December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: NSA Rainbow Series.
by Moroni 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Zip,NAda,Nothing. And they have more too. They were backlogged so some people haven't gotten their mail since I last posted about. I called yesterday about my videos and posters and lo and behold I received my two tech manuals today. The people who answer the lines are friendly and usually pretty industrious in getting things out or done. By the way there is supposed to be a department split in the near future so I don't know if manuals will be in one department and posters in another or what. On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Tobin Fricke wrote: > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:03:35 -0800 > From: Tobin Fricke <tobin(a)edm.net> > To: Moroni <moroni(a)scranton.com>, Genocide <gen2600(a)aracnet.com> > Cc: Cypherpunks Mailing List <cypherpunks(a)toad.com> > Subject: Re: NSA Rainbow Series. > > > 1-800-688-6115 press 0 or just wait for the operator. My second > > order consisting of posters and video has not arrived either. It has been > > about 6 weeks. The Rainbow order was only 2 weeks. Be prepared that when > > you order the Rainbow series you will be getting a large box.Their are > > something like 30+ booklets in the series. > > There is a set of security posters that include a Santa > > poster.And there is also a video with two films on it (Acess Ins and outs > > adb Acess Control). > > How much does all this stuff from the NSA cost? > > Tobin Fricke > (please reply privately, tobin(a)mail.edm.net) > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x No success can compensate for failure in the home. x x x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

1 0

Private property rights on cypherpunks (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:58:42 -0500 (EST) > From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)pathfinder.com> > Subject: Private property rights on cypherpunks > I forward articles to cypherpunks that are copyrighted by my employers, or > magazines like Playboy and Wired for which I write freelance pieces. > > I like to think these articles have some value. I will not forward any of > them, nor would I be able to, if they magically became "public domain." > > "De facto public domain" is an idea that deserves to die. Now. Really? Do you have a priori permission from your publisher, who owns those stories, to distribute them elsewhere? If not please explain why I or any other person should be a willing acomplice? You could also still post them anonymously. You could also simply include a 'fair use' proviso somewhere. In such a case it would be in your publishers best interest to require a copyright notice. In that case there is no confusion about who owns those rights. Especialy when you consider the traffic is global which means your 'implied copyright' here don't mean squat there. I suspect just about every place that recognizes a copyright recognizes an explicit one. Instead of "De facto public domain should die" how about, "Implied a priori contracts should die now" Lord a mighty, haven't you heard? Information wants to be free. Let the thing go. If you really think your words are something that will someday win a Nobel or make Mr. Bill look like a pauper note it explicitly. However, it would seem to me that implicit copyright works against the axiomatic crypto-icon. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

2 1

Transmission of Crypto material and ITAR
by Benjamin Grosman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear All, I have a question regarding the impossible enforcement of ITAR/EAR: Naturally I cannot download crypto software from the US, but most of these sites have mirrors in other countries, such as the UK for PGP, and sweden and finland for lots of things. However, with the way that information is routed throughout the internet from these sites, whenever I, in Australia, request packets containing this data from the UK etc, it invariably passes through the US from coast to coast! Therefore, if ITAR/EAR tries to govern that, aren't they really trying to enforce something totally unenforcable? Surely they cannot expect all gateways operated by, say, Sprint and MCI to packet sniff 'n' search? Can anyone tell me what the ruling is with regards to this? Yours Sincerely, Benjamin Grosman ---------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Grosman - Programmer, Magna Data Internet Solutions Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. [Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.] ----------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

How to make majordomo request confirmations of subscriptions?
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi All, I would like to set up my majordomo to request subscription confirmations from users, by sending them a cookie. Looking at the majordomo config files, I have not found such option. Ideally I would like to have a system that a) requires the new users confirm new subscriptions and b) once in a while as users to confirm their existing subscriptions. Is there any way to do it? Thank you. - Igor.

2 1

How to make majordomo request confirmations of subscriptions?
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi All, I would like to set up my majordomo to request subscription confirmations from users, by sending them a cookie. Looking at the majordomo config files, I have not found such option. Ideally I would like to have a system that a) requires the new users confirm new subscriptions and b) once in a while as users to confirm their existing subscriptions. Is there any way to do it? Thank you. - Igor.

2 1

Re: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:22:28 -0800 > From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Re: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" > I was making the point that _any_ site distributing a list is likely to > face legal pressures not to carry certain items. Read between the lines (or > read the unedited list) the discussion by John Gilmore, Sandy Sandfort, and > the products of Sandy's company, and legal pressures applied, to see what I > mean. This is exactly the reason that my suggestion to anyone setting up a remailer with any sort of controversial content should do it as some sort of outreach of their business. It is too expensive in time, money, and hassles to do for grins and giggles. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

2 1

Re: anonymity and e-cash
by Hal Finney 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: tcmay(a)got.net (Tim May) > You missed a very good talk by Ian Goldberg of UC Berkeley at the Saturday > Cypherpunks meeting at Stanford, where Ian talked for more than an hour on > just this issue. (He also talked for an hour on his crack of the RSA > challenge using 250 workstations...this was also a good talk.) I wish I could have heard that, it sounds good... A simple idea we have discussed for full anonymity uses the idea of exchanging coins at the bank. You make an anonymous connection to the bank, supply some ecash you have received along with some blinded new ecash. The bank verifies that the ecash is good and signs your blinded ecash, sending it back to you. You unblind it and have good, fresh smelling ecash which you can keep, spend, or later deposit in your account. If the merchant performs this exchange operation on-line as soon as he receives ecash, then his anonynmity is protected. The customer is protected too, by the blinding he used when he withdrew the ecash earlier. So both sides remain anonymous. It sounds like Ian may have worked out details of a system where third parties do these exchanges. Banks may be reluctant to allow them for liability reasons, and the market, abhoring the vacuum, will supply intermediaries who perform exchanges for a fee. Resolving the various forms of cheating is the hard part. When Lee asks about a signed receipt, it is hard to understand what is the point if the seller is fully anonymous! A signed receipt from a freshly-minted key is not of much use to anyone. If the participants are using persistant pseudonyms then whatever reputation capital they have can be put on the line when cheating happens, although it still may be hard to tell who cheated whom. Did the customer pass bad cash and claim it was good, or did the merchant deposit good cash and claim it was bad? The same thing could happen every day at the supermarket, of course. A customer insists they paid $20 but got change for a $10. If dozens of customers say the same thing has happened to them, we start to mistrust the market, while if several businesses say this particular customer has made the same claim to them, we blame the customer. Hal

2 1

Re: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks"
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > > > It is too late to stop alt.cypherpunks, but if I had to make a > > > prediction again, I would predict that soon posters will BEG to help > > > them create comp.*.cypherpunks, because of spam and alt.flamage. > > > > Timmy has a valid point: the reason why a comp.* newsgroup might have less > > cross-posted and "off-topic" crap is because net.cops would be more > > likely to complain to posters' sysadmins. Having a charter state that > > cypherpunks have technical means to ignore traffic they don't like, > > and don't need anyone forging cancels or complaining to sysadmins > > or otherwise getting silenced, is a good idea. > > I don`t believe for one moment that, however well intentioned such a > move would be, it would work. The most notorious net.cops who > thoroughly deserve the (spit) after their name would take little > notice of such a charter and take it upon themselved to "act in the > best interests of the usenet community" That is not necessarily true. I asked Chris Lewis to not cancel any articles in soc.culture.russian.moderated (of which I am one of moderators) and it did not cause any problem. I was very pleased by his reaction. - Igor.

1 0

Re: Need a good bi-directional mail-news gateway
by Jonathan M. Bresler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

much as the irony of the idea appeals, i am not in a position to offer a host/machine to run the list. i *can* offer what i have learned from running the FreeBSD mailing lists for 2+ years. so who has a host/machine, that we can use ;) jmb >At 3:18 pm -0500 2/12/97, Jonathan M. Bresler <jmb(a)frb.gov> wrote: > ^^^^^^^ >> your expected mail volume is 100,000+ messages a day? >> >> i run lists that do 200,000+ routinely. >> recent peak of 350,000 messages >> >> does that meet your needs? > >Great. > >Let's run cypherpunks with a government subsidy. > >;-). > >Pulling your leg, just a bit.. > >Cheers, >Bob Hettinga > >"So much for a geodesic monitary system..." > > >----------------- >Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox >e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA >"Never attribute to conspiracy what can be >explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle >The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ >FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ > >

1 0

Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s)
by Kent Crispin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ichudov(a)algebra.com allegedly said: > > Firebeard wrote: > > > > >>>>> Igor Chudov @ home writes: > > > > IC> This is where the distributed nature of the list comes in. if > > IC> someone disagrees with Jim's AUP, he or she can use soem other > > IC> mailing list host. > > > > And once I'm up and running, my cypherpunks list server will > > not be interconnected with any server which has a similar AUP. The > > implication of the AUP is that if you _don't_ comply with it, you will > > be blocked. Without such an implication, the AUP is meaningless, and > > I'm dedicated that there should be no filtering/blocking of any kind, > > of the list. Persons behaving 'unacceptably' should be handled by > > social pressures by others in the 'community' of the list, and not by > > policies of the list operators. > > Which is, again, a perfectly fine idea. > > I would probably disconnect from any server that > > a) does not let certain messages go through (unless they are fighting a DOS > attack) and > b) Alters content of any messages. > I can understand this sentiment, given the events of the past couple of months, but it seems short-sighted. If this scheme grows there could be several hundred or more mailers involved, and there is no technical reason why moderated lists couldn't be included. Remember that each list operator actually represents a community of users, users who are *free* to go elsewhere if they choose. Clearly, some people would chose to populate a filtered list. There is no reason whatsoever to discriminate against them. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F

1 0