December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Is spam really a problem?
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I see discussion of spam here and everywhere on the net. But who finds it a *real* problem, and why? I've been on the net for nearly 20 years. I'm active on numerous mailing lists. I post to usenet. I have a website. In all cases (except this post) I use real email addresses. Nevertheless, spam does not create a big problem for me. Perhaps 10-15% of my home email is spam, (much less at work) and I identify and kill it in less time than it takes me to sort out the junk from my snail mail. Don't get me wrong; I don't *like* spam. But for me it's a minor problem, certainly not worthy of legal remedies. I'm willing to suffer a certain level of foolish annoyance gladly in return for liberty. The only point at which spam is more than a minor irritation is when sexual spam turns up in my home mail or in inappropriate news groups, and then only because I have young kids, who I don't wish to be exposed to porn until they are more mature (if you flame me on this, you're missing the point of this post, and will be ignored). Masque. PS: I'm slightly anonymous in this message because I fear that if I used my real name, some jerk would decide to sign me up for every spam source on the planet, to prove a point. M

7 12

Re: bugged?
by Ken Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 17 Feb 1998, Breezy wrote: >Babu Mengelepouti wrote: >> >> Ken Williams wrote: >> > >> > I got pgp 5.0. which will not work with your version. Upgrade man :-) >> >> He's the one who needs to change his version... to 2.6.x > >Why use 2.6.x vs 5.0? Is 5.0 not as stable or something? Not as good? >What's up? > >====/------ Breezy ----------------------------/ >===/---- ebresie(a)ccwf.cc.utexas.edu ----------/ >==/---- http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~ebresie --/ > PGP v2.6.2 for UNIX is RSA, and cannot decrypt anything crypted with PGP v5.x. v5.0 for UNIX features the DSS/Diffie-Hellman algorithm that all the other 5.x versions have. v5.0 is stable, better, and is basically the current standard. it is more script-friendly and has a better command-line. basically, it really sucks when every encrypted message i have gotten in the past week was encrypted with RSA/DSS and i couldn't decrypt it with the v2.6.2 that is installed at work. due to space limitations on my volume server and our nihilistic copyrighted software policy, my only solution/option at the moment is to bring my laptop to work just for message decryption. i've sent in a software request for a PGP upgrade on the network, but due to the expensive PGP licensing agreements and the fact that we have close to 50,000 active users, i don't expect anything to be done. guess state employees don't have the right to privacy any more huh? and neither do the studnets here for that matter... TATTOOMAN work disclaimer: i lied and i'm legally insane.

1 0

(forw) Re: Cypherpunks - Austin: Sat. Feb. 21 6-7pm, physical meet (fwd)
by Troy A. Bollinger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I made the mistake of replying back to austin-cpunks instead of this list. If anyone attending CFP this week in Austin would like to get together let me know. Or just show up on Saturday for the local meet. Thanks, Troy ----- Forwarded message from Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> ----- Message-Id: <199802181631.KAA11452(a)einstein.ssz.com> Subject: Re: Cypherpunks - Austin: Sat. Feb. 21 6-7pm, physical meet (fwd) To: austin-cpunks(a)ssz.com Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 10:31:27 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: <19980218101742.09049(a)austin.ibm.com> from "Troy A. Bollinger" at Feb 18, 98 10:17:42 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-austin-cpunks(a)ssz.com Reply-To: austin-cpunks(a)ssz.com Hi Troy, > Well, I'm free to meet anytime this week. I don't know what the > schedule is for CFP, but if someone sends me a time and place I'll show > up. > > > Lots of us out-of-towners will be in Austin for CFP this week -- but the > > > conference ends on Friday. People start leaving that evening or the next > > > morning. And those of us are staying through Saturday are planning a day > > > trip outside of Austin that won't get us back by 6 pm. > > > > > > Why not have a pre-meet, or the meet itself, during CFP? You should send a notice to 'cypherpunks(a)ssz.com' so that your offer can be propogated to the entire crew quickly. Thanks for the effort. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Troy Bollinger troy(a)austin.ibm.com AIX Security Development security-alert(a)austin.ibm.com PGP keyid: 1024/0xB7783129 Troy's opinions are not IBM policy

1 0

No Subject
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Two spam-ignorati wrote: >>Don't get me wrong; I don't *like* spam. But >>for me it's a minor problem, certainly not >>worthy of legal remedies. I'm willing to suffer >>a certain level of foolish annoyance gladly >>in return for liberty. >Same for me. I can delete commercial advertisements ("spam") in seconds. I used to have the same attitude. But then I started running a mail server. Routinely I find spammers attempting to use my server as a relay for their crap. The undeliverable notifications fill up my postmaster mail box so that I have to spend much more than "a few seconds" to sort out this virtual mail bomb from the legitimate notifications I need to do something about. Current I am chasing some asshole from ISP to ISP in Arizona, shutting him down only to have him get a new account with another ISP and "mail bomb" me from there. I would gladly prosecute, as this person is no better than a thief, stealing my resources and time so he can run his con. BTW, the reason I sent anon is so other spammers don't get my host name and try to use it as a relay.

1 0

Re: News & Truth
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jefferson: >At a very early period in my life I determined never to put a sentence into >any newspaper. I have religously adhered to the resolution through my life >and have great reason to be contented with it. Were I to undertake to answer >the calumnies of the newspapers it would be more than my time and twenty >aids could effect. For, while I should be answering one, twenty new ones >would be invented. I have thought it better to trust to the justice of my >countrymen that they would judge me by what they see of my conduct on the >stage where they have placed me. a friend of mine is studying Hamilton vs. Jefferson. it turns out Hamilton loved newspapers and would write frequently under his own name, or under a variety of pseudonyms. one biographer states he assumed the personality of each as he wrote under them. I think Jefferson was at ill advantage in the face of Hamilton's tactics. >No Government ought to be without censors; and when the press is free, no >one ever will. Nature has given to man no other means of sifting out the >truth either in religion, law or politics. I think it as honorable to the >government neither to know nor notice its sycophants or censors as it would >be undignified and criminal to pamper the former and persecute the latter. this is pretty hard to parse until one understands that an old form of the word "censor", as I understand it, meant "to criticize". so "censor" as a noun and verb should be replaced with "critic" and "criticize" for the modern translation.

1 0

Re: New technology around the corner [slashdot.org] (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 11:32:21 -0700 > From: Jim Burnes <jim.burnes(a)ssds.com> > Subject: Re: New technology around the corner [slashdot.org] > Does anyone else get the feeling that we are on the cusp of > serious exponential change in technology? I know its been > going exponential for a while, but now I'm really starting > to feel it. I have felt that way since the early 80's. The rate of technology multiplication and some of the truly weird technologies that people said wold never happen are happening. > 2. Flat Plastic Video Screens using Light Emitting Polymers "LEPs" > (Cambridge) Don't forget the fact that their test beds were done with *standard* ink-jet printers with a modified head assembly. > ObCrypto: Since polymer transistors seem to be necessary to implement > polymer memory, how does this effect computation speed? The polymer > transistors must be around 30-40nm and low power. How long until we > have Polymer PGA,PALS,CPUs? How fast will they be? Is it time to add > a few more bits to the public key? Are there any cipher attacks that > would benefit from obscenely large amounts of fast memory? Sorry if > this is a naive question to the theorists. These are some of the exact same questions that I'm trying to add numbers to myself... when we take the union of the computer, information processing, networking, bio-engineering, transportation, etc. industries the various predictions of Toffler and others seem woefuly short-sighted. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | When a man assumes a public trust, he should | | consider himself public property. | | | | Thomas Jefferson | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: New technology around the corner [slashdot.org] (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 11:16:15 -0800 > From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Re: New technology around the corner [slashdot.org] > No, I don't think we're on any kind of cusp of a growth curve. If anything, > several things are slowing down. Stricly speaking I would agree, we are *past* the cusp and on the upward rush of the technology curve. > Beware the "press release." The items above are just a few of literally > thousands of such announcements. Exactly! Only look at what people are actualy *doing* and not what they are predicting. It's one of the reasons the vast majority of forwards in the technology forum I send here are about things that have succeeded. > Remember how "laser pantography" was going to revolutionize chip-making, > and even make "back yard fabs" possible? While the concept of a backyard fab has been pretty much blown out of the water what *has* come around and *wasn't* predicted is the growth of fab-less chip design companies. If you look at how these sorts of businesses have grown since the late 80's onward it is astounding some of the custom chips these firms are willing to design and get built through renting others spare fab bandwidth. > How about "silicon on sapphire" > and how it would obsolete Integrated Injection Logic? (You don't remember > I-squared L? Shame on you, as it was scheduled to put Intel out of business > by 1976). SoS technology was always predicted to win the game *if* the issues of thermal expansion between the Silicon and Sapphire could be resolved. Also, just as with Josephson Junction devices, other methods to achieve the same levels of predicted performance at less cost were devloped. There must be technologies that fail for there to be technologies to win. Simply pointing at the failed ones as an example of why it can't happen is a strategy that is doomed. There will always be some turk who has the self-confidence to say it can be done and then does it. > Or how about plastic cubes that can store terabytes. Or wafer scale > integration. Or e-beam addressed memory. Or neural networks. Or fuzzy logic. All of these technologies are out there. They haven't reached a point where they're mature for a variety of reasons. Let's look at Terabyte storage for a moment. Consider that the largest data bases on the planet are only a few *hundred* Terebytes and of them there are only a few 10's of thousands. Perhaps the reason the market hasn't taken off in this area is because the market isn't large enough. Give it another 5-10 years so that computers have become pervasive in schools, play, home, business, etc. (and no they are not pervasive now) and the market forces to drive new material releases on CD or other long-term media as the *primary* media (paper being so now) *and* there becomes a market for the re-release of past books and material then we'll begin to see a reason for each of us to be carrying around tera-bytes of data. Fuzzy logic and neural networks resolve your telephone switching issues, are used to locate natural resources, filter intelligence data for threads, etc. They're even used in coffee makers and micro-waves now. e-beam addressed memory is a looser, and anyone with a clue back them would have said so as well. Too power hungry, physicaly a bitch to haul around in your shirt pocket, etc. > ("Hey, Tim's being a negativist. My new rice cooker says it has fuzzy logic > in it.") See! > And then there's the whole universe of speculation about quantum computers, I *strongly* suggest folks follow the Quantum Coupled Architecture developments over the next two years or so. > DNA computers, nanotechnology, etc. These are new technologies that are only a decade or two old. Consider transisitors. The first FET transistor effects was discovered in the 30's but it wasn't until the 50's that we actualy managed to build a working BJT and several years after that till the FET based technology became feasible. And there have been some interesting advances in these fields. DES being cracked by a bio-logical computer a couple of years ago for example. The ARM technology as well as the ability to not only understand but manipulate the genetics and mechanics of nano-technology have only been around 5-10 years. These are new technologies that are at the 'terrible-two's' stages of development. It's clear they can do it, they just haven't figured out how. And in the process they're rambling around the house opening every cubbard and drawer dumping the contents out. > The fact is that R&D labs partly run on hype. And journalists are willing > to interview researchers to generate stories. Until it's a reality it's *always* hype. Asking the technology to prove it itself the first day is like asking a new born baby to talk or recite Shakespeare. It's unreasonably demanding and self-deluding. > A particularly interesting place to read about all the Latest and Greatest > technologies destined to replace silicon is "Electronic Engineering Times." You can see some pretty funny predictions in the Enquirer also... It's a good thing to have an open mind, just not so open it sloshes out on the ground. > But I don't get overly excited by announcements of new developments like > this. Perhaps following the industry for 25 years has made me jaded. >From the stories of your personality and the demonstrations I've seen you're a born cynic. The street finds its own uses for technology. William Gibson ____________________________________________________________________ | | | When a man assumes a public trust, he should | | consider himself public property. | | | | Thomas Jefferson | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Moore's Law - What is it?
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Consider this, Moore's Law has for the past few decades successfuly described the increase in computer performance, at least within experimental error. It has proven it's success, at least short term, from the school of hard knocks. But what *is* Moore's Law? It clearly doesn't discuss the fundamental technology of computing and its limitations. Is it in fact the mathematical description of our understanding and ability to apply that comprehension to the real world. Is it in fact a mathematical model of the limits of human reasoning and not computing technology per se. If Moore's Law is fundamentaly valid over the long-term it should be applicable to other forms of human endeavor since the limits of human reasoning and comprehension would seem to be a characteristic of our mind and not a particular area of application. What other forms of human exploration when examined in this light follow the curve? Perhaps Moore's Law is a measure of an ecomomic systems' ability to apply and distribute technology to the society in a non-breakthrough, an ah-hah experience where there is a fundamental shift of paradigm, environment. If so, what other forms of economic expansion follow this curve? However, if Moore's Law is only applicable to computing technology; Why? Why should such a simple curve describe such a complex and inherently non-deterministic area? ____________________________________________________________________ | | | When a man assumes a public trust, he should | | consider himself public property. | | | | Thomas Jefferson | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

MailGuard
by mark＠unicorn.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I think that this could easily be fixed by only sending out the request >once then adding the address to the possiable spam list until a reply is >received or there is user intervention. Sure, but that doesn't stop the problem at the other end. According to the company: "Messages received from other copies of the program are either brought to the attention of the user, or (if the user so desires) result in the automatic transmission of a positive response to the other copies of the program, which response causes the other copies of the program to 'approve' the user." This implies that they have some 'magic marker' in the challenge messages which forces the software to pass it on to the user. In which case, a spammer can merely add this marker to his messages and they will get through to anyone who has the software configured that way. >I do not run WinBlows on any of my >Inet connected machines so I can not test it here (well I could but I am >not *that* intrested in it). Ditto. >Mailing list seem like they would be a problem as diferent mailing list >use different formats. Unless the software is sophisticated enough to take >this into account you could see alot of garbage being posted. I've seen this problem with other active 'anti-spam' programs on other lists; it's a real pain in the ass. They say the software handles lists properly, but who knows? >The fake e-mail address seems to be a real problem if they resolve to a >valid domain let alone a valid e-mail address not belonging to the spamer. Exactly; any kind of active anti-spam is a pain in the ass in this case. I just filter and delete, which gets 95%+ of spam sent to my account; 3MB in the last nine months, last I checked. Mark

1 0

Re: Websites and trademarks at odds [CNN]
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

the article states that it is difficult for consumers to find companies when trademarks are not equivalent to web site addresses. solution: a "trademark directory" web page-- say, www.trademark.com. it gives the official web site of all companies in the world. yahoo is close to this but not quite. an opportunity for a budding entrepreneur. it would clearly be a very high-traffic site, ripe with advertising possibilities. added benefit: it might cut down on the animosity going on over web site addresses, "poaching", and lawsuits over ownership.

1 0