December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: killfiles
by tim x4237 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden(a)krypton.mankato.msus.edu> >Procmail is one filtering package. You can also use 'filter' which comes >as part of the elm package. Promail has a few more features, but is much >more difficult to write rules for, IMHO. Does anynone have some lisp do to this with rmail? I'd like to run a command that prompted me for text, then used that text in a 'M-s REGEXP RET d' command, to delete messages that matched the supplied text. Of course, the 'd' should only happen if the 'M-s REGEXP RET' is successful.

1 0

Re: Someone yanking your chain? (rather than LD`s account...)
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

PGP Slave Key Server (huh?) writes: > Hey, maybe its just me, but when I saw "Steve Dempsey"s first > mail to cypherpunks come time ago where he represented himself > as Lance`s postmaster, I thought "funny, this guy writes just > like Detweiler when Detweiler is acting sane..." Lots of folks write the same way. Short messages just don't carry enough stylistic information. In any case, I had a few dealings with Steve Dempsey in private e-mail (once when I complained, once when he asked my views on a post by LD) and this claim that Detweiler = Depsey is just, too, well, "detweileresque" for me. If it was a subtle form of humor for the tentacles... > So Dempsey has now said that he`s chopped LD`s account...Hmmm... > How come this was posted today? > > > From: ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu (L. Detweiler) > > Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.society.privacy,alt.privacy,sci.answers,comp.answers,alt.answers,news.answers > > Subject: Privacy & Anonymity on the Internet FAQ (1 of 3) > > Date: 18 Feb 1994 15:22:13 GMT Probably a chron job, set to auto-post the FAQ every several weeks. This is the norm with FAQs. And though Perry M. has cited the flaws in this FAQ, I think it serves a need that is not being met by anyone else. Perhaps Perry would like to write a better FAQ---this is not a dig at my friend Perry, just a call that we not condemn something when the flaws are relatively minor and nothing better exists or is likely to exist anytime soon. Frankly, I would hate to see Detweiler's loss of his account privileges (which was justified after his forgeries, mailbombs, and threats) also mean the loss of the FAQ....eventually that chron job, if indeed that's what's being used to post the FAQ, will presumably need a human account at the other end for authorizaiton. Maybe not. > I also notice while you were all wondering where LD could still > be getting his cypherpunks feed from, Dempsey had become a subscriber to > the list. (You guys really should block that EXPN command you know...it`s > been mentioned often enough...) Steve can speak for himself, if he's on the list, but there are several plausible reasons for his interest: - he got interested in the subject here - he wants to see what we have to say about folks like Detweiler - he is concerned about what we are doing and wants to collect input - other reasons In any case, the list is "open" and includes gateways into other sites and lists, so it's a fact that all sorts of folks--reporteres, spooks, administrators, etc.--are subscribing. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power:2**859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.

1 0

REAL WORLD ENCRYPTION
by Sandy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, This is a belated reply to the issues raised by Tim May about digital banking. Also, I would like to have Tim clarify some of the statements/assumptions he made. Tim wrote: . . . how much I put [in a digital bank] would be dependent on the degree of "Swiss"-type services. Probably not many such services, I am surmising . . . Actually, we will begin operation with a basic set of Swiss-type services, and will bring a wide range of others on board as soon as practical. . . . if I remained in U.S., no protection. If I left U.S., no _need_ for your bank. I think this is incorrect on both counts. If Tim remains in the US, he absolutely needs the protection an offshore bank (digital or otherwise) can provide. Without one, there is no way he can keep his assets from being at risk. Having some of his money out of the States is an insurance policy against extortion and/or seizure. If Tim leaves the US, he will still have to live *someplace*, and *someplace* might want to grab his money every bit as much as the US government (or litigious thieves) would. In addition, Tim will still need a simple, quick and secure way to transact business in the US and elsewhere. . . . You can't be a real digital money bank, in the long-range sense we've talked about. (Total anonymity, Liechtenstein "anstalt"-type anonymity, digitally mediated.) I don't see what is to stop us. Perhaps Tim will elucidate. Tim went on to say that Cypherpunks would not be enough to financially support our bank and that "high rollers" would not be interested. True (though largely irrelevant) and false. The 700 Cypherpunks are a drop in the 20 mega-user Internet. We only have to get a small fraction of that market to make our nut. Without false modesty, I can safely say, I have met and dealt with far more "high rollers" (and real tax avoiders, for that matter) than Tim will ever know. I know what they want. We have what they want. We will get their business. Period. As for the Feds, privacy, regulations, etc., see my previous few posts. S a n d y Unencrypted e-mail to sandfort(a)crl.com PGP encrypted to ssandfort(a)attmail.com Nothing to my CompuServe acct., please ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLWUZ+k5ULTXct1IzAQGQ/wP9Gu20UBt54bIY0gr2dEnPYjANNxLUwTqg 34V/ABC8tD8ydVK89khzimVShPfEDoJdKyheSB1qgIzKL/O/zutJZH7GGmdWURaV FiYv+1bM6GlhZMNRvlpFKOYS3DRkknBMvjyWLjkUVvtLo0k6/XRakevye3hSahbK lIotJjv/6Jw= =cmGf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

sociology of unsubscribing
by Allen Robinson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tim May writes: > About half a dozen messages like this one are posted here every week: >> PLEASE READ! (sorry to shout) >> >> All subscription requests should be sent to cypherpunks-request(a)toad.com > Despite this, every day there are several "Unsubscribe me, NOW!" > messages, with various degrees of politeness. > Folks, I am not going to repeat the instructions again. This is > becuase of the following conclusions I have reached: > 1. The list is divided into two basic classes of readers: those who > read some or all of the messages, and those who skip most articles and > don't pay attention to what they read. > 2. Those who read many of the messages then see these instructions > over and over again. > 3. Those who don't read the messages, don't see or understand or have > a general clue about the instructions. > 4. It is usually these folks who want off the list urgently. As others > have noted so many times, they have no clue as the general netiquette > for getting on and off lists (apparently even forgetting that they got > ON the list by sending a request to "cypherpunks-request(a)toad.com"). > MAJOR CONCLUSION: All of the "helpful" instructions, including this > very message, are useless, as the folks who need to receive them are > demonstrably not bothering to receive them. > Draw your own conclusions. As a veteran of a mere two weeks+ as a subscriber, I doubt that I have sufficient experience to form much in the way of conclusions re behavior here. I'm inclined to agree with your "major conclusion." All of this discussion of unsubscribing has made me curious about the "turnover" rate here. I saw the stats posted a week or so ago on current subscribers. I am wondering if there are figures available, or if someone could give me a ballpark sense of how many subscriptions vs. unsubsrciptions there are in an "average" week or month. I would also be interested in getting an idea of how long the "average" subscriber has been subscribed. Now...back to lurking. AR -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3 mQCNAi1QI2IAAAEEANGcHTNLr8O+goj2cTGmdlVt9KGU4mHGywCbiIYOx3yUSibf NTChoPGc6RXO0rz2rw87Nrx/bzGfeaNCIS1oJ6ATWC0NHZKUV71Dg7hkVADnu6ij srHjPoBSFpR3v6p0GacH1syo0grtIlryuX7m997+yDjvw0NMHnAzE4ENya5ZAAUR tCNBbGxlbiBSb2JpbnNvbiA8c2ViYXlnb0BuZXRjb20uY29tPg== =Omo2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Allen Robinson 3208 Pawnee Court Fayetteville, AR 72701 sebaygo(a)netcom.com FidoNet 1:391/1370 fax (501) 248-1969 vox (501) 443-7012 or (501) 248-1808

1 0

No Subject
by pohl＠unixg.ubc.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

subscribe ----- Derrick Pohl <pohl(a)unixg.ubc.ca>, Faculty of Graduate Studies University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Ph. (604) 822-9546 Fax (604) 822-5802

1 0

Re: REAL WORLD ENCRYPTION
by norm＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 21:36 2/17/94 -0500, Sandy wrote: >What is a "debit" card? It is just like a credit card, except >that it is used to debit your bank account immediately rather >than extend you credit--at interest--for later repayment. They >are issued by Mastercard, Visa and other card companies. They >look, and are used, just like a regular credit card. They are >anonymous because there use creates no audit trail pointing to >you. Further, the bank will keep its records in a jurisdiction >that protects the privacy of such business records. For the >truly paranoid, the bank will issue corporate debit cards. Perhaps you can sell your technology to government witness protection programs. Perhaps you could even sell your service if you could prove that only the money was at risk (and not the location of users).

2 1

NP-hard Labor for Cyherpunks Subversives
by nobody＠soda.berkeley.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Ringleaders of the so-called >Cypherpunks group, a subversive organization, have been sentenced to >NP-hard labor at Fort Meade, Maryland >-- Zek May, serving a polynomial term Yea, Zek copped a plea for a feasible probation.

1 0

Re: NP-hard Labor for Cyherpunks Subversives
by joshua geller 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>Ringleaders of the so-called >>Cypherpunks group, a subversive organization, have been sentenced to >>NP-hard labor at Fort Meade, Maryland >>-- Zek May, serving a polynomial term >Yea, Zek copped a plea for a feasible probation. cut it out, detweiler. josh

1 0

RE: ((subscribe msgs to list) && (DOS stego deleted filespace))
by Matt Thomlinson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

subscribe msgs: I've been thinking about this problem as long as the rest of you have, and have finally come to the conclusion that 1) eric doesn't want to change the way the list software and 2) eric is going to continue to be human and not be able to reply to subscribe/unsub messages as fast as something like majordomo could. Knowing this, I propose: A vacation.msg file or equivalent on cypherpunks-request(a)toad.com should be constructed that: o replies to ALL messages o Explains that ALL requests are done by a human and to expect a week or more for subscribe/unsubscribe requests. o Also describes large volume of mail (useful for those who are attempting to subscribe) Now when someone sends the subscribe request and fails to read the message sent regarding how to unsubscribe, and then (from traffic volume) decides to unsubscribe the explanation will be mailed again automatically. Might keep some of the garbage off of the list. Yes, this is basic. No, this has not been done, obviously. dos stego: I don't think the current discussion is taking into account the fact that if someone suspects you of using steganography they're going to check. If what you are describing becomes a popular way of steganography, you're out of luck -- they'll check that first. Think about it: your 'bad-sector' stego or 'wiped-filespace' stego begins gaining popularity. Wouldn't you think they'd check for funny bad sectors if they were going to check your computer for contriband info? Another thing that has bothered me: if you didn't have the sectors marked, you'd need to remember where they were (so you could protect them from writes). You wouldn't necessarily want to do this on the computer; it'd be there for the picking. How to do it?f Someone suggested you just use the end of the wiped filespace (use norton or other utility to defrag the disk and move empty space to the end of the disk, then use portion of disk furthest away from being written to. This might work, except for the fact that fragmentation _does_ go on, and when you were to write files to the drive (heck, I do every time I start up windows and write a huge temp swapfile) you're going to be playing roulette with your data. I think the point about the blank track (the one linux uses) is interesting; then again, once your method becomes well-known, it is no longer useful. Just thoughts; I wish I had more answers. Heck, ANY answers would be nice. mt Matt Thomlinson Say no to the Wiretap Chip! University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Internet: phantom(a)u.washington.edu phone: (206) 548-9804 PGP 2.2 key available via email or finger phantom(a)hardy.u.washington.edu

1 0

REMAIL: down remailers
by Karl Lui Barrus 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Cypherpunks, Bad news on the remailer front... both elee7h5(a)rosebud.ee.uh.edu and elee6ue(a)rosebud.ee.uh.edu are gone. I just found out now, when some anonymous mail intended for elee6ue(a)rosebud.ee.uh.edu bounced back to me (the middle mystery hop of my recent remailer is my account on owlnet). I tried fingering both accounts, and it does appear they are gone (before my old account elee7h5@rosebud was merely locked, so I couldn't log in but the remailer I set up there kept on running). The shut down will also unfortunately take out the one at barrus(a)tree.egr.uh.edu, since that was just the first stage of a remailer that worked here and finally sent out through elee6ue@rosebud. Mail to barrus(a)tree.egr.uh.edu was forwarded to my account here, and I was using the elm filter command to direct that mail into the remailer scripts for processing. I can't run a remailer on owlnet (at least not so obviously, I risked it before since remailed messages appeared to originate from elee6ue@rosebud on not my account klbarrus@owlnet) since it is forbidden by the user policy. So I have three messages (the one bounce, and 2 queued with latency) waiting to be remailed, but that can't happen anymore since the secret key for elee6ue@rosebud is gone. I'll delete them soon since they can't be decrypted anymore. I have no idea why this has suddenly happened: I haven't had any complaints or questions directed to me. It could be anything from the grad student who admins rosebud cleaned up old user accounts to complaints from receipients of anonymous mail. Anyway, I'll make the changes to the remailer list, and include the new one at hacktic.nl. Karl Barrus klbarrus(a)owlnet.rice.edu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLWWZNIOA7OpLWtYzAQFomwQAi8W+JlGX80kcLt0dDovYVvNddFSChEwL 1fFUi8VfGztOLFc0uTpq0XurNmIiF9X4HyisPQSZiQrr5Uq4n6P263YGq8rw311W N7x6K7zx0hkPV0jKDC39Go5X6wTX+6YL9IuvyuehPolY1Xyfjrv+KoHMSKCyh5xT OedW0JGaEkM= =98Pz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0