December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

How "anonymous" (to what degree) are email messages sent through the various remailers (Mixmaster, EFGA, ml.org, etc)? Have there been any studies done as to the degree of anonymity obtained from using these remailers? (I haven't been able to find any.) And does anyone know of any studies being done in determining whether or not content-based analysis - diction and language - is a reliable way to determine identity? It seems that if Dick has a certain vocabulary, uses a certain sentence structure, etc., and regularly posts using a nym, that this form and content could be traced to Dick, so the likelihood of the post coming from him and not Jane would be that much increased.

3 2

Re: Victory for Microbroadcasting
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

TruthMonger wrote: > The Intenet Content Coalition (ICC) made a cheap grab at trying to form > a corporate FCC to put the InterNet media-power brokering in the hands > of those who already rule the roost overseen by the FCC. > The fact of the matter is, the mainstream media is not going to have > a lot of trouble herding the majority of the sheeple into their feeding > pens, given the power, money and position that they already have, so > it is a bit tacky for them to have made an attempt to put themselves > in a position to 'enforce' standards favorable to themselves. Amen! These fools have to start realizing that their best allies in getting out from under the thumb of big gubmint are the citizens, many of whom share similar goals in this regard. If the corporations try to get too greedy, then they will be no better option for the citizens than the government currently is, and will have to fight their war on two fronts, which history has shown to be a very untenable position. > The difference between MicroBroadcasting and the MicroWeb/WebRings > that are being independently formed, is that MicroBroadcasting is > trying to get back what was stolen, and those on the InterNet are > trying to keep from getting what we already have, stolen in the > future. We should all encourage ourselves and others to develop as many communities and inter-related/active communities on the Net as possible in the near future. The more people who have something to defend, something to lose, by the loss of freedom on the Net, then the more who will be ready and willing to raise their voice when the Fascist Censors/Controllers attempt to steal what does not belong to them--our speech, privacy, and liberty. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > National Lawyers Guild Committee on Democratic Communications > 558 Capp Street, San Francisco 94110 > COURT REJECTS FCC's CONSTITUTIONAL CATCH 22 > In 1995, Judge Wilken rejected the government's first motion for a > preliminary injunction against Dunifer's broadcasts. At that time > the Court found merit in Dunifer's argument that the FCC's ban on > low power, affordable FM broadcasting was a violation of the First > Amendment's guarantee of free speech to all in the United States. ... > In response to pressure from the commercial broadcaster's lobby, > the National Association of Broadcasters (N.A.B.), the FCC has in > recent months been stepping up its campaign of harassment against > the thousands of micro radio stations now on the air in this > country. They are trying to find a few sympathetic/bought judges to make rulings which they can use against those who do not have the funds and the political savy that the Berkeley people do, in order to have a basis for further injunctions while they apply pressure from other fronts, as well. > Hiken commented ... > "In trying to do the N.A.B.Õs bidding, the FCC demonstrates > that it is nothing but an enforcement arm of the commercial > broadcast industry and the multi-national corporations which own > it." > In its > Friend of the Court brief the Lawyers Guild pointed out that FCC > regulations make it impossible for all but the very wealthy to > even apply for a broadcast license. This, they told the Court, is > the equivalent of saying anyone could speak from a soap box in the > park, but the box had to be made of gold. Freedom of speech for the rich and powerful...sound familiar? > For almost 70 years, the FCC has catered solely to the > interests of commercial corporate giants, through their > mouthpiece, the National Association of Broadcasters. These are > the pirates, who have stolen the airwaves from the American > people, and who represent corporate interests valued at more than > 60 billion dollars. > The legal team welcomes the opportunity to have a court identify > the real pirates of the airwaves -- not the thousands of > microradio broadcasters who seek to communicate with the people of > their communities, but rather the billionaire commercial interests > that control the airwaves as if they own them. We have criminals running the government, and pirates running the corporations. What should our role, as citizens, be? I submit that our role in society is to support the organizations (government, corporate, secular, religious...ad infinitum) which will serve our best interests in the process of serving their own. I further submit that the Globalization of society and government brings to life the concept that 'no man is an island,' and that it is no longer possible for us to support discrimination against, or oppression of, any individual or group of individuals without it coming back to haunt us much more quickly than in the past. The recent initiative by the US, Candada and Mexico, in conjunction with one another, to seek out 'bad' information/behavior in the health area on the Internet, is but one example of those who are thinking locally and acting globally. i.e. - If Canucks support legislation which will 'stick it to the Spics,' they will find themselves freezing to death because of a ban on jalopenos because of unsupported health claims by the Mexicans that jalapenos are 'good for you.' It is imperative that those of us concerned with the development and regulation of the Internet resist falling into the same sense of fatalism that has led us to allow the government and corporations to lead us into narrower and narrower chutes which separate us into feeding pens designed to turn us into docile consumers of spoon-fed government and corporate fascism. We need to make every attempt to keep the Internet a form of free- market socialism where 1 Byte == 1 Byte, no matter whether it is a Swedish byte, a communist byte, an Afro-American byte, a liberal byte, a gay byte, a Marv Alpert bite, etc. The minute that a Holocaust byte becomes of more or less inherent value or righteousness than an anti-Holocaust byte, then we enter the same quagmire which is suffocating and oppressing the established forms of government and society. We have allowed the mediums of politics and social customs to turn our world into a place where there is a difference of value in a symbol of currency, such as a dollar, which is dependent upon whether it is in a rich man's pocket, a poor man's pocket, a government pocket, a church pocket, etc. We have allowed ourselves to be sucked into the belief that we are separate individuals, separate nations, and that we can gain by taking from others. This is true, to a certain extent, as long as we remain prisoners of local geographical borders, but it will be less so in a global society. Who is the enemy? The enemy is whoever takes away your freedom. The enemy is whoever takes away my freedom. The enemy is whoever takes away our neighbor's freedom, or the freedom of strangers throughout our global community. The same applies to privacy, free speech, money, dignity, and a host of other things which are basic to our personal and group liberty. Who is our friend and ally? It is whoever mirrors the web site which is banned/stolen from us, whether they agree or disagree with our beliefs and goals. It is the anonymous remailer operator who replies to the anti-remailer lies and diatribes I send through their system, rather than blocking them. It is the person who attacks the organizations that seek to censor or ban our individual beliefs and opinions, even while attacking our beliefs and opinions in expressing their own. Freedom is our friend. Censorship is our enemy. George Spelvin (Mein Fuhrer--and nobody else's!)

1 0

Re: Br'er Tim and the Bug Hole
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Robert Hettinga wrote: >Meaning of course, when Patrick Henry... --- Oops, Thomas Paine, sorry, >transposed my patriots there -- first stood up to be counted, he did it with >a pseudonym. Think how difficult it must have been to publish a pseudonymous writing back in their day. And compare how easy it is now. With a basic Internet connection and some software I can post this message under the name Nerthus, and anyone who took the time to save my public key in their keyring can verify with almost complete certainty that "Nerthus" wrote this. But as we progress on some fronts, we digress on others. The tools which can empower the individual are readily available, but the individual is quickly becoming an automaton, a shell of the man he used to be. "I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death." -- Patrick Henry What is life without liberty? Abject slavery. Any sane man would rather die than be a slave. But what is this slavery? It is the state in which we live our lives. More often than not, our oppressors are our own selves: our fears, our imaginings, our hatred. Everyone does this: the "right-wing-gun-nut" who detests the actions of the BATF, the Christian zealot who detests the pro-abortion crusaders/ Zoroastrians/creationists/NWO types, the IRS agent who detests the "tax protestors", the treehugger who detests the corporate greed/profit machine that is destroying the planet... I could go on but I think you get my point. Injustice happens everyday. The next time you find yourself at Burger King stuffing yourself with greasy slop, think of the millions of people in Africa who are slowly starving to death. Injustice, yes, but what are you going to do about it? Anything? The fact is you can't do anything, even if you wanted to. And because of that we all become reactionary, angered, resentful, violent. We perpetuate the disintegration of mankind, of ourselves. No people in their right mind should bow down and lick the boots of their oppressors. But neither should they kill them either. The intelligent action is to show the oppressors the errors in their ways. Every human being, even our "enemies" have a mind that is not completely devoid of reason. The sooner we show them a better way of living, the sooner we can move toward it. Then the possibility for an end to the injustices that surround us becomes more available. I leave you with a quote to ponder: "My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." Any idea who the pinko-liberal, NWO cocksucker was that said this? It was Thomas Paine in his book "Rights of Man". Nerthus -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNGpu6eFWwZe05jcJAQGd5Qf/bvcqrugd+FFqBiM89nZeWmUhgAkT0Blq 3IXIkxDNp3+rPYX8dsqp0cD+nHEf7fDrgmxS6+/oHFMnN+p2fC0m1UdD1bl3AgiD lbyjTXtg688ezf4km/MXRNFKtRxbqaOewdf4TVgReLnVkB3ITPzKZb81N4PQHnR8 W0esKslh6AQSDVPlR0r+UIdMawXzNKR75KVaLRhTw7GXV0GvoZh5Ckz1xd2ZDvz+ q/MjTXDTZI5u5Ta2EKcfh0Vcs8Yy7tYv8yRY0zKS0NhorsBhIGrXA5aF5aaxrDTX rWRHaZPRSd5Fm9rKKTJM+D/KVa2wxszP+bWrqusRryY0MN8AW/qZ3w== =NPUD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Re: CDA: The Sequel -- introduced in the U.S. Senate
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Danny, Trying to deny that CDT supported the White harmful to minors "compromise" is a sad attempt at history revisionism. As Marc Rotenberg said, "CDT supported the White measure and went to great pains to blame the members of the conference committee who did not endorse it." Which is of course true. After the vote you lost on the harmful to minors "compromise": -- Comm Daily reported: Jerry Berman, exec. dir. of Center for Democracy & Technology, which had tried to forge compromise on issue, said he had been betrayed "by liberal Democrats, who are supposed to be protectors of the Constitution. -- IISR reported: Jerry Berman, executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, called the [vote on the] White proposal "a significant defeat for civil liberties in cyberspace. -- EETimes reported: "The House came within an inch of getting it right," says Jerry Berman, Center for Democracy and Technology. Either the world's population of journalists are in a vast clandestine conspiracy to misrepresent your organization's position or ... CDT (gasp!) did in fact embrace the HTM so-called compromise. You must remember, after all, that CDT declined to sign a December 5, 1995 coalition letter that told Congress to "to reject *all* proposals to impose new government censorship regulations on cyberspace." Why didn't you sign it? (http://www.epic.org/cda/hyde_letter.html) Instead, as I recall, CDT was up on stage with the anti-porn advocates to unveil the "compromise." (I admit my memory's fuzzy on this point. I'm sure you'll clarify.) Where was I then? When the news of the "compromise" broke in December 1995, I was in Cambridge having brunch with Harvey Silverglate (who's now defending the Au Pair case) and other local free-speech advocates. As I wrote in a post to f-c at the time, all of us were astonished to see the headline in the New York Times: "Civil liberties groups accept compromise." Of course it was CDT that accepted it. ACLU said at the time here on f-c that "no true civil liberties group" would ever agree to supporting that kind of censorship. Also, contrary to what you claim, I'm not an "opponent" of filtering software. Parents have the right to use it with their children. I believe, however, that public institutions must abide by the First Amendment when installing it. I'm glad you provided this opportunity to clarify these issues. Now perhaps we can move on to discussing the Coats bill. -Declan On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, Daniel J. Weitzner wrote: > Declan, > > It's kind of you to get the word out about this new Coats bill, but you > have managed to seriously mischaracterize CDT's position on the White > legislation of 1995. We did not believe that Congress should have passed > the White Compromise, and certaily never "embraced" it, as you write. > Based on my initial reading of the Coats bill, we will certainly oppose it. > > The Coats bill, with it's emphasis on age verification as a means to > "protect" kids and provide online publishers with liability limitation, is > actually a direct result of Justice O'Connor's dissenting opinion in the > CDA case and her desire to try to "zone" cyberspace. Following Larry > Lessig, she suggests that instead of relying on individually-controlled > blocking and filtering software, it is better for the government to require > that certain content be placed behind age verification firewalls. Prof. > Lessig prefers this zoning to what you have characterized as "censorware." > I hope that you, as an opponent of user empowerment filtering tools like > Larry, do not prefer this O'Connor/Lessig approach too? > > I can't remember whether you were actually around in 1995, either as > journalist or activist, so let me remind you of what we and other civil > liberties advocates like Marc Rotenberg of EPIC said. > > In the New York Times (12/2/95, p.A1) > > "While it does embody much of the original Exon proposal, it does so in > a way > that tries to embody a constitutionally recognized standard," said Jerry > Berman, director of the Center of Democracy and Technology, a nonprofit group > that focuses on civil rights and technology issues. > > and Jerry went on to say: > > "I don't think we need any legislation at all." > > Marc seemed to take a similar position: > > "It is preferable to the Exon bill, but ultimately this issue will be > resolved in the courts, which is where it should be resolved," said Marc > Rotenberg.... > > Both CDT and EPIC recognized that as a plain matter of constitional law, > the "harmful to minor" standard is more broadly accepted by courts around > the country, but that the legislation was still an unwise infringement on > Internet speech. > > We still believe that. > > We can certainly have a discussion about the various legislative strategies > employed during the final days of the CDA debate and House-Senate > conference, but frankly I think there's more important work to do. > > I hope that future discussions on this list can focus on how to defeat > misguided efforts like the Coats bill, instead of misleading > characterization of the past. > > Finally, Declan, I would suggest that when you want to characterize CDT > positions you talk to someone at CDT, or at least find some documentation > of your assertions. I know that you recognize you have an obligation as a > journalist to check facts and sources with some care. That sort of care > would also help in discussions among activists. I'm never exactly sure > whether you think of yourself as a journalist or activist when writing to > FC, but whichever it is, I hope you'll try to avoid this confusion in the > future by talking to us.

5 7

This judge needs killing
by Paul Bradley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Uk News: Judge David Selwood today sentenced 3 writers for the magazine "Green Anarchist" to 3 years imprisonment each for their articles in the magazine which he concluded incited others to break the law. The magazine contained diaries for the previous months animal rights activism events and contained articles generally favourable to the cause of animal liberation. Another judge who has richly earned the death penalty. Datacomms Technologies data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

13 17

Re: Br'er Tim and the Bug Hole
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Robert Hettinga wrote: >At 7:45 pm -0500 on 11/11/97, Monty wrote: >> As Michel Foucault used to say, "The only guarantee of freedom is >> freedom itself." > >The world's foremost pseudomystical relativist cited to support an >absolutist position. The logic escapes me. But then, logic, much less >independent thinking, was never Foucault's strong point. Physician heal thyself! Much of your discussion consists of ad hominem attacks with little content such as the paragraph quoted above. The Foucault discussion quoted is worth reading. Unfortunately, it's been a long time and I cannot provide a reference. At any rate, the upshot of his argument was that there are often attempts to ensure freedom, but in reality it can only be assured through its exercise. He gave the example of a building in France which was designed to make people feel free. Instead of winding little corridors and small rooms where people would be locked away, it had a large open courtyard and it was designed so that when you entered the building, everybody could see you and you could see them. Foucault argued that in the context of people who are free, this building would have the intended effect. In the context of a fearful and oppressive society, the effect would be quite the opposite. Everybody would feel that they were being watched all the time. >> Put another way, "rights which are not exercised are lost." > >True enough, but it doesn't follow from your Foucault quote very >much. Besides, I'd rather say "because it can be done, it will be >done." Especially if it's better. If Tim believes that a judge has committed a capital crime, I want to hear about it. If Tim and others fail to exercise their right to say what they believe, then it is likely those rights will be suspended in due time. >So, by the same token, I would also say that if you're going to >threaten a federal judge with death on a public email list, it might >behoove you to use a nym and a remailer. Like you do, Monty. Using a >nym and a remailer, I mean, not threatening a federal judge. :-). It seems to me that Tim said "The judge in the Paladin case committed a capital crime" and not "The judge in the Paladin case committed a capital crime and should be gunned down in the streets like a dog." Tim is a good writer. If he meant the latter I am sure he would have written the latter. If anything, the term "capital crime" suggests a legal proceeding. Personally, I don't consider violation of oath of office a capital crime. But, the judge should be fired. He clearly isn't taking the Constitution very seriously. >> Just because free speech is a right guaranteed under the Constitution >> does not mean that is necessarily a safe right to exercise. Let us >> hope that Tim does not come to harm. But, let us also give him the >> credit he deserves for having the courage to speak his mind. > >Yes. Fine. Tim has courage. God bless him. Hope he enjoys his >firefight. I don't understand why you keep insulting Tim. Your first post was insulting and comments like these are likewise insulting. >> I've been reading about a newspaper called the "Aurora" which >> operated in the 1790s from Philadelphia. > >Yes. I read it too, when it came out. Franklin was my favorite >patriot. Aurora was founded by his grandson(?), if I remember. The >one who went with Franklin to Paris, as a kid, right? The book I am reading is called "The Aurora: A Democratic-Republican Returns" by Richard N. Rosenfeld. >> It made itself very unpopular with >> Washington by claiming he was not the "Father of the Country". It >> made itself doubly unpopular with Adams for other less than >> respectful, but astute, observations. > >Right. And then Adams passed the Alien and Sedition laws. And then >the Supreme court took him out. Game over. We must be reading different books. The Supreme Court did nothing while the Executive Branch ran rampant. My guess is that the members of the Court identified with the political faction represented by the Adams administration. Incidentally, it has only been during the 20th century that the Court has protected the Bill of Rights in any significant way. After the editor of "The Aurora" was publicly beaten by Federal troops, citizens of Philadelphia formed an armed militia and stood guard outside the offices of the newspaper. That's why it wasn't suppressed. Here's an example of what was going on (pp: 526-527): > In the midst of this campaign [for the House of Representatives], > the federal government indicted Matthew Lyon for sedition (October > 5), arrested him (October 6), tried him without legal representation > (October 8), fined him $1,000, and sentenced him to four months in > prison (starting October 9). His "seditious libel" was the claim > that President John Adams has demonstrated "a continual grasp for > power" and an "unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish > adulation, or selfish avarice," &c. Today, Vermont Congressional > Congressman Matthew Lyon is in jail." The Alien and Sedition Acts had a built in expiration period at the end of Adams's term so that they couldn't be used against the party that passed them. They also did not apply to speech against the Vice President, Thomas Jefferson, who did not belong to the Adams faction. When Jefferson was elected he pardoned everybody who was tried under these acts. Abigail Adams apparently wrote him about these pardonings. She had been quite enthused about the suppression of free speech in the United States and was upset that people who insulted her husband, in her view, would be allowed to go unpunished. Jefferson's reply (page 902): > I discharged every person under punishment or prosecution under the > Sedition law, because I considered and now consider that law to be a > nullity as absolute and as palpable as if Congress had ordered us to > fall down and worship a golden image... [The discharge] was > accordingly done in every instance without asking what the offenders > had done or against whom they had offended but whether the pains > they were suffering were inflicted under the pretended sedition law. > It was certainly possible that my motives... might have been to > protect, encourage, and reward slander; but they may also have > been... to protect the Constitution violated by an unauthorized act > of Congress. Which of these were my motives must be decided by a > regard to the general tenor of my life. On this I am not afraid to > appeal to the nation at large, to posterity, and still less to that > Being who sees himself our motives, who will judge us from his own > knowledge of them, and not on the testimony of Porcupine or Fenno. The Constitutional mechanisms to preserve liberty all failed, except for the election of 1800. >> If they would only behave (i.e., go along with anything), then they >> wouldn't have to be censored. > >Hogwash. What the conventional wisdom held, back in the 1790's, was a >bunch of neoaristocratic justifications for the devine rights of the >state, reminiscent of the devine rights of kings, and that George >Washington, as the victor of the revolutionary war, deserved as much >power as he wanted. Abigail Adams (page 84): > Bache [editor of the "Aurora"] has the malice & falsehood of > Satin... But the wretched will provoke to measures which will > silence them e'er long. An abused and insulted publick cannot > tollerate them much longer. In short they are so criminal that they > ought to be Presented by the grand jurors. >Fortunately, a certain "nym" named Publius advocated the separation >of powers in the constitution, which created a supreme court, which >used Jefferson's Bill of Rights to shut all that crap down before it >went too far, modulo a little jail time for those who crash-tested >the idea. 1. Publius was John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison. Jay and Hamilton were leaders of the party attempting to subvert the Constitution. 2. The Federalist version of the Constitution was intended to have aristocratic elements - the Senate and the President. Adams even suggested privately that the Senators should have life long terms and that Senate seats should be hereditary. 3. The separation of powers failed completely during the Adams administration. The Federalists had control of the Congress, the Executive Branch, and, I suspect, the Supreme Court. 4. The rights and freedoms of Americans were protected only by the fact that the voters threw the bastards out. Something to keep in mind when people tell us that the voters are less trustworthy than career politicans. 5. The Supreme Court did nothing. 6. Jefferson did not write the Bill of Rights. He was in France at the time and was pleased to hear these amendments had been added to the Constitution. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNGtV2ZaWtjSmRH/5AQHeZQf/UiD0ctd+xy8CUE8ednsENDNNCrVWXvTy UxYuRm2KtRCYVZ4Yg7C5kPEqpHU3xAWgifB4ZYKHb22rmgYa1cz3U2ZDBluMl74h mgAgZU2Rry+tDRs2TtHJWFFgQfscgRjFBG7rRxWdD0n9G5KwBcR3ne60wU5KzPbs kR0FpXjh+Q0PFSKWJOfY65xs33Wn6auUBUXKZTUI4fPowt4DmQKaWPtsSzv4ojxE LOXEhvngMQl5Y729ZOmfIW1uQtGp3EUbDOheC1wb6szzFEgfr1TsZntHRnkiTqyJ ssOAvq7XzeDROEehhVlsXUfYCmCcNIq1UakDKSpouUAMhBrwYVCK9A== =MUMa -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

5 4

Re: Report on UN conference on Internet and racism
by Mikhael Frieden 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:53 PM 11/18/97 -0600, William H. Geiger III wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >I think that there is plenty of case law of extending constutional >protections to non-citizens. One that comes to mind were the rulings >against California inwhich the courts ruled the they were obligated to >provide schooling and social services to illegal aliens (a really fucked >rulling IMNSHO but if some good can come out of it no sense not making use >of it). In a much more fundamental sense, if they were not given constitutional protections they really could be rounded up and bussed across the border. -=-=- The 2nd guarantees all the rest.

16 29

OUCH!
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

My ass hurts.

1 0

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-openpgp-formats-00.txt
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Mime-Version: 1.0 To: IETF-Announce(a)ietf.org Cc: ietf-open-pgp(a)imc.org From: Internet-Drafts(a)ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts(a)ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-openpgp-formats-00.txt Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 09:45:05 -0500 Sender: owner-ietf-open-pgp(a)imc.org Precedence: bulk A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the An Open Specification for Pretty Good Privacy Working Group of the IETF. Title : OP Formats - OpenPGP Message Format Author(s) : R. Thayer, J. Callas, L. Donnerhacke, H. Finney Filename : draft-ietf-openpgp-formats-00.txt Pages : 40 Date : 17-Nov-97 This document is maintained in order to publish all necessary information needed to develop interoperable applications based on the OP format. It is not a step-by-step cookbook for writing an application, it describes only the format and methods needed to read, check, generate and write conforming packets crossing any network. It does not deal with storing and implementation questions albeit it is necessary to avoid security flaws. OP (Open-PGP) software uses a combination of strong public-key and conventional cryptography to provide security services for electronic communications and data storage. These services include confidentiality, key management, authentication and digital signatures. This document specifies the message formats used in OP. Internet-Drafts are available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-openpgp-formats-00.txt". A URL for the Internet-Draft is: ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-openpgp-formats-00.txt Internet-Drafts directories are located at: Africa: ftp.is.co.za Europe: ftp.nordu.net ftp.nis.garr.it Pacific Rim: munnari.oz.au US East Coast: ds.internic.net US West Coast: ftp.isi.edu Internet-Drafts are also available by mail. Send a message to: mailserv(a)ds.internic.net. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-openpgp-formats-00.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ds.internic.net can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <19971117171828.I-D(a)ietf.org> [This attachment must be fetched by mail. Open the stationery below and send the resulting message to get the attachment.] Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-openpgp-formats-00.txt"; site="ds.internic.net"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" [This attachment must be fetched by ftp. Open the document below to ask your ftp client to fetch it.] Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <19971117171828.I-D(a)ietf.org> --- end forwarded text %Get_I-D_ACTION-draft-ietf-openp Get_I-D_ACTION-draft-ietf-openp draft-ietf-openpgp-formats-00.txt ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Re: Fairy Gold
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Anonymous <anon(a)anon.efga.org> wrote: >Persistent identities suck. Ideas stand or fall on their own. >Reputation capital is fairy gold, evaporating with the morning dew. I do not believe this to be true. Of course, concepts are valid regardless of their source. It would be unwise to take the statements even of established identities on faith. The advantage of persistent identity is that it allows the exploration of more complicated ideas. Use of the persistent identity places a particular post in a greater context. There is only so much that can be done in a single post. It is the mailing list equivalent of a sound bite. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNHIGJJaWtjSmRH/5AQEjKQf+MpQ1c+5AgYYynh9bLJi0cmk7Q1+kWdH5 qPbLwvqlnq4LfIjOv9zgcmtjjfu3JL5UVSeUB6W0LDO0t0fwAEvm5SfeLWDAyC62 BfVf+pcNXV15nnkB8j3g9czUdLc5cn+0kYr42VK7G24t4aQyDZo8Je3KkvhWkRKN EUkZBCOMsTbBZClA7Q1DXMJyn4leTjdINm7XR9WobuiWPb1BrUmOSv+Jq1smUtcX QzrY1fRQAVCgO3oBbmE5SG2Hs7ycQ66o3krujzhv2W6KZDlfdXg7jO7Ia62opQ/W cAsWgbZ6bI+FWAcCXUqsvFwL+fCp/cSFcMjn/dgw2ssEAw46TRcn8g== =+mae -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0