December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: concerning Ben Franklin
by David Farber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

My favorate Ben Franklin quote is "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin, ~1784

1 0

Re: RSA Algorithm
by nobody＠zifi.genetics.utah.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Drunkard Vagina has been fired for masturbating in front of his boss. ^-^-^-@@-^-^-^ (..) Drunkard Vagina

1 0

Re: concerning Ben Franklin
by David Farber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

My favorate Ben Franklin quote is "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin, ~1784

2 1

Re: Moderation [Tim,Sandy]
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:48 PM 2/3/97 GMT, Adam Back wrote: > >Lucky Green <shamrock(a)netcom.com> writes: >> I believe that Cypherpunks is beyond hope of recovery. In fact, each day >> Cypherpunk (as in cypherpunks(a)toad.com) lives on, it does damage to the >> cause. Let's kill the list. Once and for all. Let the hard core crypto go >> to Coderpunks, the politics to Cryptography, and the garbage into the void. > >What about the leaks? (rc4.c, Mykotronics dumpster … [View More]

2 1

Embarrass a Marylander, Go to Jail
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 19:25:51 -0500 (EST) To: Multiple Recipients of e$pam <e$pam(a)intertrader.com> From: e$pam(a)intertrader.com (e$pam) Reply-To: e$(a)thumper.vmeng.com X-Comment: To unsubscribe, send any email to e$pam-off(a)intertrader.com Precedence: Bulk Subject: Embarrass a Marylander, Go to Jail X-orig-from: Randy Cassingham <arcie(a)netcom.com> X-e$pam-source: Various Forwarded by Robert Hettinga ------------------------------------------------… [View More]----------------------- Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:37:56 -0700 (MST) From: Randy Cassingham <arcie(a)netcom.com> Subject: Embarrass a Marylander, Go to Jail To: listmom-talk(a)skyweyr.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: Bulk Reply-To: listmom-talk(a)skyweyr.com Passed on without comment. / Randy Cassingham * Author, "This is True" * arcie(a)netcom.com \ | For info on What I Do, send a blank e-mail to TrueInfo(a)freecom.com | \ or check out <http://www.freecom.com/> * I promise you'll like it / + FIGHT SPAM! Send a blank e-mail to nospam(a)mailback.com for help! + ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Excerpted from... ============================================================= AOP Bulletin Friday, February 3, 1997 Volume 97:05 ============================================================= The following is information distributed to members of the Association of Online Professionals and others involved in the online communications industry. Contacts and other information about AOP may be found at http://www.aop.org. ***************************************************** Maryland Recycles Law On "Annoying" E-Mail ***************************************************** A Maryland bill that would make it illegal to send "annoying" or "embarrassing" e-mail was introduced this week by Democratic General Assembly member Samuel Rosenberg. The bill got little support when it was introduced last year, but Rosenberg hopes to play off of recent murders involving electronic mail to see the bill passed. Civil liberties groups argue that the law would be unconstitutional, and that the terms "annoy" and "embarrass" are too vague to be meaningful. If passed, House Bill 778 would amend the state's criminal harassment law to prohibit the use of email to annoy, abuse, torment, harass, or embarrass other people, with violators receiving a fine up to $500 and three years in jail. A similar bill introduced last year is quietly progressing through New York's state legislature. Senate Bill 1414, introduced by Democratic State Senator Ray Goodman, could be voted on in the House early this year. Full text of the Maryland bill can be found at http://mlis.state.md.us/1997rs/billfile/HB0778.htm. -------------------------------------------------- The e$ lists are brought to you by: Intertrader Ltd - Java e$ Software Developers in the UK Visit <http://www.intertrader.com/> for details ... Where people, networks and money come together: Consult Hyperion http://www.hyperion.co.uk info(a)hyperion.co.uk Like e$pam? Help pay for it! See <http://www.atanda.com/rah.html> Or, for e$pam sponsorship, see <http://thumper.vmeng.com/pub/rah/> Thanks to the e$ e$lves: Of Counsel: Vinnie Moscaritolo <mailto:vinnie@webstuff.apple.com> (Majordomo)^2: Rachel Willmer<mailto:rachel@intertrader.com> Commermeister: Anthony Templer <mailto:anthony@atanda.com> Interturge: Rodney Thayer <mailto:rodney@sabletech.com> HTMLurgist: Cynthia Zwerling <mailto:czrider@@webstuff.apple.com> --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ [View Less]

1 0

Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<tmcghan(a)gill-simpson.com> writes: > in a message allegedly from: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> > > > I would have had no problem had John announced that he was creating > > a new list, the "Good Stuff" list, with Sandy has his Chooser of > > Good Stuff. > > > But by making the _main list_ the censored one, this skewed things > > considerably. > > > But the clear message by having Sandy censor the > > main list (the … [View More]default list, the list name with the main name, the > > list we all know about, etc.) > > Now that the horse is out of the barn, ( or maybe not? ), I can't help > but ask whether one specific 'change to the change' would have > satisfied most of your objections: retaining 'cypherpunks' as the > name of the unedited, all-the-crud-you-can-read-and-then-some, > version, and adding an 'cp-worthwhile' list for those of us who prefer > not to wade thru mountains of garbage to glean a few precious tidbits. That was the objectionable part of the moderation experiment to me. > What's in a name? Is perception more important ( to you ) than > reality? If just swapping names between cp and cp-unedited would make > such a large difference, I humbly suggest to you that you consider how > much labels need to matter. Is the title of the group more important > the the content? From where I sit, this looks a lot like a > style-over-substance complaint. There is a lot in a name. The name `Cypherpunks' has, or had a reputation. Tricks like censoring the list are not helping that reputation. This wording indicates that the other two lists are to satisfy purists: (relevant output from sending message with body `lists' to majordomo(a)toad.com) : cypherpunks (THE MAIN LIST) Fermenting ideas on crypto and society : cypherpunks-flames (FLAMES DELETED BY MODERATOR) Ideas on crypto and society : cypherpunks-unedited (THE UN-MODERATED LIST) Ideas on crypto and society The naming convention indicates that cypherpunks is the main list, as does the ordering (moderated first). The text in the sign up message: (extracts from output from sending message with body `info cypherpunks' to majordomo(a)toad.com) : cypherpunks moderated to suppress spam and flames : cypherpunks-unedited all submissions, just as they arrived : cypherpunks-flames the submissions that didn't pass moderation Also I note in passing that if I recall correctly this section used to give Hugh Daniel's email address. Seems John is managing majordomo himself now? Is Hugh's no longer being list manager related to the moderation decision? : For other questions, my list management address is not the best place, : since I don't read it every day. To reach me otherwise, send mail to : : gnu(a)toad.com > It may also be worth noting that the current 'status quo' is a > transient experiment, with a fairly short time limit. When JG, > Sandy, et al. evaluate the results with an eye to future > direction(s), they may well consider an 'inverted default' for the two > list names (i.e.: cp / cp-unedited) It would be nice also if JG, Sandy et al, took some notice of the list opinions next time. It really would have been better to create a _new_ moderated list, rather than take over the existing list address, and subscribers. Maybe those who initiated the moderation experiment thought they wouldn't get many people moving over to the moderated list if they had to go to that effort. Another alternative would have been to discontinue `cypherpunks' and start `cypherpunks-edited' and `cypherpunks-unedited' forcing people to choose. I wouldn't have liked that either, but it would have been a better experiment. (Likely that would have lost many altogether, who simply wouldn't have bothered to resubscribe at all). Several times in the past, a USENET newsgroup alt.cypherpunks was suggested. Some people were against it because they felt that it would attract more noisy posters. Perhaps it is time to reconsider the benefits of alt.cypherpunks. (As an aside, it is ironic that John Gilmore was the guy who started the alt.* USENET hierarchy, specifically to facilitate freedom of speech). Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc` [View Less]

2 1

Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam Back wrote: > > Perhaps it is time to reconsider the benefits of alt.cypherpunks. (As > an aside, it is ironic that John Gilmore was the guy who started the > alt.* USENET hierarchy, specifically to facilitate freedom of speech). > An interesting idea. - Igor.

1 0

Re: Govt & cyberspace
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[snip] >"tech envy"-- what impact is this going to have on our >government? it's becoming a huge issue. it may be a >really great opportunity for a populist movement to >truly reform the government in the process of upgrading >their computers. Even better, this is an opportunity to choke off all, or certainly increased, funding in order to hasten its collapse. >I suspect that the "groupware" technology >that is just getting started will have major influence >in these … [View More]

1 0

Re: Moderation [Tim,Sandy]
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lucky Green <shamrock(a)netcom.com> writes: > I believe that Cypherpunks is beyond hope of recovery. In fact, each day > Cypherpunk (as in cypherpunks(a)toad.com) lives on, it does damage to the > cause. Let's kill the list. Once and for all. Let the hard core crypto go > to Coderpunks, the politics to Cryptography, and the garbage into the void. What about the leaks? (rc4.c, Mykotronics dumpster contents, etc) Where do they go? You expect Perry to stick his neck out and … [View More]approve them? (Perry Metzger is the moderator of cryptography(a)c2.net, started recently as a moderated version of cypherpunks for those who don't know what the `cryptography' list is). The existance of cryptography argues against the need for `cypherpunks' to be moderated. Why two competing moderated lists? Secondly the status of garbage is in the eye of the beholder. There are a few posts which are probably considered garbage by near everyone, but lots of other stuff which really just depends on what the reader is interested in. The problem with censorship or moderation is that it waters down the absolutism of free speech. Free speech in electronic media, with cypherpunks type I, and type II remailers, is the closest thing to truly free speech yet. A lot of people seem to regard Jim Bell's assasination politics as suitable material for censoring. Yet it is pretty crypto relevant. Sandy's job is pretty hard to do. For instance I recently posted this, which ended up in cpunks-flames, due to being in a thread which contained a mild flame 2 messages back: : Diffie-Hellman key generation, there are two main ways of generating : the diffie-hellman prime modulus, method 1: : : p = 2q+1 : : where q is a prime also. : : And method 2: : : p = r.2q+1 : : where q is a prime and r is a randomly generated number. : : With method 1, the security parameter is the size of p in bits (or : size of q, as they are related). : : With method 2, there are two security parameters, size of q and size : of p in bits. : : Method 2 has the advantage that key generation is faster as it is : quicker to generate new random numbers r, than to repeatedly generate : trial prime q as you have to do in method 1. However is the security : weaker in method 2? What size of p and q do you have to use to get : the same security as for same size of p in bits as in method 1? What : should be the relationship between the size of p and q? (I freely admit to injecting additional crypto relevance just for the fun of seeing it be filtered cpunks-flames -- though I was interested in discussion also). > I am well aware of the name recognition and reputation capital associated > with CP, still I believe it best to *kill the list*. I'd prefer to see various filtering services offered, and the list retained. My main objection with the moderation experiment is that the main list was renamed. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc` [View Less]

4 8

Re: Dissolving Choke Points (fwd)
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: ####### ### <###(a)###.com> > To: ichudov(a)algebra.com > Subject: Re: Dissolving Choke Points > > ichudov(a)algebra.com writes: > > i do have unix (linux) and stuff, but i can't take a lot of subscribers > > -- maybe 200-300 or so. > > > > i actually wrote a proposal for a mailing list without a central control > > point, with several advantages being impossibility of control, absense > > of a single point of failure, and … [View More]cryptographic verification of honesty > > of moderators. > > > > if there is any interest, i will post it here. > > Please do. > > Regards, > > ####### ### Here, I propose a new scheme for the Cypherpunks mailing list that would 1) Ensure that no one person is able to take over the control over the list 2) Ensure that there will be no single point of failure, i.e., shutdown of any single computer will not kill the list 3) Ensure that even people with relatively small Net resources can help keep the list afloat. The idea is as follows: even though Cypherpunks is one group, the group will be based on multiple mailing lists with identical content. These lists may be named, for example, cypherpunks(a)algebra.com, cypherpunks(a)toad.com, and cypherpunks(a)netcom.com (obviously, these names are used as an example only). Any user is free to subscribe to any of these lists. All of these lists will interact with each other in the following way: 1) Each node would forward ALL incoming submissions to a) all other nodes and b) to all subscribers "attached" to the node 2) Each node will send information about all new subscriptions to each other node. The following procmail recipes for cypherpunks@ accounts may be used to ensure quick forwarding: # is it sent to cypherpunks (some spams will be trashed here) # and is it not a mail loop? :0 * ^TOcypherpunks * !^X-Loop: { # # This recipe removes duplicates! # :0 Wh: msgid.lock | formail -D 32768 msgid.cache # forward it to other cypherpunks lists :0 c !cypherpunks(a)netcom.com cypherpunks(a)toad.com # send it to all local subscribers :0 c !majordomo -some -arguments # store the checksum and message-id for honesty verification (see below) :0 |accounting } # suSCRibe/unsuSCRibe recipes go here This scheme ensures that the list is run in a cooperative fashion and can be maintained by a number of individuals without any one of them having an expensive internet connection or being "in charge". It also ensures that even if one node fails, traffic can be re-routed to other nodes. Just as well, it ensures that any attempts of cheating will be noticed: it is easy to write a bot that would subscribe to all of these lists and see if any messages get "lost". Users can send their articles to only one node, or, if they feel paranoid, to several nodes at once. All we need is to make sure that all Message-IDs of outgoing messages are unique at every node. Honesty verification: I suppose that there may be some more elaborate, crypto-based schemes to control and monitor article distribution. For example, there can be another list, cypherpunks-control, where each of the nodes posts a publicly available signed summary of checksums of articles that went through, and individual users would be able (with the help of s simple client program) to verify that 1) They received these articles 2) That summaries received from all nodes are identical 3) That all articles were received by all nodes They do not HAVE to do it, but they can if they want. If they do, there will be no way for list maintainers to censor anything. If a node goes down or if the users' verification scripts indicate a potential for cheating, they can resubscribe to some other node and let everyone else know what's going on. My proposal strikes me as fairly simple and potentially workable. Even though 90% of the users will never get to usnig the verification mechanism, it will ensure honesty. Note also that this mechanism is a gross simplification of the way USENET works, so some may vouch for a usenet group instead. Your opinions will be appreciated. - Igor. [View Less]

1 0

Re: Dissolving Choke Points
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:55 AM 2/3/97 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: ... >Another lesson is the danger of choke points. We can see how >tempting it is for people to exercise their control. Even John Gilmore >was unable to restrain himself from involuntary social engineering >experiments. Who would we have considered to be more trustworthy? > >Toad.com is a choke point, not just in terms of moderation but in >terms of the rate at which it can distribute messages. Let's >replace it. … [View More]

1 0

More Hacking of the Mykotronx Site!
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hey, d00dz, remember the dumpster diving at Mykotronx facilities in Torrance? Where they dumped their secret plans for the Clipper chip in the dumpsters right outside their little building in Torrance? Where guys like me could find their spreadsheets for budget planning, production run rates, deals with VLSI Technology, Sandia, and the other NSA stooges? Remember how they suddenly started shredding their papers? Well, it's been 3 years, and apparently the new guys at Rainbow (the parent … [View More]

1 0

Re: Govt & cyberspace
by Steve Schear 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[snip] >"tech envy"-- what impact is this going to have on our >government? it's becoming a huge issue. it may be a >really great opportunity for a populist movement to >truly reform the government in the process of upgrading >their computers. Even better, this is an opportunity to choke off all, or certainly increased, funding in order to hasten its collapse. >I suspect that the "groupware" technology >that is just getting started will have major influence >in these … [View More]

3 2

More Hacking of the Mykotronx Site!
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hey, d00dz, remember the dumpster diving at Mykotronx facilities in Torrance? Where they dumped their secret plans for the Clipper chip in the dumpsters right outside their little building in Torrance? Where guys like me could find their spreadsheets for budget planning, production run rates, deals with VLSI Technology, Sandia, and the other NSA stooges? Remember how they suddenly started shredding their papers? Well, it's been 3 years, and apparently the new guys at Rainbow (the parent … [View More]

1 0

Re: Dissolving Choke Points (fwd)
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: ####### ### <###(a)###.com> > To: ichudov(a)algebra.com > Subject: Re: Dissolving Choke Points > > ichudov(a)algebra.com writes: > > i do have unix (linux) and stuff, but i can't take a lot of subscribers > > -- maybe 200-300 or so. > > > > i actually wrote a proposal for a mailing list without a central control > > point, with several advantages being impossibility of control, absense > > of a single point of failure, and … [View More]cryptographic verification of honesty > > of moderators. > > > > if there is any interest, i will post it here. > > Please do. > > Regards, > > ####### ### Here, I propose a new scheme for the Cypherpunks mailing list that would 1) Ensure that no one person is able to take over the control over the list 2) Ensure that there will be no single point of failure, i.e., shutdown of any single computer will not kill the list 3) Ensure that even people with relatively small Net resources can help keep the list afloat. The idea is as follows: even though Cypherpunks is one group, the group will be based on multiple mailing lists with identical content. These lists may be named, for example, cypherpunks(a)algebra.com, cypherpunks(a)toad.com, and cypherpunks(a)netcom.com (obviously, these names are used as an example only). Any user is free to subscribe to any of these lists. All of these lists will interact with each other in the following way: 1) Each node would forward ALL incoming submissions to a) all other nodes and b) to all subscribers "attached" to the node 2) Each node will send information about all new subscriptions to each other node. The following procmail recipes for cypherpunks@ accounts may be used to ensure quick forwarding: # is it sent to cypherpunks (some spams will be trashed here) # and is it not a mail loop? :0 * ^TOcypherpunks * !^X-Loop: { # # This recipe removes duplicates! # :0 Wh: msgid.lock | formail -D 32768 msgid.cache # forward it to other cypherpunks lists :0 c !cypherpunks(a)netcom.com cypherpunks(a)toad.com # send it to all local subscribers :0 c !majordomo -some -arguments # store the checksum and message-id for honesty verification (see below) :0 |accounting } # suSCRibe/unsuSCRibe recipes go here This scheme ensures that the list is run in a cooperative fashion and can be maintained by a number of individuals without any one of them having an expensive internet connection or being "in charge". It also ensures that even if one node fails, traffic can be re-routed to other nodes. Just as well, it ensures that any attempts of cheating will be noticed: it is easy to write a bot that would subscribe to all of these lists and see if any messages get "lost". Users can send their articles to only one node, or, if they feel paranoid, to several nodes at once. All we need is to make sure that all Message-IDs of outgoing messages are unique at every node. Honesty verification: I suppose that there may be some more elaborate, crypto-based schemes to control and monitor article distribution. For example, there can be another list, cypherpunks-control, where each of the nodes posts a publicly available signed summary of checksums of articles that went through, and individual users would be able (with the help of s simple client program) to verify that 1) They received these articles 2) That summaries received from all nodes are identical 3) That all articles were received by all nodes They do not HAVE to do it, but they can if they want. If they do, there will be no way for list maintainers to censor anything. If a node goes down or if the users' verification scripts indicate a potential for cheating, they can resubscribe to some other node and let everyone else know what's going on. My proposal strikes me as fairly simple and potentially workable. Even though 90% of the users will never get to usnig the verification mechanism, it will ensure honesty. Note also that this mechanism is a gross simplification of the way USENET works, so some may vouch for a usenet group instead. Your opinions will be appreciated. - Igor. [View Less]

1 0

Re: Dissolving Choke Points
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:55 AM 2/3/97 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: ... >Another lesson is the danger of choke points. We can see how >tempting it is for people to exercise their control. Even John Gilmore >was unable to restrain himself from involuntary social engineering >experiments. Who would we have considered to be more trustworthy? > >Toad.com is a choke point, not just in terms of moderation but in >terms of the rate at which it can distribute messages. Let's >replace it. … [View More]

1 0

Re: GAK cracking?
by thad＠hammerhead.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

TIS's press releases, and the article in the paper, imply that TIS has been approved for 128 bit (uncrackable, except by prior arrangement) cryptography...not just 56 bit. They say, and they should know, that you can export 56 bits now with just a "plan" of key escrow, and that you can export more if you have a system... which, what do you know, they have! thad -- Thaddeus Beier thad(a)hammerhead.com Visual Effects Supervisor 408) 287-6770 Hammerhead … [View More]

1 0

Re: Embarrass a Marylander, Go to Jail
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:04 PM 2/3/97 -0500, Robert Hettinga wrote: > >--- begin forwarded text > Excerpted from... > > ============================================================= > AOP Bulletin Friday, February 3, 1997 Volume 97:05 > ============================================================= > > The following is information distributed to members of the > Association of Online Professionals and others involved in the > online communications industry. Contacts and … [View More]

1 0

Re: GAK cracking?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:45 AM 2/3/97 -0500, tmcghan(a)gill-simpson.com wrote: >But under a controversial new Clinton administration policy that took >effect Jan. 1, companies may receive permission to export stronger >programs. > >"I'm happy that we've been able to do this within the first month >without rancor or difficulty," Under Secretary of Commerce for Export >Administration William Reinsch told Reuters in a telephone interview. > >To export stronger programs immediately, … [View More]

1 0

Re: Dissolving Choke Points
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:55 AM 2/3/97 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >Moderation has been a failure. I'm pretty good at filtering and I >can sadly report that there is very little signal out there. I don't think it's reasonable to expect an increase in signal within 2 1/2 weeks of the start of moderation. Improvement in the s/n ratio, yes. But (at least if my speculation is correct), the good posts driven away by bad posts (because some good authors are too busy to wade through lots of crap, and some … [View More]good authors are reluctant to publish their work amidst crap) would take a much longer time to return. (I'm working on a message re moderation and the list which will better explain what I think about that - but I'm not trying to argue, above, that we *must* have moderation for a long time - simply that it's too early to call it a failure for failing to significantly increase the number of useful messages.) >There are lessons to be learned here. One is that censorship does >not promote a stimulating and creative dialogue. No, that is a silly lesson to draw from this experiment. There are lots of useful and interesting "moderated" (on paper, it's called "editing") publications/lists/digests where the content is intentionally controlled for content and style. This particular implementation is imperfect. However, just as it would be overreaching to conclude from the relative uselessness of the pre-moderation list that "every list must be moderated, unmoderated lists cannot succeed", it overreaches to conclude from the current results that moderated lists cannot succeed. >Toad.com is a choke point, not just in terms of moderation but in >terms of the rate at which it can distribute messages. Let's >replace it. > >What we want are many machines carrying the cypherpunks list. A >message posted to any machine goes to all of the others. Each >machine sends messages to its subscribers only once. Some of >these machines should be across borders. > >The mail loop and multiple posting problems are solved by observing >the message IDs. I think you misspelled "Usenet". Hope this helps. Seriously, if you want a distributed no-choke-points "flooding" message distribution system, you're talking about Usenet. Robust software exists for clients and servers, and it's already supported worldwide on many operating systems. No need to write more software to graft that functionality onto E-mail. If the list is going to turn into Usenet (we've already got most of Usenet's better kooks), we might as well just move the damn thing over to alt.cypherpunks and be done with it. (Anyone care to guess who founded alt.* as a way to route around censorship?) (Of course, Usenet is a technical success and a spectacular failure, content-wise. So opponents of moderation will be forgiven for failing to mention this sparkling example of an unmoderated, anything-goes forum for discussion.) -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | [View Less]

1 0

Re: Embarrass a Marylander, Go to Jail
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:04 PM 2/3/97 -0500, Robert Hettinga wrote: > >--- begin forwarded text > Excerpted from... > > ============================================================= > AOP Bulletin Friday, February 3, 1997 Volume 97:05 > ============================================================= > > The following is information distributed to members of the > Association of Online Professionals and others involved in the > online communications industry. Contacts and … [View More]

1 0

Re: Getting into MIT is impossible
by Clint Barnett 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

wasn't Dolph Lundgren an MIT grad? I seem to remember something about him having a degree in Chemical Engineering or something along those lines. clint barnett lord of the cosmos emily carr institute On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, Anonymous wrote: > > > According to Rick Osborne: > > "I disagree and can speak from experience. I was denied admission to MIT > even thought I had a 3.82 GPA, 1440 SAT (one try), and had taken 9 AP tests > with two 5's, four 4's, two 3's, and one … [View More]2. As for being well-rounded, I > was on several academic teams, sang in Chorus, acted and stage managed in > Drama, and played Tennis." > > People get into MIT--or don't get into MIT--for lots of reasons. Most > intelligent people apply to several schools, knowing that admissions > practices are subject to the vagaries of reality. > > In my case, my SATs were about 1500, with some 800s in achievement tests. > And the usual bullshit high school clubs, political offices, etc. etc. I > was accepted by MIT, but not by Caltech. I didn't lose any sleep over the > way things turned out. > > And I decided not to go to MIT, either. > > "The only thing I didn't have that the next MIT applicant had was money. I > made the mistake of letting them know that I was dirt poor and would need > full aid/grants/etc, and to quote "The Great Escape" it was "Zzzt! To the > Russian front!"" > > My guess is that "other factors" were involved. > > I noted with some interest, but little surprise, that the guy claiming MIT > required a 4.0 GPA and a 1600 combined SAT score could barely spell, and > had major problems making a coherent point. Methinks this is why MIT > rejected him, not his lack of a "1600." > > ">For what it's worth, I wanted to go to MIT my sophomore year in high > >school, too > > "Lucky you. It had been a dream of mine since I was an annoying > overachiever of 6. Sux to be white trash, I guess." > > MIT offered me a substantial economic aid package, in the form of loans, > grants, and various campus jobs. What does this tell you? > > "MIT may be a great school, but they tend to be snooty assholes for the most > part. (DISCLAIMER: Not all MIT grads/attendees are necessarily "snooty > assholes", I'm just saying that I've yet to meet one that wasn't.) > > I've known about a dozen or so MIT grads, and only one of them was a snooty > asshole, and it was a _she_, one of the first MIT women grads (and she was > _very_ impressed by this). > > Most MIT grads are perfectly reasonable. > > Xanthar > > > > > -- > [View Less]

1 0

Re: GAK cracking?
by Thaddeus J. Beier 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

TIS's press releases, and the article in the paper, imply that TIS has been approved for 128 bit (uncrackable, except by prior arrangement) cryptography...not just 56 bit. They say, and they should know, that you can export 56 bits now with just a "plan" of key escrow, and that you can export more if you have a system... which, what do you know, they have! thad -- Thaddeus Beier thad(a)hammerhead.com Visual Effects Supervisor 408) 287-6770 Hammerhead … [View More]

1 0

RE: Govt & cyberspace
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Comments From: Steve Schear (in response to Vladimir Nuri-logical) Even better, this [govmt "tech envy"] is an opportunity to choke off all, or certainly increased, funding in order to hasten its [govmt] collapse. ...&... Don't improve it, remove it! ...&... Democracy is not without its significant shortcomings. If you doubt this read Tocquevelle. ........................................ Very pertinent suggestions. Anyone who knows his history on the list knows how Nuri-logical … [View More]

1 0

Re: GAK cracking?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:45 AM 2/3/97 -0500, tmcghan(a)gill-simpson.com wrote: >But under a controversial new Clinton administration policy that took >effect Jan. 1, companies may receive permission to export stronger >programs. > >"I'm happy that we've been able to do this within the first month >without rancor or difficulty," Under Secretary of Commerce for Export >Administration William Reinsch told Reuters in a telephone interview. > >To export stronger programs immediately, … [View More]

1 0

Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I agree with two of Tim's points. I express no opinion about the others, except that I think these are the two most important. (1) I agree with Tim that as a matter of principle, it would be preferable to create a new moderated list, with a similar but distinguishable name, and leave the existing list as it was. I happen to think less turns on this than does Tim, given the opportunity to exercise truth-in-labeling, but it seems to me that because the cost of this approach is zero, and it … [View More]has real benefits in the eyes of some, it's a no-brainer. I expect that I would subscribe to the filtered version. If someone is really worried that the new list will be too low traffic (please, G*d), they can send an automatic ballot to all subscribers, USENET style,asking what list(s) they want to be on. My own view is that if you are not ready, willing or able to read and follow a periodic posting explaining how to sign on/off various lists (and I assume there should and would be one), I am willing to take the risk of missing your input. (2) Much to my surprise, so far moderation is a failure. I think it is a failure because it achieves neither of the moderation "sweet spots". No moderation is one "sweet spot". Strict moderation -- the kind you get on RISKS, where you know nearly every post is on-topic or at least worth your time -- is another. This is neither. My clumsy procmail filters are almost as busy as ever. What slips through is largely duplicative of what I get from other lists, or is not to my taste. (NB *my taste*.) And it gets here slower. It's true that the venom from anonymous remailers is gone, and that is a plus, but even so little of what slips through is of interest modulo other lists. I happen to think that *stricter* moderation might lure back some of the better content-providers, but it would help to set it up in a manner that offends the smallest possible number. As Oscar Wilde either said, or should have said, the worst crime is to be boring. PS. New members of the list may justly ask, where does he get off calling the posters he doesn't killfile bores? I stopped posting a lot to the list some time ago, back when I decided my energies were better spent writing long stuff (see my web page) and playing with my kids. I kept reading the list primarily to read the work of about six people -- and Tim was one of them. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin(a)law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here. [View Less]

1 0

Re: Dissolving Choke Points
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:55 AM 2/3/97 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >Moderation has been a failure. I'm pretty good at filtering and I >can sadly report that there is very little signal out there. I don't think it's reasonable to expect an increase in signal within 2 1/2 weeks of the start of moderation. Improvement in the s/n ratio, yes. But (at least if my speculation is correct), the good posts driven away by bad posts (because some good authors are too busy to wade through lots of crap, and some … [View More]good authors are reluctant to publish their work amidst crap) would take a much longer time to return. (I'm working on a message re moderation and the list which will better explain what I think about that - but I'm not trying to argue, above, that we *must* have moderation for a long time - simply that it's too early to call it a failure for failing to significantly increase the number of useful messages.) >There are lessons to be learned here. One is that censorship does >not promote a stimulating and creative dialogue. No, that is a silly lesson to draw from this experiment. There are lots of useful and interesting "moderated" (on paper, it's called "editing") publications/lists/digests where the content is intentionally controlled for content and style. This particular implementation is imperfect. However, just as it would be overreaching to conclude from the relative uselessness of the pre-moderation list that "every list must be moderated, unmoderated lists cannot succeed", it overreaches to conclude from the current results that moderated lists cannot succeed. >Toad.com is a choke point, not just in terms of moderation but in >terms of the rate at which it can distribute messages. Let's >replace it. > >What we want are many machines carrying the cypherpunks list. A >message posted to any machine goes to all of the others. Each >machine sends messages to its subscribers only once. Some of >these machines should be across borders. > >The mail loop and multiple posting problems are solved by observing >the message IDs. I think you misspelled "Usenet". Hope this helps. Seriously, if you want a distributed no-choke-points "flooding" message distribution system, you're talking about Usenet. Robust software exists for clients and servers, and it's already supported worldwide on many operating systems. No need to write more software to graft that functionality onto E-mail. If the list is going to turn into Usenet (we've already got most of Usenet's better kooks), we might as well just move the damn thing over to alt.cypherpunks and be done with it. (Anyone care to guess who founded alt.* as a way to route around censorship?) (Of course, Usenet is a technical success and a spectacular failure, content-wise. So opponents of moderation will be forgiven for failing to mention this sparkling example of an unmoderated, anything-goes forum for discussion.) -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | [View Less]

2 2

RE: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Vladimir Z. Nuri, in his Ruskie disguise: hi timmy, a word to the wise: it amuses me that whenever I referred to a cypherpunk "community" my eyebrows were flamed off, by people who claimed there was no such thing. a community has certain properties, many of which I believe the cypherpunks "crowd" has always lacked. ...................................... LD, when you say "community" it means something else than when others do. When the cpunks said "community" they meant the camaraderie … [View More]

1 0

RE: Filling Power Vacuums
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Vladimir Z. Nuri, filling in for Mother Theresa: timmy, I encourage you to understand that leadership is not inherently evil. there are enlightened ways to lead people that leave the group better as a whole. you just fell into the trap of "negative leadership", the dark side of the force as you write. imho, however, there is a light side of the force that still involves leadership. ................................................. Well, thank you, Master Yoda ! :>) Not speaking … [View More]

1 0

[PCS] Fighting the cyber-censors
by nobody＠zifi.genetics.utah.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dumbbell Vindictive styles his facial hair to look more like pubic hair. D\___/\ (0_o) Dumbbell Vindictive (V) ---oOo--U--oOo---

1 0

Re: Dissolving Choke Points
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

pdh(a)best.com (Peter Hendrickson) writes: > What we want are many machines carrying the cypherpunks list. A > message posted to any machine goes to all of the others. Each > machine sends messages to its subscribers only once. Some of > these machines should be across borders. Ever heard of Usenet? It works exactly like that...

1 0

Re: Moderation [Tim,Sandy]
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> writes: > Lucky Green <shamrock(a)netcom.com> writes: > > I believe that Cypherpunks is beyond hope of recovery. In fact, each day > > Cypherpunk (as in cypherpunks(a)toad.com) lives on, it does damage to the > > cause. Let's kill the list. Once and for all. Let the hard core crypto go > > to Coderpunks, the politics to Cryptography, and the garbage into the void. > > What about the leaks? (rc4.c, Mykotronics … [View More]

1 0

Re: concerning Ben Franklin
by Kent Crispin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

David Farber allegedly said: > > My favorate Ben Franklin quote is > > "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary > safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin, ~1784 In the constitutional convention a property requirement for voting was discussed. Franklin said "A man owns an ass; he can vote. The ass dies; he cannot vote. Who owns the vote?" (I may not have quoted it precisely.) -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get … [View More]

1 0

Re: what's in a name?
by Kent Crispin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Wei Dai allegedly said: > > I've stayed out of the debate about list moderation so far, but a recent > post from tmcghan(a)gill-simpson.com reminds me of something I've been > thinking about. An interesting way to look at what happened is that John > Gilmore owns the name "cypherpunks(a)toad.com" and has chosen to exercise > that ownership. Even though those of us who disagree with the way he has > done so are free to leave and set up our own mailing list, it is costly … [View More]

1 0

RE: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Vladimir Z. Nuri, in his Ruskie disguise: hi timmy, a word to the wise: it amuses me that whenever I referred to a cypherpunk "community" my eyebrows were flamed off, by people who claimed there was no such thing. a community has certain properties, many of which I believe the cypherpunks "crowd" has always lacked. ...................................... LD, when you say "community" it means something else than when others do. When the cpunks said "community" they meant the camaraderie … [View More]

1 0

Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by Kent Crispin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Scott V. McGuire allegedly said: [...] > I didn't change my subscription from the filtered to > the unfiltered list because I expected this to end in a month and I was > willing to participate in the experiment. You can't ask someone to try > something for a month to see if they like it and call there use of it in > that month evidence that they like it. I agree. But there is more. As much as anything else, I didn't change lists because of inertia and laziness. I suspect … [View More]

2 1

RE: Filling Power Vacuums
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Vladimir Z. Nuri, filling in for Mother Theresa: timmy, I encourage you to understand that leadership is not inherently evil. there are enlightened ways to lead people that leave the group better as a whole. you just fell into the trap of "negative leadership", the dark side of the force as you write. imho, however, there is a light side of the force that still involves leadership. ................................................. Well, thank you, Master Yoda ! :>) Not speaking … [View More]

1 0

Re: [PICS] Credentials without Identity--Race Bits
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Deflated Volcano K[rust] Of The Moment does NOT eat pussy. He only eats asshole if it's got a big dick up in front. Whoever calls him bisexual is a fucking liar. He likes to suck cocks in front of an audience. _ O O _ \-|-\_/-|-/ Deflated Volcano K[rust] Of The Moment /^\ /^\ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

1 0

Re: Dissolving Choke Points
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:59 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Greg Broiles wrote: >At 10:55 AM 2/3/97 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: > >>Moderation has been a failure. I'm pretty good at filtering and I >>can sadly report that there is very little signal out there. > >I don't think it's reasonable to expect an increase in signal within 2 1/2 >weeks of the start of moderation. Improvement in the s/n ratio, yes. But >(at least if my speculation is correct), the good posts driven away by bad >posts … [View More]

1 0

Re: Dissolving Choke Points
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"roach_s(a)alph.swosu.edu" "Sean Roach" 4-FEB-1997 00:47:40.30 >On your idea for fast implementation, this could be hacked by would-be >censors. A message comes into the list, the censor sees that the post is >from a regular enemy. The censor then copies the header information onto a >new message, one containing garbage, or snippets from old posts, reads the >new post to see if it is acceptable, and if it is, adds a new header, >probably only the time would be … [View More]

1 0

Re: Dissolving Choke Points
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:59 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Greg Broiles wrote: >At 10:55 AM 2/3/97 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: > >>Moderation has been a failure. I'm pretty good at filtering and I >>can sadly report that there is very little signal out there. > >I don't think it's reasonable to expect an increase in signal within 2 1/2 >weeks of the start of moderation. Improvement in the s/n ratio, yes. But >(at least if my speculation is correct), the good posts driven away by bad >posts … [View More]

1 0

Re: Dissolving Choke Points
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"roach_s(a)alph.swosu.edu" "Sean Roach" 4-FEB-1997 00:47:40.30 >On your idea for fast implementation, this could be hacked by would-be >censors. A message comes into the list, the censor sees that the post is >from a regular enemy. The censor then copies the header information onto a >new message, one containing garbage, or snippets from old posts, reads the >new post to see if it is acceptable, and if it is, adds a new header, >probably only the time would be … [View More]

1 0

The V chip
by nobody＠zifi.genetics.utah.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Demented Vomit was born when his mother was on the toilet. \|/ @ @ -oOO-(_)-OOo- Dr.Demented Vomit

1 0

Re: [DSS] PGP Signatures
by nobody＠zifi.genetics.utah.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Decoy Vilus K)ankersore( Of The Minute's family tree goes straight up. All of his ancestors were siblings, too dumb to recognize each other in the dark. |\_/| (0_0) Decoy Vilus K)ankersore( Of The Minute ==(Y)== ---(u)---(u)---

1 0

Re: Dissolving Choke Points
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"gbroiles(a)netbox.com" "Greg Broiles" 4-FEB-1997 01:26:13.34 >(I'm working on a message re moderation and the list which will better >explain what I think about that - but I'm not trying to argue, above, that >we *must* have moderation for a long time - simply that it's too early to >call it a failure for failing to significantly increase the number of >useful messages.) I'll be interested in that message. I have problems with the takeover of the original list … [View More]name, personally. While it is certainly John Gilmore's right to do whatever he wants with the mailing list software/hardware (I believe we've settled that, right?), 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. For instance, if John was getting an email overload for toad.com and was trying to indirectly reduce the load via reducing responses to flames, there are other ways to solve the problem - such as the distributed mailing list idea. I do think that Sandy's filtered list could provide a valuable service - most of the other filtered lists seem to filter out a bit too much, judging by the "cc any replies to this message directly to me, I'm on the [insert name of filtered list]" messages I see. If the list switches to cypherpunks and cypherpunks-edited, I might go with cypherpunks-edited (or with some combo of cypherpunks-edited and cypherpunks-flames, the latter more filtered by procmail). My objection is mainly due to the principle of the thing.) Incidentally, I checked the cyberpass.net services, and it does list mailing lists - including a 10$ per month charge per 100 subscribers. At that rate, I can afford about 100 subscribers on a local distributed list, given the 10% discount. (Depending on how it goes, I might be able to afford more... I haven't looked at my personal finances in detail recently.) >I think you misspelled "Usenet". Hope this helps. >Seriously, if you want a distributed no-choke-points "flooding" message >distribution system, you're talking about Usenet. Robust software exists >for clients and servers, and it's already supported worldwide on many >operating systems. No need to write more software to graft that >functionality onto E-mail. If the list is going to turn into Usenet (we've >already got most of Usenet's better kooks), we might as well just move the >damn thing over to alt.cypherpunks and be done with it. (Anyone care to >guess who founded alt.* as a way to route around censorship?) I'd point out that we _know_ every list member can get email, but not that they can get Usenet. I can't conveniently get it, for instance - I'd have to read it via HTTP and respond via email to a news-to-mail server. Sure, I can get an account at infonex or wherever and pick up the news groups there... but I'd prefer not to be forced to, and I suspect the same is true of many people. >(Of course, Usenet is a technical success and a spectacular failure, >content-wise. So opponents of moderation will be forgiven for failing to >mention this sparkling example of an unmoderated, anything-goes forum for >discussion.) Usenet also has easy crossposting, has been discovered by just about every spam artist known to humankind, and doesn't have very good filtering software (IMO, the last time I checked). Limited propagation, especially for a new alt group, especially for a _controversial_ alt group, is also a problem. Sure, Usenet has its advantages. (Under allens(a)earlham.edu and allens(a)yang.earlham.edu, I was the second or third highest poster on it for a few weeks a few years back. I'm familiar with Usenet.) But it also has its problems. -Allen [View Less]

1 0

Re: FCPUNX:ecure Phones (fwd)
by Dave Emery 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: >From die Tue Feb 4 00:30:04 1997 Subject: Re: FCPUNX:ecure Phones To: eli(a)gs160.sp.cs.cmu.edu (Eli Brandt) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 00:30:04 -0500 (EST) From: "Dave Emery" <die(a)pig.die.com> Reply-To: die(a)die.com In-Reply-To: <199702040425.UAA08359(a)blacklodge.c2.net> from "Eli Brandt" at Feb 3, 97 11:24:03 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24alpha3] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: … [View More]

1 0

Re: what's in a name?
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Without answering any of the points raised by Wei Dai, let me address the subject line. I have been a long time reader of and occasional contributor to the cypherpunks list. Since it is high volume, I prefer not to have it show up in my mailbox, but read it from either nntp.hks.net or infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks. With the recent change in status of the list, what I get at those two places is the edited list. The same would apply to other sublists subscribed to cypherpunks(a)toad.com too. If … [View More]

1 0

[STEGO] Degausser
by nobody＠zifi.genetics.utah.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Decoy L[esbian] Vitriol K[ancer]OTM has been fired for masturbating in front of his boss. o/ Decoy L[esbian] Vitriol K[ancer]OTM <| / >

1 0

Mailing Lists vs. Usenet
by pdh＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:59 PM 2/3/1997, Greg Broiles wrote: > Seriously, if you want a distributed no-choke-points "flooding" > message distribution system, you're talking about Usenet. Robust > software exists for clients and servers, and it's already supported > worldwide on many operating systems. No need to write more software > to graft that functionality onto E-mail. If the list is going to > turn into Usenet (we've already got most of Usenet's better kooks), > we might as well just … [View More]move the damn thing over to alt.cypherpunks > and be done with it. (Anyone care to guess who founded alt.* as a > way to route around censorship?) > (Of course, Usenet is a technical success and a spectacular failure, > content-wise. So opponents of moderation will be forgiven for > failing to mention this sparkling example of an unmoderated, > anything-goes forum for discussion.) Several people have brought up this point and it is worth discussing. There are some differences. I don't like Usenet's architecture. It is silly to duplicate vast amounts of traffic everywhere. It was a fine idea when there were 100 groups with lots of overlap in what people read. The horse and buggy was a good idea once too. Performance is a problem with Usenet. The system I envision (nearly identical to Igor's) would have about ten mail servers, each of which sends articles to all the others. Even in situations where something is wrong, articles will be nearly instantly transmitted along an alternate path. I think this is harder to arrange with Usenet. Competition among Cypherpunks providers works the right way. If you are getting your mail on a system which is slow and isn't up all the time, you have good reasons to switch to another provider. This is easy - just subscribe yourself to one mailing list and unsubscribe from the other. It's harder for most people to do this with Usenet. You may not want to switch your ISP to get a better Cypherpunks feed. In my opinion, Usenet is less conducive to filtering than is mail. It is true that there are lots of Usenet readers which can do things like kill whole threads and the like, but mail just screams "run me through a perl script!" This is mostly subjective, of course. More subjective opinions: I don't like being associated with Usenet. It is seen as an international bulletin board. Many people believe that it is "public" space and should be subject to zoning. I like the idea of keeping the cypherpunks list "private". I like being able to say "if what's on the list upsets you so much, why did you subscribe?" This is more effective than "so tell your child not look at Usenet". I don't like the whole Usenet cabal and all of the voting to decide which lists to canonize. Less of an issue with alt.cypherpunks, but the association is still there. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com [View Less]

1 0

Re: Dissolving Choke Points
by pdh＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:59 PM 2/3/1997, Greg Broiles wrote: >At 10:55 AM 2/3/97 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >> Moderation has been a failure. I'm pretty good at filtering and I >> can sadly report that there is very little signal out there. > I don't think it's reasonable to expect an increase in signal within 2 1/2 > weeks of the start of moderation. What I have seen is a pretty complete elimination of the signal that was there. Some might argue that this is "just" because Tim … [View More]

1 0