December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: News->Mail & CMU's Andrew Message System
by cactus＠seabsd.hks.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- L. McCarthy <lmccarth(a)ducie.cs.umass.edu> wrote: >Is the AMS software (or some similar system) available as freeware or >shareware somewhere ? I'm considering the possibilities for anonymized >subscription to newsgroups through a mechanism like this. AMS is pretty strongly tied to AFS (now known as part of DCE) and is geared towards sites with users in the thousands. It's probably not what you want, even if it were available (CMU is in the process of phasing it out, since their user base usage has exceeded the design limitations of AMS). >Come to think of it, >many newsgroups are gatewayed to related mailing lists for readers on BBSes >and such; I need to search a bit for the software used to do this. Take a look at newsgate, available somewhere on ftp.uu.net. All you have to do is set up a pseudo-site in your news server's newsfeeds file and send the messages through news2mail. >I'm curious how such systems deal with cancellation messages; presumably they >would simply have to drop them. This would partially eliminate the threat of >spam-of-cancels attacks I mentioned earlier. It totally depends upon the configuration of the gateway and the format of the message. If your gateway passes Control: headers, then cancels will be forwarded to the user and perhaps even be effective if they have another mail-to-news gateway up (that allows Control: headers). Even more so for cancels of the "Subject: cmsg cancel" format, since everything passes Subject: headers. - -- Todd Masco | It's difficult to be loud about keeping your enumerated cactus(a)hks.net | rights when you're busy exercising your unenumerated ones. cactus(a)bb.com | http://www.hks.net/~cactus/cactus.html - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBLuyoqSoZzwIn1bdtAQH4gQGAqbROjwEHW6VVYwawXtzeTitdkpWXoytC UNEMT8FPQ49MqbwWnWMJfZDY1CGZoRpU =Yrr9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Misunderstanding of Remail Headers
by mclow＠coyote.csusm.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>At 2:13 AM 12/12/94, L. McCarthy wrote: >>Hal writes: >>> There was also a misperception that my remailer was an official effort >>> endorsed by Portal (again, despite the disclaimers). Note that it was >>> they who were contacted, not me (yet). This might suggest that it will >>> not be possible to cleanly separate the remailer operators and service >>> providers when problems like this arise. Both may end up being hassled >>> (time will tell whether I am). >> [ stuff deleted ] >The "From:" line seems to be confusing people. The author of the article >quoted from the Globe & Mail appearantly didn't even understand the >disclaimer. The article was worded in such a way to make it seem the >disclaimer was saying that Bob Rae didn't really write the message, as >opposed to saying that Hal Finney didn't really write the message! >Something needs to be done so that even the most internet clueless will >understand that the message _isn't_ from Finney or McCarthy or Joe Random >RemailerOp, which appearantly isn't clear to many people currently. While I'm all for having clear disclaimers, the facts remain: 1) You can't force people to read. 2) Even if you could, you can't force people to understand. Improve the disclaimers, sure. But don't think that this problem is going to go away because of it. -- Marshall (who has just blown his lurker status) :-) Marshall Clow Aladdin Systems mclow(a)san_marcos.csusm.edu

1 0

Crypto Declaration of Independance
by nobody＠jpunix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I have a proposal for you all. I have started work on a Crypto Declaration of Independence, based on the famous American work which represents Independence. With the incoming batch of Congress and the new year approaching, I think that it's time we assert what we believe in. We need to let people know what we stand for, and why we think it's a good idea. And with the (quasi)-recent passage of the DigiTel proposal and Freeh's comments about banning encryption, we need to wake people up. However, asserting this to ourselves again would be akin to holding a one-person conference. We have rehashed these points amongst ourselves many times. Therefore, I propose that we spend some time revising this work, based off the writing I will post if there is support for this idea, then sign it, and email, fax and mail it to our respective news agencies, government officials and interest groups. However, without your support, this endeavor would be fruitless. Before I post the "beta version"/first draft of the CDoI (for lack of a better term), I want to know if you (the C'punks) will support it and help me. Overall, I'm looking for answers to four questions: 1) Will you support and help this endeavor. 2) A target date for sending it out. First idea which came to mind: Jan 1st, 1995 3) A list of groups/people which should receive it. Government officials, news agencies, HOTtired, CPSR, EFF, ACLU, etc and along with #3: 4) Ways for bringing it to people's attention. I intend to keep myself anonymous during this process, so please contact me by leaving a message on this list, or mailing everything within these cutmarks to remailer(a)jpunix.com: -- CUTMARK ( do not include )-- :: Encrypted: PGP - -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: 2.6.2 hIwD/nqSW1QDQfUBA/wI+tSk7CWd5u2dMywjv6oLosg3nm5ki/p8HhOg7VXHDk0S 6MpptLzWzUtkvL+EZEBS7NHORSTNRbo0K/Uvqgl0Rqaqig5Wx6i2VKve3ky9/Kbm I72casRMcyoBka+cOtKdU5JBVXF/YDWmCb3usnvAu0oDZGxBstTaTPgpJzMiV6YA AACTszK/wRKedt58GVDLQs7gNNUUyIxbKtUQNQGss2sbM7AZE0kaQ7B6Z1VXJy0t NKYzUQfk5LEJ1ko9ZbvDSgAWzTnZbmyfSszrpHpRN7ehFhgRCVf4YToMQa5eSOAg CHxmBMq01kDqIntHXZpWquU31+rfpPNNAT9pFHiYAj7biIRA3LWIRwvmy30j+QEv DaMODrdo =xtpD - -----END PGP MESSAGE----- < please put your message to me here> -- CUTMARK ( do not include ) -- I hope you will support me, and I will welcome any and all comments and criticism. Asynchronous -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBLuq6yFG1rORFKstdAQH54wP/SaiMFKwz2UzjMdnhVK1HiBW2qSNs6NWC 5ENgEHod+n4ngfsx+miYMzmzDq2GmJ/KbvfMQjDFZiIcsirT2JPcu/YuvLG9AJvy GbO4pY0n/Mky8m1V66OxTxnVjb5CaGpRvbxrOKzAMx7CQMBGRfbdlHpPjtLWfpLf l0xwy9yoCVU= =Loxi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 4

Children's Books Mentioning Privacy
by DarScott＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tuesday I will be giving a talk on Children's Books with Freedom Themes, but I have not found anything on e-mail privacy or privacy in general. Any suggestions? Fiction or Nonfiction. Dar Scott

2 1

Re: Hal Finney & Bob Rae and Ontario's Parliament
by L. McCarthy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Richard Martin writes: > The article below is what I posted to ont.general myself this evening. [...] > PGP, a fully legal encryption program which the Ontario > government could use FOR FREE, Is this true ? According to the PGP 2.6.1 User's Guide: "The freeware version of PGP is only for personal, non-commercial use -- all other users in the USA and Canada must obtain a fully licensed version of PGP from ViaCrypt. [...] If you have a need to use PGP in a commercial or Government setting, and ViaCrypt has a version of PGP for your hardware platform, you should get ViaCrypt PGP." - - -L. Futplex McCarthy - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.1 iQCVAwUBLuv85mf7YYibNzjpAQErsgQA4h1OvxrfiPemA6CqN1gkVpdmoTIxOnEg pOZ2Oa4rCCqNTMqmhEXw98H46c+sQDFv+WXSQEj9Q94X3nTtKBpBIRMQ7L0Etu4U hd9OyadA0Z45I+igeq2UpOeQw+UP97dFtCabZZhrRgcGFZQMUi8eVLqRESxKtU2V 88tOztqzcZY= =FYp4 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBLuv+DioZzwIn1bdtAQFDhgF/VA6FDH1i05pB20ofLQA+sihJTukUI/6m Mb1taTvGIqDmgPW1YP9nQbWGgjQ3OvAj =HMza -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

extra dashes in PGP-related blocks?
by jrochkin＠cs.oberlin.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

When people have been posting their public keys, or encrypted address blocks, to various lists I'm on, all of the "-----BEGIN whatever..." lines seem to have a "- " preppended to them. So, for instance, they look like: - -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: 2.6.2 [stuff] - -----END PGP MESSAGE----- I'm guessing if I really sent a block like that to a remailer, the remailer would hork because of the prepended "- "s. I know that sometimes people's public keys they've posted to a list look like that, and when I try to add them to PGP, it horks, and I've got to go into a text editor and remove the "- ", and then add it to my keyring. Does anyone know what it is that's putting in these "- "s, why it's putting them in, and how to stop it?

4 8

remailer list
by fhalper＠pilot.njin.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What's the ftp site where I can obtain the latest copy of the list of remailers? Thanks, -RH- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reuben Halper I'm not growing up, I'm just burnin' out." Montclair High - Green Day - Montclair, NJ E-mail: fhalper(a)pilot.njin.net PGP 2.6ui Public Key available upon request ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

oh, and by the way...
by perry＠imsi.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I forgot one element of my proposed alternative to SSL. For securing HTML documents themselves, use something like the new IETF security multiparts standard, which is suitable for protecting MIME encapsulated documents. .pm

1 0

Re: alt.anonymous.messages propagation
by cactus＠seabsd.hks.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- L. McCarthy <lmccarth(a)ducie.cs.umass.edu> wrote: >Hmmm, does MIT get alt.anonymous at least ? I understand alt.anonymous was >created to serve a purpose similar to that of alt.privacy.anon-server, but >at the moment it's a de facto equivalent of alt.anonymous.messages. >alt.anonymous is somewhat better propagated than a.a.m, from what I've heard. Nope, no alt.anonymous. 'Leastaways, not off the servers that the turist accounts use. And since I configured news on the machine, I'd love to hear if there are MIT servers that have a larger set than life.ai's. >You should request one or both groups from the MIT news admins. If users there >want to read the group, they'll likely be quite happy to carry it. Alas, I am but a turist at MIT, though one who helps maintain the turist machine. I'll be looking at getting a real newsfeed from elsewhere, but asking the MIT newsadmins for favors isn't in the cards. If anybody here has a bit of a stronger standing on campus, their asking would be way cool. >I'm a fairly well-known regular in alt.config, and I believe I can probably >recruit some prominent news admins to send booster newgroup messages for >alt.anonymous.messages. Apart from that, it's a matter of people asking their >local news admins to pick up the group if they aren't already carrying it. That would be a most excellent thing to do, regardless of how it affects my situation. - -- Todd Masco | It's difficult to be loud about keeping your enumerated cactus(a)hks.net | rights when you're busy exercising your unenumerated ones. cactus(a)bb.com | http://www.hks.net/~cactus/cactus.html - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBLuwLBSoZzwIn1bdtAQHxqgGA3WuDp+3/5A8pqGNpFc5UqAVJafaSL7je bUpZDrHpYMXycfCUPAgh+HpxJpCTLWU1 =c8Gt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: BofA+Netscape
by amanda＠intercon.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Amanda complained that Netscape pisses all over the > standardization committees. > > Well guys, the victor has room to move. It must come as a big > shock to Apple, Microsoft, and IBM, but reality is that Netscape > can set WWW standards and they cannot. I disagree. The WWW is no longer a research project, and if it is to survive it will have to do so by consensus, either formal or informal. That's what standards committees, and groups like the IETF, exist to facilitate. The alternative is fragmentation, which we're already starting to see (in part because of Netscape's unilateral changes to HTML). Let me re-iterate something here: I'm biased. I'm a commercial vendor. I'm perfectly happy to live by the sword and die by the sword if that's how the market ends up--I just think it would be better for the Internet as a whole if the actual on-the-wire protocols and formats become standards, so that people don't have to worry about what clients or servers they are talking to. UI, performance, service, and such are fair game. Infastructure has to be consensus-based or it fails. But hey, if Netscape can innovate by fiat, so can anyone else. Right now, I'm betting that Netscape will decide it's worth cooperating with the standards process. If they don't, they'll just fragment their own market. I can live with that, but I think it would be a shame. Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation

4 10