December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Freemen and Serfs
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> writes: > Nope. I haven't claimed anything about an elite group trading amongst > themselves. > > Rather, those who use the technology will make more money, and save more of > it, and will then be able to hire out those who failed to, and to buy stuff > made by them. How, exactly? We're not talking about computers as "the technology". We mean anonymous remailers, digital cash, Chaumian credentials, steganography, and other cypherpunk technologies. Who is using these technologies to make more money today? Almost no one. The reason is that the market is far too small. You can't put together a business plan and attract the investment needed if there are only a few hundred cypherpunks as customers. > We've been seeing this for a long time. Not a new concept. For example, > those of us who used our skills and investment inclinations to make a lot > of money are not condemned to "trading only with ourselves." We routinely > trade with others. Totally different. The point is not to trade, it is to do so anonymously and confidentially. You yourself are always whining about how you can't buy and sell your stocks privately, all your financial status being known to the state. Cypherpunk technologies are useless unless all parties to a transaction are using them. If even one party is subject to government or criminal surveillance then other participants will be forced to report the transaction as well. The only hope for these technologies is to spread the base of people using them. It doesn't do any good to use anonymous ecash if no one will accept it for payment. You can't make a living as a nym until there are enough people using these technologies that a business can succeed via anonymous contracting. It all depends on getting a critical mass of users.

4 3

Re: Pasting in From:
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> : So, I propose a compromise: What if I enable pasting of From:, >> : but if a From: header is pasted in, a short disclaimer is a >> : added to the beginning of the body of the message. >> : Would that mess anyone up? I think this would be >> : sufficient to avoid most problems with "forging". News and email are two separate cases. For news, there's almost no reason for a poster who wants his real name and address in a message to use an anonymous remailer; maybe something like posting with your Juno email on the message rather than your work email. But you can put your real email address in the message body if you want to do that, so not having that feature in a remailer is no restriction on the legitimate user. There are lots of reasons to forge someone else's name :-) So if the remailers don't support From: pasting, it's no loss. Similarly, for Reply-To: and Sender: and Path: and Received: and maybe a few other occasionally-forged header fields. Adding a disclaimer to the beginning of the message is no problem; adding it to the headers is useless, since almost nobody reads them, especially the kind of shoot-from-the-hip flamers you want to avoid. For email, perhaps you don't want the address to be visible during the first few hops in an encrypted remailer path, but you do still want one of your addresses to be there for the recipient. Again, you can put it in the message body yourself. There's a little less risk of pasting in headers on mail to individuals, but forged mail to mailing lists and mail2news relays is still a problem, and you definitely can't expect remailers to recognize mailing lists. There are also minor problems, like forging the From: address on mail to president(a)whitehouse.gov, which are better avoided this way even if you do also add disclaimers. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com Regular Key PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

3 2

Re: Bill Stewart kills babies after he molests them. Honest! /
by Charlie Comsec 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > It never fails to amaze me that complainers point out that an > >'abusive' letter started out, "I hate niggersfaggotsjewsyou!" > >and then proceed to list the other fifty 'abusive' things that > >the writer had to say. > > The real problem, besides the emotional distress some people feel > at the abuse they get in response to forged postings, > and the potential loss of reputation capital, is that people > keep trying to call their ISP to get them shut down, > and some ISPs do this sort of thing, squashing abusive-sounding customers > first and asking questions later. Ok, soon-to-be-ex customers... Any ISP that would react that way should probably be avoided, anyway. Knee-jerk censorship like that is one of the best arguments around for posting via remailers. Not to mention the fact that posting anonymously prevents one's e-mail address from being misused in that fashion. But personally, the most persuasive argument is to keep people from compiling a de facto dossier on you based on your public postings, selling it to potential employers, and perhaps keeping you from getting a certain job because of your controversial, unpopular, and/or un-politically-correct opinions. IMO, people who rely on placebos like those "X-No-Archive" header flags are fooling themselves if they think they will be universally honored. Most so-called "forged postings" are rather crudely done, and the ones done using a remailer to paste headers are the most obvious ones of all. I'm not sure what the legal standard for "forgery" is, but if it's anything like that for fraud, it requires that a REASONABLE PERSON would be fooled. Given all the disclaimers present in the headers of remailer output, I doubt that any posts with pasted From: would meet that standard. Yes, I've heard the argument that "people don't read headers", but so what? Most of them probably don't read the fine print on contracts, either, but they're still responsible for what it says. - --- Finger <comsec(a)nym.alias.net> for PGP public key (Key ID=19BE8B0D) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNIVRpAbp0h8ZvosNAQHcBAf+MCa1DBhmtI4h93zsegO6/fR0RJPko68+ f5ImWOnzxdg1eN4WkbdD4ELn00jLTZC+7+Xw94BkeT9wj1KLmP/BE6NUANdYFzdW YRyAHIK/WsYN6k9dal54TdDviC7SpBUH3IHnQa2USYJjfd9raviYp5NoCpBz5D7s E0+mnfxo8ufTE9Z09qRGmjtxrEfO+gug6lYYCG0h5j7SD+6mVcGuWFmoxbDzhqma IkzngE1dn3xXmwdMTQ5WNvWj+qths52hnszeQ7ZPE/pwrROVobhMevlabM2NYPA0 BLv5L0Te+p12Hj2599znmzJyY5NdqsqBzBbg9yFfaqoavdM/bg4wVw== =4Ppz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Cypherpunks, PGP Buyout, & Writing Code...
by Nerthus＠server1.efga.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[NOTE: This message was remailed by an anonymous remailing system. The original sender is unknown, and has inserted the From: header. This information has not been verified. As with all mail or news messages, you should examine the headers carefully before responding. Direct questions about this system to <admin(a)anon.efga.org>.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jim Choate wrote: >Perhaps the buy-out of PGP is a good thing. Consider that now there is a >clear and present motive for Cypherpunks to start writing the next wave of >world-class crypto...it really is the *only* shure way that the process >doesn't get subverted...we're no longer able to rely on a single commen >source of crypto tools. Perhaps we should hold a Requiem for PGP, or maybe an Irish wake instead. Let's take a look back at some of the good things PGP did toward furthering the use of crypto. Phil Zimmerman took public key cryptography and brought it to a fairly wide base of users: 4 million people, plus or minus a million or two. :-) That's rather substantial given that less than 100 million people are estimated to be on the Net right now. Think of how many more yet-to-be Net users will demand strong cryptography in their communications, be it personal, financial, legal, recreational...who knows what else? PGP also showed how both a freeware and paid-for version of encryption software can be marketed together. The paid-for version of PGP 5.0 allows users to generate the new El Gamal/DSS keys as well as the familiar RSA keys, while the freeware only allows for the former. The important lesson here, I think, is that the writers of "the next wave of world-class crypto" can make money from the paid-for versions with the extra bells and whistles that some of us like, but they are not stifling the expansion of their software's user base because they are offering a freeware version that implements the basic protocols for communicating with users of the paid-for version, and of course other freeware users. Nerthus -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNIUHwxa1d3zm4nqOEQIG4wCgsDqyMsl64IsDwz814eL9SwdJmu0AoJ9M OaSWiBx2cZZqq97f0GZ1GuJR =Mqbu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: ATTN: Gary L. Burnore
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

gburnore(a)netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote: > :The remailer help documents I'm familiar with say they will act to prevent > :"harrassment" through the remailer. I presume the above would be viewed by > :the remailer owners as harrassment. > > Interesting presumtion. Hopefully true. The ONLY difference between remailers > and ISP's in this case, is that with an ISP, if you forge another's real ^^^^^ > address there's at least a possibility that you can be held accountable for > it. It's nothing at all to do with the CONTENT of the post. If same can be > said of a remailer, ie if you get UCE based on a post made with your address > as a from line the _real_ poster can be held accountable, then there is no > issue. That argument might have some validity if Netcom (your own ISP) didn't allow its own mail servers to be utilized by spammers and tell people who complain about this practice to G.F.Y. Just read some of the complaints about Netcom on the news.admin.net-abuse.email NG. If you had been "UCE baited" by someone using Netcom's mail servers, rather than those of a remailer, would you attempt to harass Netcom like you did Jeff Burchell who ran Mailmasher and the Huge Cajones Remailer? Would one of your associates at DataBasix demand that Netcom be shut down since they are unable or unwilling to stop the abuse of their servers? Would you threaten legal action to get Netcom to turn over all of their sendmail logs to you? What do you mean by "held accountable"? Having a throwaway Netcruiser account (perhaps one of many), acquired under a phony name, cancelled? You've already been informed, and admitted that it has been effective, that if you don't wish your e-mail address to appear in a From: line from a remailer you can request source blocking. It's sort of like the blocking of a/c 900 telephone numbers. If you are worried about abuse of your phone, you can request that calls to 900 numbers from your phone be blocked. You don't have to insist that they be blocked from EVERYONE'S phone just because they're a problem FOR YOU. Can you point to any equivalent safeguard against someone's e-mail address being forged through Netcom's SMTP servers, either by a Netcom user or by someone else? If not, isn't it time to make sure your own house is in order before meddling in the neighbors' houses? IMO, the remailers are already doing more to prevent what you perceive to be a problem than your own ISP is willing to do -- and this by VOLUNTEERS who are not being paid by you, or anyone, for their efforts. I also note that you're using the word "forge" again. Yet in another post from you within a day or two of this one, you claimed that you weren't concerned about forgery. Which is true? --

1 0

Re: Is Tim May guilty of illegally advocating revolution?
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May writes: > At 11:33 PM -0700 11/29/97, Bill Stewart wrote: > > >As for the case of May vs. Reno, 99 US 666 (1999) (:-), I've never > >heard Tim call for the violent overthrow of the US government. > >He's called for a far more dangerous method of getting rid of it > >(rendering it obsolete and letting the public catch on at their own speed), > >and he's also expressed the position that if a bunch of > >black-hooded thugs invade his house some night he'll defend himself > >first and not worry about checking their bodies for stinkin' badges > >or designer logos on their backs until the bullets stop flying. > > > >Not guilty. > > An almost complete summary of my stance. > > But Bill left out the third leg of my tripod, that I expect to wake up some > morning and learn that some major city, perhaps Washington, D.C. has been > nuked or bugged. You've both forgotton the fourth leg of the tripod, the one where Tim May calls for the governor of Florida to be shot (along with other officials). Governor Chiles' capital crime? He refused to allow California wine to be sold in Florida. On Fri, 9 May 1997, Tim May wrote: > Chiles and his co-conspirators should be shot for high crimes against the > Constitution. After Clinton, Freeh, Kerrey, and the other traitors. Everyone likes to overlook this, pretending that May didn't mean it. Well, he never withdrew it, did he? He never apologized for it. He's on the record as explicitly calling for the murder of high officials. And of course May further revealed his true colors with this horror, from the same message: > Every day that passes, I'm more convinced that McVeigh did the right thing. > Some innocents died, but, hey, war is hell. Broken eggs and all that. May's apologists have tried to pretend that he didn't say this, that he said that he was beginning to understand McVeigh, or something. That's not what he says here. He says he is becoming convinced that McVeigh did the right thing in murdering all those people. He callously compares the shattered bodies of the children and other innocent victims to broken eggshells. Monty Cantsin has provided us a moving description of the painful deaths of the children in Waco. Will dying of asphyxiation under pressure too great even to draw a breath be any easier? Again, you will search the archives in vain to find any apology for this, any withdrawal. May hides behind the words of others, as he does above, hoping that their softened interpretations will make people forget the plain facts about what he wrote. If Tim May does not agree with the quotes above, let him say so now.

3 2

Re: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article)
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 10:42 AM 12/3/97 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: >This is nothing new. Honest (self-identified) leftists like my friend Bob >Chatelle complain about the censors on the left almost as much as censors >on the right. Other fave leftist censorship causes: > Not to forget the CPUSA's long time platform plank that promised to make racisim a crime punished by imprisonment. DCF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNIWH6oVO4r4sgSPhAQH7YwQAo/vMb7hqDMQ/6GP+gBXtruClj31qstbx mBSrb8VG8+9ZQO8/Tl8zY3h2FzRKea/sOQIlhpVeD2kryQUyqc2D6z79dklru5vu D7b5iJEY1na8xkQW/c3nD3ejsJRQ/5kjcNcZBQ4zxG/jM95B0tt3Wmn4B0/uMmid bJZDE0fMMEQ= =9qf9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Another of Gary Burnore's Lies Exposed (was: Re: not so fast Re: Kudos to NETCOM!)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Sam" <sam-001(a)dpinc.ml.org> wrote: > In article <3485813d.117631170(a)nntp.best.ix.netcom.com>, > gburnore+NOspam(a)netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) writes: > > > On 2 Dec 1997 14:59:30 GMT, "Sam" <sam-001(a)dpinc.ml.org> wrote: > > > >:Found it: > >: > >:Subject: Re: Burnore forgeries easily solvable > >:From: Sam <sam-000(a)usa.net> > >:Date: 1997/07/10 > >:Message-ID: <5q3ms3$phq(a)chronicle.concentric.net> > >:Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy.anon-server,alt.anonymous,alt.anonymous.messages,alt.censorship,news.ad > >: > >: > > > > > > Nice try Sam but no go. > > Not so fast. In the message that this was a follow-up to, > <gburnoreED2z89.GHs(a)netcom.com>, your own exact words were: > > > This one dated 9 July 1997 > > is a good example. See the forged from line? Ths did not come from > > mmdf(a)databasix.com > > Well, no matter how you look at it, it was. It did came from > mmdf(a)databasix.com. There was no forgery. And that was precisely the > point of my initial post. I cannot believe that someone who is supposed to > administer a mail server cannot recognize an auto-ack generated by his own > machine, instead insisting that the message came from a third party, forged > with his return address. > > This puts all other claimed forgeries from a mail2news gateway, that you ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > have taken an issue with, and used as a basis to form your claims against > UCE-baiting, and such, as suspect. ^^^^^^^^^^ You've noticed that too, huh? Gary Burnore's "big lie" technique depends upon his claims being retold over and over, by himself and his associates such as Belinda Bryan <eridani(a)ix.netcom.com>, WITHOUT SERIOUS ANALYSIS like yours, in order to be believed. Gary's continuous whining about "forgeries" is becoming pathetic. In his haste to falsely claim that something was "forged" he missed the fact that the claimed "forgery" was traceable back to HIS OWN SERVER. He shot himself in the foot trying to frame the remailers this time. What would be the point in trying to forge a Usenet post to make it look like it came from "mmdf(a)databasix.com", anyway? Gary Burnore's forgery allegations against Mailmasher are similarly suspect. First of all, before planning the attack, somebody apparently didn't do his homework, or he'd have realized that Mailmasher was a web-based 'nymserver, not a remailer. Despite being challenged to do so, Gary has never been able to produce a single piece of documentation showing that Mailmasher ever had the ability to paste From: headers. The "evidence" that was posted had truncated Path headers that stopped at the mail2news gateway and contained "X-No-Archive" headers, just as Gary's own posts do, presumably to explain why none of these posts is independently available from third-party archives for verification. If the posts even existed in the first place, they are more likely to have been generated from a Netcruiser account, complete with headers designed to frame Mailmasher, than from Mailmasher itself. --

1 0

More microsoft monopoly::Re: NT 4.0 Option Pack released (fwd)
by Ray Arachelian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Microsoft has now broken up the Service Packs into Bug Fix and Option Pack (new feechures) packages. However the catch is this: they require you to have Internet Exploiter 4.01 installed *BEFORE* you can install the Option Pack (whose features have little to do with Internet Exploiter, though they are part of the IIS web server. For example RAIDUS Remote Access Authentication has nothing to do with Exploiter.) IMHO: This is a cheap shot at making their browser more "incorporated" with the OS, that way they can get around the Justice Dept. :( Lame. Another message claims VC++ requires IE as well -- can anyone confirm this? =====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos============== .+.^.+.| Ray Arachelian |Prying open my 3rd eye. So good to see |./|\. ..\|/..|sunder(a)sundernet.com|you once again. I thought you were |/\|/\ <--*-->| ------------------ |hiding, and you thought that I had run |\/|\/ ../|\..| "A toast to Odin, |away chasing the tail of dogma. I opened|.\|/. .+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"|my eye and there we were.... |..... ======================= http://www.sundernet.com ========================== ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 08:08:57 -0500 From: Russ <Russ.Cooper(a)RC.ON.CA> To: NTBUGTRAQ(a)LISTSERV.NTBUGTRAQ.COM Subject: NT 4.0 Option Pack released FYI, the final release of the NT 4.0 Option Pack has been posted, you can get full details at; http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/default.asp For those that aren't already aware, Microsoft has split the old Service Pack into two components. One is the Option Pack, which includes new features and functionality, while the Service Pack will be kept to bug fixes or patches only (or so they say, we still haven't seen what this new SP will look like). Amongst other things, this first release of NTOP includes; IIS 4.0 Microsoft Transaction Server 2.0 Microsoft Message Queues 1.0 Microsoft Certificate Server 1.0 Internet Connection Services for Microsoft RAS (Radius) Microsoft Site Server Express (Web Usage and Content analysis/reporting) Internet Explorer 4.01 These components will now ship on a separate CD included with NT. Its important to note that IE4.01 *must* be installed prior to installing any of the NTOP components. Cheers, Russ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 17:05:35 +0200 From: "Juha [ISO-8859-1] Jäykkä" <juolja(a)utu.fi> To: NTBUGTRAQ(a)LISTSERV.NTBUGTRAQ.COM Subject: Re: NT 4.0 Option Pack released > Its important to note that IE4.01 *must* be installed prior to > installing any of the NTOP components. And MSIE must be installed before installing Visual C++.. Soon we hav= e it that MSIE must be installed before TCP/IP is installed... and then befo= re NT in installed! Is there no limit to this??? Is there any way to prevent = MS from *FORCING* us to install MSIE - other than boycott all MS products entirely (with NT5 it would seem that we have to boycott even the OS to= save ourselves from MSIE)??? Sorry the bitter tone - I just don't like programs that require me to install yet another program which I don't want to install. --=20 ----------------------------------------------- | Juha J=E4ykk=E4, juolja(a)utu.fi | | home: http://www.utu.fi/~juolja/ | | pgp-key: http://www.utu.fi/~juolja/pgp.txt | -----------------------------------------------

2 1

No Subject
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy C[...] May is a slant-eyed, rice-gibbling jap in a redneck disguise. ---._.--- / | \ / * \ ( @@ ) / _/-||-\_ \ / '/ || \` \ / / () \ \ / /| |\ \ / / | | \ \ / / / o o \ \ \ / / ( ) \ \ <_ ' `--`___'`___'--' ` _> / '~~--- / = \ ---~~` \ ,,,/ / ( v ) \ \,,, \ / / @|-' '-|@ \ \ / \__/ ////// \__/ Dave Smith bends over for Gary Burnore, Paul Pomes, and the rest of the Databasix gang. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

2 1