December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: Desubscribe
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> On Or About: 29 Aug 96, 16:57, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > > jbugden(a)smtplink.alis.ca writes: > > > > can not unsubscribe since majo= rdomo notices > > > jbugden(a)smtplink.alis.ca in the header and treats the attempt to > > > unsubscribe as a forgery. > > > > If you don't have the brains to forge the From:, then you have no > > business being subscribed to any mailing list. > > > What's worse? Losers who can't unsubscribe from a mailing list they subscribed to OR spammers? ;-) Ross

1 0

Nuke Singapore Back into the Stone Age
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:21 PM 8/29/96, Jean-Francois Avon wrote: >I completely disagree here! > >Taking into account the philosophico-political context there, it >*obviously* indicate a *complete* understanding of the nature of the >net. It is you (the writer of the forwarded article) who did not >either dare to state or simply recognize the true nature of a govt >pushing such measures. > >I am fed up of seing net users giving every would-be dictator the >benefit of the doubt. There is no tolerance to be applied to that. >There is no such thing as being tolerent to poison. > >Why don't we start naming things by their true names? I agree with Jean-Francois--most of the recent announcements by governments about the Internet actually indicate *full awareness* of what their actions could mean for the propagation of articles, the extradition of Net.criminals, and the development of a Global New World Computer Order. The United States knew what the CDA would mean, the government of Bavaria knew what the crackdown on "racist" Web sites and newsgroups would mean, the government of Singapore understands full well what their actions could mean, and so on. And it is likely that the "control" advocates in each of these countries (and others) are pleased when one of their brother countries announces new crackdowns on the Net and Web. Very few governments actually like free speech in all of its forms, and certainly the U.S. government does not. Sure, there is lip service paid to "free speech" in the U.S., but the list of illegal things to say keeps getting longer (just last week Clinton illegalized many forms of speech involving cigarettes--what part of "Congress shall make no law" is not being understood here?). As to why so many of the criticisms of such crackdowns use "weasel language," such as the example Jean-Francois disagrees with, well, this is the way the game is played. The alternative to "The government of Singapore fails to understand the nature of the Net and could do grievous harm to it" is not quite so diplomatic: "Fucking statists. Time to nuke 'em back to the stone age." Personally, if this crackdown in Singapore happens, I intend to post various anti-Singapore and anti-Lee Kwan Yew & Sons screeds to various newsgroups that Singaporans might like to read. Then, if the Yew Dynasty decides to pull the plug, it'll be to more and more groups. --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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

Mail to sbinkley@atitech.ca
by Brian Pecic 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You are continualy sending to Scott Binkley (sbinkley(a)atitech.ca) Scott is no longer at ATI so please stop sending to this invalid address. Brian Pecic bpecic(a)atitech.ca

1 0

Re: Clinton follies ideas?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:08 PM 8/28/96 -0500, David E. Smith wrote: >Our esteemed figurehead, Bill Clinton, will be doing >the first stop of his "Road to Victory Tour" campaign >this Friday, just a few blocks from my apartment. Does >anybody have any cool suggestions on things to do to >harass, heckle, or maybe get taken down by the Secret >Service? (Or should I just yell, 'Clinton, you suck!'? :) It's too bad that somebody can't fiddle with his speech tonight, at the end of a page inserting the text, "I'm really sorry that my friend and advisor Dick Morris was caught..." and then replacing the rest of the speech with blank pages... Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: A _REALLY_ Interesting Bet [2]
by nobody＠zifi.genetics.utah.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Gillogly <jim(a)ACM.ORG> wrote: <snip> >Idea Futures is dead, and the torch has passed to Foresight Exchange (FX), >which is at http://www.ideosphere.com/ideosphere/ . You can bet on a number >of political issues (US and other), though not (yet) for real money. IMO, a good cypherpunk goal would be to get that "yet" in, with Chaum's Digicash, before the election. Perhaps Mr. Cate has some ideas in this regard...;) When talking to lawyers one finds the justification for the prohibition to be something like, "it would demean the process." IMNSHO, the nest has already been soiled, and the only effect would be to kill the unwanted phonecalls around suppertime, as I said before. The media would eventually flock to the more-accurate poll, even if it involved the dreaded crass freemarket capitalism of people willingly gambling. <snip> >This doesn't track the polls, which typically ask who the potential voter >would vote for rather than who they think will win the election. Indeed. Also, a prominent candidate (this time) told devotees (last time) to give wrong answers to pollsters when called. While it's still possible, this behavior is much less likely with real money (though with his kinda dough, distortions would be possible for him -- & profitable for others). >Other issues: > >Percentage of popular vote to Dem candidate: 47 >" " Rep " : 44 >" " Other " : 12 > >Note that there may be an opportunity for arbitrage when numbers don't add >up to 100; Last time there was supposedly an arbitrage opportunity between odds in Moscow and those in London [Now THAT'S my kind of bet;) -- I can't lose] according to a W$J article on the subject from years ago. 20 minutes on Alta Vista this morning reveals nothing like this available, Ladbroke's links are hardly there, and I don't know the names of any other bookies in London, or any at all in Moscow. The closest thing was a (braindead) "George" magazine article and a few sites lamenting the lack of possible Presidential gambling. AV didn't even reveal the confusing US university site where some gambling is (or was) going on. Perhaps English c-punks can help us on the odds for all candidates, including the longshots. I think publicity from freeing up this information might be more favorable than publicity about things like porn or Assasination Politics, and the process of setting up a site that reveals the odds in semi-realtime from London/Moscow should not be too difficult, especially if actual gambling is not conducted on the site.

2 1

Win95 HD encryption?
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

My main machine is in the shop and with it are the recently posted instructions how to do file system encryption under Win95. Somebody please email them to me. TIA, --Lucky

1 0

Re: Singapore Global Action Alert (8/29/96)
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:21 PM 8/29/96 -0500, Jean-Francois Avon wrote: >I am fed up of seing net users giving every would-be dictator the >benefit of the doubt. There is no tolerance to be applied to that. >There is no such thing as being tolerent to poison. I don't think this is giving Singapore's rulers the benefit of the doubt. Rather, it is a case of asking politely the first time. Since it is asking him to change a policy of his, it is merely avoiding calling him a shithead in the process. When you want someone to do something voluntarily, it is usually better to start by being polite. It is up to other net-forces to make sure that censorship is ineffective for technical reasons. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Cave ab homine unius libri | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | [Beware the man of one | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | book] - Anonymous Latin | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

2 1

Re: www.anonymizer.com
by bf578＠scn.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >www.anonymizer.com got a nice plug in David Plotnikoff's column in today's >San Jose Mercury News. He quotes Community ConneXion's motto, "Because on >today's Internet, people do know you're a dog." He also mentions its >similarity to anonymous remailers. His capsule review: > >"On the upside, it's very easy to use and it supports gopher and FTP >transfers as well as Web pages. On the downside, it's predictable slow and >pages, bracketed top and bottom with Anonymizer banners, often don't >display quite right." mailto: links take you to a anonymous remailer web page that lets you choose among remailers. news: can be read anonymously but posting doesn't seem to work yet. If converts all links in a page to use the service. Some info does get through , such as your broswer type. Soon, i guess browsers programmers will start passing info there! Don't know what happens with shttp:? anybody tried? Slowness is probably because the "service" is free and they don't have the funds for more horsepower. They do claim that they cache documents, so if one person gets a page from a slow server then everyone else can get it faster. (of course they'd have to be faster!) -- ------------------------------------------ There are no facts, only interpretations. I always wanted to be somebody,

1 0

The few, the proud, the under-quota'd-mailbox US Marine Corps
by Alan Horowitz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 29 Aug 96 3:46:15 -24000 From: MAILER-DAEMON(a)mqg-smtp3.usmc.mil To: alanh(a)infi.net Subject: Undeliverable Message To: "Skeeve Stevens" <skeeve(a)skeeve.net> Cc: <cypherpunks(a)toad.com> Subject: Re: DoJ is poking around Message not delivered to recipients below. Press F1 for help with VNM error codes. VNM3043: BANYAN SERVER@MAG26@2DMAW NEW RIVER VNM3043 -- MAILBOX IS FULL The message cannot be delivered because the recipient's mailbox contains the maximum number of messages, as set by the system administrator. The recipient must delete some messages before any other messages can be delivered. The maximum message limit for a user's mailbox is 10,000. The default message limit is 1000 messages. Administrators can set message limits using the Mailbox Settings function available in the Manage User menu (MUSER). When a user's mailbox reaches the limit, the user must delete some of the messages before the mailbox can accept any more incoming messages. UNDEFINEDI have a military account. Not all govt or military accounts belong to black-helicopter pilots.

2 1

Re: Nuke Singapore Back into the Stone Age
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:55 PM 8/29/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >As to why so many of the criticisms of such crackdowns use "weasel >language," such as the example Jean-Francois disagrees with, well, this is >the way the game is played. The alternative to "The government of Singapore >fails to understand the nature of the Net and could do grievous harm to it" >is not quite so diplomatic: > >"Fucking statists. Time to nuke 'em back to the stone age." Additionally, such statements are not actually directed at the fascists they are addressed to. We are well aware that they won't pay any attention to them. They are addressed to private readers. In that case a good mix of polite argumentation by EFF-type groups and "nuke 'em 'till they glow then shoot 'em in the dark" rhetoric from the rest of us is probably the optimal mix. The goal is to convince a critical mass of people to choose to exercise the freedoms they possess because of all our toys here on the Net. Since people are different, a broad spectrum of argumentation is indicated. DCF "What we seek is not the overthrow of the government but a situation in which it gets lost in the shuffle."

1 0