December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:56 AM 2/2/97 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote: >Please note that the difference between: > >"But he got the same sentence as he would have if he was convicted of >carrying a gun in furtherance of the crime." > >and > >"But he got the same sentence as he would have is he was not convicted of >carrying a gun in furtherance of the crime." > >is subtle at best. > >Next time don't get caught stealing with a gun nearby. Better yet, set up a system to encourage the public to USE those guns (and other weapons) to get rid of the people who pass such laws, and the problem is solved. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

National Cryptologic School
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

DAW provided this URL: http://csrc.nist.gov/training/in170.zip 1996-04-29 Introduction to Computer Security National Cryptologic School Interactive Courseware Trainee Guide (formerly, CP-133) (37 zipped files, DOS program) We've had a look at this course, a primer on CompSec and a required course for all DoD employees. It takes some fiddling to get past the sign-on block. Hint: after unzipping execute "student.exe" and enter "CP" as the lesson. Repeat for other listed files, CPxxx - CPxxx. It's basic stuff but worthwhile for its claims, these among others: 1. Most hackers are employees of the target. 2. Negligence, accidents and sloppy sys-administration are prime causes of disruptions, perhaps more than deliberate attacks. 3. Environmental weaknesses are often overlooked by security experts too focussed on computer systems. It lists these security documents as references: EO 12356 [superceded by EO 12958] DCID 1/16 [Director of Central Intelligence Directive] DoDDir 5200.28 DoD 5200.28 STD Public Law 100-235 NSA/CSS Dir 10-27 NSA/CSS Manual 130-1 (NSAM 130-1) NSA/CSS Manual 130-2 (NSAM 130-2) NSA/CSS Reg 130-2 NTISSAM COMPSEC 1-87 The Rainbow Series OMB A-130 Does anyone know of a source for the DCID series and the NSA/CSS series? Some of the others are available on the Web -- see AltaVista. While looking for these we ran across an informative implementation of infosec and compsec: Information Systems Accreditation Document, 4 Volumes System Security Requirements for the Department of Defense Intelligence Information System Automated Message Handling System (AMHS) V2.x By: McDonnell Douglas Aerospace For: Electronic Systems Center, Air Force Materiel Command Which we've put at: http://jya.com/amhs.htm

1 0

Re: Geiger and long, unreadable lines
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dimitri Vulis <dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com> writes on cpunks-flames: > Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> writes on cpunks-flames: > > > > Mr William H. Geiger III "Author of E-Secure" writes on cpunks: > > > <sigh> for the benifit of those misfortunate enough to be still working on > > > dumb terminals I have disabled my PGP script until I have time to add a > > > word wrap routine to it. > > > > <sigh> it is you who were demonstrating your ineptitude by spewing > > 120+ line length postings. Why is it so difficult for you to keep > > under 80 chars? Would you like some technical assistance? Notice how > > near every one else apart from yourself is managing to keep under 80 > > chars? > > Notice how near every one else apart from yourself bends over for the NSA, > and is willing to use a 40-bit key "escrowed" with the feds? Why is it so > difficult for you to keep under 40 bits? Would you like some technical > assistance? Why are you setting yourself apart from the Internet community > that so happily embraces GAK? Why do you desire "privacy" for your traffic > when everyone else does not? What have you got to hide? Are you looking to > transmit child pornography, bomb-making instructions, and/or cannabis > legalization propaganda? We better have a look at your hard disk soon. btw Dimitri, a crypto question: Diffie-Hellman key generation, there are two main ways of generating the diffie-hellman prime modulus, method 1: p = 2q+1 where q is a prime also. And method 2: p = r.2q+1 where q is a prime and r is a randomly generated number. With method 1, the security parameter is the size of p in bits (or size of q, as they are related). With method 2, there are two security parameters, size of q and size of p in bits. Method 2 has the advantage that key generation is faster as it is quicker to generate new random numbers r, than to repeatedly generate trial prime q as you have to do in method 1. However is the security weaker in method 2? What size of p and q do you have to use to get the same security as for same size of p in bits as in method 1? What should be the relationship between the size of p and q? (this isn't cpunks, this is cpunks-flames, so your non-crypto pledge shouldn't hold, besides Sandy has a stated policy of killing the whole thread, so I thought it amusing to continue your crypto relevance in moving on to technical topics rather than political) Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

2 1

Re: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:56 AM 2/2/97 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote: >Please note that the difference between: > >"But he got the same sentence as he would have if he was convicted of >carrying a gun in furtherance of the crime." > >and > >"But he got the same sentence as he would have is he was not convicted of >carrying a gun in furtherance of the crime." > >is subtle at best. > >Next time don't get caught stealing with a gun nearby. Better yet, set up a system to encourage the public to USE those guns (and other weapons) to get rid of the people who pass such laws, and the problem is solved. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

5 6

Re: PGP 2.1
by Mark Henderson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Larry Johnson writes: > Hello, > Can any;one tell me how to get a version of PGP 2.1? > Thanks > If you are a U.S./Canadian person in the U.S. or Canada you can get 2.1 and most of the release versions of PGP from ftp://ftp.wimsey.com/pub/crypto Easiest thing is to point your web browser to ftp://ftp.wimsey.bc.ca/pub/crypto/software/README.html Then after reading and agreeing to the conditions, click in the appropriate place and descend into the PGP directory. But, why do you want version 2.1? -- Mark Henderson -- mch(a)squirrel.com, henderso(a)netcom.com, markh(a)wimsey.bc.ca PGP key 1024/B2667EFF - 5A 93 7D 29 EB 63 84 09 EA A2 AA 6C FA C5 A6 21 unstrip for Solaris, Wimsey crypto archive, TECO, computer security links, change-sun-hostid, Sun NVRAM/hostid FAQ - http://www.squirrel.com/squirrel/ --w=NZbzo6Zc1UmsEa Content-Type: APPLICATION/PGP-SIGNATURE Content-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970202142321.627G(a)crl7.crl.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 iQCVAwUBMvT7LaWYCYyyZn7/AQGJmAP/dQs4nQi07UaNGSdx5pJcwppCnq9Uo77B rIuwJppnWPsvlcN32GF88lf6TupIoIVsReZbYJdu2WPluXsUTQ+oTOwEHNOD831t TXsqDd8QNpwZGGfbhv3tQ5T79jQIVim3jOesWbN9Ix3/qJyKgJnwRR1u0hZKriC3 lQAiUFl/hkg= =VPrH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --w=NZbzo6Zc1UmsEa--

2 3

National Cryptologic School
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

DAW provided this URL: http://csrc.nist.gov/training/in170.zip 1996-04-29 Introduction to Computer Security National Cryptologic School Interactive Courseware Trainee Guide (formerly, CP-133) (37 zipped files, DOS program) We've had a look at this course, a primer on CompSec and a required course for all DoD employees. It takes some fiddling to get past the sign-on block. Hint: after unzipping execute "student.exe" and enter "CP" as the lesson. Repeat for other listed files, CPxxx - CPxxx. It's basic stuff but worthwhile for its claims, these among others: 1. Most hackers are employees of the target. 2. Negligence, accidents and sloppy sys-administration are prime causes of disruptions, perhaps more than deliberate attacks. 3. Environmental weaknesses are often overlooked by security experts too focussed on computer systems. It lists these security documents as references: EO 12356 [superceded by EO 12958] DCID 1/16 [Director of Central Intelligence Directive] DoDDir 5200.28 DoD 5200.28 STD Public Law 100-235 NSA/CSS Dir 10-27 NSA/CSS Manual 130-1 (NSAM 130-1) NSA/CSS Manual 130-2 (NSAM 130-2) NSA/CSS Reg 130-2 NTISSAM COMPSEC 1-87 The Rainbow Series OMB A-130 Does anyone know of a source for the DCID series and the NSA/CSS series? Some of the others are available on the Web -- see AltaVista. While looking for these we ran across an informative implementation of infosec and compsec: Information Systems Accreditation Document, 4 Volumes System Security Requirements for the Department of Defense Intelligence Information System Automated Message Handling System (AMHS) V2.x By: McDonnell Douglas Aerospace For: Electronic Systems Center, Air Force Materiel Command Which we've put at: http://jya.com/amhs.htm

1 0

RE: Libel, Times v. Sullivan
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970202:0457 blanc <blancw(a)cnw.com> said: +Yes, if the Magna Carta guaranteed a right and the forefathers fought +to secure it, why should any of us ever have to lift a finger in our +own defense. seems to me Jefferson said it took a rebellion every 20 years or so to keep democracy awake... other than presuming your answer is tongue in cheek (not elsewhere), complacency == welfare. +My contribution to this thread from the Cpunk History & Philosophy +Division: a Jewish saying from a book I glanced through of couple of +weeks ago, something like: + + "What good is it to a man who has lost his sight + that his ancestors had perfect vision." not a lot, but that does not mean he should scorn those who have managed to retain their sight. your saying is rather characteristic of the genre --best glamourized in Mad magazine. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later. iQCVAwUBMvTfKL04kQrCC2kFAQG48gQA3LCObnHCe09r1jtV/0HbeilmKqSuP7ue lf6yScJiBHCwgm8aGT+NqjmSdvKUlTEfjV4H2zVCfoYyQEh5tMs4LnnDpd4zPL0M EBUrCdu2KBgLQpgbzP9g64cUCsq6LMGsfe7mqKaYYFIUmYJMBLsrYrLtPLPGlJ0S +LRYfJexD1s= =y085 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A couple of people have sent me pinging messages, asking about my status on the Cypherpunks list....apparently it has taken several weeks for folks to notice my absence! :-} This may speak volumes about why I have left the list, and what the list has become..... I chose not to write a "departing flame" (or message, but some might call it a flame) when I unsubscribed several weeks ago--within an hour of reading that John and Sandy had decided to make "their" list a moderated list, by the way--as I saw little benefit. I was also fed up with things, and saw no point in wasting even more of my time arguing against the New Cypherpunks World Order, as the NCWO was clearly presented as a fait accompli, not something ablut which opinions of list members (or even list _founders_, at least not me) were being sought. It's my nature to just say "Fuck it" and leave when I feel I have overstayed my time, or things are no longer fun, or I am made to feel unwelcome. But since several people have pinged me, asking about my status, I'll take some time to say a few things. I've had access to the hks.net archive site, and/or the Singapore site, to occasionally see what was being said on the list (old habits die slowly, so I sometimes drop in to see what you people are flaming each other about...not surprisingly--in fact utterly predictably--I see vast amounts of bandwidth consumed by arguments about moderation, about the putative biases of the Moderator and Director of the New Cypherpunks World Order, about alternative moderation strategies (which is stupid, as John and Sandy announced what they were going to do, not just some of their preliminary thoughts), and so on. I've also noticed fewer substantive essays. With no false modesty I tried awfully hard to compose substantive essays on crypto-political topics, often more than one per day. (Others did too, but they seem to be tapering off as well, leaving the list to be dominated by something called a "Toto," the "O.J. was framed!" ravings of Dale Thorn, the love letters between Vulis and someone name Nurdane Oksas, and the occasional bit of crypto news. Ho hum. I'm glad I'm not reading the list in e-mail, and thus can easily avoid replying to these inanities...which would probably not be approved for reading by Sandy, so why bother anyway?) Rather than compose a traditional essay, I'll take the easy way out and list some bulleted points. * First, I don't argue that John Gilmore is unfree to do as he wishes with his machine, toad, which has been the major machine host for the Cypherpunks list. John can tell us we have to write in Pig Latin if he wishes. Much of the debate I saw in the archives was debate that missed the point about what John could and couldn't do. No one can seriously question the right of the owner of a machine, or the owner of a restaurant, etc., to set the policies he wishes. The owner of a restaurant is perfectly free--or used to be, and still is to anyone with even slightly libertarian or freedom tendencies--to set the rules of his "house." He may insist that shirts and shoes be worn, or that smoking is not allowed (or even is required, in theory), etc. He may say "All those eating in my restaurant must wear funny hats and have their costumes approved by Sandy Sandfort." This is unexceptionable. * However, anyone who disputes these rules (disputes in the sense of disliking or disagreeing with them, not legally challenging them) is free to leave. Those who don't like crowded, noisy, smoke-filled sports bars are encourgaged to leave. And so on. Again, unexceptionable. (The more complicated case of contracts, verbal or written, and "changing the rules," does not apply here. No one had a contract with John, or Sandy, or Hugh, etc., so this is not germane.) * But the really important issue is this: is the _physical hosting_ of the Cypherpunks mailing list coterminous with the "Cypherpunks"? If the list was hosted by, say, UC Berkeley or PGP Incorporated, would we consider these hosts to be the "owners" of the Cypherpunks group? Would we think that a corporate host, say, would have the authority to direct what we could say on the list? (Again, not disputing their corporate property rights...as a libertarian, I cannot. Other issues are what I'm getting at.) * If a Boy Scout troop meets at a local church, and has for several years, continuously, would we consider the church to be the owner of the troop? Could the church insist on avoidance of certain "cuss words" and demand that prayers be said before each gathering? Certainly the church could tell the troop what policies were to be followed if the the facilities were to be used, etc., and the troop could leave if it didn't like the terms (or, in parallel with my situation, any troop member could choose to leave....). This is what we mean by "property rights": the legal right of a property owner to do with his property as he wishes, modulo prior contractual relationships, criminal laws, etc. * How did the mailing list for the group, now called Cypherpunks, get started, and how did it end up being run off of John's hardare? Hugh Daniel got the actual mailing list rolling, based on a discussion Eric Hughes, Hugh, and I had the day after the first physical meeting, in September 1992. We thought the group we had just spent the day with ought to be able to stay in touch, and that a mailing list was the right way to go. There was talk of siting it on the UC Berkeley computers (actually, the Undergraduate Association computers, a la the Cypherpunks archive site at "csua"), but Hugh thought he might be able to use "toad," and this is what happened. (I have not heard from Hugh on his views of this New and Moderated Non-Anarchic List.) * I think we should all be very grateful to John for agreeing to let it run on his hardware, but not let our gratitude turn into some sort of subservience and blather about how John "owns" the Cypherpunks group. * Again, is the "Cyherpunks community" the same as the mailing list? And is the mailing list, hosted at toad, the "property" of John Gilmore? * In my view, neither John nor Sandy in any sense "own" our group. It is a virtual community which sometimes has physical meetings at various places (including corporations, restaurants, and bookstores, none of which are even partial "owners" of the group) and which has had several instantiations on the Net, including sub-lists not connected to toad.com in any way. While John is of course free at any time to suspend his hosting of the list, I think it a serious misapprehension of the basic nature of virtual communities to accept the claim that John should decide on what is appropriate to bear the "Cypherpunks" list imprimatur and what is to be consigned to the flame list. * The mechanics of the announcement troubled me greatly. To be blunt, I was seething with anger. I was mightily annoyed to read that John had made a decision to appoint Sandy as his Moderator, with no discussion on the list. I don't know if Eric Hughes and Hugh Daniel were asked their opinions, but I certainly know I was not. I feel that as one of the two or three founders, depending on how one is counting, and as a frequent contributor to the list since its inception, and so on, I (and others) should at least have been told of this plan. Better yet, have the plans discussed on the list, as some good ideas may have been generated. I'll have more to say about my problems with how things were handled. Frankly, it smacked of the same kind of fait accompli decision John made with the unsubscribing of Vulis. While John had (and has) every legal right to do with his property as he wished, the effect was very negative. First, Vulis found other ways to post (duh). Second, the list was consumed with flames about this, many from Vulis, and many from others. Third, journalists (who love sizzle over substance any day of the week) lept into the fray with articles which gave Vulis the publicity he craved. Fourth, it sent a message to enemies of liberty that "Even the Cypherpunks have found it necessary to abandon their anarchic ways." (I'm well aware of the issues with pests like Vulis, who seek to destroy virtual communities like ours. But the solution John used did not work, and generated more crap. As you all should know, it was John himself who coined the wonderful saying, "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." A delicious irony.) * In the archives, I did see a bunch of "I support Sandy" and "John is our leader" comments from reasonable people. The obvious noise of Vulis and his cohorts like Aga made a "Do something!" attitude somewhat understandable. I don't think the decision made was a wise one, and I strongly doubt it will work to make the list a better one. * The proper solution to bad speech is more speech, not censorship. Censorship just makes opponents of "speech anarchy" happy--it affirms their basic belief that censors are needed. * "Censorship" is another overloaded term. I don't think the "Definition 1" of dictionary definitions, about _governmental_ restrictions, is the only meaningful definition. Everybody knows what it meant when we say that "Lockheed is censoring the views of employees," even though we know Lockheed is not using government power. A censor is one who censors. And even my "American Heritage Dictionary" gives this as its "definition 1": "censor n. 1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable." (Other dictionaries of course give similar definitions. The notion that censors are confined to being government employees is a misconception.) * OK, even given that John had decided to censor "his" list, what about his choice of Sandy Sandfort as the censor? I've known Sandy for several years (I was the one who invited him to the second Cypherpunks meeting), but he's a poor choice as a censor, moderator, whatever. First, because he has so often gotten involved in protracted flame wars, such as with Vulis (remember the dozens of messages about the "bet" to bring Vulis out? I stayed out of the charade completely.), with Hallam-Baker, and with others. Second, because he has not been actively composing essays for a while, perhaps because of his job with Community Connexion. Other reasons, too. (I count Sandy as a friend, but I'm just being honest here. Sandy is just not a "Peter Neumann" (moderator of the "RISKS" list). * Nor do the announced criteria make any sense. While the inane one-line scatological insults have been filtered out, many "flames" make it through, based on what I've seen in perusing the hks archive site. And some reasonable comments get dumped in the flame bucket. * As expected, those who only want to talk about cryptography (but who rarely do, themselves, also as expected) waste bandwidth saying the "anarchist" and "libertarian" stuff ought to go in to the "rejected" list. More bandwidth wasted, as each group lobbies to have its ideological opponents censored by Sandy. * I would have had no problem had John announced that he was creating a new list, the "Good Stuff" list, with Sandy has his Chooser of Good Stuff. After all, both Eric Blossom and Ray Arachelian already offer just such lists, and more would not hurt. But by making the _main list_ the censored one, this skewed things considerably. * (Frankly, one of my considerations in leaving was the feeling that I would never know if an essay I'd spent hours composing would be rejected by Sandy for whatever reasons....maybe he might think my essay was off-topic, or used one of the Seven Deadly Words, or was "too flamish." Whatever. I realized that life is too short to have Sandy Sandfort deciding whether my essays should go out to the main list (which is really just a list like Eric Blossom's best-of list, except it is be edict now the main list) or be dumped into the flames list, to be read by a handful of people.) * Why, many reasonable people may ask, did I not simply unsubscribe from the "Cypherpunks" list and subscribe to the "Cypherpunks-Unedited) (or whatever it is called) list? Because of my overall anger with the issues raised above. The imperiousness of the decision, the notion of favoring Sandy's tastes in a more "first class" way than, say, the tastes of Eric Blossom, Ray Arachelian, or, for that matter, me. "Some censors are more equal than others." * The decision to "moderate" (censor) the Cypherpunks list is powerful ammunition to give to our opponents, and Vulis is certainly gleeful that his fondest wishes have been realized. And it won't work. People are consuming even more bandwidth arguing the merits of John's decision, the traffic is presumably being slowed down by the need for Sandy to wade through the traffic and stamp "Approved" or "Rejected" on what he glances at, and people are "testing the limits" of what they can say and what they can't say. * It also sends a message that people are incapable of filtering out bad speech, that they need a censor to do it for them. (Again, I have no problem with competing "screeners," a la having Ray, Eric, or David Sternlight filtering what they think is OK and what is not. Let a thousand filtering services bloom.) But the clear message by having Sandy censor the main list (the default list, the list name with the main name, the list we all know about, etc.) is that Cypherpunks need Big Brother to shelter them from Bad Thoughts, from Naughty Words, from Evil Flames, and from Impure Desires. Foo on that. * Psychologists might point to random reinforcement, even to the effects of terror. How many of us are likely to write controversial posts knowing that Sandy might wake up having a "bad hair day" and thus reject our posts? How many will begin to skew their opinions to match those of Sandy? (I would venture a guess that a Duncan Frissell would almost certainly get a libertarian rant past Sandy while a Phill Hallam-Baker might easily fail to get a leftist rant past him.) * Those who want "less noise" should subcontract with the filter services of their own choosing. This is the "Cypherpunk Way." Having Sandy as the censor is the easy way out. * By the way, the moderated list "RISKS" works pretty well. But it is not a _discussion_ group. It is, rather, a digest of news items related to computer and technology risks, with some discussion by various contributors, and with a long turnaround time of a few issues per week, tops. Peter Neumann also devotes a lot of time to making it run smoothly and bases part of his professional career on running it. I surmise that Sandy is not prepared to do the same. Nor would this be a good idea, as this would kill the spirit of the debate. * Had there been a debate about the policy, I can think of several approaches I'd like better. But inasmuch as John made it clear that there would be no debate (and, perhaps as part of the "problem," John has not really been a active member of the mailing list, in terms of participating in the debates), this is all moot. In any case, my several years with the list have taken a huge amount of my time. Given the way this whole thing was handled, and the way the list is degenerating even further, it looks like it's good that I'm moving on to other things. * To summarize: - the decision to censor the list was made without any discussion on the list, without any discussion with at least some of the longterm core contributors, and was presented as a "fait accompli." - while John has every right to do with his hardware as he wishes, he does not "own" the Cypherpunks group (though whether he owns the "list" is a semantically debatable point) - whatever our group once was, or still is, is not dependent on having a particular mailing list running on someone's home machine...and it cannot be claimed that any person "owns" the Cypherpunks group. - there is some talk of creating another Cypherpunks list, on other machines; I don't know whether or not this will fly, or if I'll devote any time to such lists. - the effect of censorship, such as I have seen it so far, is not producing a better list. In fact, as I would have expected, it is producing a more boring and sheltered list. And so there you have it. I had no plans to set down my views, feeling it was a waste of my time and your time. Rather than foam and rant the way some did (and Vulis must have posted 100 messages on the subject), I chose to simply make my exit, quickly. But as I have recently seen several mentions of my absence (including a particularly complimentary comment from Asgaard--thanks), I do feel I owe it to you all to explain my views. Which I have done. Have a nice year, and a nice millenium in a couple of years. --Tim May 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."

3 5

Electronic Funds Transfer without stealing PIN/TAN
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Sender: e$(a)thumper.vmeng.com Reply-To: Rachel Willmer <rachel(a)intertrader.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: Bulk Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 15:03:25 +0000 From: Rachel Willmer <rachel(a)intertrader.com> To: Multiple recipients of <e$(a)thumper.vmeng.com> Subject: Electronic Funds Transfer without stealing PIN/TAN --- From RISKS digest --- Date: 1 Feb 1997 05:12:02 GMT From: weberwu(a)tfh-berlin.de (Debora Weber-Wulff) Subject: Electronic Funds Transfer without stealing PIN/TAN The Berlin newspaper "Tagespiegel" reports on 29 Jan 97 about a television show broadcast the previous evening on which hackers from the Chaos Computer Club demonstrated how to electronically transfer funds without needing a PIN (Personal Identification Number) or TAN (Transaction Number). Apparently it suffices for the victim to visit a site which downloads an ActiveX application, which automatically starts and checks to see if Quicken, a popular financial software package that also offers electronic funds transfer, is on the machine. If so, Quicken is given a transfer order which is saved by Quicken in its pile of pending transfer orders. The next time the victim sends off the pending transfer orders to the bank (and enters in a valid PIN and TAN for that!) all the orders (= 1 transaction) are executed -> money is transferred without the victim noticing! The newspaper quotes various officials at Microsoft et al expressing disbelief/outrage/"we're working on it". We discussed this briefly in class looking for a way to avoid the problem. Demanding a TAN for each transfer is not a solution, for one, the banks only send you 50 at a time, and many small companies pay their bills in bunches. Having to enter a TAN for each transaction would be quite time-consuming. Our only solution would be to forbid browsers from executing any ActiveX component without express authorization, but that rather circumvents part of what ActiveX is intended for. A small consolation: the transfer is trackable, that is, it can be determined at the bank to which account the money went. Some banks even include this information on the statement, but who checks every entry on their statements... Debora Weber-Wulff, Technische Fachhochschule Berlin, Luxemburger Str. 10, 13353 Berlin GERMANY weberwu(a)tfh-berlin.de <http://www.tfh-berlin.de/~weberwu/> -- Rachel Willmer, Intertrader Ltd, Cova House, 4 John's Place, Edinburgh Email: rachel(a)intertrader.com Tel: +44 131 555 8450 Fax: +44 131 555 8451 Sun Internet Associate and winner of 1996 SMART Award for Innovation "We develop Java Commerce Solutions" --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/

1 0

Re: Lucifer
by winsock＠rigel.cyberpass.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Deflated Vermin K`adaver'OTM has been fired for masturbating in front of his boss. o o --/-- <~\ Deflated Vermin K`adaver'OTM __\ _/\

1 0

None [ANNOUNCEMENT] Secure envelopes
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim C[rook] May's aberrant sexual life has negatively impacted his mental integrity. ,,, -ooO(o o)Ooo- Tim C[rook] May (_)

1 0

Re: [OFF-TOPIC] Newt's phone calls
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dipshit Viscera K<rap> Of The Month will fuck anything that moves, but he'd rather be fucking his own mother's dead body. ^-^-^-@@-^-^-^ (..) Dipshit Viscera K<rap> Of The Month

1 0

Re: Key Security Question
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

X-Mailer: MR/2 Internet Cruiser Edition for OS/2 v1.24

2 1

RE: Libel, Times v. Sullivan
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Attila T. Hun +Yes, if the Magna Carta guaranteed a right and the forefathers fought +to secure it, why should any of us ever have to lift a finger in our +own defense. seems to me Jefferson said it took a rebellion every 20 years or so to keep democracy awake... other than presuming your answer is tongue in cheek (not elsewhere), complacency == welfare. ......................................................... Definitely tongue-in-cheek. Just noting that if a thing has been "guaranteed", this means (by my interpretation) that it is a done deal and nothing further need be done about it - it's established and automatic. But obviously a "right", though it be a basic operant in Nature and existent as an abstract concept in some people's minds, is not recognized either naturally or formally by many. Therefore, as Jefferson remarked, we cannot depend on our forefather's vision to uphold our honor but must re-establish it as needed. .. Blanc

1 0

Re: alt.cypherpunks created
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:06 PM -0800 2/12/97, Greg Broiles wrote: >According to DejaNews, Mike Duvos has also issued a newgroup for >alt.cypherpunks: I've already posted two articles to it. I expect it to be the main place I post my words, as it eliminates any possibility that some site admin will "moderate" my essays. (And few of my articles in the last several days have made it to the Main list. They were not flames, but apparently failed Sandy's test of relevance.) --Tim May 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: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:47 EDT > From: "E. Allen Smith" <EALLENSMITH(a)ocelot.rutgers.edu> > Subject: Re: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd) > > Someone with more experience correct me if I'm wrong (I'm just > starting to learn about mailing list management), but isn't saving > at least the first bounce from a given address good in order to check > what address is the one that's actually bouncing? Admittedly, this only > applies to badly-formed bounces. The rest can just have the address > noted. Hmmm, I can see saving the address causing the bounce in some sort of array that is indexed to the majordomo subscription list for a given remailer. It would not cost anything but overhead to save the entire message. I guess my motivation was not that I cared their mailbox was full or it was a invalid address but that I wouldn't be able to deliver at this time. I just don't see any reason that it helps me to know why they can't receive mail only that they can't. > >Want to volunteer? > > Give me some idea of how much programming knowledge, time, etcetera > is required, please, before I can answer. I'd be renting space on some other > computer (e.g., an account on cyberpass.net) to do it in; the only higher-level > programming language (i.e., beyond Applesoft Basic) that I know anything of > is Perl (and I don't know that all that well); and I am somewhat busy with > other stuff. In other words, it depends. Hmmm, not shure how much programming it would take - never done it myself. I think Perl would be an acceptable language. I certainly hope to do the majority of the scripts on the CDR in Perl myself. Perhaps there is somebody who knows the fine points of how INN cache's messages. Redbeard and I had a short discussion about this issue today relating to tracking messages to reduce mail-loops. I will discuss it with him and see what happens. I know exactly what you mean. I have two full-time jobs and hadn't really thought of taking on the cpunks list in any manner. But hey, that is the spice in life... Give me a couple of days to look at the situation and if somebody don't beat me to it I'll post what I find out. Cool? Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: Network of majordomos
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> What was your chater? Could you Cc a copy to the list? I didn`t save it but it was something along the lines of this: Charter: alt.cypherpunks will serve as a discussion forum for the members of the cypherpunks community. The discussion group previously resided on a mailing list run at toad.com but due to a difference of opinion between the majority of active members of the list and the owner of toad.com, John Gilmore, the list must now relocate onto usenet as a temporary measure while further measures are put in place to re-establish a mailing list format. The group has approximately 1500 members and has been active online for some 5 years. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0

Re: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:22:28 -0800 > From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Re: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" > I was making the point that _any_ site distributing a list is likely to > face legal pressures not to carry certain items. Read between the lines (or > read the unedited list) the discussion by John Gilmore, Sandy Sandfort, and > the products of Sandy's company, and legal pressures applied, to see what I > mean. This is exactly the reason that my suggestion to anyone setting up a remailer with any sort of controversial content should do it as some sort of outreach of their business. It is too expensive in time, money, and hassles to do for grins and giggles. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

2 1

Re: Network of majordomos (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 00:04:44 +0000 > From: paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk > Subject: Re: Network of majordomos > Charter: > > alt.cypherpunks will serve as a discussion forum for the members of > the cypherpunks community. The discussion group previously resided on > a mailing list run at toad.com but due to a difference of opinion > between the majority of active members of the list and the owner of > toad.com, John Gilmore, the list must now relocate onto usenet as a > temporary measure while further measures are put in place to > re-establish a mailing list format. The group has approximately 1500 > members and has been active online for some 5 years. I would like to see that 'temporary measure' changed to one means of distribution and a resource in addition to the remailer chain. I would really like to see this stay in place. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

From: tcmay(a)got.net (Tim May) > You missed a very good talk by Ian Goldberg of UC Berkeley at the Saturday > Cypherpunks meeting at Stanford, where Ian talked for more than an hour on > just this issue. (He also talked for an hour on his crack of the RSA > challenge using 250 workstations...this was also a good talk.) I wish I could have heard that, it sounds good... A simple idea we have discussed for full anonymity uses the idea of exchanging coins at the bank. You make an anonymous connection to the bank, supply some ecash you have received along with some blinded new ecash. The bank verifies that the ecash is good and signs your blinded ecash, sending it back to you. You unblind it and have good, fresh smelling ecash which you can keep, spend, or later deposit in your account. If the merchant performs this exchange operation on-line as soon as he receives ecash, then his anonynmity is protected. The customer is protected too, by the blinding he used when he withdrew the ecash earlier. So both sides remain anonymous. It sounds like Ian may have worked out details of a system where third parties do these exchanges. Banks may be reluctant to allow them for liability reasons, and the market, abhoring the vacuum, will supply intermediaries who perform exchanges for a fee. Resolving the various forms of cheating is the hard part. When Lee asks about a signed receipt, it is hard to understand what is the point if the seller is fully anonymous! A signed receipt from a freshly-minted key is not of much use to anyone. If the participants are using persistant pseudonyms then whatever reputation capital they have can be put on the line when cheating happens, although it still may be hard to tell who cheated whom. Did the customer pass bad cash and claim it was good, or did the merchant deposit good cash and claim it was bad? The same thing could happen every day at the supermarket, of course. A customer insists they paid $20 but got change for a $10. If dozens of customers say the same thing has happened to them, we start to mistrust the market, while if several businesses say this particular customer has made the same claim to them, we blame the customer. Hal

1 0

Shameless FC97 Plug: (Was Re: anonymity and e-cash)
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:08 pm -0500 2/12/97, Tim May wrote: >This "disintermediates" the process, and makes for an "everyone a mint" >situation, which has some of the same nice properties that an "everyone a >remailer" ecology of remailers and users has. And, of course, Ian's going to teach all this fun stuff in Anguilla next week. ;-). E-mail me, and I'll refresh your memory with a workshop program, or just click on the FC97 URL in my .sig, below. We have lots of room. Just don't take American, though American Eagle's okay... Shamelessly yours, P. T. Hettinga Promotional Chairman, FC97 Workshop, Conference, and Exhibition ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/

1 0

Speaker needed
by Tobin Fricke 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If anyone is going to be in south Orange County, California during the third week in March, and is interested in speaking to a group of high school students on Cryptography and the political and economic considerations involved, please contact me via email at tobin(a)mail.edm.net. Thank you. (I'm not on cypherpunks, so don't email the list.) Tobin

1 0

Coalition Letter on Privacy and Airline Security
by Dave Banisar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A HTML version of this is available at http://www.epic.org/privacy/faa/airline_security_letter.html February 11, 1997 Vice President Albert Gore, Jr. The White House 1600 Pennsylvanpia Ave, NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. Vice President, We are writing to you to express our views on the serious civil liberties issues raised by recent government activities in the name of airline security. These include recent orders issued by the Federal Aviation Administration, and also proposals recommended by the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security and the FAA Advisory Aviation Security Advisory Committee. Many of these proposals were developed in the highly-charged atmosphere following the still-unsolved crash of TWA Flight 800 and reflect a misguided rationale that something had to be done, no matter how marginal in value or violative of individual rights. We all feel strongly that air travel must be safe - nobody wants to feel that to set foot on an airplane or an airport is to take a substantial safety risk. However, basic civil liberties protected by the Constitution should not be sacrificed in the name of improving air safety, especially where the potential benefits are questionable. At the airport ticket counter, passengers check their luggage, not their constitutional rights. Identification One area of concern is a secret FAA order issued in August 1995 and apparently revised in October 1995. The FAA order purportedly requires airlines to demand government-issued photo identification from all passengers before they can board an airplane. It remains unclear whether a passenger must provide that identification and what discretion an airline has to allow, or refuse, any passenger to board if they refuse to provide identification or simply do not have any available. Americans are not required to carry government-issued identification documents. Any requirement that passengers show identification raises substantial constitutional questions about violations of the rights to privacy, travel, and due process of law. The Supreme Court has consistently struck down laws that interfere with the constitutional right to travel. The Court has also overturned laws in a variety of circumstances that require an individual to provide identification in the absence of any specific suspicion that a crime has been committed. In addition, it is unclear that requiring passenger boarding an aircraft to identify him or herself actually makes the people with whom they travel any safer. A bomber with a fake ID is just as effective as a bomber with no ID. We urge the FAA to withdraw its directive and to notify airlines that identification should not be requested for security reasons. At a minimum, the FAA should require airlines to post notices telling passengers that they cannot be denied boarding just because they fail or refuse to identify themselves. Computer Databases and Profiling Another major concern involves the proposed increased utilization of the practice of "profiling" passengers to determine whether they pose a security risk and should thus be searched. This would require the collection of personal information on passengers prior to their boarding a plane. Information that may be collected includes a picture or other biometric identifier, address, flying patterns with a particular airline, bill paying at a particular address, criminal records, and other information. This, and information gleaned from observing the persons with whom the passenger was traveling, would be fed into a computer data base that would be used to decide whether the passenger "fits the profile" and should be subjected to heightened security measures. Under this proposal, the checked luggage of people selected by the computer would be scanned by new sophisticated scanning devices. The risks to privacy are enormous and run not only to those who "fit the profile." For this system to be useful, it must apply to every person who might take a flight, i.e., to everybody. A new government dossier on everyone would have to be created, computerized, and made accessible to airline personnel. In addition, for the system to be useful, it would have to be linked to other data bases and constantly updated. Each time a person changes their address or takes another flight, or does anything related to the characteristics about them deemed significant by the profiling system, the government would track it. All of our experience with the creation and updating of such ever-changing data bases teaches us that the likelihood of inaccuracy at any given moment is high. The FBI, for instance, recognizes that data in its computer system of criminal records has an inaccuracy rate of 33 percent. Such inaccuracy would lead to both a breach of safety and to violations of the rights of innocent people. This proposal is a quick fix that won't fix anything. The proposal also violates a central principle of the Code of Fair Information Practices and the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C § 552a): information given to the government for one purpose ought not be used for other purposes without the consent of the person to whom it pertains. The use of criminal records in such a data base, particularly where those records include arrests that do not result in convictions, is particularly troubling. Profiling also frequently leads to discriminatory practices. Already, we have received numerous reports of discrimination against individuals and families with children who have been refused entry onto aircraft because their names appeared to be of Middle-Eastern origin. In the well publicized example of security guard Richard Jewel, reports indicated that the FBI profile led the police to unfairly target Mr. Jewel for the incident, even in the absence of other evidence. This incident vividly shows the limitations of basing a law enforcement decision on a profile. We urge the FAA and airlines to discontinue the use of passenger profiling. X-Ray Cameras We also view with concern proposals to install in airports new cameras which can depict highly detailed images of individuals' bodies under their clothes. Existing scanners, the development of which was partially funded by the FAA, already show a revealing and invasive picture of a naked body in high detail and the technology is likely to improve. This is clearly a search under the Fourth Amendment and is far more intrusive than a standard metal screening device. Passengers should not be subject to an "electronic strip search" in order to board an aircraft. To expose travelers' anatomies to the general public or even to selected (not by the victim of the unreasonably intrusive search) strangers is extremely embarrassing and shocking to the conscience. We urge the FAA to reject proposals to use body scanners capable of projecting an image of a person's naked body. Secrecy Much of the key decision-making surrounding these proposals has been shrouded by secrecy. The FAA has claimed that it is exempt from open government laws and has refused to release its directives on profiling and identification. Relevant meetings have been closed to the public or limited to participants who can afford to pay expensive fees. We urge the FAA to publish its directives and open all further decision making open to public scrutiny. Conclusion In conclusion, we believe that these proposals raise grave constitutional issues and are likely to produce only minimally beneficial results to improve airline safety. We urge the FAA and the advisory commissions to focus their efforts on improving security in a balanced and rational manner that is open to public scrutiny and consistent with constitutional rights. Sincerely, Houeida Saad American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee Greg Nojeim American Civil Liberties Union Maher Hanania American Federation of Palestine James Lucier, Jr., Director of Economic Research Americans for Tax Reform Aki Namioka, President Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility Lori Fena, Executive Director Electronic Frontier Foundation David Banisar, Staff Counsel Electronic Privacy Information Center Ned Stone Friends Committee on National Legislation Judy Clarke, President National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Kit Gage, Washington Representative National Committee Against Repressive Legislation Audrie Krause, Executive Director NetAction Sharisa Alkhateeb North American Council of Muslim Womem Simon Davies, Director General Privacy International Robert Ellis Smith, Publisher Privacy Journal Evan Hendricks, Chairman US Privacy Council and Publisher, The Privacy Times Enver Masud Executive Director The Wisdom Fund John Gilmore Civil Libertarian and co-founder, The Electronic Frontier Foundation ------- David Banisar (Banisar(a)epic.org) * 202-544-9240 (tel) Electronic Privacy Information Center * 202-547-5482 (fax) 666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Suite 301 * HTTP://www.epic.org Washington, DC 20003 * PGP Key http://www.epic.org/staff/banisar/key.html

1 0

Re: List! No Way: Creati
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:23 PM 2/11/97 -0500, harka(a)nycmetro.com wrote: >Were it possible to use Perry's PGPDomo, which would effectively >keep out at least the Spammers? That'll keep out the outside spammers; it won't keep out anybody trying to attack the list (if people can do that with remailers, they can figure out how to do it with PGP...) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

Re: anonymity and e-cash
by Mark M. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 12 Feb 1997 janke(a)unixg.ubc.ca wrote: > It's not too hard: The payee forwards a blinded, non-signed coin > to the payer. The payer has the bank sign this, and then returns > it to the payee who strips out the blinding factor. This is correct except for the fact that the payer also has to apply a blinding factor to the coin, thus making it a "double-blinded" coin. It gets signed by the bank, the payer divides the coin by the blinding factor and sends it to the payee, who then strips out his blinding factor. Ecash coins can also be laundered making the above scheme mostly unnecessary. Since most people will probably not look upon fully anonymous ecash highly, laundering will be a more popular option as it cannot be prevented. Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMwJkjyzIPc7jvyFpAQFHcwgAm2TZXg3wVDCtXyHBdq7WX44iA+nIvmHJ GlcXCjyKBEmvRPfkvU/NUnS1cRfjsPh5ZmjNwjBc21lwxjcOLFtu+3Mcd6tNoyYQ 4Abp4lvJLnpGAtAVeSeTAw+7mzwrC0jfWgt2meNbnyp2WxLxg/JA7VGGkS39g4Jm +i3F8H00mFJfmZUGpAiywE7GNobCXeppPJOn/QHA4/FrWJx5hE39qgB7U+AFwYVP PHGy4SSSBeKWciK83DU3Bz6ptygznL7fHW4vOZ8UM5QZjbyiDomVriSuJHw0lKdH r63BhOqYPXgMHgsa28XTlI9AWN5PpaIbvORTHOWv40EF3nGVrWGnMw== =Vpit -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

From: tcmay(a)got.net (Tim May) > You missed a very good talk by Ian Goldberg of UC Berkeley at the Saturday > Cypherpunks meeting at Stanford, where Ian talked for more than an hour on > just this issue. (He also talked for an hour on his crack of the RSA > challenge using 250 workstations...this was also a good talk.) I wish I could have heard that, it sounds good... A simple idea we have discussed for full anonymity uses the idea of exchanging coins at the bank. You make an anonymous connection to the bank, supply some ecash you have received along with some blinded new ecash. The bank verifies that the ecash is good and signs your blinded ecash, sending it back to you. You unblind it and have good, fresh smelling ecash which you can keep, spend, or later deposit in your account. If the merchant performs this exchange operation on-line as soon as he receives ecash, then his anonynmity is protected. The customer is protected too, by the blinding he used when he withdrew the ecash earlier. So both sides remain anonymous. It sounds like Ian may have worked out details of a system where third parties do these exchanges. Banks may be reluctant to allow them for liability reasons, and the market, abhoring the vacuum, will supply intermediaries who perform exchanges for a fee. Resolving the various forms of cheating is the hard part. When Lee asks about a signed receipt, it is hard to understand what is the point if the seller is fully anonymous! A signed receipt from a freshly-minted key is not of much use to anyone. If the participants are using persistant pseudonyms then whatever reputation capital they have can be put on the line when cheating happens, although it still may be hard to tell who cheated whom. Did the customer pass bad cash and claim it was good, or did the merchant deposit good cash and claim it was bad? The same thing could happen every day at the supermarket, of course. A customer insists they paid $20 but got change for a $10. If dozens of customers say the same thing has happened to them, we start to mistrust the market, while if several businesses say this particular customer has made the same claim to them, we blame the customer. Hal

2 1

Re: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:22:28 -0800 > From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Re: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" > I was making the point that _any_ site distributing a list is likely to > face legal pressures not to carry certain items. Read between the lines (or > read the unedited list) the discussion by John Gilmore, Sandy Sandfort, and > the products of Sandy's company, and legal pressures applied, to see what I > mean. This is exactly the reason that my suggestion to anyone setting up a remailer with any sort of controversial content should do it as some sort of outreach of their business. It is too expensive in time, money, and hassles to do for grins and giggles. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:03 PM 2/11/97 -0600, Jim Choate <ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com> wrote: >What is the current future of the Cypherpunks webpage? Will it continue to >be kept up or is it going down as well? If you mean the one on soda.berkeley.edu, the last I checked nobody had updated it in a year or more, but it was still ticking. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

Re: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:47 EDT > From: "E. Allen Smith" <EALLENSMITH(a)ocelot.rutgers.edu> > Subject: Re: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd) > > Someone with more experience correct me if I'm wrong (I'm just > starting to learn about mailing list management), but isn't saving > at least the first bounce from a given address good in order to check > what address is the one that's actually bouncing? Admittedly, this only > applies to badly-formed bounces. The rest can just have the address > noted. Hmmm, I can see saving the address causing the bounce in some sort of array that is indexed to the majordomo subscription list for a given remailer. It would not cost anything but overhead to save the entire message. I guess my motivation was not that I cared their mailbox was full or it was a invalid address but that I wouldn't be able to deliver at this time. I just don't see any reason that it helps me to know why they can't receive mail only that they can't. > >Want to volunteer? > > Give me some idea of how much programming knowledge, time, etcetera > is required, please, before I can answer. I'd be renting space on some other > computer (e.g., an account on cyberpass.net) to do it in; the only higher-level > programming language (i.e., beyond Applesoft Basic) that I know anything of > is Perl (and I don't know that all that well); and I am somewhat busy with > other stuff. In other words, it depends. Hmmm, not shure how much programming it would take - never done it myself. I think Perl would be an acceptable language. I certainly hope to do the majority of the scripts on the CDR in Perl myself. Perhaps there is somebody who knows the fine points of how INN cache's messages. Redbeard and I had a short discussion about this issue today relating to tracking messages to reduce mail-loops. I will discuss it with him and see what happens. I know exactly what you mean. I have two full-time jobs and hadn't really thought of taking on the cpunks list in any manner. But hey, that is the spice in life... Give me a couple of days to look at the situation and if somebody don't beat me to it I'll post what I find out. Cool? Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: Network of majordomos (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 00:04:44 +0000 > From: paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk > Subject: Re: Network of majordomos > Charter: > > alt.cypherpunks will serve as a discussion forum for the members of > the cypherpunks community. The discussion group previously resided on > a mailing list run at toad.com but due to a difference of opinion > between the majority of active members of the list and the owner of > toad.com, John Gilmore, the list must now relocate onto usenet as a > temporary measure while further measures are put in place to > re-establish a mailing list format. The group has approximately 1500 > members and has been active online for some 5 years. I would like to see that 'temporary measure' changed to one means of distribution and a resource in addition to the remailer chain. I would really like to see this stay in place. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: NSA Rainbow Series.
by Tobin Fricke 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> 1-800-688-6115 press 0 or just wait for the operator. My second > order consisting of posters and video has not arrived either. It has been > about 6 weeks. The Rainbow order was only 2 weeks. Be prepared that when > you order the Rainbow series you will be getting a large box.Their are > something like 30+ booklets in the series. > There is a set of security posters that include a Santa > poster.And there is also a video with two films on it (Acess Ins and outs > adb Acess Control). How much does all this stuff from the NSA cost? Tobin Fricke (please reply privately, tobin(a)mail.edm.net)

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

Re: List for discussing many majordomos
by Tim Bray 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

some idiot subscribed me. I know how to use majordomo I know how to read mail headers Majordomo says that the address that it is sending this shit to is not on the list Much & all as I sympathize with the ethos and practice of cypherpunkery, please stop. I have asked in the proper approved way many times, and am still deluged. GET ME OFF THIS LIST! Thank you.

1 0

Re: NSA Rainbow Series.
by Moroni 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Zip,NAda,Nothing. And they have more too. They were backlogged so some people haven't gotten their mail since I last posted about. I called yesterday about my videos and posters and lo and behold I received my two tech manuals today. The people who answer the lines are friendly and usually pretty industrious in getting things out or done. By the way there is supposed to be a department split in the near future so I don't know if manuals will be in one department and posters in another or what. On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Tobin Fricke wrote: > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:03:35 -0800 > From: Tobin Fricke <tobin(a)edm.net> > To: Moroni <moroni(a)scranton.com>, Genocide <gen2600(a)aracnet.com> > Cc: Cypherpunks Mailing List <cypherpunks(a)toad.com> > Subject: Re: NSA Rainbow Series. > > > 1-800-688-6115 press 0 or just wait for the operator. My second > > order consisting of posters and video has not arrived either. It has been > > about 6 weeks. The Rainbow order was only 2 weeks. Be prepared that when > > you order the Rainbow series you will be getting a large box.Their are > > something like 30+ booklets in the series. > > There is a set of security posters that include a Santa > > poster.And there is also a video with two films on it (Acess Ins and outs > > adb Acess Control). > > How much does all this stuff from the NSA cost? > > Tobin Fricke > (please reply privately, tobin(a)mail.edm.net) > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x No success can compensate for failure in the home. x x x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > > > Hi Igor, > > > I will not impact me negatively. I do, however, suggest very strongly > > that hosts should be subscribed to each other thgrough another mechanism > > and not majordomo, in order to prevent mail loops, header rewriting and such. > > Suggestions? What I had in mind was that any messages that get sent on > cpunks(a)ssz.com get sent over to algebra. One mechanism I would like to play > with is a 'linked list' of remailers. Remailer A sends only to B and > receives only from C... > > > A > ^ v > C < B > Then to stop loops B deletes all outgoing mail from B. Since email can be > forwarded from many sites the search must traverse the entire forward chain > killing the message if B appears as a source. I suspect a simple procmail sort > can accomplish this. My next step is to brush up on my procmail. I hope to > have something in a couple of days that will allow you to subscribe > cpunks@algebra to cpunks@ssz and both ends will be filtering. Here's how I do it (it is pretty close to your proposal): 1) I delete duplicate messages (by looking up the database of message-IDs) right away 2) I bounce all incoming messages to several other list servers 3) I pipe the article to majordomo for distribution. Note that majordomo changes headers and I wuold like to feed other servers with UNCHANGED articles. Here's the .procmailrc that takes care of this: (OTHER_HOSTS will be redefined to include, e.g., cypherpunks(a)ssz.com) # Please check if all the paths in PATH are reachable, remove the ones that # are not. # # NOTE: I use lockfiles extensively (and even excessively) because # I do not want to overburden the system. Since I am on a # PPP link that is not always on, sometimes large amounts of # submissions come in simultaneously and that may impair # performance of the overall system. You do not REALLY need # to use these lockfiles otherwise. ################################################################### PATH=/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin:$HOME/bin MAILDIR=$HOME/Mail # You'd better make sure it exists DEFAULT=$MAILDIR/mbox # VERBOSE=ON LOGFILE=$MAILDIR/from LOCKFILE=$HOME/.lockmail OTHER_HOSTS="cypherpunks(a)zzzz.com" :0 c $MAILDIR/allmail ############################################################ mailbombing ############################################################ end mailbombing :0 * ^TOcypherpunks * !^X-Loop: * !FROM_MAILER * !FROM_DAEMON { # # This recipe removes duplicates! # :0 Wh: msgid.lock | formail -D 128000 msgid.cache # send it to all other hosts :0 c !$OTHER_HOSTS # add X-Loop: :0 fhw | formail -I "X-Loop: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com" # send it to people :0 c | cypherpunks-send-subscribers # Accounting, logging :0 | cypherpunks-accounting } :0: * ^TOcypherpunks-request $DEFAULT # all the rest is trash :0 $DEFAULT # thats where it should be #/dev/null > Another nice advantage of this architecture is that 'rings' of remailers can > be interconnected by simply sending output to more than one site. Might even > be a good stability rule, "Never have a remailer send to more than 1 machine > in its 'own' ring". I see no limit other than resources that would limit the > number of rings an individual remailer might be in. A very good point. > The address is 'cypherpunks(a)ssz.com' but as alluded to above. I would like > to let it run 1 way for a day or so to get an idea of the stability of our > network link. You might consider creating a bogus username on your end. > Subscribe that user to the SSZ remailer and to your own mail list. Then use > procmail to filter all outgoing mail of that user since its incoming would > be from your list and its outgoing would go to mine, which then forwards > them to your list. We might want to call the bogus user 'gatekeeper'. Yes, we really should make darn sure that no loops are poissible before inviting people to subscribe to our lists. > If its agreeable lets get together on the cpunks-hosts list tomorrow and > discuss this a little more. > > If you don't mind, please forward this to the cpunks@toad list with your > responces. I would like to expose it to a little criticism. > - Igor.

1 0

Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, We have established the first link between cypherpunks(a)ssz.com and cypherpunks(a)algebra.com. Testing will continue for about 24 hours and we hope to have the link going two-way within a couple of days. If testing proceeds at the current pace we should be ready to go for a 3-way link if anyone will be ready this weekend. If we can get a 3-way going we should be ready for prime time. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

2 1

Re: NSA Rainbow Series.
by Tobin Fricke 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> 1-800-688-6115 press 0 or just wait for the operator. My second > order consisting of posters and video has not arrived either. It has been > about 6 weeks. The Rainbow order was only 2 weeks. Be prepared that when > you order the Rainbow series you will be getting a large box.Their are > something like 30+ booklets in the series. > There is a set of security posters that include a Santa > poster.And there is also a video with two films on it (Acess Ins and outs > adb Acess Control). How much does all this stuff from the NSA cost? Tobin Fricke (please reply privately, tobin(a)mail.edm.net)

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

2 1

Speaker needed
by Tobin Fricke 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If anyone is going to be in south Orange County, California during the third week in March, and is interested in speaking to a group of high school students on Cryptography and the political and economic considerations involved, please contact me via email at tobin(a)mail.edm.net. Thank you. (I'm not on cypherpunks, so don't email the list.) Tobin

1 0

Re: NSA Rainbow Series.
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:53 PM -0500 2/12/97, Moroni wrote: > Zip,NAda,Nothing. And they have more too. They were backlogged so >some people haven't gotten their mail since I last posted about. I called >yesterday about my videos and posters and lo and behold I received my two >tech manuals today. > The people who answer the lines are friendly and usually pretty >industrious in getting things out or done. > By the way there is supposed to be a department split in the near >future so I don't know if manuals will be in one department and posters in >another or what. By the way, I say "FORGET IT" to the NSA Rainbow manuals. A worthless pile of crap. I subscribed to them several years ago, got the Big Box of Manuals, and then got new editions every few months for several years. None of them were ever useful to me in even the slightest way. They are written in "bureaucratese," so they're not even fun reading. If they're not on the Web by now it just shows what a sicko government agency the NSA and NCSA is, and if they _are_ on the Web, you'll see what I mean quickly enough. Even for "novelty value" ("Hey, Tim, the mail guy just delivered a package from the National Security Agency!") the books are worth very little. Do a tree a favor and just say No to the Rainbow series. --Tim May 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

No Subject
by Mark Krell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

you are forwarding messages to me... stop it. remove markk(a)ra1.randomc.com from your mail list... all of a sudden I'm getting mail from bunches of people i don't know and who don't know me. help me out... go to the place where you got my email address and have them correct their links. Thank you. markk

1 0

How to make majordomo request confirmations of subscriptions?
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi All, I would like to set up my majordomo to request subscription confirmations from users, by sending them a cookie. Looking at the majordomo config files, I have not found such option. Ideally I would like to have a system that a) requires the new users confirm new subscriptions and b) once in a while as users to confirm their existing subscriptions. Is there any way to do it? Thank you. - Igor.

2 1

Re :Re?
by camcc＠abraxis.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:02 PM 2/12/97 -0500, you nastily wrote in the form of : : :Attachment Converted: "c:\remove1.txt" : How, do you imagine, did you get on this God-forsaken list? Anger abounds. Is this Kismet that you are here now at this crucial moment of the list's evolution? Perhaps you have something to offer of which you are not aware. Avail yourself of our hospitality as we implode. Flee not. There is meaning to this. So our savants have told us. Speak the words to Majordomo(a)toad.com in the message panel (no quotes): "unsubscribe cypherpunks" Speak only thus. Bother us no more at our moment of transfiguration. Hail and farewell, Bro.

1 0

strange mails...
by Mark Krell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: harka(a)nycmetro.com >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 23:14:12 -0500 >Subject: strange mails... >To: markk(a)randomc.com > >Hi Mark, > >I had a message from you in my Inbox, in which you requested to take you >off of any mailing list. Just for clarification: were you sending this >message to _me_ as a private mail or were you sending it to a list? > >Thanks and Ciao > >Harka > > > >

1 0

Newgroup -- distributed mailing list on the way?
by Omegaman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted as well. It appears that the distributed mailing-list effort is well underway. Experiments by Igor Chudov and Jim Choate are progressing. The next few weeks should iron out the kinks.(over-optimism?) Lance Cottrell (mixmaster author) has also agreed to host the list, the entire list if need-be. Although his posts on the cypherpunks list indicate that he favors the distributed list approach. Lance is also in the unique position of having the computing resources to feed the list to and from alt.cypherpunks. Furthermore, Lance seems to be favorable to this idea as well. However, he needs help in getting up to speed on just how to create and run this news-to-mail/mail-to-news gateway. What this means is that the same list will be propagated through multiple sources, making the destruction or loss of any one source non-catastrophic. It is also the classic net approach of routing around censorship channels. Furthermore, users who cannot access the alt.* hierarchy or easily read newsgroups have the option of subscribing to mailing lists and receiving the same uncensored feed. This also means that users will have a maximum amount of resources at their disposal to better experience the list and eliminate the net's inevitable spam and noise. Users who have access to or prefer powerful newsreaders and NoCeM's can use them at will. Users who have procmail, Pegasus Mail, Eudora Mail and other email-filtering schemes can use those powerful tools. It is likely that the cypherpunks list/group will remain a target of spammers and disruptors. The controversial topics are bound to generate noise. The entrance of unitiated individuals via Usenet is bound to create some interesting and sometimes aggravating discussions as well as the inevitable re-hashing of some old issues. The unfiltered, uncensored, and multi-homed list/group leaves the responsibility where it belongs, in the lap of end-user. Ignore the noise and the noisemakers. Defeat the disruptors by avoiding them. Accept your responsiblity and contribute Signal whenever you can. "Arise! You have nothing to lose but your barbed-wire fences." git along 'lil doggies

1 0

Re: New group
by Rich Burroughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:38 AM 2/12/97 -0800, Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> wrote: >Paul Bradley wrote: >> Well despite the obvious problems of propogation I thought it was time >> someone actually did something to get us a new home, even if it`s only >> temporary. So I have created alt.cypherpunks... See you all over on >> usenet!... > >I pressed the URL alt.cypherpunks and my Netscape server said >"no such thing" or words to that effect. It has to be created on your local server, Dale. Wait a bit, and if doesn't show up speak to someone st your ISP. Rich ______________________________________________________________________ Rich Burroughs richieb(a)teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~richieb U.S. State Censorship Page at - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/state dec96 issue "cause for alarm" - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/cause

1 0

Private property rights on cypherpunks (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:58:42 -0500 (EST) > From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)pathfinder.com> > Subject: Private property rights on cypherpunks > I forward articles to cypherpunks that are copyrighted by my employers, or > magazines like Playboy and Wired for which I write freelance pieces. > > I like to think these articles have some value. I will not forward any of > them, nor would I be able to, if they magically became "public domain." > > "De facto public domain" is an idea that deserves to die. Now. Really? Do you have a priori permission from your publisher, who owns those stories, to distribute them elsewhere? If not please explain why I or any other person should be a willing acomplice? You could also still post them anonymously. You could also simply include a 'fair use' proviso somewhere. In such a case it would be in your publishers best interest to require a copyright notice. In that case there is no confusion about who owns those rights. Especialy when you consider the traffic is global which means your 'implied copyright' here don't mean squat there. I suspect just about every place that recognizes a copyright recognizes an explicit one. Instead of "De facto public domain should die" how about, "Implied a priori contracts should die now" Lord a mighty, haven't you heard? Information wants to be free. Let the thing go. If you really think your words are something that will someday win a Nobel or make Mr. Bill look like a pauper note it explicitly. However, it would seem to me that implicit copyright works against the axiomatic crypto-icon. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

2 1

Re: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer
by Mark Krell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:22 EDT >From: "E. Allen Smith" <EALLENSMITH(a)ocelot.Rutgers.EDU> >To: ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com >Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com, list-managers(a)greatcircle.com >Subject: Re: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > >From: IN%"ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com" "Jim Choate" 12-FEB-1997 11:59:08.20 > >>> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 19:18:46 -0600 (CST) >>> From: ichudov(a)algebra.com >>> Subject: Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" > >>> John Gilmore wrote: >>> > A pentium is definitely up to this task. I've been running it the >>> > whole time on a slower 40MB SPARCstation-2 (that also runs netnews and >>> > general computing). Give it a big /var/spool partition (mine is 60MB) >>> > because every message will sit in the queue for days (*somebody* on >>> > the list will have an unreachable name server or MX server until the >>> > msg times out). Give it lots of RAM and paging space, since each >>> > sendmail process takes about 2MB virtual, 1.4MB physical, and you will >>> > have dozens running at the same time. > >>My approach to this problem has been to use a 1G drive and mount the entire >>file system on it. Swap and MS-Dos each get their own partitions. This >>allows the use of the entire drive as a buffer. I am in the process of >>adding another 1G in approx. two weeks with the intent of moving /home off >>the main drive. This not only gives the system more space but the users as >>well. I set swap to 4x main ram. I use Linux and have it as one giant >>partition even though suggested is blocks of 16M, works for me (YMMV). Would >>be minor to monitor df and alarm when it gets to 200M or something. > >>I must admit however that I am looking at a faster mbrd. and a bigger hard >>drive in the immediate future to make up for the extra load I expect. Had >>not really planned on the remailer project however... > >>> > You'll need a BIG mailbox for the bounce messages, and someone (or >>> > some unwritten software) to scan it every day or two and delete the >>> > lusers whose mailboxes are full or who dumped their account without >>> > unsubscribing. The bounce mailbox on toad gets between 1 and 4MB of >>> > email a day; more when the list is under attack. > >>How about dumping the bounces to /dev/null? I shure don't care if some >>bozo's (other than mine that is) mailbox goes away. > > Umm... because you'll eventually accumulate _lots_ of addresses >that don't work, which will slow things down tremendously in sending >mail out? > >>> > The real issue is how willing you are to put your own time into >>> > dealing with problems. Not only do things go wrong by themselves, but >>> > there are malicious assholes in the world who will deliberately make >>> > trouble for you just because they like to. Spending a day or two >>> > cleaning up the mess is just part of the job. Check your level of >>> > committment two or three times before taking on the task -- so you >>> > won't end up getting disgusted after a month or two and putting the >>> > list's existence into crisis again. It's not a "set it up and forget >>> > it" kind of operation. > >>I can verify this. If I was not already having to deal with these problem >>as a current mailing list operator I certainly would not take on the >>job. It is one of the reasons I STRONGLY suggest anyone serious about this >>should use the resources to make money as well. Anyone capable of setting up >>and operating such a remailer system is at least capable of basic skills. > > Well, loki(a)cyberpass.net has made the offer to host the entire >list... and Lance is certainly making money at it. While this would have >some problems in comparison with the distributed list idea (namely more of >a choke point), it would decidedly help. > >>> Another suggestion may be to set sendmail expire option to one day >>> instead of five so that messages that cannot be delivered would bounce >>> faster and not clog the queue. > >>I like this idea very much. Myself I would set it for like 4 hours or so and >>if it couldn't be delivered then bye bye. Another motivation for selective >>sites to operate as archives without themselves being remailers. > >>Another issue related to this is at what point to unsubscribe accounts. It >>seems to me that if the address times out some number of times it should be >>deleted. > >>Is anyone interested in acting as a mail-to-news gateway? > > >

1 0

Re: your mail
by Mark Krell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Subject: Re: your mail >To: markk(a)randomc.com (Mark Krell) >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 20:59:32 -0600 (CST) >Reply-To: ichudov(a)algebra.com (Igor Chudov) >From: ichudov(a)algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) >X-No-Archive: yes >Organization: Bool Sheet Software > >I do not think that you are on one of my mailing list. > >If you think that you are, please send me one of the sample messages >WITH FULL HEADERS that came to you frm my list. > >I am willing to help you. > > - Igor. > >

1 0

Re: List for discussing many majordomos
by Tim Bray 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

some idiot subscribed me. I know how to use majordomo I know how to read mail headers Majordomo says that the address that it is sending this shit to is not on the list Much & all as I sympathize with the ethos and practice of cypherpunkery, please stop. I have asked in the proper approved way many times, and am still deluged. GET ME OFF THIS LIST! Thank you.

1 0