December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

No Subject
by Daniel J. Boone 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Barry Wainwright wrote: > > At 4:51 pm -0500 on 10/2/98, sombody pretending to be Brian B. Riley wrote: > > > Alabama licenses have the holder's SSN on them (because that way > >the state gets more Federal highway $), except his parents had never > >applied to get him one, because of their religion. > > What religion precludes the holding of a SS no.? Here's one: Western Sect Freedonianism. Check out http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/2110/F_Freedonian.html <g> -- J.Q. Lurker

1 0

A Bit About Your Last Name
by classic＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Discover Your Family History - Rated "Cool Site of the Week" Come visit our website at, http://www.adsilver.com/research/index.html (if you have problems with the above link, please try http://www.vpm.com/hallofnames/search.htm ) Do you know WHO your ancestors are and WHAT they did? Do you know WHEN your surname first appeared? Are you curious about WHERE your family roots originate? Now you can fill in the missing pieces of this puzzle. Join the satisfied multitudes who have discovered their complete Family Surname History. All Nationalities. It's easy. Just key your last name into our online index, and in seconds we will tell you it's origin and much MORE. See if we've researched your complete family name history during our 25 years of professional research. Read a sample history, plus - FREE Coat of Arms keychain with your family's most ancient coat of arms & crest. All in full color. Your family name history parchment is 11 x 17",approximately 1700 words. It is beautifully ILLUMINATED by your most ancient Coat of Arms in full authentic Heraldic Colors. Over 500 URLs on family and heraldic history. Come visit our website at, http://www.adsilver.com/research/index.html (if you have problems with the above link, please try http://www.vpm.com/hallofnames/search.htm ) Hall of Names International Inc. 1-888-My-Roots (1-888-697-6687)

1 0

Re: PLO censoring pro-Iraqi sentiments
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Eric J. Tune wrote: > You know Tim, I respect most of what you write, and I respect you in that > you have your own free will and opinions and the right to express them, but > what you have forgotten in your anarchistic ravings is that PEOPLE DIED IN > SOMALIA, including a personal friend of mine. They were all somebody's > son, brother, and friend. These soldiers went where they were ordered to > go, as befits a soldier, and tried to do the job they were given and > accomplish the mission, and for that EVERY ONE OF THEM DESERVES Y O U R > RESPECT. I am quite sure the vast majority of them thought it was patently > stupid to go to Somalia in the first place, but a soldier follows orders, > legal ones, and tries to get the job done regardless of personal feelings. There is honor in fighting for something you believe in, taking a risk with the belief that your actions may make things better. What were those soldiers in Somalia fighting for? Yes, we know those people died in Somalia. What did they die for? Oh, just following orders... where have I heard that before...

1 0

No Subject
by David Lopes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subscribe

1 0

One Nation birthday raffle
by Global Web Builders 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear One Nation Supporter, We are currently selling tockets for One Nation first birthday raffle. The first prize is a QANTAS Global Explorer Holiday for two valued at $12,000 - a 23 day trip visiting Paris, London, New York, Los Angeles, Anaheim and Honolulu. The second prize is a 7 day holiday to Hawaii at the Outrigger Reef Hotel for two - value $5,000. The third prize is a 7nights stay at the Novotel Palm Cove at Cairns - value $3,000. You can order a book of 5 tickets (minimum) at $10 per book (or $2 per ticket) by credit card by phoning 1800 620088. Winner's names being drawn at One Nation's Birthday Party at 7pm on April 11th 1998. Winners will be notified by phone and mail with the results being published in the Sydney Morning Herald on Friday 17th April 1998. Order now while tickets remain!

1 0

Re: PLO censoring pro-Iraqi sentiments
by Eric J. Tune 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Eric Tune writes: > >> You know Tim, I respect most of what you write, and I respect you in >> that you have your own free will and opinions and the right to express >> them, but what you have forgotten in your anarchistic ravings is that >> PEOPLE DIED IN SOMALIA, including a personal friend of mine. They were >> all somebody's son, brother, and friend. > >So were the 100,000 Iraqi military killed by Bush, and the 1,000,000 >Iraqis of all ages killed by US sanctions. So were the civilians >bulldozed into mass graves in Panama, so the country would look neat and >tidy for the arrival of the ReportWhores. > >What the world needs now is not another mass killing of Iraqis by the >United States government. What the world really needs now is a fifty >dollar weapon that sinks aircraft carriers. > >> These soldiers went where they were ordered to go, as befits a soldier, >> and tried to do the job they were given and accomplish the mission, and >> for that EVERY ONE OF THEM DESERVES Y O U R RESPECT. I am quite sure >> the vast majority of them thought it was patently stupid to go to >> Somalia in the first place, but a soldier follows orders, legal ones, >> and tries to get the job done regardless of personal feelings. > >Most of them would probably follow "legal orders" to fire upon American >civilians too. You ever served in the military? Unless you've been under fire, you should shut the fuck up about shit you know nothing about nor could comprehend. >> The next time you "cheer to see the U.S. gets its tail kicked", why >> don't you think about the American troops who lost their lives or were >> maimed, or who were doing something they may have been personally and >> morally against, but they chose to be professional soldiers, and instead >> of displaying cowardice, they tried to do what was asked of them. > >The universe does not view the lives of Americans as more valuable than >the lives of people murdered by Americans. Listen up jerk, in case you didn't get any news during 1990, Iraq attacked Kuwait, and murdered thousands of Kuwaitis. "Don't start no shit and there won't be no shit"... ever heard that, asshole? America would have never been involved if Iraq hadn't invaded Kuwait. I was there, in a Bradley, and we could have rolled all over Baghdad, especially after what the Iraqi bastards did to the Kuwaitis, but it wasn't done. Unfortunately Saddam Hussein stayed in power. There will not be a shred of a chance for peace in that region until he is DEAD. I don't think air strikes are the answer to this, and I think Clinton is a moron for his present policy, War is the worst thing that man can do to other men, and there is no such thing as "the good fight"... war is hell. Period. Until you have been in a war, you have no idea of what you are talking about. But if you think that Iraq was "more right" or better yet, "less wrong", you need a radical lobotomy, or perhaps you've already had one. >> Think of the innocent civilians who inevitably die in the conflicts >> started by the megalomaniacs like Saddam Hussein. > >You mean all those melted child car seats and scorched teddy bears on >George Bush's "Highway of Death" leading out of Kuwait? Evidently, you again know nothing of what the Iraqis did to the Kuwaitis on their way in to Kuwait. Get educated, shithead. >Unfortunately, for all the braying Americans do about freedom, Americans >can never be truly happy unless someone is telling them what to do, or >they are telling someone else what to do, or they are bombing someone for >not doing what they have told them to do. > >The only thing Americans understand is dead Americans. The only thing. You sound like nothing more than disillusioned, spoiled, pompous asshole when you presume to know what Americans "understand". Your anarchistic ravings only mark you for the idiot you are. To everyone else besides Cordian who reads this, my apologies, but for all it's failings, I still have pride in America... ...not for all the foreign policy bullshit or the way the government fucks us over, or starts wars, or sticks their collective nose in other countries business...but for the fact that as a whole people, Americans still keep trying, everyday, to be a better people. I'm proud of that. Eric Tune

7 6

Re: Cryptographic Implementations
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:03 PM 2/18/98 +0530, Akshay Vashist wrote: >Hi, > Could somebody point me to some of the software implementations >of the cryptographic algorithms ( RSA , DES ,3DES ) .Actually, >Iam interested in evaluating their performance on firewalls etc., >so if there are sites, that contain their performance metrics/data >and the time it takes to break them ( approximately , on an average >m/c say sun ultra sparc ), please do mail me.Any help is welcome. There are a lot of good crypto web and ftp sites. Look at ftp.ox.ac.uk and ftp.funet.fi . Look at Ron Rivest's pages (AltaVista knows where they are.) Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart(a)pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

1 0

Re: Dealing with Spam, Part 2
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:27 PM 2/18/98 +0000, T.G.Griffiths(a)exeter.ac.uk wrote: >Mark(a)unicorn.com makes a good point about MailGuard. >If A and B both run MailGuard, and neither is on the >other's allowed list, do you get an infinite bounce >when A mails B or does the prog. get around it? I can >think of a couple of ways, but what does MailGuard do? The classic implementations of systems like that do one of three things 0) Don't think, leading to infinite mailbounces (often caught in testing, since it's very bad.) 1) Prevent loops, but there's no way to communicate 2) Prevent loops, and recognize mail from other MailThingies, which makes it easy for Spammers to forge. If you get fancy, you can probably work something like Receive message Send and record Alice-cookie -> <-- Reply with Alice-cookie and new Bob-cookie verify Alice-cookie and accept message Reply to Bob-cookie --> Verify Bob-cookie for future use Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart(a)pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

1 0

(��Ÿ�� )��ī�� ǰ ��ġ!
by postmaster 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

HTTP://WWW.OPENTOWN.COM ÇÑ±¹ÀÇ À¯ÀÏÇÑ Ä«Áö³ë°ÔÀÓ »çÀÌÆ® ¿ÀÇÂÅž¿î¿¡Œ ŽëŽëÀûÀÎ °æÇ°ÀÌº¥Æ® Çà»çžŠ °³ÃÖÇÕŽÏŽÙ. Çà»çÀÏÁ€Àº ŸÆ·¡¿Í °°œÀŽÏŽÙ Çà»çÀÏÁ€ : 1998³â 2¿ù 9ÀÏ ~ 3¿ù 10ÀÏ Á€¿À(12:00 ¿ÀÀü) Çà»ç³»¿ë : °ÔÀÓ ¿ìŒöÀÚ 346ží¿¡°Ô ÇªÁüÇÑ °æÇ° °ÔÀÓÁŸ·ù : œœ·ÔžÓœ® °ÔÀÓ¹æ¹ý : 1ÈžŽç 30¹ø ž±À» µ¹·ÁŒ ³ª¿Â Á¡Œö °æÇ°³»¿ë 1µî : °í±Þ¿Àµð¿À ŒÂÆ® 1ží(100žž¿ø»óŽç) 2µî : PCSÆù 5ží 3µî : 56K°íŒÓžðµ© 10ží 4µî : °³±žž®Ä«ŒŒÆ® 10ží 5µî : ³×¿ÀÄ®¶ó»ß»ß 20ží 6µî : MGMÄ«Áö³ëÄš ¿Œè°íž® 300ží(œÇÁŠ Ä«Áö³ë¿¡Œ Ÿ²ÀÌŽÂ ÄšÀž·Î ÁŠÀÛµÊ) ŽÙÀœ ÀÌº¥Æ® : ¿ÀÇÂÄ«Áö³ë¿¡ŒŽÂ »õ·Î¿î °ÔÀÓÀž·Î ÁöŒÓÀûÀÎ ÀÌº¥Æ® Çà»çžŠ °³ÃÖÇÒ ¿¹Á€ÀÔŽÏŽÙ. ž¹ÀÌ ±âŽëÇØ ÁÖŒŒ¿ä... Àç¹ÌÀÖŽÂ ¹«·áÃ€ÆÃµµ Œºñœº ÁßÀÔŽÏŽÙ. ¿ÀÇÂ Ä«Áö³ë¿¡ŒŽÂ Gostop, Slot, Baccarat, Roulette, Drawpoker, BlacJackµî ŽÙŸçÇÑ Ä«Áö³ë °ÔÀÓÀ» ¹«·á·Î Œºñœº ÁßÀÔŽÏŽÙ. Æ¯È÷ °íœºÅéÀº ÇªÁüÇÑ °æÇ°ÀÌ °É·ÁÀÖŽÂ ÀÌº¥Æ®ºžŽÙ Žõ ÀÎ±â°¡ ž¹Àº °ÔÀÓÀž·Î ³Ê¹«³ª ž¹Àº ºÐµéÀÌ Áñ±â°í ÀÖœÀŽÏŽÙ. ž·¿¬È÷ µµ¹ÚÀÌ¶óŽÂ °íÁ€°ü³äÀ» ¹öž®°í ŒøŒöÇÑ °ÔÀÓÀž·Î Áñ°ÜºžŒŒ¿ä. ŽÙž¥ Ä«Áö³ë °ÔÀÓµµ °èŒÓ °³¹ßÁßÀÌžç ÇöÀçŽÂ ŒºÀÎ¿ë °ÔÀÓžž Œºñœº ÁßÀÌÁöžž °ð Ã»ŒÒ³âµéÀ» À§ÇÑ °ÔÀÓµµ °³¹ßÇØ Œºñœº ÇÒ ¿¹Á€ÀÔŽÏŽÙ. Good Luck! http://www.opentown.com

1 0

Re: Declan pro-cencorship (sorta) (fwd)
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Unfortunately, there's a conflict between real definitions of spam (you knew it when you sent it, and the recipients knew it too) and the real-world problems encountered with blocking/canceling spam, which tends to result in either censorship or under-blocking. Number of recipients _isn't_ the right criterion at all - but it's objective enough to agree on, and usually makes a clear enough boundary between most spammers and most non-spammers. Rigidly defining numerical limits can also have serious problems, because there are good messages that get excluded. The more important number is the number of people deciding which things are and are not spam - "More than 1" is best, while "There can be only one" is censorship, either deliberate or as a side-effect. At 10:52 PM 2/17/98 -0500, Robert A. Costner wrote: >At 07:20 PM 2/17/98 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: >>So, we actualy do agree that the number of recipients is irrelevant. > >When it comes to spam, the ONLY thing that is relevant is the number of >recipients, and whether these recipients have offered some form of implicit >or explicit permission to receive the email. ... >Any attempt whatsoever to define spam in terms of content and how liked or >not liked the message is, interferes with traditional 1st amendment >definitions of speech, if codified in law or promulgated through (gov't) >rules. Ignoring first amendment concerns, any attempt to define spam in >terms of anything other than numbers causes a severe curtailing of the true >communication and business purposes of the internet. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart(a)pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

2 1