December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sandy hit a pothole in the moderation experiment when Mr. Nemesis submitted a posting containing nothing but libelous statements about Sandy's employer. He never anticipated that he wouldn't be able to follow his announced "post it to one list or the other" policy because to do so would make him legally liable (in his opinion; he's a lawyer, I'm not). His gears jammed, and the whole machine came to a halt for a few days. Sandy has agreed to continue moderation through the end of the original 1-month experiment (through Feb 19). And it's a good thing, too, because the "cypherpunks community" had better get off its whining butt in the next ten days, or it will no longer exist. I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to host the cypherpunks list any more. It's not the true assholes that brought me to this decision; it's the reaction from the bulk of people on the list: suspicion, flamage, and criticism with every attempt to improve things. I noticed few people volunteering some of their own time, money, or machines to help out. Almost all the suggestions were advice for *other* people to implement: One would have thought that had Sandy and John really been interested in hearing the views of list members, this approach would have eventually won out. a supposedly libertarian and anarchistic group of people has decided that censorship is the right solution to their problems. I'd prefer for the cypherpunks _name_ not be associated with a moderated/censored list. (I mean no insult to either Sandy or John in this, BTW... I simply think that they've gone about this the wrong way. If one is going to advocate free speech, I strongly suggest one learns to deal with one's own greed and one's own need for power first. For those who want it, let someone moderate the list for as long as they care to do it. Approved messages get a "X-sandy-approved" header. ... the vast majority are still shipped out as 'Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com' (and the 'Received' chain as I pointed out in my original post). to me that is piss poor list management. however you slice it, censorship on a freedom of speech list just does not make it and we make fools of ourselves if we think otherwise. Now each of these posters will get their chance to do it "right" -- on their own time and with their own resources. A large fraction of the list seems to think that "freedom of speech" means that everyone is required to listen to everyone else at all times. That there can't be focused, topical conversations in a society that has freedom of speech. I would say the opposite; part of freedom of speech is the freedom to choose to whom we speak and to whom we listen. This is part of what cryptography does: lets us control who can receive our speech, and lets recievers determine who the speaker is. There also seems to be a misunderstanding that freedom of speech requires that people who want to speak already have a place, set up and maintained by someone else, for them to speak in. If someone who's set up a speech-place decides it isn't being used for its intended purpose, then they are a censor, stopping all possibility of conversations. Did you forget that there are millions of other places to speak in cyberspace, millions more in realspace, and that you can personally create more if you don't like any of the ones you know about? To paraphrase Zappa, you wouldn't know censorship if it bit you on the ass. You think you're being censored when you're just being excluded from a forum because what you're saying isn't interesting to that forum. So anyway, I'm tired of it all. I'd much rather focus on getting my crypto work done than babysitting majordomo, tracking down attempts to subscribe the entire US Congress to the list, and debating the seventy or eighty "obvious right ways" to handle the list. This is a "put up or shut up" to the cypherpunks community. Either you list denizens will, among yourselves, put in the energy to build a new home for the list (and run it in whatever way your volunteers want) by Feb 20, or the list will cease to exist on Feb 20. The next ten days of moderated discussion, through the end of the original experiment, will give the community a chance to discuss whether and where it plans to host the list after the experiment is over. My feeling is that the stalkers who have been trying to shut it down (Dimitri, etc) will be out in full force, trying to disrupt the process of finding a new home. It would be very hard to make progress along that line in an unmoderated list. Cypherpunks-unedited readers are welcome to try. Sandy reports that he's changing his criteria for moderation for the remainder of the experiment. It was his idea, and I approve. The criteria now are: * The topics of the list are: cryptography setting up replacements for cypherpunks(a)toad.com * On-topic, legal, posts will go to the list. * Postings with any hint of legal liability (in Sandy's opinion) will be silently ignored. * Legal but off-topic posts will go to cypherpunks-flames. Sandy will apply these criteria retroactively to the backlog (of about 140 messages), which means that most recent criticisms of the moderation (which don't invove someone volunteering to do things for the list) will go straight to the flames list. If you don't like it, I recommend that you start your own list. Soon. For me it's a sad thing that the community's willingness to pull together has degenerated to the point where I feel better off separating from the list. I hope that others in the community will create one or several alternatives that work better. John Gilmore

9 12

Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sandy hit a pothole in the moderation experiment when Mr. Nemesis submitted a posting containing nothing but libelous statements about Sandy's employer. He never anticipated that he wouldn't be able to follow his announced "post it to one list or the other" policy because to do so would make him legally liable (in his opinion; he's a lawyer, I'm not). His gears jammed, and the whole machine came to a halt for a few days. Sandy has agreed to continue moderation through the end of the original 1-month experiment (through Feb 19). And it's a good thing, too, because the "cypherpunks community" had better get off its whining butt in the next ten days, or it will no longer exist. I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to host the cypherpunks list any more. It's not the true assholes that brought me to this decision; it's the reaction from the bulk of people on the list: suspicion, flamage, and criticism with every attempt to improve things. I noticed few people volunteering some of their own time, money, or machines to help out. Almost all the suggestions were advice for *other* people to implement: One would have thought that had Sandy and John really been interested in hearing the views of list members, this approach would have eventually won out. a supposedly libertarian and anarchistic group of people has decided that censorship is the right solution to their problems. I'd prefer for the cypherpunks _name_ not be associated with a moderated/censored list. (I mean no insult to either Sandy or John in this, BTW... I simply think that they've gone about this the wrong way. If one is going to advocate free speech, I strongly suggest one learns to deal with one's own greed and one's own need for power first. For those who want it, let someone moderate the list for as long as they care to do it. Approved messages get a "X-sandy-approved" header. ... the vast majority are still shipped out as 'Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com' (and the 'Received' chain as I pointed out in my original post). to me that is piss poor list management. however you slice it, censorship on a freedom of speech list just does not make it and we make fools of ourselves if we think otherwise. Now each of these posters will get their chance to do it "right" -- on their own time and with their own resources. A large fraction of the list seems to think that "freedom of speech" means that everyone is required to listen to everyone else at all times. That there can't be focused, topical conversations in a society that has freedom of speech. I would say the opposite; part of freedom of speech is the freedom to choose to whom we speak and to whom we listen. This is part of what cryptography does: lets us control who can receive our speech, and lets recievers determine who the speaker is. There also seems to be a misunderstanding that freedom of speech requires that people who want to speak already have a place, set up and maintained by someone else, for them to speak in. If someone who's set up a speech-place decides it isn't being used for its intended purpose, then they are a censor, stopping all possibility of conversations. Did you forget that there are millions of other places to speak in cyberspace, millions more in realspace, and that you can personally create more if you don't like any of the ones you know about? To paraphrase Zappa, you wouldn't know censorship if it bit you on the ass. You think you're being censored when you're just being excluded from a forum because what you're saying isn't interesting to that forum. So anyway, I'm tired of it all. I'd much rather focus on getting my crypto work done than babysitting majordomo, tracking down attempts to subscribe the entire US Congress to the list, and debating the seventy or eighty "obvious right ways" to handle the list. This is a "put up or shut up" to the cypherpunks community. Either you list denizens will, among yourselves, put in the energy to build a new home for the list (and run it in whatever way your volunteers want) by Feb 20, or the list will cease to exist on Feb 20. The next ten days of moderated discussion, through the end of the original experiment, will give the community a chance to discuss whether and where it plans to host the list after the experiment is over. My feeling is that the stalkers who have been trying to shut it down (Dimitri, etc) will be out in full force, trying to disrupt the process of finding a new home. It would be very hard to make progress along that line in an unmoderated list. Cypherpunks-unedited readers are welcome to try. Sandy reports that he's changing his criteria for moderation for the remainder of the experiment. It was his idea, and I approve. The criteria now are: * The topics of the list are: cryptography setting up replacements for cypherpunks(a)toad.com * On-topic, legal, posts will go to the list. * Postings with any hint of legal liability (in Sandy's opinion) will be silently ignored. * Legal but off-topic posts will go to cypherpunks-flames. Sandy will apply these criteria retroactively to the backlog (of about 140 messages), which means that most recent criticisms of the moderation (which don't invove someone volunteering to do things for the list) will go straight to the flames list. If you don't like it, I recommend that you start your own list. Soon. For me it's a sad thing that the community's willingness to pull together has degenerated to the point where I feel better off separating from the list. I hope that others in the community will create one or several alternatives that work better. John Gilmore

11 14

Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sandy hit a pothole in the moderation experiment when Mr. Nemesis submitted a posting containing nothing but libelous statements about Sandy's employer. He never anticipated that he wouldn't be able to follow his announced "post it to one list or the other" policy because to do so would make him legally liable (in his opinion; he's a lawyer, I'm not). His gears jammed, and the whole machine came to a halt for a few days. Sandy has agreed to continue moderation through the end of the original 1-month experiment (through Feb 19). And it's a good thing, too, because the "cypherpunks community" had better get off its whining butt in the next ten days, or it will no longer exist. I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to host the cypherpunks list any more. It's not the true assholes that brought me to this decision; it's the reaction from the bulk of people on the list: suspicion, flamage, and criticism with every attempt to improve things. I noticed few people volunteering some of their own time, money, or machines to help out. Almost all the suggestions were advice for *other* people to implement: One would have thought that had Sandy and John really been interested in hearing the views of list members, this approach would have eventually won out. a supposedly libertarian and anarchistic group of people has decided that censorship is the right solution to their problems. I'd prefer for the cypherpunks _name_ not be associated with a moderated/censored list. (I mean no insult to either Sandy or John in this, BTW... I simply think that they've gone about this the wrong way. If one is going to advocate free speech, I strongly suggest one learns to deal with one's own greed and one's own need for power first. For those who want it, let someone moderate the list for as long as they care to do it. Approved messages get a "X-sandy-approved" header. ... the vast majority are still shipped out as 'Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com' (and the 'Received' chain as I pointed out in my original post). to me that is piss poor list management. however you slice it, censorship on a freedom of speech list just does not make it and we make fools of ourselves if we think otherwise. Now each of these posters will get their chance to do it "right" -- on their own time and with their own resources. A large fraction of the list seems to think that "freedom of speech" means that everyone is required to listen to everyone else at all times. That there can't be focused, topical conversations in a society that has freedom of speech. I would say the opposite; part of freedom of speech is the freedom to choose to whom we speak and to whom we listen. This is part of what cryptography does: lets us control who can receive our speech, and lets recievers determine who the speaker is. There also seems to be a misunderstanding that freedom of speech requires that people who want to speak already have a place, set up and maintained by someone else, for them to speak in. If someone who's set up a speech-place decides it isn't being used for its intended purpose, then they are a censor, stopping all possibility of conversations. Did you forget that there are millions of other places to speak in cyberspace, millions more in realspace, and that you can personally create more if you don't like any of the ones you know about? To paraphrase Zappa, you wouldn't know censorship if it bit you on the ass. You think you're being censored when you're just being excluded from a forum because what you're saying isn't interesting to that forum. So anyway, I'm tired of it all. I'd much rather focus on getting my crypto work done than babysitting majordomo, tracking down attempts to subscribe the entire US Congress to the list, and debating the seventy or eighty "obvious right ways" to handle the list. This is a "put up or shut up" to the cypherpunks community. Either you list denizens will, among yourselves, put in the energy to build a new home for the list (and run it in whatever way your volunteers want) by Feb 20, or the list will cease to exist on Feb 20. The next ten days of moderated discussion, through the end of the original experiment, will give the community a chance to discuss whether and where it plans to host the list after the experiment is over. My feeling is that the stalkers who have been trying to shut it down (Dimitri, etc) will be out in full force, trying to disrupt the process of finding a new home. It would be very hard to make progress along that line in an unmoderated list. Cypherpunks-unedited readers are welcome to try. Sandy reports that he's changing his criteria for moderation for the remainder of the experiment. It was his idea, and I approve. The criteria now are: * The topics of the list are: cryptography setting up replacements for cypherpunks(a)toad.com * On-topic, legal, posts will go to the list. * Postings with any hint of legal liability (in Sandy's opinion) will be silently ignored. * Legal but off-topic posts will go to cypherpunks-flames. Sandy will apply these criteria retroactively to the backlog (of about 140 messages), which means that most recent criticisms of the moderation (which don't invove someone volunteering to do things for the list) will go straight to the flames list. If you don't like it, I recommend that you start your own list. Soon. For me it's a sad thing that the community's willingness to pull together has degenerated to the point where I feel better off separating from the list. I hope that others in the community will create one or several alternatives that work better. John Gilmore

1 0

hello
by James Sears 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

unscribe

1 0

RE: Encrypted filing of patents sans GAK?
by Larry Layten 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In all that I have read or heard, I have only seen Key Recovery techniques in reference to encryption. I don't believe that anyone thinks that Key Recovery is applicable to digital signatures. Any well designed system provides for separate keys for encryption and signature anyway. The application of digital signatures is often considered to be a part of encryption, but encryption should never be considered part of a digital signature process. The two are really completely different processes with different purposes and ramifications. Larry

1 0

Re: What else do I need for an Internet Server
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Otto Matic wrote: > What else do I need for an internet server? > HP Vectra Towers 2 each 486 cyrex chips 50 meg processor Need high > speed hard drives. These are the Tall Towers that have multiple > drives, these are server towers. > I think I have a router Hub. And a couple LAN cards. > That's all I have. But I just got them, and I want to use them. I assume I > will be using some kind of UNIX software. HP does some strange things to their BIOS software - you may want to get one of those net analyzer tools and some low-level software that can monitor what your HP's are sending and receiving, just in case. They don't normally use Vectras for UNIX, so what effects you can expect, I don't know.

1 0

META: Censorship is Going Way too Far
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Fellow Cypherpunks (of the virtual community, even if not part of any particular version of the list(s)), I am about to drive over the Santa Cruz mountains for today's physical meeting at Stanford, and made my last check of the Singapore archive site to see if my last several messages to the CP list have appeared. (The Singapore site archives the main list every four hours; the latest update is 08:15 PST, local time.) They have _not_ appeared, on either of the two lists, the main list and filtered list. I don't know if they have appeared on the "unfiltered" list, as I don't have access to an archive site for that, and don't subscribe to it. Some of these articles are now more than 18 hours old. (I scanned the archive site carefully and did not see any of my articles. If I somehow missed them (all four?!), I apologize to the Moderator and will make an appointment with my eye doctor.) Further, messages dated _much_ later in time are now on the Singapore site, meaning they were "approved." (The latest such message I see is from J. Blatz, and is dated 2/8/97, 02:58 a.m., EST, which is fully 10 hours after the first of my messages which never appeared on either the main list or the flames list.) My articles are dated: * 2/7/97, 1:46 p.m. PST * 2/7/97, 1:59 p.m., PST * 2/7/97, 3:03 p.m., PST * 2/7/97, 9:46 p.m., PST I would normally give the message names here, but I suspect that even mention of the message titles would cause _this_ message to be filtered into the black hole list. So, by avoiding even mention of the message titles, I should be safe. Nothing in this message can be considered flamish (beyond normal criticism) or libelous. (Many articles with dates later than these have already appeared on the main list, and some have already appeared on the Flames list. Why have none of my articles gone through as of this morning?) The subjects of my articles deal with the claims made by "Against Moderation" and Vulis that certain articles were filtered from the stream of articles without appearing on either the main list or the flames list, and with no mention by the Moderator of this significant change to the moderation policies. I surmise that my articles are similarly vanishing into a black hole, presumably because I have questioned the policies here. (Possibly my articles have been side-tracked for further review, or for review by a certain company's legal staff, or whatever. If so, this should be explained to the main list. And the implications of this, if it is happening, should be discussed on the main list.) By the way, I will deliberately make no mention of the details of my articles, or of those by Against Moderation, as I also surmise that any articles dealing with a certain product by a certain company will be filtered out completely. (I carefully did not repeat the claims made against one of these products in my articles, so there is no way under the sun I can be charged in any court with "libel.") To paraphrase the Detweiler of a couple of years ago, "I am quite shocked by this situation." It is one thing to filter out posts which contain infantile, barnyard taunts and insults, it is quite another to filter out _content_. And it is even worse to not pass on these filtered comments to the "flames" list, which was putatively set up to contain such comments. Worse still that the list as a whole is not being told of this policy, and that posts which mention it are not going out. (There has been some discussion of articles not going out, such as in Igor Chudov's recent articles, but I surmise from his article that Igor is unaware of the filtering I'm talking about here. I am copying Igor on this message, to ensure he knows at least part of what is going on here.) There is no justification in any of the stated moderation goals for blocking articles such as mine, or this one. As my posts yesterday did not contain flames or insults (beyond normal minor turns of phrase some might not like, just as _this_ post contains mildly flamish comments if one is so inclined to see _any_ criticism as flamish), they should have appeared on the main list. They have not, so far, even though articles generated many hours later have already appeared on the main list. And, as of minutes ago, they have not appeared on the Flames list, even if the Moderator decided they were flamish. (Even if _one_ was, arguably, not all of them were.) So, we are increasingly in a situation where: a. the moderation policies appear to be changing on a daily basis b. articles which are not even flamish are being dumped c. some of these dumped articles are not even appearing on the "Flames" list d. the appearance of a conflict of interest is increasing e. discussion is being squelched I am cc:ing this message to a handful of Cypherpunks to ensure that it gets some propagation before today's meeting. I find it very sad that things have come to this. --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: remailer-operators DEA agents?
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sandy the C2Net Censor tossed the following question to flames: Secret Squirrel <nobody(a)squirrel.owl.de> writes: > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > c.musselman(a)internetmci.com (Charley Musselman) writes: > > > C'punks -- > > > When I told a friend about the alt.drugs.pot cultivation newsgroup > > > and suggested that he use an anonymous remailer to post to the group, > > > he laughed and said, "Who do you suppose runs the remailers? ATF, > > > FBI, DEA, that's who!" Gee, it makes sense to this paranoid. Does > > > anyone know the answer? Specifically, how can we choose a trusted > > > remailer? > > > > Even if the feds are not directtly involved, the so-called "cypher punk" > > remailers are run by people who should not be trusted. Check out their > > remailer-operators list: it's full of announcements that some specific > > person posted something via the remailer that the operator didn't like. > > Examples, please? Plenty. There was a whole thread about the operator of the defunct lead remailer disclosing his users' identities. Here's a recent one: ]Received: from get.wired.com (HELO wired.com) (204.62.131.5) ] by anon.lcs.mit.edu with SMTP; 6 Feb 1997 23:37:35 -0000 ]Received: from avenger.hotwired.com (avenger.hotwired.com [206.221.193.5]) by wired.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA09050; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 15:37:34 -0800 (PST) ]Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970206160603.0086acb0(a)get.hotwired.com> ]X-Sender: toxic(a)get.hotwired.com ]X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) ]Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 16:06:04 -0800 ]To: remailer-operators(a)anon.lcs.mit.edu ]From: Jeff Burchell <toxic(a)hotwired.com> ]Subject: Commercial SPAM from ClaritaInc(a)aol.com ]Mime-Version: 1.0 ]Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ] ] ]Tofu trapped a bunch of shit coming from ClaritaInc(a)aol.com. They're ]posting to usenet, advertising things for sale (Including a $10 pamphlet ]explaining how to send anonymous internet email, and the standard ]make.money.fast chainletter scheme) ] ]I've source blocked them, I suggest you do the same. ] ]-Jeff Jeff also said the following, which seems to contradict the above: ]Delivered-To: remailer-operators(a)anon.lcs.mit.edu ]Received: from get.wired.com (HELO wired.com) (204.62.131.5) ] by anon.lcs.mit.edu with SMTP; 7 Feb 1997 01:17:48 -0000 ]Received: from avenger.hotwired.com (avenger.hotwired.com [206.221.193.5]) by wired.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA26127; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 17:17:47 -0800 (PST) ]Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970206174616.0086c8e0(a)get.hotwired.com> ]X-Sender: toxic(a)get.hotwired.com ]X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) ]Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 17:46:16 -0800 ]To: remailer-operators(a)anon.lcs.mit.edu ]From: Jeff Burchell <toxic(a)hotwired.com> ]Subject: Useage Policy. ]Mime-Version: 1.0 ]Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ]Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ] ] ]I'm in the process of setting up an autoresponder on the ]abuse(a)mailmasher.com address. I'd appreciate people's feedback to this ]autoresponder message, and the policies that it describes... ] ] ]Hi. This is in regards to a letter you sent to abuse(a)mailmasher.com. I ]hate autoresponders too, but I=92ve found that this is a special case and is ]probably warranted. ]I=92ve been running anonymous services for a couple of years now, and have ]answered thousands of pieces of email regarding MailMasher users. Please ]take my word on this one, you really need to at least skim the rest of this ]message. ] ]I will read your email, I promise. However, if your email can be answered ]by something that is contained in THIS message, I won=92t respond to it. ]Sorry. I run MailMasher as sort of a hobby, while holding down a dayjob ]and I really don=92t have time to answer all mail personally. ] ]And now on to the important stuff=85 ] ]First, the answer to the most frequently asked MailMasher question=85 If a ]user of the MailMasher is Harassing or otherwise bothering you, it can be ]stopped. Send a blank message to blockme(a)mailmasher.com. Your email ]address will be added to a list of addresses that MailMasher will refuse to ]mail to, and you=92ll never get anything from here again. ] ]MailMasher is an anonymous service. This means that even I don=92t know who ]is using it. Any internet user can use a web interface to create an ]anonymous MailMasher email account. I don=92t ask them who they are, and my ]machine doesn=92t keeps logs that could be used to identify users. So ]please, don=92t ask me to identify a user. I can=92t do it.=20 ] ]I also don=92t filter anything for content. Several years ago, in what has ]now come to be known as the Prodigy case (Stratton-Oakmont & Porush v. ]Prodigy. Details at ]http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/Stratton_Oakmont_Porush_v_Prodigy ) A ]legal standard was set. Basically, if a service provider deletes posts, ]intercepts emails or otherwise tries to exercise editorial control over any ]of its users, then the service provider can be held responsible for ALL of ]the content that goes through the service. MailMasher transfers around ]10,000 messages a day. It is impossible for me to monitor traffic like ]that. Therefore, I do not even know what most MailMasher users are using ]their accounts for. It really isn=92t any of my business, and because I ]don=92t make it my business, legally, I can=92t be held responsible for the ]actions of MailMasher users. ] ]I also don=92t delete accounts. Because, when I delete an account, the user ]can always come right back and create another one with a different address. ] If someone is going to be behaving badly on the Internet, I for one would ]prefer that they always do it from the same email address, so I can just ]add them to my killfile or email filters. ] ]So, to summarize: ] ]1. I intentionally have made it impossible for anyone, including myself to ]determine the identities of MailMasher users. ]2. I will not under any circumstances monitor a user or delete an account. ]3. I will make a good faith effort to keep you from being bothered by ]MailMasher users, through the use of a destination block filter. ]4. I neither condone nor condemn any action taken by any MailMasher user, ]either in conjunction with their MailMasher use or not. ] ]So=85 you ask, Why would I want to run a service that lets the spammers, an= ]d ]the porn freaks, and the warez kiddies do their thing? The answer is ]simple: because it also allows for much much more. A MailMasher user can ]communicate without repercussions to people all over the world. I have ]received many thank-yous from users sometimes explaining what they used my ]service for. There are people in certain countries who have a very ]legitimate fear of speaking out, who use this and other anonymous services ]to communicate with the U.S. Countless people have used anonymous services ]to very openly discuss items that are considered secret to certain members ]of the Church of Scientology. Victims of all sorts of abuse can speak ]truly anonymously (sometimes for the first time). Even abusers can speak ]freely, which helps with recovery. ]It is for these examples that I run this service. I think a little noise ]and junk is a small price to pay for all of this. You take the good with ]the bad. ] ]This is free speech in one of its most raw forms, staring you in the face. ]You may not like it; It may offend you; It might even encourage illegal ]behavior, but it is speech, and in the United States, it is protected by ]the Constitution. =20 ] ]Thank you for your time. If you=92d like to contact me again, without ]tripping this autoresponder, send mail to remailer-admin(a)mailmasher.com. ] ]-Jeff Burchell, MailMasher Admin ] --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: My messages not appearing on either of the lists?
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike Duvos <mpd(a)netcom.com> writes: > SANDY SANDFORT sez: > > > On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Mike Duvos wrote: > > > > ...Messages apparently do not get moderated in the order in > > > which they are received... > > > All messages are filtered and posted in the order in which I > > receive them. > > That's all very nice, but I should point out that I have not yet > seen my message to which you are responding on the filtered list. Also not "all" messages are posted. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Junk e-mails
by Jerry Basham 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm receiving a bunch of inane e-mails from your domain. Could you please put a stop to it? It's coming to all of my e-mail addresses, including the one below. 2ndSun(a)bigfoot.com------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------Learning to Remember the Future---http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/5335

1 0

Re: MODERATION
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

While I ultimately concluded it (or at least the manner of doing it) was a bad idea, I am appreciative of the effort. I hope this won't discourage you too much from trying out other (hopefully better) ideas. -Allen

1 0

Re: RRE: Proposed satellite monitoring of car movements in Sweden
by Phil Agre 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You have plenty of choice. If you don't like our country, move somewhere else. Phil

1 0

Re: RRE: Proposed satellite monitoring of car movements in Sweden
by Brad Dolan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Love it or leave it?" bd On Sun, 9 Feb 1997, Phil Agre wrote: > You have plenty of choice. If you don't like our country, move somewhere > else. > > Phil >

1 0

Re: lead remailer is shut down
by Lutz Donnerhacke 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

* Ed Falk wrote: > Can't remailers be written with basic spam safeguards? I.e. no mass > crossposts, limited # of posts by each individual client per day, etc.? Yes, thay can, but using PGP is enough to filter out the majority of spammers. -- | Lutz Donnerhacke +49/3641/380259 voice, -60 ISDN, -61 V.34 und Fax |

1 0

Re: lead remailer is shut down
by Lutz Donnerhacke 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

* Ed Falk wrote: > Can't remailers be written with basic spam safeguards? I.e. no mass > crossposts, limited # of posts by each individual client per day, etc.? Yes, thay can, but using PGP is enough to filter out the majority of spammers. -- | Lutz Donnerhacke +49/3641/380259 voice, -60 ISDN, -61 V.34 und Fax |

1 0

Re: My messages not appearing on either of the lists?
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri(a)netcom.com> writes: > >(It is true that Vulis uses the phrase "Limey faggots," in reference to > >beer-serving habits, but he does not directly insult any list members with > >this phrase. If Sandy is calling this phrase a flame, then Cypherpunks will > >be blocked from their usual characterizations of Congresscritters and NSA > >stooges.) > > TCM defending Vulis, I think I've died and am in some strange > dreamworld. hehehehe I actually liked most of what TCM wrote (even when not crypto-relevant) and find myself missing his essays. He was wrong to start flaming me for no reason and to attribute to me stuff I never said; but we all make mistakes and can get over them. Saying bullshit about people (like Tim saying bullshit about me and me saying bullshit about people) is one thing; it can be fun, or it can be annoying when taken to extremes; but I've never sought to silence Tim, and have no hard evidence that he tried to silence anyone. P.S. CMEPTb COBKAM! --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Humor in the oddest places...
by Damaged Justice 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The February issue of the _Pinky and the Brain_ comic, based on the animated television show of two lab mice constantly foiled in their plans to take over the world, has a main story entitled "Mission: Unpinkable". Our heroes intercept a stray piece of microfilm and accept the mission to steal Microstomp's "prototype Internet computer control chip, the 1286 GAK", with Brain plotting to reprogram the chip so that... "When the program is introduced on the Internet, every connected CPU across the globe will download ME! My personality matrix will soon control every computer in the world!" Naturally, the plan goes awry. One wonders if the writers have been following the "key escrow" debate here on Cpunks. -- 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. (Michael Schneider)

1 0

Re: What else do I need for an Internet Server
by Otto Matic 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Otto Matic wrote: >> What else do I need for an internet server? >> HP Vectra Towers 2 each 486 cyrex chips 50 meg processor Need high >> speed hard drives. These are the Tall Towers that have multiple >> drives, these are server towers. >> I think I have a router Hub. And a couple LAN cards. >> That's all I have. But I just got them, and I want to use them. I assume I >> will be using some kind of UNIX software. > >HP does some strange things to their BIOS software - you may want to >get one of those net analyzer tools and some low-level software that >can monitor what your HP's are sending and receiving, just in case. > >They don't normally use Vectras for UNIX, so what effects you can >expect, I don't know. > Dale, Thanks for your reply. Really I'm not sure about UNIX, I was just guessing. What I really need is a B.O.M (bill of materials). What other 'hardware' will I need to round up in order to get this server up and running. Thanks: otto =-=-=-=-=- Otto Matic "Fuckin' A, Miller!" Bud, Repo Man --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Internet Alert! Pay for local dial-up??
by Jerry Basham 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Take me off your list or I will complain to your isp. ---------- > From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> > To: freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org; cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Cc: E-Mail Communications <freedom(a)econopromo.com> > Subject: Re: Internet Alert! Pay for local dial-up?? > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 11:09 AM > > E-Mail Communications wrote: > > > See our "Patriotic Quotes That Make Sense" > > at the end of this publication. > > > "We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will > > always be prepared, so we may always be free." > > -- President Ronald W. Reagan June 6, 1984 - Normandy, France > > What Ronald Reagan didn't say (but what he really meant): > > "I come here to Bitburg to honor the fallen Nazis, because I am in > fact an honorary Nazi myself. Just ask my personal secretary Helen, > who used to work for Fritz Kraemer." >

1 0

Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jerry Basham wrote: > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > for you. > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa my ass. OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm not optimistic.

1 0

Fw: Internet Alert! Pay for local dial-up??
by IconOfSin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- > From: E-Mail Communications <freedom(a)econopromo.com> > To: you(a)alberta.sallynet.com > Subject: Internet Alert! Pay for local dial-up?? > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:09 PM > > > ***************************************** > > INTERNET USERS ALERT!!! It has come to our attention that several > local telephone companies have petitioned the FCC for permission > to charge Internet Users by the minute for LOCAL dial-up telephone > service. This would affect every Internet User, including those > using AOL dial-up. > > For more information, see the FCC site: http://www.fcc.gov/isp.htm. > Please send an E-Mail to isp(a)fcc.gov > to express your outrage at the idea of allowing telephone companies > to charge by the minute for LOCAL dial-up service. E-Mail comments > must be sent by Feb. 13th, 1997. This affects every Internet user!! The question is.... "what can *WE* do. IconOfSin Fly DALnet! /server irc.dal.net 7000 Msg IconOfSin :)

1 0

Re: META: Censorship is Going Way too Far
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <v03007800af225b8581dd(a)[207.167.93.63]>, on 02/08/97 at 11:22 AM, "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> said: >They have _not_ appeared, on either of the two lists, the main list and >filtered list. I don't know if they have appeared on the "unfiltered" list, as >I don't have access to an archive site for that, and don't subscribe to it. >Some of these articles are now more than 18 hours old. Hi Tim, All 4 of your post made it to the unfiltered list. I don't know what made it to the moderated/flam list as I had switched to the unmoderated list yesterday morning. - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. Finger whgiii(a)amaranth.com for PGP Key and other info - ----------------------------------------------------------- Tag-O-Matic: You're throwing it all out the Windows! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Registered User E-Secure v1.1 0000000 iQCVAwUBMvy70Y9Co1n+aLhhAQEJLAP+PfEKyvsLsqNWAnNYKt628w2PUtfIOxiR H0La2l3tOX6eyXNiQFtmhQA7czJOm2FxMQOwagkA9qQcaJAj6vOiRfA6vganHmVY VBFEfKQxSaSLov4cjZYyK5e1uWWrsJnU+irZyXDXXBxk8P4rA1kvwGChMPpJmeIK eybgP/vYvz8= =1brw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Enlightened commentary on Netizen.
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:41 PM 2/6/97 -0800, Anil Das wrote: >First, Rebecca Vesely has a special report, the main thrust >of which is that three firms being allowed to export 56 bit >encryption indicates flexibility on the part of the >government. >http://www.netizen.com/netizen/97/05/special2a.html >To top it off, here are two gems from the followup discussion. >http://www.netizen.com/cgi-bin/interact/replies_all?msg.37387 > >2. 56 ONLY A SLIGHTLY SMALLER JOKE > Ric Allan (ricrok) on Wed, 5 Feb 97 11:53 PST > > If it takes a college student four hours to break > a 40bit code it should take him/her about six > hours to do the same to 56bits. Then what excuses > are the government and its butt-kissing companies > going to give us for not allowing *real* coding? Ironically, we (the good guys) are going to be the beneficiaries of an ignorant public, for a change! We all know that difficulty is not linear with bit-size, but hearing that "40 bits is crackable in four hours!" will be interpreted by non-technical people as a strong level of suspicion directed at DES as well. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

FCC may impose per minute charges on internet
by Reply to 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> >>I am writing you this to inform you of a very important matter currently >>under review by the FCC. Your local telephone company has filed a >>proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for your internet >>service. They contend that your usage has or will hinder the operation >>of the telephone network. >> >>It is my belief that internet usage will diminish if users were required >>to pay additional per minute charges. The FCC has created an email box >>for your comments, responses must be received by February 13, 1997. Send >>your comments to isp(a)fcc.gov and tell them what you think. >> >>Please forward this email to all your friends on the internet so all our >>voices may be heard. >> >>Thanks for your time, >> >>Brian >> >>______________________________________________________________________________

1 0

Re: Waiting for Mac version [was Re: Full strength Email Clients]
by Joe Chou 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Meanwhile, a beta version of "Pretty Safe Mail" ><http://www.highware.com/highware/PSM/safemail.htm> is available from >Highware in Belgium. It's PGP compatible, and its user interface is a >great leap forward from any Mac PGP front end I've seen. But, it still has >some deficiencies, it's very slow (25 seconds to sign this message on a 25 >MHz 68040 vs. 4 seconds for ViaCrypt PGP 2.7.1), and (as was recently >discussed on a couple of these lists) its source code hasn't been published >or externally audited. I've been testing Pretty Safe Mail on 68k and PPC platforms, and I completely agree with you for the 68040 slowness. But on a Powermac 7600 (604/120Mhz), it took less than 3 seconds to sign the same document. Highware claims that a faster 68k is in the works. They've offereed to have PSM externally audited, but I haven't heard of any volunteers. Joe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2, by Pretty Safe Mail 1.0 iQCVAwUBMvzAT7WqygGLsQD9AQF+RwP+IbLejl0wMKQzPJmHbIOann+KUB0zsXps 36bjfsyjIYZwkcbhjqCh2lFpljlmeMMVtPX90bPLRb0J+Bgbmcv7h24BN2Q5sInr AFFk4ST07uLZ8ICJzwtkHYgNwgMmdba2QeDQ0SZCH8FYMQiLpkf45TTIIger8MXt Rkkv3V23nts= =MgGH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- | Joe Chou <jchou(a)cgl.ucsf.edu> | http://devbio-mac1.ucsf.edu/joe.html | Bargmann Lab, UCSF Department of Biochemistry | PGP KeyID 0x8BB100FD: at web page or public key servers | PGP Fingerprint [4194 EBC6 EEB0 7B1A F18F 2185 D406 EDFF]

1 0

Re: NETLINK_IPSEC
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 04:21 PM 2/7/97 -0800, Jeremey Barrett wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >When running 'make modules', NETLINK_IPSEC and IPFWD_NOTTLDEC are >undeclared. I added NETLINK_IPSEC to include/net/netlink.h, >but IPFWD_NOTTLDEC is not to be found. I'm running kernel 2.0.0, >the INSTALL.txt file in the ipsec distribution mentions 2.0.24, >is that the minimum kernel to run on? Is there any specific reason for staying with the 2.0.0 kernel? (I would think you would want to upgrade just for the "Ping O' Death" fix alone.) Has anyone tried IPSEC with the 2.1.x kernels? Are there a logcation that describes the differences between 2.0.x and 2.1.x? (I have not been able to find one...) Then again, I have yet to find a list of what was fixed from kernel to kernel... (Probibly in some directory of the tar file...) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAwUBMvytcOQCP3v30CeZAQHL5gf/RVBzl8nunBPg7wCiS4qGSo+M/BsBrBNM bKowgWaZI5UNtMgmxnxadrd7O6uvQv15+U9XO5qhbXNKm0ZoDpBF1hLY4jk2sx4i AH3VQE2YQayIkMbYMvjA7A4tYyXEay8KwGKgqYLsVkhMQ2HDo7CFS6xwD3N5jJ7V Ln/GWLfhd6uK3sPtWYkX6BcM0gNs2l6gJOojcfwghqwgXGVc4ooY8SyWweJgT4OK lGQNmzEeNDDCRXfa6pE5BnSYeAgRPqPvltIwgutpcVGq3KPJ0UuiTHpiYt7A+GYa yT6r+IN9T6O/ws53dUAlIJZZ73cG1Me6Q15z/8uLbzD7WsAP6ifWVw== =pZed -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- | "Mi Tio es infermo, pero la carretera es verde!" | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/ |alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com|

2 1

Passphrase generation
by Internaut 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, I am wanting to learn how to generate a passphrase that is at least as strong as the IDEA algorithm. I have looked several other places on the web for an answer to this, but they all had different things to say that didn't add up (no pun intended :). The IDEA algorithm it seems is 2^128 = 3.402823669209e+38 = 16 bytes (charactors). The charactor count seems kinda small (I am presuming the 16 charactors are truely random). Indeed, 128(ASCII charactor set)^16 = 5.192296858535e+33. Is my thinking right here? Is it better to do this- 94(printable ASCII set)^20 = 2.901062411315e+39, yielding 20 charactors? Also, if you come up with a phrase and put enough (perhaps 5 or 6) ASCII nonsense in there for it not to be in any crack dictionaries, how random is that? Is it only as random as the extra charactors you put in? How would you calculate that? Also, how many charactors do you have to add of a set to add its permulations (i.e. Does gibber&sh add all ASCII symbols to the equation)? Thanks, Internaut

1 0

E-cash and distributed computing...
by Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl' 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is probably not an original idea, but... Here's a potential use for E-cash: a server that doles out Java apps to clients; the clients run the apps, calculating whatever results are needed, and uploads the results in return for E-cash (perhaps a zero-knowledge proof that the result is accurate? another is to use only a trusted pool of registered and accountable users rather than anonymous clients). The server admins would be paid by those who need computations, keeping a percentage and using the rest to be offered as E-cash to clients with spare computing power. A lot of possibilities here... a configuration where a set price is offered for a computation (the user can check for the highest offer on a server, or refuse an offer below a certain amount). Or maybe applets would only be doled out to systems that meet a certain criteria (minimum computing power). A more complex system where 'bids' are placed based on computing power is possible too (those w/better systems would want more cash, or be willing to pay it). Problem: open to forms of 'abuse' (imagine a sysadmin making E-cash using his employer's machines overnight). It might make an interesting experimental project to work on. --Rob ----- "The word to kill ain't dirty | Robert Rothenburg (WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.com) I used it in the last line | http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/ but use a short word for lovin' | Se habla PGP: Reply with the subject and dad you wind up doin' time." | 'send pgp-key' for my public key.

1 0

Re: Enlightened commentary on Netizen.
by Jerry Basham 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have no idea why I received the below message. I don't know any of the people in it, and I don't care about the issue. ---------- > From: Alan Olsen <alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com> > To: Anil Das <das(a)razor.engr.sgi.com> > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: Enlightened commentary on Netizen. > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 10:55 AM > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > At 08:41 PM 2/6/97 -0800, Anil Das wrote: > > > However, the question has to be asked, why the fuck should we non US > citizens go and buy > > cryptographic software that is deliberately coded to allow the US > government to read our mail? > > You shouldn't. > > Maybe someone should print up a batch of "Voyeur Enabled" stickers for all > the GAKed products (or should that be KRAP products, since it is the Key > Recovery Alliance, but that is redundant) we will be seeing at our local > software stores. > > Sometimes I think the reason for all this snake oil we have been seeing is > the Feds need it for extra lubricant so they don't chafe themselves while > getting off on reading our mail. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: 4.5 > > iQEVAwUBMvyv1+QCP3v30CeZAQEGigf+PA45Q2ySEZ6iLwc8+fRURvXJRinStWwy > oNGWKDnyYHFJ91L8Z+11oKvMov45CC4MOISy36/Oz2CY9qyq8l5L1wTU7J8CezsS > 3QezDreJtUXr/OCmxRngOQbeHuGDkXuIocfTV7sZU/j7ARWj9hKCd39xf6J/MmZ6 > zjKS7olJmzMMyJrAWaNo5zaW4g/ER8wJiI0zbakvrd/8Y+VJkiTN05znbIfLiOTV > 0Olt/OaX4seWWNwZb5FaPv2y8ST3j+xm4Uv6fdc4Qo8QGWnGpuBAKo0D+q39KNkY > Ps47vKyf2VwQM6Ci49/uuU8um/l9TmDsuHkYYmsoDfsGpcZImEWzZw== > =Prg6 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > --- > | "Mi Tio es infermo, pero la carretera es verde!" | > |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | > | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | > |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| > | http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/ |alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com|

1 0

Re: Encrypted filing of patents sans GAK?
by Bill Neugent 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Willis, My understanding is that Patty Edfors is overseeing *two* groups of pilots. One group to experiment with PKIs in government agencies and another group of ten, as David Aaron said, to "demonstrate the practicality" of key recovery. The quotes are from my notes of Aaron's talk at the RSA Data Security Conference. Aaron *did* mention as an example the "filing of patent applications to the patent office" as an activity that is to explore key recovery, but I know nothing of the specifics of that. Also, my understanding is that the intent is definitely *not* to store private keys used for signing. The GAO has issued a ruling that this is a no-no. I agree with your judgment that doing so would compromise the protection one expects from digital signatures. Besides, as one of the speakers noted at the Conference last week, the evidentiary value of data gained from wiretapping surely would lose some of its value if a third party were holding private signature keys of the culprit being wiretapped. Bill >-- >Folder: YES >-- >Sir: > >I believe that the words have been misleading. According to a briefing that >I heard in December at a meeting of the Computer System Security and >Advisory Board, Ms. Patty Efors of the Department of Treasury described a >group of 10 pilot projects designed to test the efficacy and application of >digital key signatures in government agencies. I recall no mention of key >recovery and in fact, I would assert that if the private keys used in >digital-signature schemes are in the hands of a 3rd party, the protection >expected from a digital signature will have been compromised. > >Presumably Ambassador Aaron and Ms. Edfors were talking about the same 10 >projects; and if so, then the Ambassador's presentation was confused. > > Willis H. Ware > Santa Monica, CA

1 0

question on setting up for ipsec/linux
by Rodney Thayer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have 0.4 compiled and loaded on my 2.0.27 system. I have configured an FTP Software client appropriately for treating the Linux box as a tunnel for a far-end destination machine. I try doing a ping of the far machine. The FTP client sends a packet to the Linux box. Lan tracing and the printfs on the master console of the Linux box seem to indicate that the packet really did go to the linux box. However, what happens is: - the Linux box sends a "protocol unreachable" back to the FTP client. - the printf's on the console (a line starting with "ipsec_esp" new ip packet" shows the incoming PING packet Now I run AH (MD5) and ESP (DES) and the fact I see a fully decrypted PING packet on the Linux console is quite promising because that seems to prove I got the SPI's and keys and such configured correctly. I have checked the documentation that came with the release and the one thing I did not see was the message "ipsec_tunnel: tunnel: version v0.2b2". I suspect I have managed to NOT configure some tunnel thing and the IPSEC code itself is working properly. I suspect I have somehow misconfigured it such that, after the nice pretty IP packet is unwrapped from the ISPEC headers, it is not properly injected into the protocol stack properly. I'd be happy to read the source code to work on this but I'm not sure where to start looking. The missing message comes from ipsec_tunnel.c I know from tests sending it invalid SPI values that I really am executing parts of that file. Rodney Thayer <rodney(a)sabletech.com> +1 617 332 7292 Sable Technology Corp, 246 Walnut St., Newton MA 02160 USA Fax: +1 617 332 7970 http://www.shore.net/~sable "Developers of communications software"

1 0

Re: What else do I need for an Internet Server
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Otto Matic wrote: > >Otto Matic wrote: > >> What else do I need for an internet server? > >> HP Vectra Towers 2 each 486 cyrex chips 50 meg processor Need high > >> speed hard drives. These are the Tall Towers that have multiple > >> drives, these are server towers. > >> I think I have a router Hub. And a couple LAN cards. > >> That's all I have. But I just got them, and I want to use them. I assume I > >> will be using some kind of UNIX software. > >HP does some strange things to their BIOS software - you may want to > >get one of those net analyzer tools and some low-level software that > >can monitor what your HP's are sending and receiving, just in case. > >They don't normally use Vectras for UNIX, so what effects you can > >expect, I don't know. > Dale, Thanks for your reply. Really I'm not sure about UNIX, I was just > guessing. What I really need is a B.O.M (bill of materials). What other > 'hardware' will I need to round up in order to get this server up and running. Some of the guys in the HP user group have UNIX running on Vectras, but they also use a full raft of hardware tools, which I don't have access to. There's an actual HP-48 calculator, complete in every way including appearance, running on that version of UNIX. Don't remember the name, but it comes on a few CD's, and costs around $50. To me, 486 and 50 mhz suggest something HP is getting far removed from, so don't expect much help there. Few if any computer outlets will be able to handle the HP peculiarities. You shouldn't have any trouble getting the general parts list off the internet here and there, and there used to be HP forums to provide off-line support on Vectra hardware, but it might be harder with older equipment. Suggestion: Call HP Palo Alto at 415-857-1501, and tell them you need to talk to someone who knows internet domain names for info on Vectras and the like. Don't let them slough you off - if they don't have the info, make them give you another name and number. If you get a runaround after several calls, let me know who you talked to, on what phone #'s, at what time, and I'll give it a shot myself.

1 0

Re: anonymous remailers
by Jerry Basham 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I don't know what you're talking about. Who is "cypherpunks," and who are you? Please don't answer...I'm just trying to figure out how I started getting these wierd e-mails from people I never heard about discussing something I never cared about. I truly want you to have a great life...but please leave me out of it. ---------- > From: Mark M. <markm(a)voicenet.com> > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: anonymous remailers > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 11:11 AM > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > On Sat, 8 Feb 1997, Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: > > > Ummm, if you run your own remailer, and don't get lots of people to > > use it, then traffic analysis will reveal that you are the sender > > quite quickly. It will pretty much make everything in the chain before > > your remiler useless. If you send your message through remailers a, b, > > c, and d like this: > > > > you -> a -> b -> c -> d -> alt.drugs.and-other-various-horsemen > > > > and only you use c, then your effective chain is: > > > > someone who could only be you -> d -> alt.drugs.and-other-various-horsemen > > This is assuming that it is a reasonable assumption that all traffic going > through remailer c originated from the owner. If there is one non-corrupt > remailer in the chain before c, then this would not be a valid assumption > because traffic from the owner would be indistinguishable from traffic sent > by anyone else. If the remailer has low traffic, the solution is, of course, > to make it higher traffic. Chain a bunch of messages that get sent to > /dev/null through the remailers, being sure to include c somewhere in the > middle of the chain. If Mixmaster is used, then it would be virtually > impossible to differentiate between "real" messages and messages destined for > /dev/null. It would be a little easier with Type I since the size of the > ciphertext decreases after each hop. This all assumes that encryption is being > used, of course. > > > Mark > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: 2.6.3 > Charset: noconv > > iQEVAwUBMvyzcCzIPc7jvyFpAQHRpQf+LusfAS8dhDczpYTHGjgIRo38gPHeDdVn > +qmmikRNravoEiPD9GIrZ4OeYKOs6zykvhWuMoTtsVi/a7p1HZyWzl5A5KkxofUv > nLOUoPriQ9Ps8fzc3B31G5nwj5d6Es7nnfZbGk1dV5KS5bN7fyu9umBeFiW7jNcj > eTf8GmFH7Rxi5aoUc0uMMR/YffMNl0fHo+wooPNnTBMppLouTIr9iQdCxDOJ7eJc > QAFyEXYWtRP8AqrnB0/pVAXUtrnui+Ev1waOkMYKbWuiQ8tkHbLAvcmpAVnD67jX > 4f3ZQkhXG6C4VbYF3fTlL0ujZgRal0csG0X4u6x/5ID4Blle9hwtIQ== > =BqMW > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >

1 0

Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation
by Jerry Basham 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry for you. Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your isp provider is next on my e-mail list. ---------- > From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> > To: freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org; cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Cc: Against Moderation <antimod(a)nym.alias.net>; InterNet Freedom Council <ifc(a)pgh.org> > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 10:54 AM > > ??? wrote: > > [some text deleted] > > > > Before I explain what has happened, I want to make one thing > > > absolutely clear. Though I've thought the moderation of cypherpunks > > > was a terrible idea from the start and am even more convinced of it > > > now, I don't assign any blame to Sandy. I believe he offered to > > > moderate the list with the best of intentions, and I sincerely > > > appreciate his efforts to try to revive what was once a fantastic > > > mailing list, even if in my opinion those efforts have backfired. > > This is the fatal mistake, assuming it's really a mistake. > I've worked under several corporations where, at a certain > point in time, things just "went crazy", and the owners/ > managers were scrambling desperately to plug as many holes > in the dike as they possibly could, to no avail. > > People don't understand why things just "go crazy" at a particular > point, and so they accept the coincidence theory ruse, lacking any > other evidence. Use your head, folks. This is not a list made up > of sewing-circle nannies, these are security people, NSA, CIA, and > all the ugly things you shut out of your conversations because you > don't want to admit the truth. "Paranoia is a way of knowing". > > Today I saw an old picture of Albert Einstein in full Indian regalia, > smoking a peace pipe with some Hopi people. I thought of the Capone > mob and the "kiss of death", or Judas and Jesus, you get the picture. > > So Einstein puts his name and reputation and personal seal of approval > on the creation of the Doomsday Device, the atom bomb, knowing full > well that it will be used to murder millions of people. What does he > do for an encore? Plants the "kiss of death" on the Hopis, whose > environment is co-opted by the mad bombers and their Nazi-infested > thug "scientist" cohorts, for the experimentation and storage of > nuclear and other hazardous materials. You know, Nevada, Arizona, > New Mexico, all those "useless, desert lands" occupied by the > Indians. >

1 0

Re: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:35 AM 2/6/97 -0600, snow wrote: >> At 09:05 PM 2/4/97 +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote: >> >on or about 970204:0312 Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> said: >> >+ Is the desire for an anarchic community at odds with a desire for >> >+ good use of resources? >> Actually, it is quite possible that an "anarchic community" is _more_ >> efficient in the use of resources than some sort of organized community. >> It is explained, for example, that the reason there are so many different >> kinds of life on earth is that there are so many ecological niches to fill. > > Good does not necessarily mean efficient, and efficient does not >necessarily mean good. Since the definition of "good" above wasn't specified, I substituted "efficient." > Picture--if you can--the "perfect" centrally planned economy where all >possible market conditions, wants and needs are taken into account. Factories >are placed optimally for access to natural resources and distribution to >consumers etc. Also assume that the people running this society _are_ intersted >in efficient production methods, and activly look for new and better ways of >getting things done--benign facism/socialism if you will. This would (assuming >perfect people, but bear with me) be the _most efficient_ method of producing >and delivering goods, but it would introduce certain "choke points", one >natural disaster or war could cripple production of necessary items. Let me suggest, however, that in addition to the "choke point" problem, it is also impossible, maybe even theoretically so, for a similar reason "Maxwell's Demon" is. Maxwell's Demon, for those unfamiliar with thermodynamics, was a gate which was postulated to allow the passage of molecules of energy greater than average, and stop the passage of molecules of energy less than average. The net result would have been, theoretically, a separation of a gas into two halves of dramatically different temperatures. However, given such a heat separation, it should be possible through some heat engine to extract energy from this difference, and return the gas to its prior statistical distribution of energies. Was this "something from nothing"? Obviously this appeared to be a serious contradiction, given the various laws of thermodynamics, and it was. It turns out that the source of the contradiction is the false presumption, implied above, that it is possible to identify and thus separate molecules without using appreciable amounts of energy. Perhaps not surprisingly, the amount of energy needed to do the separation is at least as great as whatever amount of energy you could theoretically extract from the system, almost magically balancing the books. I suggest that centrally-planned economic theory may fail for a very similar reason: Implicit in that analysis it is assume that it is possible to do a "cost-free" plan, where in reality costs do occur. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: ISPs vs Bells - Email FCC
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:26 AM 2/7/97 -0500, Derrick Storren wrote: >By Michelle V. Rafter >LOS ANGELES - Regional phone companies and Internet service providers >are waging a war of words over Internet traffic on the nation's local >telephone network and who should pay for upgrades as the online boom >continues. [snip] >In one corner, Pacific Bell, Bell Atlantic and other regional phone >carriers say the growth of Internet traffic is pushing local telephone >networks to the breaking point. > >Pacific Bell, for example, says Internet surfers use its phone lines an >average of 45 minutes a day -- more than twice the amount the network >was built to handle. Heavy Internet use in Silicon Valley led to brief >service outages in that area earlier this year, the company said. This is an "excellent" example of lying with statistics. Contrary to the implication above, telephone switches aren't designed to handle a certain amount of telephone traffic per day; Rather, they are designed to handle a certain peak amount of traffic. This, and the knowledge about the typical usage patterns that communities generally see in their telephones allows a statistician to estimate how much traffic that switch will actually see per day, in the real world. However, change the pattern of usage, perhaps by adding usage to previously-underused time periods, and you could dramatically increase the daily traffic statistics for a given telephone switch. If, say, 2% of the population were to suddenly decide to make 6-hour phone calls daily between 12 midnight and 6am, a time of very low usage, you might increase the average daily usage by 50%, but with absolutely no increase in the peak usage during the daytime hours nor need for new switches. While that's a fanciful example, a similar effect occurs, I think. I've seen a set of graphs showing the typical usage level for the Teleport ISP, and it appears that while usage reaches a level of about 70% between about 8 am and 4 PM, it continues to increase after 4pm, solidly peaking between 8 pm and 11 pm at about 98% usage. This is long past the time that most humans make voice phone calls. The implication is that easily 3/5 of Teleport's traffic occurs after 4 pm and 6 am next morning, a time frame which is definitely post-peak hours. (Traditionally, pre-Internet, telephone usages peaks at about 11 am and 3 pm.) Since modern telephone switches don't wear out, unused call capacity is simply wasted. It makes no sense to charge people more for services which cost the supplier no more to provide. >If, for example, Internet providers passed through an access fee of 1 >cent a minute, a subscriber spending 10 hours online a month would pay >an extra $6 -- hardly a deterrent, said David Goodtree, an analyst with >Forrester Research in Cambridge, Mass. Even that is unacceptable. If an average ISP's phone line was busy 50% of the time, with "only" an extra charge of 1 cent per minute, that would be an average charge of $7.20 per day, or $216 per month, as compared to a typical business line which might cost, say, $40 per month. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

RRE: Proposed satellite monitoring of car movements in Sweden
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In reply to Dr. Agre's comment, I'd point out that one normally has more than one insurance company to choose from... not the case with governmentally-imposed road taxes. -Allen From: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" 9-FEB-1997 02:12:23.32 To: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" CC: Subj: Proposed satellite monitoring of car movements in Sweden [If it wasn't taxes, it would be insurance.] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 19:04:07 -0800 (PST) From: risks(a)csl.sri.com Subject: RISKS DIGEST 18.81 RISKS-LIST: Risks-Forum Digest Thursday 6 February 1997 Volume 18 : Issue 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 20:39:29 +0100 (MET) From: Feliks Kluzniak <feliks(a)carlstedt.se> Subject: Proposed satellite monitoring of car movements in Sweden The new issue of "Dagens IT", no. 3, dated 28 Jan - 3 Feb 1997 (a Swedish paper aimed at information technology professionals), contains an item that might be of some interest to those RISKS readers who followed discussions about automatic highway toll booths in the US and related subjects. My (probably imperfect) translation follows. Car users will be be put in "feetcuffs" (written by Margaretha Sundstroem) With the help of a new satellite system car users might pay different taxes, depending on when and where they drive. This is what the State communications commission is said to be discussing. According to (the newspaper) "Dagens Politik", the State communications commission is discussing a proposal to use satellites for determining car taxes in the future. It is proposed that all of Sweden's 3.5 million cars should be equipped with a little reader fastened to the instrument board. Car users would then buy cards that can be inserted into the reader. The card would communicate with a satellite that would register where you drive and for how long. The car tax would then be withdrawn from the card. The proposal has been put forward by the State institution for communication analysis. They estimate that just the Stockholm (tax) authorities would be able to earn six billion crowns by using this system. The costs for car users would thereby increase. - - - - The reference to "feetcuffs" (by analogy to "handcuffs" - ankle shackles?) is an allusion to radio transmitters that are irremovably fastened to the ankles of some criminals in this country so that the authorities can monitor their compliance with the rules of house arrest. The word "communication" is meant to include car traffic etc. The word "billion" is given in its US meaning: a thousand million. The risks? Apart from the risks of having very complex systems automatically determine how much you have to pay, there are the usual privacy considerations. Some cry out "big brother". Others say you are already in this situation if you carry a cellular phone. Feliks Kluzniak, Carlstedt Research & Technology, Gothenburg ------------------------------ End of RISKS-FORUM Digest 18.81 ************************ Standard Risks reuse notice: Reused without explicit authorization under blanket permission granted for all Risks-Forum Digest materials. The author(s), the RISKS moderator, and the ACM have no connection with this reuse.

1 0

Re: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible
by Omegaman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <199702051706.JAA01075(a)toad.com> "Attila T. Hun" <attila(a)primenet.com> writes: From: "Attila T. Hun" <attila(a)primenet.com> Date: Wed, 05 Feb 97 14:41:32 +0000 X-From-Line: attila(a)primenet.com Thu Feb 6 15:02:07 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2456" "Wed" "5" "February" "1997" "14:41:32" "+0000" "Attila T. Hun" "attila(a)primenet.com" "<199702051706.JAA01075(a)toad.com>" "57" "Re: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible" nil nil nil "2" "1997020514:41:32" "John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible" (number " " mark "U Attila T. Hun Feb 5 57/2456 " thread-indent "\"Re: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible\"\n") nil] nil) Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Precedence: bulk Lines: 57 X-Gnus-Article-Number: 23 Fri Feb 7 00:40:14 1997 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970204:2343 jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> said: +At 09:05 PM 2/4/97 +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote: +> In a "popular" anarchy, Jim Bell's assassination politics make +> perfectly good sense; but, a "popular" anarchy is not an _anarchy_. +I guess I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make, +between a "popular anarchy" and an "anarchy." Maybe you were trying +to distinguish between "dictatorship of the few (or one)" and +"dictatorship of the many (perhaps a majority)" but it didn't come out +very understandably. +Put simply, "anarchy is not the lack of order. It is the lack of +_orders_." disagree. pure anarchy is not the lack of "orders" --pure anarchy implies that everyone is imbued with that perfect sense of responsibility. +> anarchy is only possible in an ideal world where _everyone_ +> assumes not only responsibility for themselves, but for the common +> good. no malice, no greed, no need for assassination politics.... +No, that's traditional thinking and that's wrong. See AP part 8. +Freud believed (as "everyone" else believed, even myself, before AP) +that anarchy was inherently unstable. But it ISN'T, if the tools of +AP are used to stabilize it. And no, no altruism is necessary for AP +to work as well; no individuals are being asked to sacrifice +themselves for the common good. Rather, they are given the +opportunity to work to achieve a reward offered, cumulatively, by a +number of citizens. aah, but that is the difference between a _pure_ anarchy and a _popular_ anarchy. A pure _anarchy_ is sufficiently idealistic in that _noone_ lacks the necessary resonsibility to keep society moving, each individual in their own niche. As long as there is perfect responsibility in a perfect anarchy, then there is no need for AP. AP is a negative, or _punative_, influence; I might liken it to the Catholic Church which is a religion of fear, and an instrument of political control. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMvixAL04kQrCC2kFAQECsQQAlPSQRpEE2dAKkqrWSlPf79QhSBtYbjXa rEyAlOrmi8NOxgyb8hGF/VwVkURUKnPr4gGJW9JvwuPB2x/AQeT11ZEQyVqeFGNF 0W6WR7yv3XsOT9UM6JCP9hFLWU33BumcPd26w8f/Z5mx87qEUoXeJD4ApLv5QNI3 WlyL0xDT1PM= =sfD3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- _______________________________________________________________ Omegaman <mailto:omegam@cmq.com><omega(a)bigeasy.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

RRE: Copyright and the Net
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" 8-FEB-1997 23:44:12.64 To: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" CC: Subj: Copyright and the Net: Is Legislation the Answer? =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 22:03:10 -0500 From: Dave Banisar <banisar(a)EPIC.ORG> Subject: Panel - Copyright and the Net: Is Legislation the Answer? Copyright and the Net: Is Legislation the Answer? ACM97: The Next 50 Years of Computing Sunday March 2 2:00 PM - 5:00 PM Fairmont Hotel San Jose, CA Sponsored by the U.S. Public Policy Committee of ACM (USACM) Panelists: Hank Barry, Pam Samuelson, Mark Stefik, Gio Wiederhold Moderator: Barbara Simons, Chair, USACM o What is the role of copyright in all-electronic publication world? Will it be replaced by contract law? o Can the needs of authors who want to publish for renown (academics) and authors that want to publish for pay (entertainment etc) be handled in one mechanism? o Should browsing on the World Wide Web of full copyrighted texts be made illegal because people make temporary copies in their computer's memory when they look at a web page? o Should online service providers, including libraries and universities, have to monitor user accounts in order to enforce copyright laws? o Should firms that compile data have intellectual property rights so that scientists and news reporters can't use the data without permission or payments? o How should existing differences in national copyright be handled in a networked world where national boundaries and are little more than a speedbump on the information superhighway? o Does technological protection for copyrighted works inherently undermine fair use ? These and related issues will confront the 105th Congress in the coming year. They will also be examined by this panel, which will discuss controversies surrounding the extension of copyright law to deal with cyberspace. Examples include: How does proposed legislation reflect the net? How much influence have lobbyists for the entertainment industry had in writing legislation? What should be the role of professional societies in analyzing policy initiatives? We will discussed legislation and international treaties that have been proposed by the White House. We will also examine both technical and legal approaches to problems created by the net, as well as how various approaches might impact the science, technology, and business communities. A significant amount of time will be allowed for audience interaction in the discussion. Biographical sketches Hank Barry is member of the firm of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and is Chairman of the firm's Interactive New Media practice group. He represents publicly and privately-held companies in the multimedia, software, computer, on-line and entertainment industries. Hank has authored numerous articles in the fields of venture capital, interactive media and technology transactions. He currently serves on the Editorial Board of the Cyberspace Lawyer. Hank received his law degree in 1983 from Stanford University, where he was managing editor of the Stanford Law Review. Pamela Samuelson is a Professor at the University of California at Berkeley where she holds a joint appointment at the School of Information Management and Systems and in the School of Law. She has written and spoken extensively on the challenges posed by digital technologies for the law, particularly in the field of intellectual property. She is a Contributing Editor of Communications of the ACM and a Fellow of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Mark Stefik is a principal scientist at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center. At Stanford University he received a Bachelor of Science degree in mathematics in 1970 and a Ph.D. in computer science in 1980. His current research activities are in approaches for creating, protecting, and reusing digital property. Stefik is review editor for the international journal "Artificial Intelligence" and has authored two books on AI-related topics and a third book on the Internet. Gio Wiederhold is a professor of Computer Science at Stanford University, with courtesy appointments in Medicine and Electrical Engineering. His research focuses on large-scale software construction, specifically applied to information systems, the protection of their content, often using knowledge-based techniques. Wiederhold has authored and coauthored more than 250 published papers and reports on computing and medicine. Wiederhold received a degree in Aeronautical Engineering in Holland in 1957 and a Ph. D. in Medical Information Science from the University of California at San Francisco in 1976. He has been elected fellow of the ACMI, the IEEE and the ACM. He currently serves on the ACM Publications Board, focusing on the move to electronic publication. Barbara Simons received her Ph.D. in Computer Science from U.C. Berkeley in 1981. She joined the Research Division of IBM in 1980; she is currently working in IBM Global Services. Simons is a Fellow of both the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and ACM. In 1995 she was selected as one of 26 Internet "Visionaries" by c|net, and in 1994 Open Computing included her in its list of the top 100 women in computing. She was awarded the 1992 CPSR Norbert Wiener Award for Professional and Social Responsibility in Computing. Simons founded and chairs USACM, the ACM U. S. Public Policy Committee.

1 0

No Subject
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

NEW ATTACK ON CP LIST >Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 03:55:04 -0500 >From: Linda Thompson <lindat(a)iquest.net> >To: robert(a)iquest.net >Cc: aen-news(a)aen.org >Subject: URGENT > >Someone is sending THREATS to the President and Senate and using *MY* >name >and account to do it. One bounced and was sent to me. You should be >able >to find out where it came from by the message I.D. I think it is >EXTREMELY >important that you find out where this came from!! > >Also, earlier in the day, I got a message that I was subscribed by >"majordomo" to cypherpunks. I did NOT subscribe to cypherpunks and I >would >bet that whoever did THAT also sent this message. > >Here's the threat message: > >Return-Path: <MAILER-DAEMON(a)fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar> >Delivered-To: lindat(a)iquest.net >Received: (qmail 29848 invoked from network); 9 Feb 1997 02:51:40 -0000 >Received: from fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar (163.10.4.1) > by iquest3.iquest.net with SMTP; 9 Feb 1997 02:51:40 -0000 >Received: by fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar > (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AI19659; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 23:49:27 -0300 >Message-Id: <9702090249.AI19659(a)fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar> >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 05:12:37 -0300 >From: MAILER-DAEMON(a)fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar (Mail Delivery Subsystem) >Subject: Returned mail: User unknown >To: lindat(a)iquest.net >X-UIDL: 85c7fe8ecdc2605eb6bc80bfa71b223e >Status: U > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- >550 xfAA16374: line 6: vice-president(a)whitehouse.gov... User unknown > > ----- Unsent message follows ----- >Received: from echotech.com by fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar with SMTP > (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AA16374; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 05:12:37 -0300 >Message-Id: <9702080812.AA16374(a)fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar> >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 05:12:37 -0300 >From: lindat(a)iquest.net >Return-Path: <lindat(a)iquest.net> >Cc: Senator_Stevens(a)stevens.senate.gov, email(a)murkowski.senate.gov, > sessions(a)wrldnet.net, senator(a)shelby.senate.gov, > senator(a)bumpers.senate.gov, info(a)kyl.senate.gov, > Senator_McCain(a)mccain.senate.gov, senator(a)boxer.senate.gov, > senator(a)feinstein.senate.gov, sen_dodd(a)dodd.senate.gov, > senator_lieberman(a)lieberman.senate.gov, senator(a)biden.senate.gov, > bob_graham(a)graham.senate.gov, connie(a)mack.senate.gov, > senator_coverdell(a)coverdell.senate.gov, >senator(a)inouye.senate.gov, > tom_harkin(a)harkin.senate.gov, chuck_grassley(a)grassley.senate.gov, > larry_craig(a)craig.senate.gov, >dirk_kempthorne(a)kempthorne.senate.gov >Cc: senator(a)moseley-braun.senate.gov, lugar(a)iquest.net, > wendell_ford(a)ford.senate.gov, senator(a)mcconnell.senate.gov, > senator(a)breaux.senate.gov, senator(a)kennedy.senate.gov, > john_kerry(a)kerry.senate.gov, senator(a)mikulski.senate.gov, > senator(a)sarbanes.senate.gov, Olympia(a)snowe.senate.gov, > senator(a)levin.senate.gov, michigan(a)abraham.senate.gov, > mail_grams(a)grams.senate.gov, senator(a)wellstone.senate.gov, > john_ashcroft(a)ashcroft.senate.gov, kit_bond(a)bond.senate.gov, > senator(a)cochran.senate.gov, max(a)baucus.senate.gov, > conrad_burns(a)burns.senate.gov, senator(a)faircloth.senate.gov, > jesse_helms(a)helms.senate.gov >Cc: senator(a)conrad.senate.gov, senator(a)dorgan.senate.gov, >email(a)hagel96.com, > bob(a)kerrey.senate.gov, mailbox(a)gregg.senate.gov, > opinion(a)smith.senate.gov, frank_lautenberg(a)lautenberg.senate.gov, > torricel(a)torricelli.com, Senator_Bingaman(a)bingaman.senate.gov, > senator_domenici(a)domenici.senate.gov, senator(a)bryan.senate.gov, > senator_reid(a)reid.senate.gov, senator_al(a)damato.senate.gov, > senator(a)dpm.senate.gov, senator_dewine(a)dewine.senate.gov, > senator_glenn(a)glenn.senate.gov, senator(a)nickles.senate.gov, > senator(a)wyden.senate.gov, senator(a)santorum.senate.gov, > senator_specter(a)specter.senate.gov, >senator_chafee(a)chafee.senate.gov >Cc: reed(a)collegehill.com, senator(a)thurmond.senate.gov, > senator(a)hollings.senate.gov, tom_daschle(a)daschle.senate.gov, > senator_thompson(a)thompson.senate.gov, >senator_frist(a)frist.senate.gov, > senator(a)hutchison.senate.gov, senator(a)bennett.senate.gov, > senator_hatch(a)hatch.senate.gov, senator_robb(a)robb.senate.gov, > senator(a)warner.senate.gov, senator_leahy(a)leahy.senate.gov, > vermont(a)jeffords.senate.gov, senator_murray(a)murray.senate.gov, > Senator_Gorton(a)gorton.senate.gov, >russell_feingold(a)feingold.senate.gov, > senator_kohl(a)kohl.senate.gov, senator_byrd(a)byrd.senate.gov, > senator(a)rockefeller.senate.gov, mike(a)enzi.senate.gov, > craig(a)thomas.senate.gov >Reply-To: lindat(a)iquest.net >Return-Receipt-To: lindat(a)iquest.net >Comment: Authenticated sender is <lindat(a)iquest.net> >Subject: message to USSA Senate > >All files on the Senate's computers will be deleted by our >gang of cypherpunks dedicated to the eradication of your systems. > > >============================================ > >Here's the message I got from the Cypherpunks list: > >Return-Path: <Majordomo-Owner(a)toad.com> >Delivered-To: lindat(a)iquest.net >Received: (qmail 12722 invoked from network); 8 Feb 1997 20:33:18 -0000 >Received: from toad.com (140.174.2.1) > by iquest3.iquest.net with SMTP; 8 Feb 1997 20:33:17 -0000 >Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id >MAA01758; >Sat, 8 Feb 1997 12:09:56 -0800 (PST) >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 12:09:56 -0800 (PST) >Message-Id: <199702082009.MAA01758(a)toad.com> >To: lindat(a)iquest.net >From: Majordomo(a)toad.com >Subject: Your Majordomo request results: subscribe cypherpunks >Reply-To: Majordomo(a)toad.com >X-UIDL: 52470737060e1f8e3e1776eae6a3d6ee > >-- > >Your request of Majordomo was: >>>>> subscribe cypherpunks >Succeeded. >Your request of Majordomo was: >>>>> >Your request of Majordomo was: >>>>> > > > >Kind regards, > >Linda Thompson > >******************** V *************************** > DEATH TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER >*************************************************** >Dr. Linda Thompson >Attorney at Law >TERRORISM INTELLIGENCE ANALYST >Chairman, American Justice Federation >Internet: lindat(a)iquest.net > >**************************************************** > Remember Waco. > The Murderers are still free. >**************************************************** >Have you seen this yet? > > http://206.55.8.10/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum

1 0

The Konformist - The Chamish Files Continued
by Robalini＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Note: Either you requested to receive a subscription to this e-mail, or someone else recommended you to be placed on this list. If you are interested in a free subscription, please e-mail Robalini(a)aol.com with the subject: I NEED TO KONFORM. (Okay, you can use something else, but it's a cool catch phrase.) Please e-mail me back with subject: CANCEL KONFORMIST if you're not interested in receiving this. Thanks, Robert Sterling. Subj: Rabin story Date: Tue, 04 Feb, 1997 09:43 AM EDT From: chamish(a)netmedia.net.il > * * * >October saw the blatant inconsistencies between the official version of events surrounding the Rabin assassination and the truth clash publicly. Early in the month, Maariv's weekend magazine published a remarkable collection of testimony from seven policemen and security agents on duty at the assassination scene that fueled suspicions of a conspiracy from many formerly skeptical readers. On October 18, the author of this piece was the victim of an eight minute hatchet job on Israel Channel Two Television's weekend magazine show that was shown again the next night. Despite the blatant attempt at character assassination, as Yediot Ahronot reported the Sunday following, I succeeded in igniting renewed national interest in the possibility that Rabin's murder was not as officially reported. > >First the Maariv report. We begin with the issue of whether the alleged assassin, Yigal Amir's bullets were real or not. It is not denied by the Shamgar Commission that "Blanks, blanks," was yelled by someone while Amir's shot his weapon. The conclusion is that Amir yelled it to confuse Rabin's bodyguards, a contention he denies. It turns out that more than just "Blanks, blanks" was shouted. > >S.G.- Shabak Agent Under Command of Rabin's bodyguard Yoram Rubin- "I heard very clearly, `They're not real, they're not real,' during the shooting." >A.A.- Personal Security Head of the Shabak- "I heard one shot and someone shouting,`Not real, not real.' I can't say with certainty if it came from the shooter." >Avi Yahav, Tel Aviv policeman- "The shooter yelled, `They're caps, nothing, caps.'" > >None of the police or security men heard the famous `Srak,srak,' (blanks,blanks) shout. The scene they describe is of a number of people shouting different phrases. What united the shouters was their belief that blank bullets were being shot. > >How many bullets were shot? > >A.H.-Agent assigned to Yoram Rubin's staff- "I heard one shot, followed by another." >Maariv to A.A.- "Are you certain you only heard one shot?" A.A.- "Absolutely certain." >Avi Yahav- "I heard a number of shots. I'm not sure how many." >S.G.- "As I approached the car, I heard three shots." > >The inability of security and police personnel trained to testify in court to agree on the number of shots is puzzling but on one issue all agree; none thought Rabin was hurt. > >Y.S.- Shabak Head of Security for the Tel Aviv rally- "I heard Rabin was wounded only when I arrived at Ichilov Hospital some minutes later." >S.G.- I didn't hear any cry of pain from the Prime Minister and didn't see any signs of blood whatsoever...It wasn't until some time after that I was told that Yoram Rubin was hurt." >A.A.- "Only after a number of inquiries as to whether Rabin was hurt, did I drive in shock to Ichilov." > >None of the security or police personnel detected any sign that Rabin was hurt, a quite inexplicable fact when one considers that he was not merely hurt but supposedly shot in the lung and spleen by two hollowpoint 9 mm bullets. However, the "amateur" film of the assassination exonerates the witnesses. After the film shows the blast from Amir's gun, Rabin is not pushed forward by the pressure of the bullet, nor does he evince pain. Rather, he keeps on walking and turns his head quickly to his left. > >Before examining the next issue of the Maariv article, let us skip to the report on my research on Channel Two. Despite the snow job, one of my points came across loud and clear and went a long way to keeping my name from being totally besmirched. I showed the assassination film and pointed out that as Rabin entered his car, the opposite side passenger door is slammed shut. I said, the only way the door could be shut was if someone was inside the car shutting it. This would be in contradiction of the Shamgar report which has Rabin and Rubin entering an empty car. Channel Two saved my dignity by saying the door was shut by the vibrations caused by Rabin's entrance. Throughout the country, people opened their back car doors and started shaking their vehicles. Nothing could make their doors shut. Further, Rabin's door was armoured and weighed several hundred more pounds than the average car door. Add to the facts that the open front door of Rabin's car did not shut with the back, nor is any shaking of the vehicle in evidence on the film and you have someone, perhaps the real murderer, waiting for Rabin inside the car. > >Now the testimony of Yoram Rubin, Rabin's head of personal security. On November 8, 1995 he was quoted as saying in the New York Times that Rabin's last words to him in the car were that he was hurt but not seriously. Let's look what he told the police on the night of the murder and later testified to the Shamgar Commission and at Yigal Amir's trial. > >Rubin to the Police from 1:07 AM, Nov. 5, 1995:"I lifted the prime minister and pushed him into the car." >To the Shamgar Commission:"He (Rabin) helped me get up. That is to say, we worked together...We jumped, really jumped. I'm surprised, in retrospect, that a man his age could jump like that." >At Amir's trial: "I grabbed him by his shoulders and asked him, `Yitzhak, do you hear me, only me?" In this version Rabin did not answer at all. In previous versions he said he wasn't hurt badly or actually helped Rubin to his feet. > >Perhaps the most confusing piece of testimony concerns the critical moments when he enters the car with Rabin. The assassination film shows the opposite back passenger door being closed from the inside and the other back door being pushed closed from the outside. Yet Rubin testifies,"We fell onto the seat together and I slipped between the front and back seat. His legs and mine were dangling outside as I yelled to the driver,`Get out of here.' He started driving and I lifted his (Rabin's) and my legs inside and closed the door. This all took 2-3 seconds." > >A most curious incident occurs on the way to Ichilov Hospital, normally less than a minute's drive from the supposed murder site. The trip took from 9:45 to 9:53. With a minute and a half driving time to go, Rabin's driver Menachem Damti picks up a policeman, Pinchas Terem, to help direct him to the hospital. Damti, an experienced driver needed no help in finding Ichilov but even that isn't the main point. With the prime minister dying beside him, the altruistic Yoram Rubin says to the new passenger, "I'm wounded. Bandage me." As for Rabin, we can only guess he didn't care that his wounds needed much more urgent attention. Terem completed his bizarre testimony by noting that Damti did not notify Ichilov by radio that he was coming and thus the hospital staff was totally unprepared for Rabin's arrival. > >One conclusion of many that can be reached from the testimony of all the witnesses is that Rabin was unhurt by Amir's blank bullets and was shot inside the car. Rubin took a harmless arm wound to cover his role in the event and Damti picked up a policeman as a witness in case of future disbelief. > >If this scenario or something more insidious is not to be given credence, all the contradictory testimony will have to properly sorted out at an honest commission of inquiry. And this hypothetical commission will have to answer how the back passenger door of Rabin's car really closed as he entered the vehicle. -------------------------------------------- Sent by Barry Chamish - Israeli journalist. Phone/Fax : (972)-2-9914936 E-Mail : chamish(a)netmedia.net.il ************************************************************ The Konformist is interested in accepting articles, opinions, free subscriptions, and advertising. E-mail us at Robalini(a)aol.com, or call (310) 967-4195. The Konformist is a subsidiary of Sterling Operation Solutions, the trouble-shooting problem-solvers for all business needs. We charge on a sliding scale based on the difficulty (and legality) of the proposed solution. Call (310) 967-4195 for further information. Hey kids, don't forget to enter the "Rockin' To Armageddon Sweepstakes", sponsored by The Konformist, the Official Internet Investigative Journal of the 1997 Academy Awards. (Okay, it's not official, but we're anti-authority anyways.) Right down the day, month, year, and time of the end of the world, and, as a tie-breaker, your nominee for the anti-Christ. The winner will receive a t-shirt stating, "I Came Closest To Predicting The Apocalypse, And All I Got Was This Crummy T-Shirt." You will also receive a free one year supply of Twix candy bars. Also, this is a free magazine, but we'll still take your money if you want. Please send cash, check, money orders, and credit card numbers (Visa, Master Card, American Express, or Discover) to: Robert Sterling Post Office Box 24825 Los Angeles, California 90024-0825

1 0

UNSUBCRIBE CENSORSHIP
by Aron Bierbaum 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

UNSUBCRIBE CENSORSHIP

1 0

Re: lead remailer is shut down
by Lutz Donnerhacke 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

* Ed Falk wrote: > Can't remailers be written with basic spam safeguards? I.e. no mass > crossposts, limited # of posts by each individual client per day, etc.? Yes, thay can, but using PGP is enough to filter out the majority of spammers. -- | Lutz Donnerhacke +49/3641/380259 voice, -60 ISDN, -61 V.34 und Fax |

1 0

Re: MODERATION
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

E. Allen Smith wrote: > While I ultimately concluded it (or at least the manner of doing it) > was a bad idea, I am appreciative of the effort. I hope this won't discourage > you too much from trying out other (hopefully better) ideas. Great idea, Allen. The fox only ate *some* of the chickens first time around, but let's train the fox a little, and then throw him into the chicken coop for round two. Like, fer sure.

1 0

Feb. 15 Meeting (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message:

1 0

Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Jerry Basham" <scndsun(a)sprynet.com> writes: > You're going to have to find a way to make this junk, piss juvenile crap > stop coming into my e-mail box. Period. I don't think this guy is for real... No one's that stupid. Must be another Gilmore tentacle. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: RRE: Proposed satellite monitoring of car movements in Sweden
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"bdolan(a)USIT.NET" "Brad Dolan" 9-FEB-1997 10:35:16.85 >"Love it or leave it?" >On Sun, 9 Feb 1997, Phil Agre wrote: >> You have plenty of choice. If you don't like our country, move somewhere >> else. I made the point back to Dr. Agre that I can't choose to live in _no_ country (at least not practically), but I can (except for state-imposed limits) live without automobile insurance. I already do so for credit cards, except for one I use only in emergencies. -Allen

1 0

Taking advantage of Newt's phone calls
by Michael Gurski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- It seems like Sprint's taking advantage of the tap on Newt's little call there by advertising how Sprint Spectrum is private and no one can listen in, with little "signal" graphics going from one SS phone to another in DC... Cute... |\/|ike Gurski mgursk1(a)umbc.edu http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~mgursk1/ finger/mail subject "send pgpkey"|"send index" Hail Eris! -><- O- |Member, 1024/39B5BADD PGP Keyprint=3493 A994 B159 48B7 1757 1E4E 6256 4570 | Team My opinions are mine alone, even if you should be sharing them. | OS/2 Senate Finance Committee Chair, SGA 1996-1997 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: I am not a number, I am a free man! iQCVAwUBMv4NVCKEMrE5tbrdAQFIpgQAsS87dmofyalpLJMJjIRk71KmZheEbhnJ WNvCO2fvvxP5aURbeh/MwVV7KOL0hcISPVWoFXrP9HmWSuhc3X7TRCQKVGESTOzS 9z2TaTF8hcAV8PFN3CCReBU5p/6OUBLN85pMbgyk818hAMf9LRhnroauSzQlXtGz iAhkvhlnBUg= =eAZ+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

HIC_rim
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

2-10-97 NYT has Page One lead on high resolution commercial "spy satellites," and the welter of political, social, economic and national security consequences as foreign governments, corporations and individuals hire them to invade privacy, secret sites and labs. A nearby story reports on organized crime's shift to new industries, especially those reliant on high technology: calling cards, stock offerings and health care. ----- HIC_rim

1 0

Ken Bass Interview Schedule Corrections
by ISP-TV Main Contact 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

*** ISP-TV Schedule Correction *** Ken Bass (counsel for Phil Karn) interviewed live on "Real Time" *** >> *** Monday, Feb. 10 *** << Note the date correction *** 9:00 PM ET *** Ken Bass is a partner in the firm of Venable, Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti, LLP, and is the head of that firm's Appellate Practice Group. Recently Venable served as counsel to Phil Karn during his dispute with the Department of State concerning export of a diskette containing the source code for cryptographic algorithms published in the book _Applied_ _Cryptography_, having already received permission to export the book. See http://isptv.digex.net/real.time.html for more information about "Real Time" Call-in questions will be taken during the show at (301) 847-6571. **** This video interview can be viewed on the ISP-TV main CU-SeeMe reflector at IP 205.197.248.54, or other ISP-TV affiliate reflectors listed at http://isptv.digex.net/members.html. See URL http://isptv.digex.net for more information about the ISP-TV Network To get email about future programming on ISP-TV, email the word "subscribe" to isptv-prog-request(a)isptv.digex.net. To obtain Enhanced CU-SeeMe software, go to: http://goliath.wpine.com/cudownload.htm

1 0