monitoring Fee $24.95/Month Main Unit(3000M) X1 Motion Sensors X2 Magnetic Sensors X2 Keychain Remote controls X1 Strobe light Siren X1 Window Decals X2 Commission-$200 5000M Gardsman Alarm System - Monitoring Fee $29.95/Month Main Unit(5000M) X1 Motion Sensors X2 Magnetic Sensors X2 Keychain Remote controls X2 Strobe light Siren X1 Window Decals X4 Lawn Sign X1 Commission-$300 For an application, Please Email me your fax number or Mailing address and phone number. Look forward to hearing from you or call our Fax on Demand 1 703-736-1600 Doc#280

2 1

Re: With my deepest regards....
by AwakenToMe＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-12-30 17:46:12 EST, you write: << AwakenToMe(a)aol.com wrote: > Adam Breaux wrote: > > I am withdrawing from this list. Not because of the volume of > > email...that I can deal with...but what I cannot deal with is the > > volume of garbage and egotistical ranting[snippo] > Note to cypherpunks: This guy complains about the problem, but he *is* > the problem. *He* wants to tell us *he's* leaving. Talk about ego- > tistical ranting! What a hypocrite. > Since I never said I dont contribute to the problem.. I think Ill point > out... that in a reverse notion...He isn't the problem. What you replied > back is the problem. Argumentum ad nauseam. The point is, Adam (I think) wanted to tell us he's leaving. Well, who gives a shit, anyway? Instead of ranting against me, tell the cypherpunks why they should care that this particular individual is "leaving the list". >> he did: =-} <<I am withdrawing from this list. Not because of the volume of email...that I can deal with...but what I cannot deal with is the volume of garbage and egotistical ranting that seems so prevalent in what should for all sakes and purposes be a discussion of cyphering and security. Apparently the name of this list is designed to mislead...because of all the posts, a grand total of 5% proved worth reading at all.>>

1 0

Re: (Fwd) Re: Mr. May's Posts. Other Things.
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Some peckerhead soiled my mailbox with: >This is the message I got in response to my post regarding Mr. May's >offensive, racist, and bigoted post about ebonics. I have made >overtures towards peace and tried to explain that I thought that the >Doctor's verbal slapping was not as bad as it seemed, maybe even he >deserved it!. He refuses to answer. He's just a pussy, I guess. >Like's to make terroristic threats. To Nam vets, yet. Ballsy, Tim! Thank you for playing, Mr. Grubor. Please pick up your consolation prize at the door marked "Out." And stop passing Dimbulb the mailing list messages -- you know it makes the tumors in his head kick in. >I would rather have discussed this with you in private e-mail, or >over a few beers, but you refuse to answer my e-mail. Maybe he has you filtered, as the rest of us will now. *plonk* (I'd prob'ly buy him the hollowpoints, btw.)

2 1

WinSock Remailer Now Operating Normally
by Joey Grasty 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Y'all: The WinSock Remailer, operating at winsock(a)rigel.cyberpass.net, is back up and operating normally. Regards, Joey Grasty Jim Ray WinSock Remailer Operators -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMsh/qw6sYKeTQAOtAQEXnwL7B53vpSeyb7PbR+g+X7PK1KsEG9sqr1ws Uf9tymq7fJNGHmDl/+7V7asL/i0hmZPLm/XiIniMyutfXCGFWGNQ8kYAvlarq2yp t3wSKo/TJkgIZERaziAa5gTD77mQcnXT =VrpC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Ebonite Notes from All Over
by drose＠AZStarNet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1. J. Jackson apparently now finds "ebonics" to be a "Goot Thang"(SM): _S.F. Examiner_ reporter Venise (sic) Wagner headlines in the paper's Web site today that "Jackson backs Oakland 'ebonics.' Rights leader switches position after hearing about program in detail." Says Jackson: "The first message the came out was that the district was going to make black language equitable (sic) as another language. That is not the idea." Is Mr. Jackson speaking in Ebonics? 2. From "A Brief History of Plastics": "Ebonite (TM) is produced by heating natural rubber with about 10% by weight of sulpher. This is about five time more sulpher than would be used in conventional vulcanisation. The material is hard, black and tough and bears a striking resemblance to the hardwood, ebony--hence its name. The main use for ebonite in the early 1800s was in piano keys." 3. Although Ebonite International sponsors the Professional Bowling Association's "Ebonite Classic" tournament, the Official ABC/WIBC Ruling on Ball Cleaners, as at 9/12/96, has ruled that their 1-and-2-Step Reactive Resin Ball Cleaners "cannot be used during ABC/WIBC sanctioned competition because it would be in violation of Rule 19." But take heart: the American Bowling Conference Equipment Specifications Department has decided that "these products are allowed before or after league and/or tournament sessions." 4. What's the difference between a bowling ball and a black woman? If you're really, really hungry, you can always eat the bowling ball. N.B. I personally find #4 above to be racist, sick, and not very "funny" at all.

3 2

RE: Iranian clergic attacks Internet as 'poison' to the m...
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subject: RE: Iranian clergic attacks Internet as 'poison' to the masses ( vipul(a)pobox.com wrote: >*** Iranian clergic attacks Internet as 'poison' to the masses >A senior Iranian cleric called Friday for restricting Internet access >because the global computer network fed "poison" to the masses. I have seen this article elsewhere, and the sentiment is not as nefarious as it sounds. You may know that many Arabic and Persian countries have a heavy exposure to French. In this case, the confusion arises due to the similarity between the English "poison" and the French "poisson" which means fish. Restated, the problem is that the Internet is feeding "fish" to the masses in the form of information, hence the masses are not feeding themselves. A similar English adage is: Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for the rest of his life. As the mullah implies, we need to help people to increase their critical thinking skills, rather than passively accept what others tell them via the Internet. Start now. James

2 1

Re: (Fwd) Re: Mr. May's Posts. Other Things.
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 30 Dec 96 at 19:52, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > SANDY SANDFORT > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > C'punks, > > On Mon, 30 Dec 1996, Ross Wright wrote: > > > Be that as it may, it is still no call for threats of gunplay! > > That is NOT funny. I take such things very seriously. > > So let me see if I've got this right. Threatening to slap > someone is okay, I said "he deserves a slapping". I never volunteered to carry that out. And, furthermore, I meant a verbal slapping, something akin to what is already happening with the good Doctor's attacks. Sorry about the metaphor. God damn, must I overstate the obvious? What pissed me off is: After I received this letter I sent several olive branches. No reply. No discussion. Just leave it with his weapon drawn? On my open and empty hand!? That's not me. > but threatening to defend one's self from such an > attack is not okay? Interesting. I guess the old saying still > applies, "the essence of humor is WHOSE ox is being gored." > > > S a n d y =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

2 1

RE: Crypto reg clarification from Commerce Department
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

These make more sense with the following modifications to the clarification: (c) Definition of U.S. person. For purposes of this section, the term U.S. person includes: (1) Any retard who is a citizen of the United States, a permanent resident alien from Planet X, or a protected person formerly-known-as-criminal as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3); (2) Any juridical organization under surveillance by the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States, including foreign branches; and (3) Any Borgs in the United States. .. Blanc

2 1

Have You Read the Book?
by rvrcp＠ocsnet.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The book is called "How to MAKE AMERICA STRONG & WEALTHY ONE PERSON AT A TIME" There is over THREE MILLION copies in print. AND it is Free. The book contains information on how you can become DEBT-FREE in a very short time (on the money that you are making today), and how to easily make more money (thus becoming DEBT-FREE faster) working in your spare time, if you choose to do so. Get your free copy today, so when someone asks you, "Have you read the Book?", you can say, "I was going to ask you the same question!" This book will affect your life whether you read it or not. For more information, call 1-608-375-3130 ext 156900 for a recorded message. ---OR--- E-mail me your Postal Address at rvrcp(a)ocsnet.net. Call or write today. There is no obligation. But I am betting that you will see the great opportunities that this book contains. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you wish to be removed from this and all future mailing list, simply send me a message requesting removal. Thank you very much for a little of your valuable time. Ray 8->>

1 0

premail.
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A scenario: 1) The spooks put a bug (named Eve) on the link between kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu and the Internet. Whenever kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu sents out the pubring.pgp Eve intercepts it and replaces it with a file of the spooks' choosing. This file will selectively replace the public pgp keys of some of the remailers (say exon) in pubring.pgp with keys to which the spooks know the private key. 2) A similar bug is put on the link between the exon remailer and the internet. All email to exon is intercepted, and if found to be encrypted with the spooks' PGP key, it is decrypted, saved, re-encrypted with exon's real PGP key and sent on. It is only a scenario. I am still using premail to send this.

3 2

RE: Just another government fuckover: New crypto regulations
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Toto Why is it that governments always seem to be so self-congratulatory about allowing the citizens to be 'free' to do those things that the government 'allows' them to do? ..................................................... Not to start a thread specifically on government bashing, but Toto' statement is so on-target about the kind of attitude which emanates from what regulators say and do. It is their underlying assumption that only they have the moral discernment to determine the parameters of propriety; which makes them think that no 'underling' has the right of self-determination. It can be seen in statements they make such as as: "there are no provisions in Super Legislation Bill 200A.666.b.32xy.450z for individual exemptions from voluntary contribution". (well, excuse Me! <g>) So this means that an individual can feel "free" to act only when these people feel magnanimously generous enough to allow it. No reference to Reason or Logic in the way things work in Reality, only that an action is inhibited or allowed "because this piece of paper says so". Therefore from their perspective and their re-definition of "person", Human Motivation derives its validity solely from their "provisions" for it. All other determining factors are Prohibited by Law. How can you argue with that? .. Blanc >

1 0

If He Doesn't Like Me
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 30 Dec 96 at 21:32, Timothy C. May wrote: > > Indeed, I added "Ross Wright" to my Eudora filter file after his > "slap you around" message several days ago, so I was mercifully > spared from reading > > > As to why he got *plonked*, this is the price people pay for writing > such things as "maybe we need to slap him around." I have more than > 20 in my > > Oh, and posting private mail is not considered acceptable behavior. > What's next? If Timmy doesn't like what I write will I be kicked off like the Doctor? Wow! From Timmy's trash bin to Kook of the Month FAME!!!!! What more could I ask for? Fuck You, Too, Timmy! But I refuse to censor my own input, so I'll still have to see your fucking stuff. ShitHead. Hostile Agent! How come it took over a year to get this far? Ross (Proud to be in Timmy's Filter File) Wright =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

8 11

[[[ NEW ! Computer Based Business. ]]]
by 93865＠net.122 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

DO NOT PRESS REPLY. Send all inquiries, and remove request to http://business.atcon.com/parker/PSM/Tony/tonypsm.htm

2 1

Re: (Fwd) Re: Mr. May's Posts. Other Things.
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 30 Dec 96 at 22:24, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > And Tim never threatened Ross. He merely posited an "if, than" > response to a hypothetical assault. If Ross does no slapping, Tim > won't shoot him. QED. No reason to get bent out of shape. Thanks. You are correct. I'm done with this thread. Tim *Plonked* me, not shot me. And now back to you, Dr. V.... Ross =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

1 0

RE: (Fwd) Re: Mr. May's Posts. Other Things.
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Ross Wright Yes, part of that "higher standard" is to keep your fucking mouth shut about that piece in your sholder holster. Those that brag that they are packing and won't hesitate to use it are usually those that freeze under fire or snap at the workplace. ............................................................. Discussing self-defense equipment to carry... Student: "How about earplugs?" Instructor: "We've thought about that as an intimidation tool. Some guy is hassling you on the street and you start putting your ear plugs in. The guy says, 'What are you doing?' You say, 'It looks like I'm going to be doing some shooting here pretty soon and I don't want to hurt my ears.'" -Greg Hamilton- Self Defense Instructor Nov. 19, 1995 In cyberspace, elimination is accomplished with "delete" keys and "kill files", right? (L.Detweiler used to complain about how many cyberdeaths he had experienced.) Outta sight, outta mind... .. Blanc

1 0

Re: "Structuring" of Communications a Felony?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:35 PM 12/29/96 -0800, Steve Schear wrote: >>I predict that we will see within two years a law making it illegal to >>"structure communications" with the intent to avoid traceability, >>accountability, etc. >> >>This would be along the lines of the laws making it illegal to "structure" >>financial transactions with the (apparent) intent to avoid or evade certain >>laws about reporting of income, reporting of transactions, etc. >> >>How long before the U.S. Code declares "attempting to obscure or hide the >>origin of a communication" to be a felony? That would rule out orninary >>mail without return adresses, but I think there are ample signs we're >>already moving toward this situation (packages that could be bombs >>putatively require ID, talk of the Postal Service handling the citizen-unit >>authentication/signature system, etc.). >>--Tim May > >Tim, I think that this is highly unlikely. The SC has ruled repeatedly >that anonymous speech is a foundation of American politics (e.g., the >Federalist Papers). >-- Steve When Senator Leahy's first crypto bill was proposed early this year, at first glance it appeared to help our cause. Many people around here at least gave it lukewarm support. However, it contained a section making (quote approximate) "use of encryption to thwart an investigation" a crime. I pointed out, quite loudly, that any encrypting anonymous remailer could be considered practically automatically guilty of this. In fact, the feds could simply start a sham "investigation," perhaps assisted by a phony message sent by a confederate through the remailer, and then declare that their investigation had been "thwarted." Whether such an interpretation would fly was, obviously, a question, but by the time the SC had issued its ruling the remailer's hardware would have been siezed collecting dust in some Fed warehouse for 2-3 years. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: LAW_dno
by Marshall Clow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In the 12-29-96. Computerworld: >>>> Karen Epper, an analyst at Forrester Research, Inc. in Cambridge, Mass., said electronic commerce companies should do more legal research than that. "Joe Programmer could create a new currency system," Epper said. "But if it's not supported by regulators, what do you have?" <<<< And there you have it. If it's not regulated by the government, it's no good. P.S This was not an isolated quote, this was the central point of the article. -- Marshall Marshall Clow Aladdin Systems <mailto:mclow@mailhost2.csusm.edu> Warning: Objects in calendar are closer than they appear.

3 2

Hardening lists against spam attacks
by Bill Frantz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Christmas attack against this list shows the need to develop lists which are resistant to attacks. If cyberspace is to become the town square of the next century, we need to be able to discourage brown shirts attacks on political gatherings. If lists are to be a major part of the political life of the community, then they must be resistant to attacks from knowledgeable, well financed attackers, not just the shits who were the most recent perps. There are several principles which should be observed: (1) Since attacks are based on sending to the list, receiving the list should remain substantially unchanged. (2) Spam attacks should be throttled at the source, so they do not act as a denial of service attack on the list server. Here is a sketch of a protocol which attempts to achieve these goals: (1) All messages sent to the list must be encrypted with the list's public key. This requirement is primarily to protect the posting token (see below). However, it alone will probably reduce the problem. Certainly it will eliminate the effectiveness of the "subscribe the list to some other list" attacks. (2) In order to post to the list, the poster must have a valid posting token. These tokens are available, in limited number, anonymously. Tokens remain valid unless canceled for abuse. However, if too many posts are received with a given token, TCP performance on sockets using that token may become arbitrarily slow (or the circuit may be dropped). (3) In order to limit the number of posting tokens, the list server will only issue a few per day. The lucky few who get them, everyone who asks under normal circumstances, may be determined by an algorithm designed to limit token collection by future attackers. (This area is where this proposal needs work!) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Client in California, POP3 | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | in Pittsburgh, Packets in | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | Pakistan. - me | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

16 26

Re: premail.
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anonymous wrote: > > A scenario: > > 1) The spooks put a bug (named Eve) on the link between > kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu and the Internet. > > Whenever kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu sents out the pubring.pgp Eve intercepts > it and replaces it with a file of the spooks' choosing. This file will > selectively replace the public pgp keys of some of the remailers (say exon) > in pubring.pgp with keys to which the spooks know the private key. > > 2) A similar bug is put on the link between the exon remailer and the > internet. All email to exon is intercepted, and if found to be encrypted > with the spooks' PGP key, it is decrypted, saved, re-encrypted with exon's > real PGP key and sent on. > > It is only a scenario. I am still using premail to send this. > A good scenario. A truly paranoid premail users should verify who signed the remailer keys. If you trust the signators and they signed the keys, you are "safe". Just do pgp -kvv some(a)remailer.com and see what comes up. Maybe remailer operators should asks someone reputable to sign their remailers' keys so that the users can easily verify the signatures. - Igor.

4 4

Anonymous Post Control
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It's hard to filter anonymous posters. I want to see what a few of them have to say so I can't filter on the remailers. If anonymous posters PGP sign their posts, it is still hard to filter using a lame filter software such as that which comes to Eudora. It would be nice if toad.com would verify signatures and insert a header into the messages with the PGP User Id of every poster. Then it would be very easy for many people to filter the messages using widely available off-the-shelf mail software. (I volunteer to adapt majordomo for this task if it seems like a good idea.) Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

4 3

Re: what is a law if it cant be enforced?
by Ryan Russell/SYBASE 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

As long as it can be selectivley enforced, that's all they need. Ryan ---------- Previous Message ---------- To: cypherpunks cc: From: mrwilhe @ odin.cmp.ilstu.edu @ smtp Date: 12/30/96 07:43:01 PM Subject: what is a law if it cant be enforced? can our gov possibly enforce this crypto law? --esp over the net? I think what happend is the dod released the net (arpanet/Internet) to the people without looking at the implications that could arise. The people now control the net and not the gov--and they don't like it! anyway our government is ruled by the people for the people--so we should not have any kind of special laws--ones that only apply to the net and not the rest of the world, after all we have a thing called free speech! fsh

1 0

Professor Asks for Constitutional Review of New Encryption Regs
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Thanks to all the local c'punks for your support of this court case! If we do end up asking for a temporary restraining order, there'll probably be another hearing soon. I'll give you as much notice as I have. --gnu] PROFESSOR ASKS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW OF NEW ENCRYPTION REGS "Shell Game" Attempts to Continue Unconstitutional Rules December 30, 1996 Electronic Frontier Foundation Contacts: Shari Steele, Staff Attorney +1 301 375 8856, ssteele(a)eff.org John Gilmore, Founding Board Member +1 415 221 6524, gnu(a)toad.com Cindy Cohn, McGlashan & Sarrail +1 415 341 2585, cindy(a)mcglashan.com San Francisco - Laywers for Professor Dan Bernstein today asked the Government to delay enforcement of new encryption restrictions until they can be reviewed by a court for Constitutionality. The new regulations contain the same features struck down earlier this month by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel. "The government apparently decided to ignore Judge Patel's findings.", said Cindy Cohn, lead attorney in the case. "Instead of listening to Judge Patel's analysis and attempting to fix the regulations, they simply issued new ones with the same problems. We are giving them a a chance to fix this before we bring the issue up in court." President Clinton ordered on November 15 that the regulations be moved from the State Department to the Commerce Department. Judge Patel's decision of December 6 (released December 16th) struck down the State Department regulations as a "paradigm of standardless discretion" that required Americans to get licenses from the government to publish information and software about encryption. Over Christmas, the Clinton Administration published its new Commerce Department regulations, containing all the same problems, and put them into immediate effect today. The new regulations once again put Professor Bernstein at risk of prosecution for teaching a class on encryption and publishing his class materials on the Internet. His class begins on January 13 at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Professor Bernstein's letter of today proposes that the Government agree to delay enforcement of the new regulations while Judge Patel reviews them for Constitutionality. Failing that, Professor Bernstein will ask the court for a temporary restraining order to block their enforcement. "The government is forcing us to go back to Judge Patel again to have the new regulations declared facially unconstitutional." said Ms. Cohn. "This time we believe that a nationwide injunction against their enforcement is merited." "The new encryption rules are a pointless shell game," said John Gilmore, co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which backed the suit. "Industry and Congress had asked that the draconian State Department regulations be eliminated in favor of existing, reasonable, Commerce Department regulations. Judge Patel invalidated the State Department regulations because they were draconian. Rather than address the concerns of either, President Clinton moved the draconian regulations into the Commerce Department -- and made them tougher in the process. It's his political decision whether to ignore and anger industry leaders, but he can't ignore a federal district court judge." Civil libertarians have long argued that encryption should be widely deployed on the Internet and throughout society to protect privacy, prove the authenticity of transactions, and improve computer security. Industry has argued that the restrictions hobble them in building secure products, both for U.S. and worldwide use, risking America's current dominant position in computer and communications technology. Government officials in the FBI and NSA argue that the technology is too dangerous to permit citizens to use it, because it provides privacy to criminals as well as ordinary citizens. Background on the case The plaintiff in the case, Daniel J. Bernstein, Research Assistant Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, developed an "encryption algorithm" (a recipe or set of instructions) that he wanted to publish in printed journals as well as on the Internet. Bernstein sued the government, claiming that the government's requirements that he register as an arms dealer and seek government permission before publication was a violation of his First Amendment right of free speech. This was required by the Arms Export Control Act and its implementing regulations, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. The new regulations have the same effect, using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the Export Administration Regulations, and a "state of national emergency" that President Clinton declared in 1994 and has re-declared annually. In the first phase of this litigation, the government argued that since Bernstein's ideas were expressed, in part, in computer language (source code), they were not protected by the First Amendment. On April 15, 1996, Judge Patel rejected that argument and held for the first time that computer source code is protected speech for purposes of the First Amendment. On December 6, Judge Patel ruled that the Arms Export Control Act is a prior restraint on speech, because it requires Bernstein to apply for and obtain from the government a license to publish his ideas. Using the Pentagon Papers case as precedent, she ruled that the government's "interest of national security alone does not justify a prior restraint." Judge Patel also held that the government's required licensing procedure fails to provide adequate procedural safeguards. When the Government acts legally to suppress protected speech, it must reduce the chance of illegal censorship by the bureacrats involved -- in this case, the State Department's Office of Defense Trade Controls (ODTC). Her decision states, "Because the ITAR licensing scheme fails to provide for a time limit on the licensing decision, for prompt judicial review and for a duty on the part of the ODTC to go to court and defend a denial of a license, the ITAR licensing scheme as applied to Category XIII(b) acts as an unconstitutional prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment." She also ruled that the export controls restrict speech based on the content of the speech, not for any other reason. "Category XIII(b) is directed very specifically at applied scientific research and speech on the topic of encryption." The new regulations continue to insist that the Government is regulating the speech because of its function, not its content. The judge also found that the ITAR is vague, because it does not adequately define how information that is available to the public "through fundamental research in science and engineering" is exempt from the export restrictions. "This subsection ... does not give people ... a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited." Judge Patel also adopted a narrower definition of the term "defense article" in order to save it from unconstitutional vagueness. ABOUT THE ATTORNEYS Lead counsel on the case is Cindy Cohn of the San Mateo law firm of McGlashan & Sarrail, who is offering her services pro bono. Major additional pro bono legal assistance is being provided by Lee Tien of Berkeley; M. Edward Ross of the San Francisco law firm of Steefel, Levitt & Weiss; James Wheaton and Elizabeth Pritzker of the First Amendment Project in Oakland; and Robert Corn-Revere, Julia Kogan, and Jeremy Miller of the Washington, DC, law firm of Hogan & Hartson. ABOUT THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a nonprofit civil liberties organization working in the public interest to protect privacy, free expression, and access to online resources and information. EFF is a primary sponsor of the Bernstein case. EFF helped to find Bernstein pro bono counsel, is a member of the Bernstein legal team, and helped collect members of the academic community and computer industry to support this case. Full text of the lawsuit and other paperwork filed in the case is available from EFF's online archives at: http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case/ The full text of today's letter from Professor Bernstein to the Government, and proposed stipulation, are at: http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/ITAR_export/ Bernstein_case/Legal/961230.letter http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/ITAR_export/ Bernstein_case/Legal/961230_proposed.stipulation The new Commerce Department Export Administration Regulations are available at: http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/ITAR_export/961230_commerce.regs

1 0

Constitutionality of new regs.
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

One issue which I haven't seen anybody address is the provision to make export licenses easier to obtain for those companies which show a credible business plan that supports GAK. 1) Isn't this showing favouritism in an administrative decision to people who support the government's political agenda. 2) If the export of a certain encryption `item' is inimical to `National Security', isn't the harm to the `National Security' the same regardless of whether the exporter plans to produce GAK products in the future or not? Based on these two points shouldn't this aspect of the regulations considered as being `arbitrary' and hence unconstitutional. A further thought. If you obtain an export license by showing the government a business plan that supports GAK, but then do not follow your business plan, how will the goverment `get' you?

2 1

Shell Game News
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Online reports on the new crypto regs. MSNBC features Bernstein's challenge, with multiple sidebars. http://www.msnbc.com/news/49260.asp http://usatoday.com/news/washdc/ncs20.htm (AP brief)

1 0

Thermojetic Herbal BreakThrough!!!
by jguarnie＠ix7.ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

******SORRY FOR THE INTRUSION THIS IS A ONE TIME MESSAGE***** ********YOU WILL NOT BE CONTACTED AGAIN******** !!!!!!!!!! THERMOJETICS HERBAL BREAKTHROUGH !!!!!!!!!! ** FINALLY AN ALL NATURAL DIET/NUTRITIONAL PROGRAM ** **100% GUARANTEED TO WORK ** A Major breakthrough was the discovery and the use of some very special herbs. "THERMOJETICS" Contains twenty-one different herbs from around the world including important chinese herbs and herbs from the Amazon Rain Forest. Each herb is specially chosen to work in harmony with the others to creat a powerful yet perfectly balanced product. Herbs are nature's nutritional bounty. They are rich sources of vitamins minerals,fiber, and related nutrients essential for good health... Yes Lose Up To 30 lbs In 30 days, 100% guarantee programs start at $29.95 plus Shipping & Handling {30 DAY SUPPLY APROX.} LOSE 2 to 6 POUNDS A WEEK!!!! The Herbalife program does not use Drugs, Medications, Hormones or other Synthetic agents to promote weight loss.{Non Addicting} INCREASE YOUR METABOLISM WHILE DECREASING YOUR APPETITE!!! Our program is nutritionally complete so individuals can loss weight safely and effectively, and just as important keep the weight off..../ "Liquid Protein" diets, which use nutritionally unbalanced protein-based drinks, or starvation diets, which reduce calories so low [less than 500 Calories daily] that people literally starve to lose weight,are both extremely unhealthy and have less than 20% long-term success. Save Money & Time While Dieting Why join other weight loss clubs,or expensive diet programs where they charge you each time you vist or a monthly fee "plus" the cost of their products,or use an inadequate store bought drink or other diet plan....OUR PROGRAM WORKS !!! 100% GUARANTEED. you have nothing to lose except those extra pounds....and you don't have to interrupt your busy lifestyle, no office or club meetings to attend no need to go to the store for more diet products {we ship directly to you, usually within 48hrs..} Programs are aproximately a thirty day supply of product.Usually the money you save on your grocery bill while dieting more than pays for the programs.... Over 16 Years Of Healthy, Fit & Content Customers... Dr.Recommended...Absolutely. Herbalife has a Medical and Sientific Advisory Board that tests and researches Herbalifes products and continually monitors reports of results sent by customers and distributors. In addition, many physicians and other health professionals in all parts of the world use Herbalife both in their personal lives and in their practices. WHAT IS HERBALIFE??? Herbalife is a scientifically formulated, herbal-based,calorie-reduced nutrition program. The Herbalife program has been used for weight control and health enhancement since 1980, by not hundreds but "literlly MILLIONS" of individuals around the world. WHO SENT YOU THIS MESSAGE:? We Are Janice And Anthony Guarnieri { NATURALLY YOU } and are Independent Distributors of the Herbalife Company Whose Products are only available soley through their independent distributors such as Ourselfs. We are actual Real Life People who have followed this program and proven it does work....WANT MORE INFORMATION ABOUT US,HERBALIFE,& THESE NUTRITIONAL/DIET PROGRAMS Check "NATURALLY YOU" Out On The Web: http://guarnieri.com/naturaly.htm There you can find out way more information then we can tell you in this letter, & Link to the "Herbalife Home Page" to find out more about Herbalife.and meet us personaly at our own Page if you like. *** NATURALLY YOU WEIGHT LOSS PROGRAMS *** #1 START NOW PROGRAM $29.95 plus S & H Comes with both the Green & Beige Thermojetics tablets. {21 natural herbs,three natural anti virals [natures infection fighters],contains "valerian root" a natural calmer. All natural tablets you take,twice daily usually at 10 am and 3 pm {three green & 1 beige tablets}they nourish your body's metabolism while supressing your appetite..gives a full feeling before finishing the meal helps produce a more desirable energy balance in the body so excess fat mat be reduced.} #2 FAST PROGRAM $49.90 plus S & H Comes with the Green & Beige Thermojetics tablets, and also Cell Activator capsules"THERMO BOOSTER" taken with the green & beige speeds up the process of Thermos by increasing the absorption rate. Cell Activator "reactivates"the process, making your nutrients much better utilized by your body.Helps your body absorb more from the foods you take in so you need less intake of foods to satisfy your body's nutritional needs....Add this to your program & watch how your results TAKE OFF!{usually take two cell activator capsules with the green & beige tablets} #3 FASTER PROGRAM $69.85 plus S & H Comes with the Green,& Beige Thermojetics tablets,The Cell Activator capsules & the Yellow Thermojetics tablets.... Keep the "THERMO" effect going for 24 hours! Made to take at night and before you goto bed. Lose weight while you sleep! Non-stimulating effect. From Citrin [Garcinia] and Chromium AN ESSENTIAL MINERAL THAT HELPS REGULATES BLOOD SUGAR. Some Herbologists claim it retards the ability of the hormon that allows us to store fat...{usually take 1 tablet in the evening, & 1 tablet before going to bed} #4 FASTEST PROGRAM $89.85 plus S & H Comes with the Green,Beige,& Yellow Thermojetics tablets,The Cell Activator capsules...& The FORMULA 1-MEAL REPLACEMENT SHAKE "New and Improved!"Tastes incredible! Our original weight-loss program, reformulated to contain Aminogen. Uses the same patented enzyme system. derived from plants to help breakdown and better assimilate protein, Very high in nutrients. Provides up to 1,500 calories worth of vitamins, minerals, proteins and carbohydrates, but does so in just 80 calories with less than one gram of fat! Also high in fiber and contains all essential aminio acids. HAS NO REFINED SUGAR. Available in Dutch Chocolate, Wild Berry, French Vanilla, and Tropical Fruit. ----------------------------------------------------------------- What you are actually doing with these programs is not only losing weight,but replacing your everyday processed,artificial,imitated, presevetived,foods available today, with all natural Herbal foods, proteins,vitamins,minerals,carbohydrates,& nutrients, Herbalife products are not intended to be a cure for disease,but when the body receives ALL nutrition in the CORRECT BALANCE at the celluar level,it is absolutely amazing what happens to all bodily functions! Naturally you 29850 Lorraine Warren, Michigan. 48093 810-751-2226 810-751-2226 fax --------------------------------------------------------------- We Are Independent Distributor For The Herbalife Company ---------------------------------------------------------------- ***Please Print This Form Out Before Entering Your Information*** Naturally You Ordering Form:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please Enter The Following Information: _____________________________ E-Mail Address /_____________________________/ ...So we can get back in touch with you. NAME:____________________________________________________________ ADDRESS__________________________________________________________ SPACE,APT# ADDRESS_______________________________________________ CITY, STATE,PROV. COUNTRY________________________________________ ZIP CODE:________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------- PLEASE PUT A " X " IN THE BOX NEXT TO THE DIET PROGRAM YOU WISH TO ORDER: { all programs are a 30 day aprox. supply of product } START NOW PROGRAM $35.95___ QUANTITY___ FAST PROGRAM $55.90___ QUANTITY___ FASTER PROGRAM $75.85___ QUANTITY___ FASTEST PROGRAM $95.85___ QUANTITY___ [Formula 1-shake Flavor:] Dutch Chocolate____,French Vanilla____, [Choose one flavor]per program. Wild Berry____,Tropical Fruit____. { All Prices Include The Shipping & handling Fee } ----------------------------------------------------------------- *ALL PROGRAMS COME WITH:"The herbalife Good health Through Intelligent Nutrition Catalog"{contains information about all herbalifes products and how and why they help you}. *A Thermojetics Energy Guide *Recipes For The Meal Replacement Shakes *"Themo Tips"Instructions For Getting The Maximum Benefits Out Of These Programs. *Assorted Testimonials About Herbalife Products *A FREE GIFT!! ***100% MONEY BACK GUARANTEE!!!*** *Personal instructions about your individual program you have chosen. !!ATTENTION ORDER SOON SO YOU CAN RECEIVE AND FILL OUT THE HERBALIFE FREE HAWAII VACATION ENTRY FORM:{must be mailed back to us at Naturally You by January 7th to make the january 15th drawing date.} ------------------------------------------------------------------ PAYMENT METHOD:Please Indicate Which Method Of Payment You Wish To Use:{all orders shipped ground parcel post} [with the exception of out of U.S.A.orders:} place a " x " in the apropriat box. C.O.D. SHIPPED DIRECTLY TO YOU___ {we pay the c.o.d.charge you only pay the S&H fee} CHECK, OR MONEY ORDER U.S. FUNDS ONLY___ CHARGE CARD: VISA, MASTER CARD OR NOVUS/DISCOVER___ {Sorry we are "only" able to take charge orders live over the phone, for security reasons we only take charge card orders "live": Please E-Mail your Request & You Will Be Given A Phone # To Call Collect [no charge to you] To Charge Your Order} **INDIVIDUAL PRODUCTS ARE AVAILABLE ON REQUEST** Please send individual request to naturaly(a)guarnieri.com, or to our address below with method of payment..Thank You ---------------------------------------------------------------- Please Print Then Fill Out This Form & Send It To The Address Below With Your Order & Method Of Payment: TO: ORDERING DEPT. C/0 NATURALLY YOU 29850 LORRAINE BLVD WARREN, MI. 48093 Thank You And Happy Holidays, From all Of Us At Naturally You P.S It was brought to our attention that some customers wanted to Mix & Match their orders No Problem use our Reorder Form off the Web Page At {http://guarnieri.com/reorder.htm}or E-mail Your personal requsts...."We Aim To Please" Thank You.... {EXAMPLE: You Want The #1 program & The Meal Replacement Shake} --------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail us at: naturallyyou(a)guarnieri.com To Return To Naturally You's Home Page http://guarnieri.com/naturaly.htm

1 0

Musical Instruments WELCOME TO INTERNET'S BEST FULL LINE MUSIC STORE
by mozart＠asianet.net.hk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We supply worldwide the EXACT SAME musical instruments & accessories that one can purchase from the local importers, wholesalers, stores, and teachers, BUT FOR LESS! 100% SATISFACTION GUARANTEED! We stock US$ millions in all types of musical instruments and accessories from more 3,000 manufacturers. Orders may be placed in any quantity mix, and shipped directly to you. No minimum orders! For DETAILS, mailto:mozart@asianet.net.hk a BLANK message ONLY and type "INFO" in the SUBJECT HEADER. We sincerely apologize if this is an unwanted e-mail. Please hit REPLY and type "REMOVE" in the SUBJECT area and SEND to be removed from this list. _ _ _ _ / \ -A ll brands/models |\___ALAMO__|_|_|_(__MUSIC LTD._//\ \ -L argest selection |/----//---[!|!|!]-----\\-------\\/ / -A ll credit cards [| (L|O|W|E|S|T) |] \_/ -M ost traffic site \\=(P|R|I|C|E|S)=// -O ne-Stop Cyber Shop \\__|*|*|*|____// [_]_[_]

1 0

Re: Zippy, anonymously
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:18 PM 12/31/96 -0500, Adam Shostack wrote: >http://www.metahtml.com/apps/zippy/welcome.mhtml > >Let Zippy provide you with web service. Chaining through the >anonymizer works, too. :) A suggested page is: http://www.metahtml.com/apps/zippy/zippy.mhtml/http://www.nsa.gov:8080/dirn… Pretty damn funny! (At least the version I got...) --- | If you're not part of the solution, You're part of the precipitate. | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/ |alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com|

1 0

Re: Hardening lists against spam attacks
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:04 PM 12/31/1996, Douglas Barnes wrote: > The problem with payment schemes like this is that they're hard > to rationalize (as Lucky points out here). > A direct mail piece (via snail mail) can easily cost the sender > more than a dollar when all costs are taken into account. This > does not seem to have appreciably slowed down junk mailers IRL. > Spam to a large mailing list has a multiplicative effect (although > it's also easier to throw out and/or ignore.) Certainly if someone > had a real product, it would be worth anywhere from $1 to $25 to > post an advertisement to a sizeable mailing list. > On the other hand, a blanket charge would serve as a disincentive > to people who make valuable contributions, unless it were a > completely negligible cost, in which case the advertisers would > have no problem coughing up the money. There's a serious imbalance > between how annoying spam is and how much we're willing to pay > to post (most of us would like to see them charged to the point > where they wouldn't do it at all.) It won't be worthwhile for a year or two for spam artists to go to the trouble of figuring out how to do this. I'm not sure I have a good solution to this problem in the long term, however. If our custom was to send money to people who make good posts, then you could imagine the fee being quite high, say $20, since most of the money will be made back. Voila! We have a wonderful feedback system for how much contribution we have made. People who want to make sure that they are putting in at least as much as they take out can make a little rule for themselves: I won't take money out of my cypherpunks e-cash account. I will only send it to other people for their good posts. In effect, this is a fully distributed tokening system without the choke point of a single token administrator. > In general it seems very difficult to balance the various aspects > of maintaining a lively discussion, fostering a sense of community, > allowing anonymous postings, and keeping the whole thing simple > enough to actually implement. I agree that we should keep it sweet and simple. That's one nice aspect of the e-cash scheme. All the software is already out there, except (maybe) the majordomo part which I have volunteered to do. Keep in mind that if the list brings in, say, $1000/month that buys a lot of food. I have to think that this will liven up the monthly meetings and create many positive and lasting relationships. > I've been on the verge of responding to certain posters over the last > few months, and I've realized before I've hit the "send" key that > I'd be giving them just what they want -- attention -- while further > degrading the signal to noise ratio. This is exactly the sort of process which is facilitated by paying a dollar. In your case it won't make a difference, but most people will find their presence on the list becomes much more responsible when they have to put up a buck. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

2 1

No Subject
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Criminal, criminal, who's the criminal... WSJ, December 30, 1996: Obscure Treasury Unit Helps DEA Uncover Scheme >From the beginning, it was The Case That Didn't Add Up. It started with a woman in St. Louis who wanted to pay Federal Express $38 to ship a package supposedly containing a $2 paperback book to Los Angeles. The company called the local Drug Enforcement Administration office. [Thanks, FedEx assholes!] Ralph Moore, a DEA agent, got a search warrant, [Seems like pretty flimsy grounds for a warrant to me.] opened the package and found $10,000 in cash. [So?] He checked his records: The woman was on welfare. He searched her house and found a new car, $25,000 stuffed into a coat pocket and papers showing the woman owned seven buildings. "Follow the money" is supposedly an axiom for federal investigators, but in November 1994 Mr. Moore was discovering how tough that is to do in drug cases where suspects are rich and financially savvy. So who was Mr. Moore going to call? He noticed a DEA memo about an obscure unit of the Treasury Department, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. [Dum-da-dum!] The St. Louis case became a prime example of how Fincen, the nation's smallest intelligence agency, brings the latest in high-tech firepower to the never-ending battle against money-laundering schemes. The agency, created in April 1990, uses a staff of 200 analysts and agents to offer state- of-the-art computer tracking and analysis to state and federal agents and prosecutors, giving them more time to work the cases from the street. The DEA's Mr. Moore desperately needed the help. The woman who had mailed the package had a boyfriend who made $20,000 a year working for an electric company. The agent found he had more than 30 different accounts in one bank. Bank records showed hundreds of thousands of dollars flowing through them in patterns that never repeated themselves. Enter James Petrakis, a graying, 47-year-old Fincen investigator, who flew out from Washington. Mr. Petrakis designed a computer program for the case that could follow the money as it flowed through companies -- some phony, some real -- and through people who transferred ownership of some 30 pieces of local real estate that seemed to be involved. There were gaps in the digital portrait that emerged, but the general outlines were stunning: Mr. Moore had uncovered a family-run drug- distribution business that appeared to have stashed between $5 million and $7 million in various investments and purchases in St. Louis banks. Because the business also trafficked in guns, the Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tax and Firearms was working on the case, too. Robert Nosbisch, the top bureau agent, agreed that tracking the money was going to be key. "The objective in a case like this is to get anyone who has a significant role into jail and take all of their assets," he says. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [What do you do when the highwaymen wear badges?] Mr. Moore's chief suspect, a short, hot-tempered man named William Y. Jones, "was too good," he recalls. Mr. Jones had a way of anticipating the federal agent's moves. "It was almost like a chess game. As I would move a piece, he would move a piece," the agent adds. There were other odd things. Although Mr. Jones was 43 (in 1995), his credit records and other personal history only went back to 1985. Before that, he had no records. Mr. Jones's biggest drug moves usually happened on government holidays, when the DEA and ATF staffs were slim. Mr. Moore had a theory: Mr. Jones was probably a federal informant, a man who had worked with federal agents in drug cases before. [More like a graduate of the Federal Witness Protection Program, I'd say. Seems odd that they want to ID us down to the last gnat's eyebrow while making up IDs for their buddies.] "We needed to become unorthodox," Mr. Moore recalls. When wiretaps led them to a $1 million stash of Mr. Jones's cocaine in a car, they seized the drugs and the car, too. Later they heard Mr. Jones say on his tapped cellular phone that federal agents didn't steal cars. One of his drug partners, Mr. Jones concluded, must have double-crossed him. [So now they'll just steal stuff from you and not even notify you that it has been confiscated. Amazing!]

2 1

Re: Hardening lists against spam attacks
by tmcghan＠gill-simpson.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Toto wrote: > {snip} the source of any excessive increase could be put on 'hold' > until the system operator has a chance to check on the validity > Bill Frantz wrote: > > > > The Christmas attack against this list shows the need to develop lists > > which are resistant to attacks. ...and how long has Usenet had 'moderated' newsgroups? ( only as long as there have been individuals with the time and patience to screen the volume of input, and exercise thoughtful discretion in selecting the 'worthy' postings.) How smart an 'automatic' filter can clever folks design? for(;;) { ECM; ECCM; } Thomas M. McGhan tmcghan(a)gill-simpson.com http://www.gill-simpson.com voice: (410) 467-3335 fax: (410) 235-6961 pagenet: (410) 716-1342 cellular: (410) 241-9113 ICBM: 39.395N 76.469W

1 0

Tim May wants to Kill people!
by aga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is a very sick Tim May who says he would love to kill this guy with a ">clip of hollowpoints through your chest." On Tue, 31 Dec 1996, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > >Message-Id: <199612310025.QAA11547(a)adnetsol.adnetsol.com> > >Comments: Authenticated sender is <rwright(a)adnetsol.com> > >From: "Ross Wright" <rwright(a)adnetsol.com> > >Organization: King Media and RW Marketing > >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > >Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 16:33:41 -0800 > >Mime-Version: 1.0 > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > >Subject: (Fwd) Re: Mr. May's Posts. Other Things. > >Priority: normal > >X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42) > >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > >Precedence: bulk > > > >This is the message I got in response to my post regarding Mr. May's > >offensive, racist, and bigoted post about ebonics. I have made > >overtures towards peace and tried to explain that I thought that the > >Doctor's verbal slapping was not as bad as it seemed, maybe even he > >deserved it!. He refuses to answer. He's just a pussy, I guess. > >Like's to make terroristic threats. To Nam vets, yet. Ballsy, Tim! > > > >Maybe the Doctor is not to far from wrong. > > > >I would rather have discussed this with you in private e-mail, or > >over a few beers, but you refuse to answer my e-mail. > > > >Received: from you.got.net (root(a)scir-gotnet.znet.net > >[207.167.86.126]) by adnetsol.adnetsol.com (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP > >id UAA29906 for <rwright(a)adnetsol.com>; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 20:25:14 > >-0800 Received: from [207.167.93.63] (tcmay.got.net [207.167.93.63]) > >by you.got.net (8.8.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id UAA13732 for > ><rwright(a)adnetsol.com>; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 20:17:45 -0800 X-Real-To: > ><rwright(a)adnetsol.com> X-Sender: tcmay(a)mail.got.net Message-Id: > ><v03007800aeea52e5d282(a)[207.167.93.63]> In-Reply-To: > ><199612230801.AAA24862(a)adnetsol.adnetsol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 > >20:32:00 -0800 To: "Ross Wright" <rwright(a)adnetsol.com> From: "Timothy > >C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> Subject: Re: Mr. May's Posts. Other Things. > >X-PMFLAGS: 35127424 0 > > > >------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- > >Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 20:32:00 -0800 > >To: "Ross Wright" <rwright(a)adnetsol.com> > >From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> > >Subject: Re: Mr. May's Posts. Other Things. > > > >At 12:09 AM -0800 12/23/96, Ross Wright wrote: > > > >>hard on him. This latest rant of his has made me reconsider your > >>rough treatment of Mr. May. I kinda think he deserves a slapping > >>right now. > > > >Go ahead with your "slapping." > > > >Of course, I'd treat a "slapping" as an assault. I'd love to put a > >clip of hollowpoints through your chest. > > > >Your place or mine? > > > >Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" > >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, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, > >collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on > >the information superhighway." > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Re: Hardening lists against spam attacks
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:32 PM 12/31/1996, Timothy C. May wrote: >At 1:04 PM -0800 12/31/96, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >>At 11:47 AM 12/31/1996, Lucky Green wrote: >>>At 10:25 AM 12/31/96 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >>>> The easiest and fastest solution is to set up toad.com to charge a >>>> dollar per message. (Proceeds to be spent by John Gilmore as he >>>> sees fit.) >>>> We can then leverage off the existing e-cash infrastructure which >>>> already provides blinding software for free on all major platforms. >>> I am not sure that this proposal would work. Some of the spammers on this >>> list are rather dedicated. They might gladly pay a dollar per message. >> Let's try it and see how it goes. If it doesn't work, we can try >> a more complicated scheme. (I volunteer to modify Majordomo to >> make this happen. We could have this feature in the near future.) > "Let's try it and see how it goes" is often a dangerous step. It could kill > the list as we know it; exactly what fraction of current subscribers do you > think will arrange for digital cash accounts, will arrange their mailing > software to use this, will bother with PGP, etc.? It's not always bad to take a few chances. I've noticed that there is a lot of negativity in the cypherpunks scene. (I am not without sin in this department. ;-) It would be more exciting to try out a few ideas. I would much rather be trying lots of things and throwing out the bad ones. This should lead to better technology. This not only benefits the cypherpunks list, it benefits everybody using the Net, which is (I think) one of our goals. It short circuits poorly intentioned authoritarian schemes to dictate what may or may not be sent to a mailing list. (For example, people often propose to make spam illegal. Most readers of this list will recognize the camel's nose.) > Now maybe this is a Good Thing, to drive out the slackers and those without > good tools integrating PGP into their mailers, etc., but maybe it is not a > Good Thing. It could be a mistake, but I think the only way we will find out is to try it. Unlike the interesting token scheme, this is easy to deploy and it doesn't provide an insurmountable barrier to dissent. You can still put up a dollar to say "This is a drag! Let's get rid of it!" But if your token gets pulled by an abusive token administrator, it's harder to get the word out. (Not impossible, though.) Keep in mind that the worst case is that people will have to ask their e-cash endowed friends for a few ASCII tokens to prepend to their posts to the list. That is not very tough to arrange. >> I have seen a lot of complaints about "too much noise". That is >> not a problem. The problem is too little signal. I can extract >> the signal - unless it isn't there. > My sentiments exactly. But I fail to see how collecting a dollar per post, > or whatever the fee is ultimately set at, increases the number of good > posts (not the percentage, the S/N, the _number_, which is what we both > agree is the important thing). > Explanation? One thing it does for sure is to eliminate attacks where somebody sends thousands of messages to toad.com and overloads its capacity to forward them. It also means that bigger faster hardware can be purchased if the load gets too high, or to compensate somebody to wrangle majordomo. I suspect it will also promote high quality posting. Certainly, "me too" posts and "unsubscrive" posts will be greatly attenuated. And, people who post reams of drivel and invective can only do so at the expense of financing the monthly cypherpunks food bash. This doesn't mean they will stop, but it does mean that we can chown down on hundreds of pounds of guacamole at their expense. As for other people, I think if it isn't worth a dollar to you to post a message, it probably isn't worth it for the rest of us to read it. Without any real evidence, my feeling is that if somebody has to pay a dollar to post a message, they will give it more thought and write it more carefully. This is sort of like expecting children to use proper grammar, forms, and excellent handwriting in preparing a report. The result is that greater care and thought is devoted to the ideas in the report itself. I don't believe that people making valuable contributions have any trouble at all coughing up a dollar to do so. Very few people post more than 10 messages a month. $10/month isn't much of a burden. If this does turn out to be a problem, when readers see a post they like they should send the person a buck to encourage more good work. This is a very effective way of saying "I really enjoyed what you had to say." And, nothing stops frequent posters from asking for money on the list to continue their fine work. In a sense, this is a fully abstracted version of the token scheme. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

3 2

Would you be interested in this?
by JohnnyDaven＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Our mutual friend, JamesB(a)aol.com said this might be something you would be interested in. You can save a substantial amount of money on your next Florida Vacation and receive an adult pass to Universal Studios. If you are interested please visit the web page at: http://www.o-c-s.com/getaway Or for more information via Auto Responder, send an E-Mail message to: getaway(a)o-c-s.com Best wishes, John

1 0

constitutionlity of mandatory GAK
by Hal Abelson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Given the current discussion of possibile GAK legislation, you may want to check out the session from last March's Computers, Freedom, and Privacy Conference on outlawing non-escrowed encryption. We invented a manadatory GAK law "Cryptography Control Act of 1995" and debated its constitutionality in a mock "Supreme Court" hearing before a panel of real fedreral judges. The briefs and the oral arguments (available on the Web in RealAudio format) are an excellent source on questions of whether mandatory GAK would be constitutional. The text of the web page is attached below. The actual page has links an extensive set of documents. By the way, watch for the announcement for CFP97, which will be held March 11-14 in Burlingame, CA. -- Hal Abelson ****************************** Text from the Web page: http://swissnet.ai.mit.edu/~switz/cfp96/plenary-court.html CFP96 Plenary Session Before the Court: Can the US Government Criminalize Unauthorized Encryption? Presented on Thursday, March 28, 1:30-3:30 PM * Report on the session from the CFP96 Newsletter * Recording of the oral arguments (in RealAudio format) Advocates for the Government: Mark Rasch Mark Jackowski Advocates for the Defense: Andrew Good Phil Dubois Federal Judges: Hon. Sandra Lynch Hon. Susan Bucklew Hon. William Castagna Hon. Nancy Gertner Hon. William C. Young Shadow Panel: Judith McMorrow Charles Nesson Maureen O'Rourke Majority Opinion: Michael Froomkin Dissenting Opinion: Christine Axsmith Bench memo: Alyssa Harvey Brief writers (appellant): Jeffrey Hermes Chris Kelly Brief writers (respondent): Bob Kluge Dan Zelenko Scott Faga Organizer: Andrew Grosso Looming over the controversies surrounding the Digital Telephony Legislation, the Clipper Chip proposal, and the criminal investigation of PGP, is the shadow of perhaps the most critical issue of them all: Will Americans be prohibited from ensuring the privacy of their communications, including preserving those communications against government intrusion? Will strong, non-escrowed encryption be outlawed, and those who use it subjected to criminal prosecution? CFP96, in co-sponsorship with the American Bar Association, Criminal Justice Section, presented a moot Court highlighting this question. The format was that of a Supreme Court argument, where former federal prosecutors argued against noted civil liberties lawyers before a panel of five federal judges. A second panel, comprised of regional law school professors, served as a shadow court and rendered a written judgment on the case. The issue being tested was whether an individual, who has successfully used outlawed encryption to hide his conversations while the target of a criminal investigation, can be prosecuted and convicted for use of unauthorized encryption under the (fictional) "Cryptography Control Act of 1995". The background for this session assumed that the defendant's conviction was upheld 2-1 in an appeals court decision, whose majority opinion and dissenting opinion set forth the central Constitutonal arguments for upholding, or overturning, the prohibition of unauthorized encryption. At the CFP session, the Court reviewed the decision and the shadow court overturned it, rendering a majority opinion and a concurring opinion. Documents available The appeals decision * Overview * Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Mitchell. * Concurring statement filed by Circuit Judge Froomkin. * Dissent filed by Circuit Judge Axsmith. The review before the Court * Brief for the Appellant * Brief for the Respondent * Bench memo * Recording of the oral arguments (in RealAudio format) * Majority Opinion by Justices McMorrow and O'Rourke * Concurring Opinion by Justice Nesson Session participants Arguing on behalf of the government were former federal prosecutor Mark Rasch, and Mark Jackowski, Assistant US Attorney from Tampa, Florida. Mr. Rasch is a former Trial Attorney with the Department of Justice Fraud Section, in Washington, D.C, where he prosecuted the Robert T. Morris case. Mr. Rasch (Mark_Rasch(a)cpqm.saic.com) is currently Legal Counsel for the S.A.I.C. Corporation, headquartered in Reston, Virginia, specializing in computer security matters. Mr. Jackowski became an AUSA in 1984, and concentrated in prosecuting very complex narcotic importation organizations. He tried the BCCI case, a six month trial which took place in Tampa in 1990. He also indicted Panama's General Noriega. He is currently with the Independent Counsel's Office investigating HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros. Representing the defendant were two prominent attorneys in the area of cyber liberties, Andrew Good (agood(a)world.std.com / (617) 523-5933) and Phil Dubois (dubois(a)dubois.com / (303) 444-3885). Andrew Good of Silverglate & Good specializes in criminal defense and civil liberties law. He is currently a member of the ABA Task Force on Technology and Law Enforcement, and was co-counsel for David LaMacchia and for Steve Jackson Games, Inc. Mr. Dubois is a solo practitioner in Denver Colorado; among his clients is Phil Zimmermann, author of PGP. The panel judging the arguments was comprised of federal appellate and district court judges: * The Honorable Sandra Lynch serves on the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and sits in Boston, Massachusetts. She was appointed to the bench by President Clinton. * The Honorable Susan Bucklew is a United States District Court Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting in Tampa. She was appointed to the bench in 1994 after having served a Circuit Court Judge for the State of Florida. * The Honorable William J. Castagna is a Senior District Court Judge U.S. District Court Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting in Tampa. He was appointed ot the bench in 1979. * The Honorable Nancy Gertner is a United States District Judge for the District of Massachusetts, in Boston, Massachusetts. She was appointed by President Clinton. * The Honorable William C. Younga is United States District Judge for the District of Massachusetts, in Boston, Massachusetts. He also serves as an adjunct professor at Harvard Law School. A second panel, made up of regional law school professors, served as a shadow court and rendered a judgment on the case. * Judith McMorrow (McMorrow(a)hermes.bc.edu) is Associate Professor of Law at Boston College. She has served as a law clerk for the former Chief Judge of the United States Supreme Court, Warren Burger. She earned her J.D. from the University of Notre Dame Law School, and has a B.A. from Kalamazoo University. * Maureen O'Rourke (MO1(a)acs.bu.edu) is Associate Professor of Law at Boston University. She holds Bachelors' degree in accounting and computer science from Marist College, and a J.D. from Yale Law School. * Charles Nesson is Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Contact: nesson(a)hulaw1.harvard.edu / 617 495-4609 * The shadow court rendered a Majority Opinion and a Concurring Opinion. Michael Froomkin (Appeals Court Majority Opinion) is an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Miami, in Florida, a position he has held since 1992. He has served as a law clerk for both the Hon. Steven F. Williams of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and Chief Judge John F. Grady, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. He earned his law degree from Yale University, holds a M.Phil. degree from Cambridge University, and earned a B.A. from Yale with a double major of economics and history. Among his recent writings is, "The Metaphor is the Key: Cryptography, the Clipper Chip and the Constitution", which was published in 1995 in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. Contact: Froomkin(a)law.miami.edu / (305) 284-4285 Christine Axsmith (Appeals Court Dissenting Opinion) is a Computer Security Consultant with the Orkand Corporation, in Washington, D.C., and is currently assigned to the Office of Consular Affairs of the United States State Department. She received her J.D. from Catholic University, and holds a B.S. Degree in Computer Science from Drexel University. Contact: axsmith(a)dockmaster.ncsc.mil Alysssa Harvey (Bench memo) is a student at Georgetown University Law School. Jeffrey Hermes and Chris Kelly (Brief for the Appellant) are students at Harvard Law School. The brief for the Government was prepared by Bob Kluge and Dan Zelenko (American Univeristy School of Law) and Scott Faga (George Mason University School of Law). Andrew Grosso (Organizer) is currently in private practice in Washington, D.C. From 1983 to 1994, he served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Tampa, Florida, and Boston, Massachusetts. He earned his J.D. from the University of Notre Dame Law School, and holds M.S. degrees from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in both physics and computer science. Contact: agrosso(a)acm.org / (202) 663-9041

1 0

Re: Hardening lists against spam attacks
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:58 PM 12/30/1996, Bill Frantz wrote: > The Christmas attack against this list shows the need to develop lists > which are resistant to attacks. If cyberspace is to become the town square > of the next century, we need to be able to discourage brown shirts attacks > on political gatherings. If lists are to be a major part of the political > life of the community, then they must be resistant to attacks from > knowledgeable, well financed attackers, not just the shits who were the > most recent perps. > [Fine posting token proposal deleted.] The easiest and fastest solution is to set up toad.com to charge a dollar per message. (Proceeds to be spent by John Gilmore as he sees fit.) We can then leverage off the existing e-cash infrastructure which already provides blinding software for free on all major platforms. What I like about this scheme is that well-financed attackers will be welcomed. A spam attack just means that John can buy more sushi! (I volunteer to modify majordomo to accept e-cash if there is enough interest in this proposal.) Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

1 0

Re: Hardening lists against spam attacks
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:04 AM 12/31/1996, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > There is a simple solution to keeping anonymous posters anonymous > under this or any similar scheme. Volunteers could act as > "gateways" for anonymous posts. Self-selected list members could > announce that they would forward anonymous posts using one of > their own tokens for the purpose. (In the alternative, the > gateway volunteers could be given extra tokens solely for that > purpose.) Would this expose the posters to liability? Unlike an anonymous remailer, they are deciding what to post. In the case of software, criminal liability result. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

2 1

Booms, busts and cranks
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

by Terence Corcoran "ONCE again the holidays and other sources of good cheer, including a growing economy and rising stock markets, have been wrecked by the annual Maclean's/CBC News poll. In this annual national survey, the majority of Canadians express generally sensible views on most issues--less government isn't so bad, a bigger role for the private sector is good, debt reduction hasn't gone far enough, private health care is acceptable, as are multiracial immigration ... ... "An accompanying Maclean's story on the looming expansion of the private sector is mostly an anti-business report that chastises companies for layoffs and mean-spirited bottom-line thinking. The problem, it claims, is the failure to hold companies responsible for anything other than maximizing shareholder value, a popular theme among statists who have run out of state. http://web.theglobeandmail.com/web/cgi-bin/ DisplayPage?SITE=web&KEY=961231.ROBColumn.RCORC

1 0

Re: Hardening lists against spam attacks
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 31 Dec 1996, Hal Finney wrote: > An alternative is to give each subscriber only a small, fixed number of > blinded tokens which he will use for the lifetime of his subscription > to the list. When someone posts anonymously, they use up one of their > tokens. Then, if the message was not abusive, a new blinded token is > created, encrypted with the public key of the good-guy anonymous poster, > and broadcast to subscribers. This way good anonymous posters will get > to keep posting, while abusive ones will shortly run out of anonymous > posting tokens. Oops, ran out of tokens.... UNSUBSCRIBE cypherpunks SUBSCRIBE cypherpunks Lance OK now I'm ready to post more crap!

1 0

Re: Hardening lists against spam attacks
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:25 AM 12/31/96 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >The easiest and fastest solution is to set up toad.com to charge a >dollar per message. (Proceeds to be spent by John Gilmore as he >sees fit.) > >We can then leverage off the existing e-cash infrastructure which >already provides blinding software for free on all major platforms. I am not sure that this proposal would work. Some of the spammers on this list are rather dedicated. They might gladly pay a dollar per message. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred Make your mark in the history of mathematics. Use the spare cycles of your PC/PPC/UNIX box to help find a new prime. http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm

3 2

[IMPORTANT] ElGamal
by nobody＠zifi.genetics.utah.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim Mayonnaise's abysmal grammar, atrocious spelling and feeble responses clearly identify him as a product of the American education system. \0/ \0/\ \ / / \0/ \0/ \0/\ \ / /\0/ \0/ Tim Mayonnaise | / /) | (\ | | / /) | (\ \ | / \__/\__/0\__/0\__/0\__/ \__/ \__/\__/0\__/0\__/0\__/\__/ \

1 0

Re: Hardening lists against spam attacks
by Hal Finney 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: "Mark M." <markm(a)voicenet.com> > On Tue, 31 Dec 1996, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > Send a number of unique tokens to each subscriber each day. > [...] > > If tokens are used improperly (to post off-topic materials) the > > offending subscriber is denied any further tokens. > > > > The problem of this scheme is (besides its cost) that anonymous users > > will not be truly anonymous. > > I think this problem can be solved by blind signing the tokens. A user > generates a random number, multiplies it by the blinding factor, then sending > it to a token server which would append a timestamp and sign the blinded > token. All signature requests should be signed with a PGP key. The server > response would be encrypted with the user's public key. A person's PGP key > would be sent along with the subscription request and then saved by the list > software. This is an interesting idea, however it will be possible for someone with a respectable public persona to continue getting tokens indefinately for posting abusive anonymous messages. There is no way to link the anonymous tokens with the ones which were issued to good subscribers. An alternative is to give each subscriber only a small, fixed number of blinded tokens which he will use for the lifetime of his subscription to the list. When someone posts anonymously, they use up one of their tokens. Then, if the message was not abusive, a new blinded token is created, encrypted with the public key of the good-guy anonymous poster, and broadcast to subscribers. This way good anonymous posters will get to keep posting, while abusive ones will shortly run out of anonymous posting tokens. The big problem with schemes like this is the difficulty of defining "good" posts in an acceptable way. Some list members are hard-line freedom-of-speechers and don't want to see any limitations on list postings. Others would probably classify 80% of the messages on the list at times as grounds for termination of posting privileges. Everyone will have their own thresholds. There is also the administrative problem of who will judge the posts. This could take a large commitment of time. I'm sure many of us have gotten behind in our list reading from time to time and it can be intimidating to return from a trip to find hundreds of messages waiting. Imagine how it would be if you were supposed to be reading them and looking for bad messages. We might also want to consider the paradoxical possibility that if we remove the junk, the list will die! At least now we are constantly reminded that the cypherpunks list exists. Other lists like the cryptography and coderpunks can sometimes go for quite a while without any posts at all. On CP you have the sense of a dynamic community where you can hope for a response to your posts, more so than on a list which is silent for days at a time. Hal

5 4

Cash-Grabber-Reversal !!!
by bizman＠mwt.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Some time ago....you shared an email message with me. I'm not going to tell you to quit doing what your doing but... I will share something that may help and compliment your current offer. Yours FREE! I will send you a copy of my "Reversal Letter" that has made over $1.098.00 last month. Use this powerful letter to anyone who sends you a offer via direct mail. The "Reversal Letter" is sent snail mail only, If you would like to get a copy of this "money-grabbing...cash producing letter" email me your snail mail address. If you are working a Primary MLM or business opportunity...feel free to let us know, The Reversal Letter is sent to people who send you their offers. Powerful! Thank You!

1 0