December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Belated thank you's
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It seems somewhat trite to say thank you for the service John provided now that it is going away, when while it was here it was taken for granted. Still, I will say thank you. Perhaps in this respect it is like good health, which while it is ours is not given much though, but once lost, becomes the whole of our thoughts. The loss of John's involvement is a real loss. At the same time, I would like to think that virtual communities such as this one are robust enough to survive the type of strife that we have undergone. People being what they are, the list would have had a hard time staying static without some strong guiding focus. Given the anarchic leanings of many people on this list, John's actions have done much to test the practicality of the principles that have been spoken about here. They may also show how much work it is to follow these same principles. Still, I wonder how John will feel about the cypherpunks list as it moves beyond him. Will it grow and become widespread? Or, will it slowly die from lack of interest or time? I think he might not like either answer. A la prochain fois, James The advancement and perfection of mathematics are intimately connected with the prosperity of the State. - Napoleon I

1 0

Re: Cypherpunks FAQ
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Toto wrote: > > The primal instinct of those with interest in 'control' is centered > > around the need for 'total' control. The history of dictators in > > general has shown more than a few who have allowed the sheep to escape > > from their pens while they were fixated on chasing down the few 'black > > sheep' that had strayed from their control. > > The CypherPunks list is a prime example of this. John and Sandy became > > so fixated on their attack on Dr. Vulis (and subsequent 'dissenters') > > that they eventually lost control of the other sheep in the fold who > > were willing to go along with a 'moderate' abrogation of their right > > to free speech by the censoring of only the 'black' sheep. > Take no offense, but why nobody thought about an obviously more likely > conclusion: that it is Dr. Vulis who was, say, hired by Detweiler to > destroy cypherpunks. I personally find the above unlikely, but at least > more likely than all other suggestions (which I think are an example > of the delusion of grandeur). Remember the movie Die Hard (#1)? Remember what the wife said about how her husband would drive people stark, raving mad? I humbly suggest by analogy that it was me, since that is my effect on a lot of people, particularly (and especially) the John and Sandy types.

1 0

Re: alt.cypherpunks.*, cypherpunks@*.*
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks) At 9:02 AM -0500 2/19/97, Mullen, Patrick wrote: >I just got my news admin to add alt.cypherpunks. Unfortunately, I can't >remember the names of the subgroups (which weren't added), and I >deleted the mailings which listed them. > >If I remember correctly, they were along the lines of > >alt.cypherpunks.technical >alt.cypherpunks.social >alt.cypherpunks.announce >alt.cypherpunks.ebonics :-) Sorry, couldn't resist! Patrick reminds us of why a simple name like "alt.cypherpunks" is preferable to an extensive hierarchy: "I can't remember the names of the subgroups." It was a mistake, I believe, to create the various subgroups, and I hope they fail to propagate. I'd rather use more capable newsreading tools to scan _one_ group and follow interesting threads in it than try to remember what got posted where. And I especially don't want to see the predictable carping about how some topic "belongs" in one of the other groups! And many will simply cross-post their stuff to more than one of the groups, trying to guess which are most relevant, which are being read by enough people, etc. Even at a hundred messages a day, a single group is easily managed. And having four of them will not cut the traffic in the main group significantly. --Tim May, who plans to only post to the main group. -- Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we 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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

snow wrote: > > Igor said: > > I can suggest a scheme where a fee would be attached to the message, > > and the recipient would be able to get the money only after having > > read and understood the message. > > > > For example, you might receive the following message (it could be encrypted > > by your public key to preserve the cash from the MITM): > > > do get them to read) will have a very high response rate. That may > > justify adding postage to their letters. > > > > The advantages are obvious. The disadvantage is a possibility of someone > > stealing the money on the way, if the letters are not encrypted. > > That would be great. Sit home all day and hit web pages for a living. > Well, they will stop sending you money if they find out that you do not buy their products. - Igor.

1 0

Re: Good Bye Cypherpunks!
by Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Yes, I get spam too. But it's still less than the spam directed at an old account on another machine, that posted regularly to usenet until about 3 years ago! And hasn't been used at all since... On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Adam Shostack wrote: > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 18:38:24 -0500 (EST) > From: Adam Shostack <adam(a)homeport.org> > To: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin(a)law.miami.edu> > Cc: shamrock(a)netcom.com, tcmay(a)got.net, cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: Good Bye Cypherpunks! > > Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: > | Just for the record. I will not post to USENET given the spamming that > | seems to go to IDs that appear there. > > Your postings appear on the web, as part of the cypherpunks > archives at infinity.nus.sg. > > http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/current/0089.html > > There seem to be robots that search the web; I've never even > read usenet from this account, and I get spam. > > Adam > > > -- > "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." > -Hume > > == The above may have been dictated via Dragon Dictate 2.52 voice recognition. Please be alert for unintentional word substitutions. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin(a)law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here.

1 0

Re: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jim bell wrote: > At 02:05 AM 2/14/97 -0600, snow wrote: > >Pete: > >> Yes, but why does monetary compensation make it then O.K.? I'd rather > >> pay for my Internet access, then be bombarded by spam, no matter what > >> they paid me! I think the best soln. is the one that is currently in > >> place for phone calls - they can call once, but if I tell them not to > >> call me again and they do, I can then begin legal action against them. > >> I pay more per month for my phone service than my Internet service ( > >> although in NY, *everything* is more expensive. ), and junk phone calls > >> are way more intrusive then spam. > > > > I figure if this scheme comes to fruition, I'll just set up a seperate > >account (or procmail) to filter out the spam, deposit the coin, and go on > >about my business. > > > That's fine...that's EXACTLY the way the system would work! Intentionally > so! The purpose of the payment is not because the sender feels some sort of > legal obligation to pay; rather it's analogous to a tip to a waiter. > > The sender makes the payment based on however much he _wants_ you to pay > attention to his message, but fully aware that there is no guarantee that > you'll do so. I can suggest a scheme where a fee would be attached to the message, and the recipient would be able to get the money only after having read and understood the message. For example, you might receive the following message (it could be encrypted by your public key to preserve the cash from the MITM): To: jimbell(a)pacifier.com From: spammer(a)dm1.com (Direct Marketing, by way of telysis.com) Subject: an encrypted cyberdollar for you X-Encrypted-Postage: 0891281229qwqoifoweihjrfiohsdlifhsluire82374029849 weuiyruiy3478ye874t23876459823y4897y5897y23849y589 39847578r3498yt893y75t9843y75t897y4385t9y74897gy77 X-Encryption-Key: in the message body Dear Jim, Here's one cyberdollar for you. It is "locked" by an encryption key. The cybercoin is encrypted by an IDEA key and you can find out the key by reading the message below: @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Valentines' day presents at www.cheap-stuff.com! An ideal Valentine's day present for your significant other, at a reduced cost for you! You can buy your loved one a thousand used condoms (mint condition) at a reduced rate of ONLY $5.95! Visit us at http://www.cheap-stuff.com/cgi-bin/condoms/key.cgi?name=jimbell to get your postage! @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The encryption key is located at the URL above. ########################################################################### My opinion on this: I personally feel that this scheme is the way to go for spammers. Obviously, it is possible to build mail readers that would verify some kind of trusted signature on the attached postage, and would highlight all such messages. The meaning of signature is "these people are not crooks, there really is an encrypted dollar there". Clearly, spammers who pay their readers to read their messages (and who do get them to read) will have a very high response rate. That may justify adding postage to their letters. The advantages are obvious. The disadvantage is a possibility of someone stealing the money on the way, if the letters are not encrypted. - Igor.

3 3

$10,000 in 45 days - not MLM!
by christensen＠usa.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello,^Morons, $10,000 in 45 days! When I first read that provocative headline I thought "Oh yeah!" Now, why do you think I'd be so skeptical? Well, if you've been involved in any other "opportunities" you'd know that the hype mostly exceeds the reality. No one could have been more surprised than me, when I actually proved the truth of that headline. Yes, I did make over $10,000 in 45 days! I'm not saying this to boast, but to tell you that it really is possible... If you'd like to know HOW, then just point your browser to: http://www.cyberius.com/CG/122/ or, simply call and listen to a short message at: 1-800-995-0796 x4347 And keep my ID for reference.... Regards, Kirt Christensen Investors International #CG122

1 0

Re: Dissolving Choke Points
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

So you write: >Many good authors have already left the list and *nothing* will get them >back. Are you implying that any given mailing list should be controlled by the best authors? ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Excuses are the tools with which those with no purpose in view build for themselves great monuments of nothing.

1 0

Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Against Moderation <antimod(a)nym.alias.net> writes: > Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I never suggested Dr. Grubor's > views should be suppressed. Not only do I believe he has every right > to express them, I also believe (as I explained) that I think there is > value in inducing censorship as he has, so as to get people's > censorious tendencies out in the open where they can be fought. If you know this, then I fail to understand your arguments with him? > However, Dr. Grubor is no advocate of free speech (though I'm sure he > thinks he is). If Dr. Grubor had his way, he would severely restrict > the rights of gay people to express themselves on Usenet. Advocates > of free speech must truly tolerate all speech, even that which they > find strongly unpleasant or disturbing. I'm still not sure you are understanding as you claim you are. Look at what he says. Ask yourself if he supports freedom. If you think he does not, then for -you- he does not. If you want to know the real man, take him to dinner. > My point was therefore that Dr. Grubor would do better to say > "Exterminate all faggots" than "Exterminate all faggots in the name of > free speech," and that those of us who truly support freedom of speech > would do well to distance ourselves from Dr. Grubor, while still fully > supporting his right to express his opinions. Nonsense. I claim that those of us who truly support freedom of speech must -embrace- Dr. Grubor as a respected man of great skill, for he can show us just how free any mailing list or newsgroup truly is. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep

2 1

Re: Fuck UseNet (fwd)
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com" "Jim Choate" 15-FEB-1997 07:11:54.43 >Perhaps in addition to the X-foo structures we have discussed already we >might consider adding, >X-distrib-policy: foo >Where foo might be, > Public Domain > All rights reserved, contact author for redistribution > Distribution for non-commercial uses permitted > Refer to authors header > Copyleft > etc. >or whatever the policy might be for a given remailer. This would >significantly aid folks in their shopping around. The basic difficulty with this idea is that _senders_ generally don't have much of a choice where the messages go, once you've decided to accept them. In other words, just because you've decided to accept a message doesn't mean it suddenly becomes copyleft/public domain/whatever. Now, if you, say, announced that only subscribers to your particular list, subscribers to any other lists adopting the same idea, and those who'd sign a consent agreement could post through your list, that wouldn't be a problem... although I suspect you wouldn't get many subscribers. -Allen

1 0