December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: bug in remailers
by jml＠wizard.synapse.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Litsen, you mentioned that you were getting >the same problem with other remailers. That was because you >were mailing through my remailer to them or from them, right? I sure >hope so. I would hate to think my code effected others remailers! :) > Homer Yah, I'm 99% sure that it what happenned. I'll be testing that today. I've sent a few test messages to your remailer and everythnig came back just fine. The trouble with other remailers is that it can take as much as a full day before a message gets delivered. I'll get back to you. -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAy8X2ZIAAAEEALbeB9136vtAk/FOOb8a1rYv7OWAVJZMiWs/CI1Hla9iUxBj hv+KM1rK31cygbk2/y38cZFQupgP34/0HkLKXsl5bP7vifXi5JzyNpeOmYT3Cr/E FqyWRFUo6dyp7AVm23ryZGZAM2qfcdXaslEqWAD3PczAnQ34vKhVa3SvpHjhAAUR tAZ3aXphcmQ= =syn9 -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

Re: Scientology [!]
by danisch＠ira.uka.de 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > 1/15/95 > > TO: THOMAS M. SMALL > COUNSEL FOR RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER AND BRIDGE > PUBLICATIONS, INC. > > FROM: Lance Cottrell > Operator of remailer@nately and mixmaster@nately My pgp says: Bad signature Does this message come from Lance Cottrell or from Scientology? > I am willing to comply with your request. Oh. If this is true (is it?) and other remailer operators do the same, there will be no anonymous criticism of the Thetans any more. An non-anonymous criticism of this "church" is said to be a thing of a special kind. Mmmh, Hadmut

2 1

Re: Scientology (fwd)
by L. McCarthy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is the copy that was sent to the remailer operators' list. Note that the start of "FROM:" is corrupted, and there's some odd line breaking. I'm guessing that's the reason the signature doesn't check (for me, either). -L. Futplex McCarthy Forwarded message: > From remailer-operators-owner(a)c2.org Sun Jan 15 15:08:56 1995 > To: Remailer-Operators(a)c2.org > Message-Id: <ab3f26ae01021004e8c7(a)[137.110.24.249]> > Date: Sun, 15 Jan 1995 11:56:48 -0800 > From: lcottrell(a)popmail.ucsd.edu (Lance Cottrell) > Subject: Re: Scientology > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > 1/15/95=20 > > TO: THOMAS M. SMALL > COUNSEL FOR RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER AND BRIDGE > PUBLICATIONS, INC. > > =46ROM: Lance Cottrell > Operator of remailer@nately and mixmaster@nately > > In response to your email of January 3, 1995 requesting that I block= > anonymous posting to the Internet news groups alt.clearing.technology and a= > lt.religion.scientology. > > Although my remailers have always supported direct posting to news groups,= > this feature has never been advertised or supported. Since direct posting= > from my remailers is never used, I am willing to comply with your request.= > Posting to alt.clearing.technology and alt.religion.scientology has been bl= > ocked. > > By this action I do not admit to any wrongdoing on my part, nor do I wish to= > imply any wrongdoing on the part of any users of my remailers. I am merely= > turning of a feature that I never intended to be used. > > By design it is not possible to prevent users from using my remailers to= > send a message to another computer to be posted. I can not, and will not,= > block mail to other remailers or to mail-to-news gateways. > > Yours, > Lance M. Cottrell > > CC: Cypherpunks(a)toad.com, remailer-operators(a)c2.org, > alt.privacy.anon-server, alt.privacy, > alt.religion.scientology, alt.clearing.technology > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: 2.6 > > iQCVAwUBLxl9WlVkk3dax7hlAQH5lAP9HWND3nMsoz/Yn6fz36iqtDqI7s3cEllM > Gaajeq4qAR/t5a5CrEyOW1sYq+bxw5UZppREJC5uBbcp7ZP2k/7jprEcq9O7run3 > ZX985aIY8f5kI6GmUemhmQcflgyNDoeDJMFhRBrvDQqCWueLKVUZLNXx9bsMCi94 > EH/mStSfdJY=3D > =3DUgN1 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > >

1 0

Another problem w/Data Havens...
by Robert Rothenberg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I can see a potential problem with Data Havens (as they've been discussed here) that may very well inspire the wrath of the authorities more than nuclear secrets or dirty pictures of J.Edgar Hoover... How does one keep a site from becomming a remote pirated-software exchange site? (Esp. since after that MIT case laws may be changed...) It seems that such a service could become a magnet for the "elite warez" crowd... and even if the operator isn't jailed it could lead to a shutdown of the service.

3 3

Supreme Court, free speech, anon remailers...
by davidm＠iconz.co.nz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: >Nathan Zook wrote: > >> I believe, therefore, that both the court and the dissent bode poorly for >> anonymous encrypted mail. > >But anonymous handbills are quite common, posted all over the place >here in my home town, and the Supreme Court ruled quite properly that >identities are not required for speech. I too was concerned by the strong dissent in the anonymous handbill case posted to the net, largely because I live in a country where we have inherited the odious British practice of requiring newspapers and other published material (such as handbills) to carry the name of the printer and the sponsoring organisation (or sumpin' like that...). Its contemporary significance is supposed to be as a control for defamation (yes, we still have strong defamation laws -- good thing too, IMHO, and something cryto/ anonymity may or may not render moot): which is to say turning every publisher and printer into a censor. [Even more bizarrely, the law requires newspaper proprietors and editors to swear certain documents and deliver them to the High Court every year...] Of course, I have never heard of this particular piece of legislation being invoked to prosecute someone who hasn't complied, and I've never heard of anyone complying. Nevertheless, it is on the books. It seems to me that it would only take a minor amendment to the US law on the identification of periodicals that are posted (notice the colophons [?] in all those newspapers and magazines) to apply to all publications... A couple of extra words in the definition section and away we go. (It's not a freedom of speech issue, it's an environmental issue -- all those handbills cluttering up the landfills... And it would only be fair to treat the denizens of the information superhypeway equally...). Things ain't half as safe as you might think. D.

1 0

Re: An Attempt to Hobble SAFE Crypto Bill
by Peter D. Junger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The more I look at this draft, the more gaping holes I see. I do not think that it was ever intended to be enacted, but was rather drafted simply to give cover to those who voted for the first amendment, since they could then vote against this one. Notice that it says that you will find the definitions in the Export Administration Act, which I am sure, though I have not looked it up, does not contain a definition of ``real time'', which seems to be the key term in the draft. But now that the first amendment lost, I suppose this could have been leaked so that some other committee will vote for a compromise. As I reread the proceeding sentence, I realize that I should have said ``proposed first amendment to the SAFE bill''. We wouldn't want to get it mixed up with the First Amendment, now would we? -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger(a)samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger(a)pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists

1 0

Re: AA + Anonymous ECash = Unhappy Fundies
by davidm＠iconz.co.nz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>The "cause" will do much better if the first major association is made >with something much less controversial. Girl Scout cookies, say. This may be what you are referring to, but there was a thread on alt.cp a while back on introducing cyberspace to the people, and one of the suggest- ions was a Web page to sell Girl Scout cookies. Now if we could use anon-remailers and ecash to 'enhance' that idea, just think of the mainstream publicity... D.

1 0

Remailer exit points
by pstemari＠erinet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Y'know, after some thought, some of the concepts I made regarding data havens with anonymous locations might well apply to making exit-point remailers that are relatively immune from outside pressure. Given a network of entry-point remailers with well-known public keys, you could advertise an exit-point remailer by only giving out encrypted address blocks for use with various well-known entry-point remailers and a public key. The exit-point remailer could then substitute some random From: address and path entries to spoof the exit-point remailer's location. The remailer's actual location would only be known by the entry point remailers, and since their involvement is stripped by the exit-point remailers, no one would know who they are to complain to them. The spoofed exit-point remailer location could be handled by disposable MX entries, of the sort discussed here earlier, if it is deemed desireable to make the From: address valid. The remailer operator could get the actual complaints, to deal with as he would. --Paul J. Ste. Marie pstemari(a)well.sf.ca.us, pstemari(a)erinet.com

1 0

Re: Locksmith's Guild wants limit on free speech
by pstemari＠erinet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:59 AM 1/21/95, Timothy C. May wrote: > ... Check out comp.org.eff.talk for discussion of how "professional >locksmiths" are angry that "amateur locksmiths" (unlicensed, not real >members of the Brotherhood) are using the Net to disseminate and >discuss the Secret and Most Arcane Knowledge of the Guild. > >And alt.locksmithing is carrying the stuff. ... I checked out alt.locksmithing, based on some commentary I saw over in alt.current-events.net-abuse, and to be perfectly honest, there isn't really all that much going on along these lines, certainly nothing on the order of magnitude of the alt.religion.scientology crap. One or two soreheads, but by net.standards they don't even really qualify as significant flamers, and a few (apparently) professional locksmiths who are talking about things in a rather friendly fashion. --Paul J. Ste. Marie pstemari(a)well.sf.ca.us, pstemari(a)erinet.com

1 0

port 25 forgeries
by santa＠northpole 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here's a port 25 forgery. One could probably do a better one, but this one shows you what still winds up in the headers and one can't do anything about when dealing with sendmail or an equally smart SMTP agent. Note than smail 3.1 is stupid.

1 0