December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

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

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 Alec 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

Re: Network of majordomos (fwd)
by Bryan Reece 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:33:03 -0800 From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> Yes, I installed INN and ran a few hundred test messages through it last night. My machine will be on the net full-time Thursday or Friday. Will yours be ready then, too? We've got INN here. I created a cpunks.general group (as well as alt.cypherpunks) on taz.nceye.net and made both world-accessible. Our feed hasn't got alt.cypherpunks yet; is someone who has got it willing to feed it? (also, is there a consensus on what group names to use: new top-level hierarchy? cpunks or cypherpunks? or just the alt group, with the usual propagation and spam problems?)

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: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd)
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: | | Forwarded message: | | > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:22 EDT | > From: "E. Allen Smith" <EALLENSMITH(a)ocelot.rutgers.edu> | | > Umm... because you'll eventually accumulate _lots_ of addresses | > that don't work, which will slow things down tremendously in sending | > mail out? | | The current subscription is between 1,000 and 2,000 I don't think that is | _lots_. All we need to do is count the number of bounces per address in | a given period, the SSZ end is trying to decide between weekly or | monthly cleanings, and then clear that address. At no point would I need | to archive the original bounce. qmail has bounce management software for its list management tools. (bounceman) "Russell Nelson has a bounce manager which totally eliminates any need to deal with bounces." www.qmail.org -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

1 0

Re: New group
by Jeremiah A Blatz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk writes: <snip> > > I pressed the URL alt.cypherpunks and my Netscape server said > > "no such thing" or words to that effect. > > The control message may take a few more hours to propogate, either > that or your newsadmin has rmgrouped it. The charter was clear and > concise and explained the issues so I don`t see why it should have > been rmgrouped. Can you mail me if it hasn`t been created by the time > you get this email and I`ll re-issue the cmsg. However, I`m sure it > was OK as Robert Hettinga (sp?) found it on his news server today... Yet another "me too," alt.cypherpunks is alive (dunno about well, time shall tell) on my news server. Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwKe2Mkz/YzIV3P5AQGQYQMAkwiuqAV/PsdcCscHVbsT6rxoKMv63UQh ebBIUh9QnXxVqjxcv3dvoanYGrP1Ldyvza9GXgLlTBIwtAuC+Od026mcV0NljUT/ 9WSg3iaHdUBReHpXbTsOVF+a9lQp4fzP =Hfgq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

1 0

FIGHT THE INTERNET TAX
by Robalini＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subj: [Fwd: New Internet Tax--Can YOU Afford It?] Date: Wed, 12 Feb, 1997 05:00 PM EDT From: pentiumpower(a)internetx.net You have until tomorrow to protest the new Internet "tax" which the FCC will be entertaining. Here is the message which I sent out to everyone that I could. I suggest that you spread this message as QUICKLY as possible. It is extremely important the FCC be bombarded by messages and then maybe, just MAYBE, we'll beat this thing! This is a VERY SERIOUS ISSUE!!!! It is extremely important and will determine whether or not the Internet continues to be available to all of us or just those who can afford massive fees. Figure it out, $.10 per minute is $6.00 per hour and this doesn't include your present monthly fees! Are YOU going to be willing or able to pay it! The following is a message which I sent out a week ago. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is entertaining the possibility of permitting the telecommunications industry to impose a per minute charge on Internet Service Providers (ISPs). This charge will, obviously, be passed directly on to the user; US! Needless to say, this new "tax" will increase the cost of access to the Internet tremendously! I strongly believe that this will curtail the growth of the Internet dramatically. At a time when access to knowledge and learning is at an all time high, this additional "tax" will impose an incredible burden on the average user, to say nothing of very likely forcing many smaller ISPs out of business. In addition, this will cause an extremely adverse affect on the rural user who does not have toll free access to the larger ISPs, i.e., AOL, Prodigy and others. If you feel as I do, drop an Email message to the FCC who has requested comments. Their address is: mailto:isp@fcc.gov You may "click" directly on the address which will bring up an Email message box in most programs. Add your comments, pro or con, and send it off! Deadline for all comments is Thursday, February 13, 1997! My message follows. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Allowing the imposition of a per minute charge on Internet use will not only destroy the growth of the Internet, it flies in the face of improving the education of our children. Published figures indicate that--for the first time in decades--the television is being replaced by the computer. This growth, undoubtedly, will be wiped out by this proposed new "tax". In addition, to virtually eliminating access to sources of information over the entire world, no small Internet Service Provider (ISP) will be able to compete with the larger ones who will be able to negotiate lower rates. Another "kick in the pants" to small business! I summarily reject allowing the telecommunications industry to "reach into the pockets" of those of us who use the Internet (and rely on it) for our access to information! This single act--if permitted--will set back the "information age" decades! I IMPLORE YOU NOT PERMIT THE IMPOSITION OF THIS NEW TAX"!!!!!! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ | Put Forth: | | "Your Best Image" | | with | | Computer System Configuration & Assistance | | Business Consulting, Guidance & Management Services | | Employer/Employee Human Relations Counseling | | Technical & Business Writing & Graphic Arts | | REsumEs, Interview Training & Employment Counseling | | | | Professional Business Consultants with over 30 Years Experience! | | | | Post Office Box 1438 Telephone (406) 642-3900 | | Hamilton, Montana 59840-1438 Fax (406) 642-3993 | | | | Email World Wide Web | | mailto:info@yourbestimage.com http://www.yourbestimage.com | |______________________________________________________________________| | Because e-mail can be altered electronically, | | the integrity of this communication cannot be guaranteed. |

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 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

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

No Subject
by Mark Krell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--=====================_855820976==_ Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970212205911.8620J(a)crl8.crl.com> 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 --=====================_855820976==_--

1 0

Re: whois cypherpunks.org ?
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Aleph1 (Levy) is a grey hatted hacker. Amongst other things, he moderates the bugtraq mailing list. Decent fellow. Adam Anil Das wrote: | With all this talk about relocating the home of cypherpunks, I decided to | see if any second level domains are registered under the cypherpunks | name. | | Both cypherpunks.org and cypherpunks.com are registered by one | Elias M. Levy in Ft. Meade, MD. I haven't seen his name on the list | though. Anybody knows more about this? | | -- | Anil Das | -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

1 0

Re: anonymity and e-cash
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In fact, the Identity Agnostic bits were Doug's, and they were focused on the idea that a bank that did not implement blinding could be used in an anonymous fashion by someone willing to violate the patents. /* Blind(*coin) here would violate Chaum's patent, so we * can't do that */ Adam Tim May wrote: | At 1:19 PM -0800 2/12/97, Lee Tien wrote (on the Cypherpunks(a)toad.com list): | In August of '95, Doug Barnes released a long article on "Identity | Agnostic" systems. (His article is no longer at the www.communities.com Web | site, so I can't refer you to it. Maybe he'll post it again.) | In fact, Ian showed, the Chaum patents on blinding are NOT USED by the | Mint/Bank; only the CUSTOMER uses the blinding patents (and the MERCHANT in | some cases, not in other cases). This means that "anyone a mint" does not | violate any of the Chaum/Digicash patents, and "mint clients" are likely to | be written by third parties. (The _customer_ is presumably on the honor | system to abide by the Chaum patents...except the patents are only being | licensed to banks...go figure.) | | (This is where, as I recall, Doug's "agnostic" system came in...it is | possible his thinking was similar to Ian's...I don't have Doug's paper | handy.) -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

1 0

Private property rights on cypherpunks
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

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. -Declan On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Jim Choate wrote: > > Forwarded message: > > > Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 22:46:03 -0800 > > From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> > > Subject: List for discussing many majordomos > > > Yes, this is a good idea. One of the proponents of the "many majordomos" > > project apparently has plans to impose his own ideas about intellectual > > property on the project, and this seems like a pretty serious thing for a > > setup that's allegedly going to prevent censorship. We need a place to > > discuss this. > > Please explain how making submissions de facto public domain censors > anyone? > > > Jim Choate > CyberTects > ravage(a)ssz.com > > >

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: 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

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: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer
by Omegaman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> writes: > > 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, I suggest getting in touch with Lance Cottrell (loki(a)Cyberpass.net) ASAP and coordinating with him as he has the facilities to host the entire list, but desires the distributed approach. He is currently gating Cypherpunks-unedited(a)toad.com to subscribers of cypherpunks(a)Cyberpass.net. He would make an excellent third link in the chain and seems to be willing. Furthermore, he has also indicated that he is eventually interested in gating back and forth to the newly created and already-active alt.cypherpunks. He needs help and information on just how to do that, though. This would complete the circle, syncing all the available routes to cypherpunks. All will benefit by having the choice of mail-filters and/or newsreading facilities to experience the unfiltered/unedited/unstoppable list. Hope the experiments prove sturdy and wish all best of luck. me -- _______________________________________________________________ Omegaman <mailto:omegam@cmq.com> PGP Key fingerprint = 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 Send e-mail with "get key" in the "Subject:" field to get a copy of my public key _______________________________________________________________

1 0

Re: Network of majordomos (fwd)
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bryan, What you did may be the ideal way to go actually. It would be great to have several NNTP servers with these (or similarly named) groups open to the world. I believe that it is possible to set them up such that they feed each other. say, the following groups may be good: cypherpunks.crypto cypherpunks.politics cypherpunks.flames cypherpunks.products cypherpunks.pgp (sort of redundant with the pgp newsgroups) cypherpunks.groups cypherpunks.admin cypherpunks.kooks cypherpunks.remailers cypherpunks.paranoia (or cypherpunks.tla) cypherpunks.politics.assassination cypherpunks.censorship (the following part is more questionable as some people would argue in favor of nocems) cypherpunks.moderated.sandy-sandfort cypherpunks.moderated.ray-arachelian cypherpunks.moderated.tim-may cypherpunks.moderated.... whoever else wants ... igor Bryan Reece wrote: > > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:33:03 -0800 > From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> > > Yes, I installed INN and ran a few hundred test messages through it last > night. My machine will be on the net full-time Thursday or Friday. Will yours > be ready then, too? > > We've got INN here. I created a cpunks.general group (as well as > alt.cypherpunks) on taz.nceye.net and made both world-accessible. Our > feed hasn't got alt.cypherpunks yet; is someone who has got it willing > to feed it? (also, is there a consensus on what group names to use: > new top-level hierarchy? cpunks or cypherpunks? or just the alt group, > with the usual propagation and spam problems?) > - Igor.

1 0

Re :Re?
by Mark Krell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>X-Sender: camcc(a)smtp1.abraxis.com >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:36:16 -0500 >To: Mark Krell <markk(a)randomc.com> >From: camcc(a)abraxis.com (Alec) >Subject: Re :Re? >Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > >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

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

17 Dec '03

At 03:25 PM 2/12/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >Having said this, the flaw remains that "junk mail" is "free" to the >sender. This is a flaw in the ontology of e-mail, and needs to be fixed. >Digital postage is one approach. I decided long ago (okay, well, many months ago) that the "solution" is to invent a mechanism to allow spammers/advertisers to include a small amount of ecash as a gift with every spam. I figure that if USnail junk-mailers are willing to pay $0.32 for postage and probably $0.50 for production, printing, and labelling costs, all for no guarantees of results, they should even more happy to pay, say, 10 cents to each recipient. At that rate, an average person would probably receive enough "spam" to pay for his Internet account, quite analogous to the way advertiser-supported TV is presented to the public for no explicit charge. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: anonymity and e-cash
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:59 PM 2/12/97 -0800, Hal Finney wrote: >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. Here is another idea. The merchant and customer agree on a price, with the merchant knowing that the "bank" will take a cut for their services. The merchant and customer both LOG IN to the bank seperately, each type in their agreed upon price and cut & paste in the services rendered information. If they match, the bank makes the necessary transaction between the accounts, e-cash stash, etc. The bank also supplies both parties with a clear signed receipt. The bank can now no longer alter the receipt, as the merchant and customer both have a copy. And the customer and merchant can not alter the receipt, because then it would fail the test on the signature. If a receipt for a transaction number were used, then the only threat would be the same one that exists for remailer operators. This could be negated by daisy-chaining banks in a similair manner. If each bank took a cut of non-customers of $.0002 or .02% of the transaction, whichever was greater, then a suitable system could be set up. Another idea that has been festering. If we could get a CPA involved in this forum, I would be willing to have h[im/er] sign my key, (which is seldom used, mostly because this is the only place I use e-mail), for that reasonable fee that CPA's can charge. I know that it is not a standard, or even legally recognized, post for CPA's, but I think that enough people would trust them. This would take care of some of the "newly minted" key problems. Since getting someone who is trusted to sign your key is a recognized method of getting people to believe you are who you say you are. Just an idea. Actually two, one half thought out, one that has been bugging me.

1 0

Procmail during the transition, anyone?
by Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At various stages in the transition, we will be getting multiple copies of the same messages as the are re- cross- whatever-posted to lists, newsgroups and anything else handy. Anyone have a procmail script that will show me just ONE copy of messages, even if the headers are not identical (e.g. one looped, another was forwarded, etc.)? I have yet to find a good guide to procmail coding. My file is long, and inefficient, and a pain to maintain...and I'm too busy to learn it right. == The above may have been dictated via Dragon Dictate 2.52 voice recognition. Please be alert for unintentional word substitutions. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin(a)law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here.

1 0

Unsubcribe
by George Leerhuber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Unsubcribe <lerhuber(a)joshuanet.com>

1 0

Re: subscribe
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:48 PM 2/12/97 -0600, Igor Chudov wrote: >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 >> 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. ... >> 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. > ... Something to consider. If anyone of the distributed remailers is removed from a ring, the messages that need to travel across that ring can no longer do that. This makes the loop only as strong as its most at risk remailer. The star approach has already been seen in action, the trouble here is a single choke point. Full interconnectability is only feasible in a small net, but I would advise this at first. Check for the x-loop to see if another one got it first. If none, add one and send it on down the line. A disjointed mess, if the remailers are given first access to the list, could work quite well as long as that x-loop remained to point to who sent the message, and the x-loop contained an unalterable message number, and the remailers could eliminate duplications, probably based on message number. This should work as the net grows and would only be as weak as the strongest two connected remailers. Sounds like the internet.

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Sean Roach wrote: > ... > Something to consider. If anyone of the distributed remailers is removed > from a ring, the messages that need to travel across that ring can no longer > do that. This makes the loop only as strong as its most at risk remailer. > The star approach has already been seen in action, the trouble here is a > single choke point. > Full interconnectability is only feasible in a small net, but I would advise > this at first. Check for the x-loop to see if another one got it first. If > none, add one and send it on down the line. > A disjointed mess, if the remailers are given first access to the list, > could work quite well as long as that x-loop remained to point to who sent > the message, and the x-loop contained an unalterable message number, and the > remailers could eliminate duplications, probably based on message number. > This should work as the net grows and would only be as weak as the strongest > two connected remailers. > Sounds like the internet. > I'd suggest a simplier solution: to connect each server with a couple, or maybe three, other servers. This scheme is rather robust, does not consume too much CPU time and bandwidth, and is easy to implement. - Igor.

3 2

Re :Re?
by Mark Krell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>X-Sender: camcc(a)smtp1.abraxis.com >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:36:16 -0500 >To: Mark Krell <markk(a)randomc.com> >From: camcc(a)abraxis.com (Alec) >Subject: Re :Re? >Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > >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

Re: (2)Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970212:1525 "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> said: +At 6:21 PM +0000 2/12/97, Attila T. Hun wrote: +> maybe relief is in sight; can we spell excedrin? +> +>on or about 970211:1433 educom(a)elanor.oit.unc.edu said: +> +>+COURT GRANTS COMPUSERVE INJUNCTION AGAINST JUNK E-MAIL +> +>+A U.S. district court in Ohio has granted CompuServe's request for a +>+preliminary injunction barring Cyber Promotions Inc. from sending +>+unsolicited e-mail to its subscribers while the commercial provider +... +Were I a customer of CompuServe, I'd ask on what basis CompuServe was +intercepting e-mail to me. In fact, a CompuServe account holder has +made just this point: "I'll decide what's junk mail and what's not."]] + I could not agree more, in theory, except for the postage you discuss below which permits spammers greed to exceed responsibility, let alone the public interest. I am, of course, a theoretical anarchist; I believe I could put aside greed (and have) to be sufficiently altruistic to make a society of anarchists work (in a limited population model). However: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein as long as we have a >30% third and fourth generation welfare class which the dogood liberal bleeders say we are obligated to sustain their breeding; and another 30% which are functionally illiterate, there is no hope for idealism. our "neighbors" have no idea how to spell anarchy, let alone understand the price of freedom. just because I would cut off the permanent welfare class at the knees, and disenfranchise the functionally illiterate if I had the chance, does not make anarchy any more feasible; it's just a more rigid police state for the havenots --again, something we do not need. sorry to be a pragmatic pessimist, but it went down hill with the 16th amendment and the Federal Reserve Act to benefit the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, Rothschilds, Chases, etc. at our expense. +Having the court system involved in deciding what mail is valid and +what is not valid is not my idea of a free society. + again, you are correct except anarchy requires responsibility. free agency has its requirements and this is why junk fax was banned. too many members of our society can not spell anarchy or responsibility --their knowledge of vocabulary starts and ends with greed. +Having said this, the flaw remains that "junk mail" is "free" to the +sender. This is a flaw in the ontology of e-mail, and needs to be +fixed. Digital postage is one approach. probably cut down on our postings to cp as well! 32 cents to post? +I'm not holding my breath, but I sure don't want a "District Court" +deciding. I don't like the regulatory agencies either, but at least they are not Judge Roy Bean, Law West of the Pecos. unfortunately, until the irresponsible tone down their greed, we need the regulation to protect ourselves from the predators. in other words, I agree with you in my heart, but our society refuses to cooperate. ___________________________________________________________attila_____ "Explain to me, slowly and carefully, why if person A, when screwed over on a deal by B; is morally obligated to consult, pay, and defer to, person C for the purpose of seeing justice done; and why person C has any legitimate gripe, if A just hauls off and smacks B around like a dead carp." ___________________________________________________________attila_____ "attila" 1024/C20B6905/23 D0 FA 7F 6A 8F 60 66 BC AF AE 56 98 C0 D7 B0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMwKgzb04kQrCC2kFAQEK0AP+PBClPteXMYFpcfJaeYgP8c077LZwFE5i O2taYhGGY2oiuw5U2r3Y4Qv2P/8CsCtZ/eSrBlmvMTOrYEi2Le0fjiefAFKte2g4 FSJ67ttFC3gSQyj75r99TJ+roYnJzGgec9X5f/kOr3Z0m3Da6u+m/l7siNmDOPae RDWsxwmjcyM= =huRr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Unsubcribe
by George Leerhuber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Unsubcribe <lerhuber(a)joshuanet.com>

1 0

Re: anonymity and e-cash
by Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Lee Tien wrote: > Is payee anonymity technically possible? Under what conditions? > Yes. In addition to having "money changers" play an anonymizing role, one can use an anonymous bank account. Contrary to intuition, banks might be willing to set these up with cryptographic safeguards. See http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/oceanno.htm#ENDNOTE286 which describes otherwise unpublished work by Brands (by permission). == The above may have been dictated via Dragon Dictate 2.52 voice recognition. Please be alert for unintentional word substitutions. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin(a)law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here.

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Sean Roach wrote: > ... > Something to consider. If anyone of the distributed remailers is removed > from a ring, the messages that need to travel across that ring can no longer > do that. This makes the loop only as strong as its most at risk remailer. > The star approach has already been seen in action, the trouble here is a > single choke point. > Full interconnectability is only feasible in a small net, but I would advise > this at first. Check for the x-loop to see if another one got it first. If > none, add one and send it on down the line. > A disjointed mess, if the remailers are given first access to the list, > could work quite well as long as that x-loop remained to point to who sent > the message, and the x-loop contained an unalterable message number, and the > remailers could eliminate duplications, probably based on message number. > This should work as the net grows and would only be as weak as the strongest > two connected remailers. > Sounds like the internet. > I'd suggest a simplier solution: to connect each server with a couple, or maybe three, other servers. This scheme is rather robust, does not consume too much CPU time and bandwidth, and is easy to implement. - Igor.

1 0

Re: Private property rights on cypherpunks (fwd)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

While I'm not entirely unsympathetic with the notion that "information should be free," your statements below are rather incoherent. For purposes of analysis, let's talk about a story I report and write myself. Depending on the article and travel involved, I may have spent hundreds of dollars working on it. I am unwilling to donate those efforts to the "public domain" every time; I may later want to sell the article to recoup my costs. Think property rights. (Of course, I admit the need for broad fair use rights as well.) "De facto public domain" is an idea that deserves to die. Now. -Declan On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Jim Choate wrote: > > 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 > >

1 0

Re: anonymity and e-cash
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:59 PM 2/12/97 -0800, Hal Finney wrote: >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. Here is another idea. The merchant and customer agree on a price, with the merchant knowing that the "bank" will take a cut for their services. The merchant and customer both LOG IN to the bank seperately, each type in their agreed upon price and cut & paste in the services rendered information. If they match, the bank makes the necessary transaction between the accounts, e-cash stash, etc. The bank also supplies both parties with a clear signed receipt. The bank can now no longer alter the receipt, as the merchant and customer both have a copy. And the customer and merchant can not alter the receipt, because then it would fail the test on the signature. If a receipt for a transaction number were used, then the only threat would be the same one that exists for remailer operators. This could be negated by daisy-chaining banks in a similair manner. If each bank took a cut of non-customers of $.0002 or .02% of the transaction, whichever was greater, then a suitable system could be set up. Another idea that has been festering. If we could get a CPA involved in this forum, I would be willing to have h[im/er] sign my key, (which is seldom used, mostly because this is the only place I use e-mail), for that reasonable fee that CPA's can charge. I know that it is not a standard, or even legally recognized, post for CPA's, but I think that enough people would trust them. This would take care of some of the "newly minted" key problems. Since getting someone who is trusted to sign your key is a recognized method of getting people to believe you are who you say you are. Just an idea. Actually two, one half thought out, one that has been bugging me.

1 0

Procmail during the transition, anyone?
by Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At various stages in the transition, we will be getting multiple copies of the same messages as the are re- cross- whatever-posted to lists, newsgroups and anything else handy. Anyone have a procmail script that will show me just ONE copy of messages, even if the headers are not identical (e.g. one looped, another was forwarded, etc.)? I have yet to find a good guide to procmail coding. My file is long, and inefficient, and a pain to maintain...and I'm too busy to learn it right. == The above may have been dictated via Dragon Dictate 2.52 voice recognition. Please be alert for unintentional word substitutions. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin(a)law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here.

1 0

Re: Transmission of Crypto material and ITAR
by Rick Hornbeck 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Unless someone in the U.S. is willing to go to the effort of capturing all of the packets that comprise the crypto software package as they pass through various MCI, Sprint, etc. networks (which is probably illegal in itself, in most cases), on their way from the UK to your site in Australia and then reassembling them in the U.S. into something that is in violation of the export regulations, what difference does the path of the individual packets make? At 01:15 PM 2/13/97 -0800, you wrote: >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: subscribe
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:48 PM 2/12/97 -0600, Igor Chudov wrote: >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 >> 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. ... >> 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. > ... Something to consider. If anyone of the distributed remailers is removed from a ring, the messages that need to travel across that ring can no longer do that. This makes the loop only as strong as its most at risk remailer. The star approach has already been seen in action, the trouble here is a single choke point. Full interconnectability is only feasible in a small net, but I would advise this at first. Check for the x-loop to see if another one got it first. If none, add one and send it on down the line. A disjointed mess, if the remailers are given first access to the list, could work quite well as long as that x-loop remained to point to who sent the message, and the x-loop contained an unalterable message number, and the remailers could eliminate duplications, probably based on message number. This should work as the net grows and would only be as weak as the strongest two connected remailers. Sounds like the internet.

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

At 03:25 PM 2/12/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >Having said this, the flaw remains that "junk mail" is "free" to the >sender. This is a flaw in the ontology of e-mail, and needs to be fixed. >Digital postage is one approach. I decided long ago (okay, well, many months ago) that the "solution" is to invent a mechanism to allow spammers/advertisers to include a small amount of ecash as a gift with every spam. I figure that if USnail junk-mailers are willing to pay $0.32 for postage and probably $0.50 for production, printing, and labelling costs, all for no guarantees of results, they should even more happy to pay, say, 10 cents to each recipient. At that rate, an average person would probably receive enough "spam" to pay for his Internet account, quite analogous to the way advertiser-supported TV is presented to the public for no explicit charge. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

[STATS] Cypherpunks-unedited subscriptions
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Total subscribers for cypherpunks-unedited: ------------------------------------------- Tue 14 Jan: 13 Wed 15 Jan: 15 Thu 16 Jan: 13 Fri 17 Jan: 15 Tue 21 Jan: 28 Fri 24 Jan: 30 Mon 27 Jan: 34 Tue 04 Feb: 43 Tue 11 Feb: 62 When Gilmore made his pronouncement that "the subscribers have spoken", only a minority of the "real" subscribers were on the -unedited list. Since the above figures don't include Sandfort's entry, the jump to 62 as of yesterday (despite the discontinuance) easily represents the majority of the active (real) subscribers. Another blood stain on Gilmore's shroud, as it were.

1 0

Re: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks"
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> writes: > > > At 1:20 PM -0600 2/11/97, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > >If the people decide for creation of a new USENET newsgroup, > > > >we need to think very hard about actually moving it to a different > > > >hierarchy from alt.*. I would propose comp.org.cypherpunks, > > > >comp.cypherpunks, sci.crypt.cypherpunks or something like that. > It is too late to stop alt.cypherpunks, but if I had to make a > prediction again, I would predict that soon posters will BEG to help > them create comp.*.cypherpunks, because of spam and alt.flamage. I would lean toward sci.crypt.cypherpunks myself. Are there any implications in the use of that name as to restrictions, etc.?

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0