December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Netscape sub rosa?
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:30 AM 9/20/95 -0700, you wrote: > >Gee, where's that "Cypherpunks logo" when you really need it? > >A rose covering the Netscape "N" logo? A crypto eagle swooping down and >pecking at weak keys? > >Netscape sub rosa? Or a big burning Netscape logo? Or an NSA agent licking the hot end of an electrical power cord for a Cray? Or a picture of a lock with a big bullet hole through it? Oh no! Not the "Logo Wars(tm)" again! | Visualize whirled keys | alano(a)teleport.com | |"It's only half a keyserver. I had to split the | Disclaimer: | |other half with the government man." - Black Art | Ignore the man | | -- PGP 2.6.2 key available on request -- | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano | <fnord> |

1 0

Re: EFF $10,000,0000 Challenge
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> At 17:31 05/09/97 GMT, bureau42 Anonymous Remailer wrote: > >-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- > >Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 > >MessageID: od2CIT3fELE7K6bkIkKGJBj0MPUJ2TT8 > > > >hQCMA6ozRjzmqceZAQQAh02x0Dxer5vzZiSJ+v7bnMZQdgp425z5OH0NF/f/mXXc > >vInw+UsuTXqWNEV5rEQKYjU3qHoe6suCz5f9hEEnOIBacsD28pYU4ahkGOCTuTY6 > >N3xKrtDRqLPInB8PY7Kfd56jjQsVVRKmJBwXqHbPax4YyUB6ZbKKvSPiuUsAAQSl > >BAH3CFNKcmYjf+VtpjAVOpDNM/PMm1e6m33rZ01Sq6pXC0TTabCf7hkWscet0PCL > >VX0l1Zw5IKaFqo+pZ3EICRMF6HQrc30G7L9TFeKr//3YsO3/bC4VBgNQHA0qf2nD > >ldxAsTGPlRthBTxrzE0LjeOKi/pQOLXQMPQUwEIaL9rncjFgniplFoL6Nj0guJvW > >VvS+gxth8hpeWss7WlFFioV0vShsS/lahA+eg/9nVy8ken8pr4m484w2vwoiSdce > >CarVigVaRh6tCgh0jub7CHuDFg== > >=Q9+G > >-----END PGP MESSAGE----- > > I have brute-forced this message with my NSA-surplus CrayVax (TM) and determined its contents are as follows: Nuke Washington D.C. Now. Please. Do it for me. -- TruthMonger To the EFF (Electronic Forgery Foundation): Please get in contact with me via the remailer network for instructions on where to send my $10M. Here's my PLP key: -----BEGIN PLP PRIVATE KEY----- Version: Pretty Lousy Privacy v6.66 Comments: No Comment UPghm21YcptuKTiUHPwTn4xSjMKfsfVDRKwKWtx1teuauHiM/IBzWMH5+nhxhVjO gOuUIXkcJXcjr1yG2QVGWLJndKBHC3wI/eRC5zYaQGwtz97hpQ9iAJl9hpIYoeKi R/Qe8eC8vQnyOCx7Gare+OuoqLRJj5IvvS3BDShb1mr3s3U1LVEhmI9kS5br6NWY V1J3l2hCk8cdqDRZmgjUoq32mAwK/vTbijCg5Yk1CCkXO3mvia3rNeVdrYJ3/Pv9 t2jHIlAL0qAyJQMdz2qFcmvLOxB3ZiZhA+VYDaeXZ5TZNEz/K+TSU8brMInfaUKi P/R/4YerdYjN8/10xz/j/gJjgIkEddToUYjt2VQDv8E/xcXT0YJZhNWIT/u+MHVF ns9RWIH5J+UxcKPUPjDB7WvuO4+WvoT5xCtPbQhUlpuJrDfWLCjUd6orzovr6yZx HcxBSl8EGy4oULWi5ztrw1fyXm4AmpDB5QNgmWcILIbWNDOAePqxvrAjJEhLHQar y6eHYoL/nuOQonZsB66DhXnlXSghBGp+sNs3XXIOkKHtbPk1jqT9MHg9oe7OwiA4 mcQUpM3XKOPUXcMwEtRzDJnIaeZo3xbwRnmdSaGAyPujFJdz58QLHOte2pcSAkrA Jtrs+SrhZw== =zXsO -----END PLP PRIVATE KEY-----

2 1

Re: Munitions shirt (again)
by liberty＠gate.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Ian Goldberg wrote: <snip> >>So, any consensus as to whether it's actually illegal to do so? I >>remember some disagreement a few weeks ago that AFAIK wasn't resolved. And Tim replied: >The _consensus_ here seems to be: "This t-shirt is illegal to wear in front >of non-Americans," judging by the comments here. And since _I_ started all this trouble with a private e-mail to Futplex; I'll now jump in saying again, [IANAL]: "This t-shirt may or may not be illegal to wear in front of non-Americans," from my reading a while back of the dense text of this silly law, [I'll spare all of you a quote of it, but there's text that MIGHT be interpreted that way.] >The _reality_ is quite different, I think, and the "this shirt is illegal" >hype is, in my opinion, just that, hyperbole. I agree with Tim that actual enforcement of this silly a law is unlikely, especially in Ian's case right now, and *especially* during our US (election) "silly season," for obvious reasons. The availability of strong encryption is unlikely to be a major issue during this election cycle, despite Cypherpunk efforts, and enforcement of this dumb law would be a "gift" to those of us who think it should be. [I hope I'm wrong here, but I think you're safe, Ian.:)] >Even hyperbull, too. I wouldn't go *that* far, though. Poorly written, ambiguous, statist<g> laws can be interpreted in any number of ways and for a variety of reasons having little (or nothing) to do with justice. <sigh> JMR <snip> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Freedom isn't Freeh iQCVAwUBMGBvrW1lp8bpvW01AQFj1AP8C1RKpayv6V15sTBLiFLWV4tlfWRUuLfm JVWgeUeHUFxBV1EttbGv30iTmwlCJmBab/wLUag9S57DLZ6Ajed7jQe0rpra56Nl OgmM1gGU8nJJazYeqiWbYrOc/VSheSqQVLAj+vOoufW8XnU1iFkXQnRziCcyO2Nc bto4hKBrFWY= =qlSx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Regards, Jim Ray "Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced." -- James Baldwin ----------------------------------------------------------------------- PGP key Fingerprint 51 5D A2 C3 92 2C 56 BE 53 2D 9C A1 B3 50 C9 C8 Key id. # E9BD6D35 James Milton Ray <liberty(a)gate.net> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Help Phil! email zldf(a)clark.net or see http://www.netresponse.com/zldf _______________________________________________________________________

1 0

Unsecured Credit Card-Approval Guaranteed
by kehazo＠sprintmail.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For removal, please put remove on subject line and email me at Endless(a)Gosnet.com *Don't press reply, it won't get back to me. Follow instructions down below. UNSECURED MAJOR INTERNATIONAL CREDIT CARD NOW AVAILABLE!!!! GUARANTEED Approval from Offshore Financial Institution. *Extremely Low Current Annual Percentage Rate. *Minimum $5,000.00 Credit Limit. *Credit Lines offered thur bank after credit has been established. *No Social Security Number Required! *NO CREDIT CHECKS! *No Income Verification! *Complete Financial Privacy*NO REPORTING, PERIOD* *EVEN BANKRUPTCY O.K.! *Worldwide Network Marketing Opportunity. *$100.00U.S. processing fee for credit card. This information has only recently been released! Wonderful marketing opportunity to those interested! Possibility of earning $6,941.25 monthly per paid position with 25.00 fast start bonuses paid weekly. *DON'T REPLY WITH YOUR REPLY BOTTON* TO OBTAIN INFO ON THIS OPPORTUNITY: 1)Email me at user2384(a)xsend.com -Please Include name, Phone #, and email address. -Please put "MORE INFO" ON SUBJECT LINE, if you don't the reply will take longer. 2)If email comes back undeliverable please leave message at (805)675-8565. 3) Also have similar company that is on shore, but requires S.S.# and offers more services. 4) Website at Http://www.gosnet.com/endless -can find much info there, but site may not be up at this time. You may need to try later.

1 0

A message from Joe Six-Pack
by m5＠dev.tivoli.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well, the original sender of this is actually anything but "Joe Six-Pack"; his taste in beer is well-developed, and he's no moron. This is, however, an interesting take on the Netscape thing from a non-cypherpunk. He came across the Community ConneXion press release and responded: ------- start of forwarded message (RFC 934 encapsulation) ------- From: XXXXX Subject: Re: Fwd: HackNetscape promotion (fwd) >For Immediate Release >Contact: sameer(a)c2.org 510-601-9777 > >COMMUNITY CONNEXION OFFERS REWARD FOR EXPOSING ENCRYPTION FLAWS > >Sept 19 1995 - Community ConneXion ... Am I the only one who finds this silly? All this fuss about credit card encryption is such BS. My totally unencrypted credit card number is in the hands of brain-dead minimum-wage waitrons and green-haired retail clerks dozens of times a week with no encryption. Gas station attendants, restaurant clerks, supermarkets and banks have the number, and an unscrupulous type could use it and hose me at any time. I've had credit cards for 15 years and nothing like that has ever happened. If it does, I'm out $50 and a bunch of pain in the butt phone calls. So the thought of some geek with a LAN sniffer and too much time on his hands sucking simply encrypted numbers off the internet does not exactly make my heart go pitter-pat. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | Nobody's going to listen to you if you just | Mike McNally (m5(a)tivoli.com) | | stand there and flap your arms like a fish. | Tivoli Systems, Austin TX | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Cpunks War Dance, Feinstein Hari-Kari
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/090697patent.html A Patent Falls, and the Internet Dances By Peter Wayner >From the beginning, though, patent 4,200,770 was different. This Saturday night a group of computer scientists, Internet fanatics and Beltway politicos will gather in Washington, D.C.; Silicon Valley; and Boston to celebrate the end of the patent granted to Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman for a way to encrypt data. ---------- http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/090697feinstein.html Feinstein's Remarks Rankle Constituents By Laurie J. Flynn If Dianne Feinstein, California's voice in the U.S. Senate, were looking for the fastest way to alienate her most powerful block of voters, she may have found it this week.

3 2

Re: Linking = Showing = Transferring?
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:18 PM 9/20/95 +0200, you wrote: >> Browser in the US, text in US, crypto gif imported from UK, both legal. >> >> Browser outside US, text in US, crypto gif imported from UK, both legal. >> >> See a flaw in that? > >Not directly, but... what if for some strange reason the image is routed >through US gateways on its way from the UK to, for example, Germany? >I mean, The Net (tm) is a strange beast, and you can rarely tell which way >the message flows... you can't even DO anything about it. It can get pretty weird. A friend did a traceroute on a site across town. It was relayed half-way across the world to get there. (Through Poland or some such absurdity.) It seems that no matter what you do, you are breaking the law... | Minister of Forced Caffinization in the DNRC | alano(a)teleport.com | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmerman unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | | -- PGP 2.6.2 key available on request -- | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano | <fnord> |

1 0

Bill C-95
by Mike Duvos 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jf_avon(a)citenet.net writes: > FOCUS: If 97% of Canadians are being pushed around by 3%, > there is something seriously wrong !! If 0.00001% of a society is being pushed around by 99.99999%, there is something seriously wrong. The most important part of any democracy are the checks and balances which prevent the majority from imposing their will on the minority over things which are none of the majority's business. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ enoch(a)zipcon.com $ via Finger $ {Free Cypherpunk Political Prisoner Jim Bell}

1 0

PKP Lawsuit Settled: Both Sides Claim Victory
by Bruce Schneier 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It looks as though the PKP suit is finally over, with both sides claiming victory. Is the decision public? Can someone in California get a copy of it and find out what really was decided. Bruce ***************************************************************************** SUNNYVALE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 18, 1995--An Arbitration Panel has determined that RSA Data Security Inc. licensed software products, practicing public-key technology to third parties without the legal rights necessary to the patents covering the technology. The decision, issued on Sept. 6, 1995, came in a binding arbitration between RSA and CYLINK Corp., which formed the partnership known as Public Key Partners (PKP) on April 6, 1990. The purpose of forming PKP was to establish a security standard and jointly license security patents to leading vendors in the high-tech industry. CYLINK has indicated that it will enforce the binding decision in Federal Court. "The ruling exposes everyone of RSA's OEM customers -- from the time PKP was formed in 1990 until the patents expire -- to the liability for patent infringement," said Robert Fougner, general counsel, CYLINK. "Because of the widespread interest in public key technology, this ruling has enormous implications for the entire high-tech industry, impacting the future of all electronic information exchanges including electronic commerce and banking. The panel's decision vindicates our position that RSA Security Inc. has been improperly licensing technology which they did not have the necessary rights to." The fundamental patents covering public key technology (Merkle-Hellman and Rivest-Shamir-Adelman) had been held by the PKP partnership since 1990. Effective Sept. 6, 1995, however, the arbitration ruled that PKP was dissolved and the broadest of the public key patents (invented at Stanford University and which cover all known implementations of public key technology) revert from PKP back to CYLINK. The panel further ruled that RSA Data Security Inc. could not grant its software customers the right to make any copies of RSA-authored software implementing Stanford public key technology. In an order issued Sept. 12, 1995, the arbitrators said that "the intent of the order is to clarify that to the extent a (RSA software) licensee makes copies of the code (whether source or object), it is not protected as a result of the order from a claim that the making of such copies is a `making' under the patent laws upon which a claim for infringement of the Stanford patents can be based." "Cylink will assert the rights to the Stanford patents vigorously," said David Morris, vice president of marketing, CYLINK. "The investors of public key cryptography, especially Martin Hellman of Stanford University, have never gotten a fair return for their ground breaking invention. Since the formation of PKP, RSA Data Security Inc. had been granting software rights which allowed licensees to copy and modify the programs, but without paying PKP or the inventors a royalty for those rights." Arbitration Ruling The Stanford University patents include the Hellman-Merkle patent, the first public key patent making the broadest claim of cryptography, a security technique that ensures privacy, authentication and the integrity of electronic information. Because the Hellman-Merkle patent claims cover all implementations of public key techniques, including the techniques known as RSA. To avoid risk of a patent infringement suit under the Stanford patents, any vendor who has purchased a license from RSA since April 6, 1990, or is contemplating the purchase of an RSA license and is distributing software or hardware covered by the Stanford University patents, must now obtain a license to the Hellman-Merkle patent from CYLINK for their continued use. Customers who would like to contact CYLINK about existing and future licenses should call Robert Fougner, General Counsel, at 408/735-5800. Background Information: On April 6, 1990, RSA and CYLINK formed PKP to establish a security standard, and jointly license security patents to leading vendors in the high-tech industry. The security technology business is unusual in that it is based on patents to which only these two companies have rights. The patents originally developed at Stanford University (Diffie-Hellman, Hellman-Merkle and Hellman-Pohling) broadly claim the invention of public-key cryptography. Another patent, invented at MIT (Rivest-Shamir-Adelman) claims a particular implementation of public key cryptography using the algorithm known as "RSA." In 1994, CYLINK initiated the arbitration against RSA, claiming that RSA's licensing practices exceeded RSA's rights under the patents and violated the agreements forming PKP. CYLINK further claimed that it was denied a promised license to the RSA patent when PKP was formed. Among other rulings, the arbitrators ruled that an April 1990 document grants CYLINK a patent license to the RSA patent. CYLINK Corp. is the world's largest provider of enterprise-wide network information security products and wireless communications. Headquartered in Sunnyvale, CYLINK serves Fortune 500 companies, multinational financial institutions and many international government agencies. --30--crd/sf* jar/sf CONTACT: Cylink Corporation, Sunnyvale Kim Rose, 408/774-6447 *************************************************************************** REDWOOD CITY, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 19, 1995--An Arbitration Panel recently ruled that Cylink does not have a license to RSA patented technology, that RSA's software licensing practices do not breach any agreement with Cylink or its wholly owned subsidiary Caro-Kann and that RSA now has the exclusive right to license the RSA patent. In a Sept. 6, 1995 ruling, an Arbitration Panel, formed by agreement of the parties, and after nearly a month of testimony, ruled in favor of RSA on every significant issue. The Panel held that neither Cylink nor Caro-Kann had a license to practice RSA patented technology. Cylink admittedly incorporates this technology in its Secure X.25 product line, without any license to do so. The Panel also found that RSA's software licensing practices did not materially breach any of Cylink's rights. The Panel did not rule that anyone, (specifically including RSA and its software customers) infringed any existing patent rights of anyone - including Cylink. As a result of the Panel's ruling, RSA now has the exclusive right to license the patented RSA technology. According to Jim Bidzos, the President of RSA, "RSA will continue to conduct its software business in exactly the same way that it has for the past ten years. "In addition, RSA anticipates that licenses to the RSA Patent will now be much more readily available, because they now can now be granted without Cylink interference. RSA has all of the intellectual property rights which it needs to license its software. RSA will vigorously defend against any claim to the contrary." A recent Cylink press release on the Ruling of the Arbitration Panel is wildly inaccurate. The same Robert Fougner (Cylink's General Counsel) who is cited in the Cylink press release has repeatedly made express representations to third parties that the Stanford Patents do not cover, and are not infringed by, the manufacture, use or sale of products incorporating RSA's TIPEM software developer's toolkit. As noted by Mr. Bidzos: "Cylink lost every single significant issue in the Arbitration. Their press release was simply an attempt to cover up what has been a crushing defeat." Questions regarding the Arbitration Panel Ruling or RSA licenses should be directed to Kurt Stammberger, RSA Technology Marketing Manager, or Paul Livesay, RSA Director of Legal Affairs. --30--as/sf* CONTACT: RSA Kurt Stammberger, 415/595-8782 kurt(a)rsa.com

1 0

076l-090597-idx.html
by Damaged Justice 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[1][LINK] _________________________________________________________________ [2]Business Section: the latest business headlines, company profiles and advice for managing your money. [3]Stocks Page: instant stock quotes, mutual fund quotes, market data and free personalized online portfolios. All Business stories and columns from [4]this morning's Washington Post and an image of the Business section front. [5][ISMAP]-[6][USEMAP] _________________________________________________________________ OTS Eyes Challenges of Rule-Making for `Virtual Banks' By Cindy Skrzycki Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, September 5, 1997; Page G01 The Washington Post The advent of virtual banking -- in which customers may deal with their banks only through computers -- has prompted federal regulators to begin revamping existing rules regarding electronic transactions. Although banks have been dabbling in home banking and automated teller machines for more than a decade, only about 4 percent of U.S. households conduct their banking transactions online, and many of those may be doing such simple tasks as checking an account balance. Since 1995, two "cyberspace" banks have come online, offering services such as the electronic transfer of funds between accounts and bill paying on the Internet. Other more traditional banks are buying the same sorts of software to offer more electronic banking services to their customers, often as an adjunct to traditional services. Banking regulators expect electronic banking -- and the forms it will take -- to grow exponentially now that millions of Americans are hooked into the Internet. "We are examining whether there is anything in our rules that impedes electronic banking and the use of technology," said Nicholas Retsinas, director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, who is heading the agency on an interim basis. The OTS regulates 1,270 federally chartered savings banks and state-chartered savings and loans. "What can we do to facilitate the use of electronic banking?" Retsinas has written frequently about the expanding role of technology in banking, pointing out the profitability of using computers: A teller transaction can cost up to $2.93; an Internet transaction, 2 cents. In April, the OTS began examining rules it has had on the books since the 1980s covering home banking, automated teller machines and data processing. "OTS is concerned that its current electronic banking regulations do not adequately address advances in technology and may impede prudent innovation by federal savings associations," the agency said, promising it will have a proposal ready next month. "We promulgated some rules where we wondered whether the language was appropriate, let alone the rule," Retinas said, referring to "data processing," a vintage term that hardly begins to capture the potential scope of electronic transactions. The agency also was confronted with an increasing number of questions by its banking constituency. Was it all right to offer Internet banking to depositors living abroad? Could savings and loans open accounts for customers or issue loans from remote electronic locations? What kinds of banking services could be offered over the Internet? These kinds of queries prompted the OTS to delve into several areas where current regulations are murky, or nonexistent. For example, the OTS is trying to figure out whether automated loan machines, which allow customers to apply and receive confirmation for a consumer loan at a site similar to an ATM, should be considered branches or something akin to an ATM -- though loans cannot now be originated at ATMs. The OTS also wonders whether its current regulation on home banking services covers transactions such as opening new accounts online or processing credit applications. The agency is considering the philosophical quandaries presented by the borderless nature of banking in cyberspace. How does a bank with no bricks and mortar define community for purposes of fulfilling mortgage-lending obligations to minority groups under federal laws such as the Community Reinvestment Act? "How does an institution demonstrate that is serving the credit needs of a widely dispersed customer base when there is little or no geographic proximity between its deposit customers and its loan customers?" the OTS asked. Then there are questions of security. The OTS wonders whether it should mandate a specific level of encryption to make transactions impenetrable or "rely on general safety and soundness principles to govern a safe system of operation?" Does it need separate regulations for various forms of electronic banking that might be done over the phone, with special software on a personal computer or on the Internet? Some of these questions the OTS has already had to answer. Since 1995, the OTS has approved two "Internet" banks -- Security First Network Bank (SFNB) in Atlanta and the Atlanta Internet Bank. Both offer an array of banking services and rates that are highly competitive with "real" banks. One of the first concerns that the OTS had was the security of systems used by the Internet banks. SFNB, for example, has about 12,000 accounts and $44 million in deposits. To satisfy regulators that Security First could protect consumers' privacy and the sanctity of transactions being done via the Internet, the OTS asked Security First to "test the penetration capabilities," of the bank, said Eric W. Hartz, president of SFNB. That's another way of saying the OTS wanted to make sure that Security First's Internet banking operations didn't become a playground for hackers. Atlanta Internet had to undergo a similar exercise to get approval from the OTS. Bankers, for the most part, think it's too early to write definitive rules for an area dominated by changing technology, although they would like some current OTS rules changed to accommodate different forms of electronic banking. They also said they hoped to see coordination between the OTS and other agencies that regulate banking, such as the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve Board. As Citibank noted in comments to the OTS, "We strongly encourage the adoption of broad enabling regulations and policy statements," but "we believe that the OTS should not at this time promulgate detailed presciptive or, worse yet, proscriptive rules affecting electronic banking activities." © Copyright 1997 The Washington Post Company [7]Back to the top _________________________________________________________________ WashingtonPost.com [8][ISMAP]-[9]Navigation image map [10][LINK] References 1. http://ads.washingtonpost.com/realmedia/OAS/rm/try-it.try?www.washingtonpos… 2. http://wp2.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/front.htm 3. http://wp2.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/longterm/stocks/stocks.htm 4. http://wp2.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/m-financial.html 5. http://wp2.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/maps/navlong.map 6. LYNXIMGMAP:http://wp2.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1997-09/05/076l-0905… 7. http://wp2.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1997-09/05/076l-090597-idx.html… 8. http://wp2.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/maps/mapfront.map 9. LYNXIMGMAP:http://wp2.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1997-09/05/076l-0905… 10. http://ads.washingtonpost.com/realmedia/OAS/rm/try-it.try?www.washingtonpos…

1 0