December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Dr. McVeigh / Re: A peculiar notion
by TruthMailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

David D.W. Downey wrote: > Steve Schear wrote: > > In short, the Constitution itself was a casualty of >Lincoln's war. A Pyrrhic victory indeed. > > > For the first time in a long time, I've read a post that actually make > me seriously consider rethinking what I have been taught. I've studied > quite a bit in regards to US law and the Consitution, (made necessary by > my being Pro-PGP), and never looked in that direction. Your post adds a > very different light to things. > Thank you for the push. I also thought that it was one of the more thought-provoking posts in a while, but I would certainly never send a polite, thankful post to the list, saying so. My "CypherPissing" mail folder turned out to be genetically related to the plant in "Little Shop of Horrors" and, the larger it gets, the more it demands to be fed. In order to provide it with enough of the sewage-supplement it needs to keep from eating my "cat" command, I may have to send a post to the list praising Sandy Sandfort, Chris Lewis, and blessing Armenians everywhere. (I have tried remailing old ASCII-art spams to myself, but it refuses to eat left-overs.) (Perhaps I can get my "CypherPissing" folder a few snacks to munch on, in the meantime, by seeing if praising Tim McVeigh is still good enough bait to get a few nibbles. "Suckers" taste pretty good, if you "smoke" 'em.) Anyway... There are some concepts and arguments that "chip away" at an assumed belief or a train of logic, and there are those that knock down a load- bearing support column. The Joseph Sobran piece which Steve posted to the list could, with a proper "primer," do the kind of damage to our view of Civil War history as the OKC bomb did to the Murrah Federal Building. Come to think of it, maybe McVeigh _was_ the primer for explosive new views of why Federalism is quickly becoming indistinguishable from Fascism. The advantage that literature has over black powder is that it is reusable and doesn't leave as big a mess to clean up. The advantage that black powder has over literature is that it makes enough noise to get the message to the blind, as well, and sometimes even restores the sight of the blind. {Warning: Since the side-effects of Black Powder can be substantial, it should only be used in cases where the physician has determined that the benefits of "treatment" outweigh the risks. Dr. McVeigh's surgery in OKC falls into the category of private research (even if he did receive some government funding). However, follow-up research by others may lead to McVeigh's technique being improved and perhaps gaining enough recognition to make it standard paramedical procedure.} TruthMonger

3 2

Fw: slow network behavior with Linux kernel 2.0.x
by Dave Ross 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Can any of you help us with this mess? Linux is not my strong suit. Thanks! My engineer is pulling his hair out. I would appreciate any suggestions anyone could make. -dave ross davros(a)raf.com ---------- > From: Bruce Thompson <bt(a)raf.com> > To: davros@fred > Subject: Fw: slow network behavior with kernel 2.0.x > Date: Tuesday, August 12, 1997 12:18 AM > > > > ---------- > | From: Bruce Thompson <bt(a)raf.com> > | To: linux-kernel(a)vger.rutgers.edu > | Cc: linux-net(a)vger.rutgers.edu > | Subject: slow network behavior with kernel 2.0.x > | Date: Thursday, July 31, 1997 4:40 PM > | > | > | My company developes a psuedo real-time client-server system that runs on > | linux connected through TCP sockets. I have been noticing it has been > | taking the data packets quite a while to reach the clients from the > server. > | After trying several different ethernet cards and speeds (TP vs > thinnet,10 > | vs 100), I have determined that the slow down only occures when the > server > | is running with a linux 2.0.x kernel (I have not tried 2.1.x). Any > system > | running up to 1.3.89 runs fine at full speed. I have not yet tested any > | kernel between 1.3.89 and 2.0.0 > | > | From looking at tcpdumps, it appears that packets are not getting acked > in > | a timely way. I have turned off the 'delayed ack' feature of TCP and > have > | not seen any improvement. Here are some tcpdumps > | > | > | Example of what I would expect to be normal. > | 10:42:17.70 server > client: . 1:1461(1460) ack 98 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:42:17.70 server > client: . 1461:2921(1460) ack 98 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:42:17.71 client > server: . ack 2921 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:42:17.71 server > client: . 2921:4381(1460) ack 98 win 31744 > | 10:42:17.71 server > client: . 4381:5841(1460) ack 98 win 31744 > | 10:42:17.71 server > client: . 5841:7301(1460) ack 98 win 31744 > | 10:42:17.72 client > server: . ack 7301 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:42:17.72 server > client: P 7301:8760(1459) ack 98 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:42:17.74 client > server: . ack 8760 win 31744 (DF) > | > | Example of time lost with no ack of the first packet causing a 200ms > delay, > | and two acks that cause waits of 40ms and 70ms. > | > | 10:42:22.17 server > client: . 8760:10220(1460) ack 1222 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:42:22.37 server > client: . 8760:10220(1460) ack 1222 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:42:22.37 client > server: . ack 10220 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:42:22.37 server > client: . 10220:11680(1460) ack 1222 win 31744 > | 10:42:22.51 client > server: . ack 11680 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:42:22.51 server > client: . 11680:13140(1460) ack 1222 win 31744 > | 10:42:22.51 server > client: . 13140:14600(1460) ack 1222 win 31744 > | 10:42:22.52 client > server: . ack 14600 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:42:22.52 server > client: . 14600:16060(1460) ack 1222 win 31744 > | 10:42:22.59 client > server: . ack 16060 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:42:22.59 server > client: P 16060:17519(1459) ack 1222 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:42:22.61 client > server: . ack 17519 win 31744 (DF) > | > | Here is a particularly bad example where the same 8760 byte file took 1.7 > | seconds to be transfered. > | > | 10:17:14.95 server > client: . 1:1461(1460) ack 98 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:17:15.14 client > server: . ack 1461 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:17:15.14 server > client: . 1461:2921(1460) ack 98 win 31744 > | 10:17:15.14 server > client: . 2921:4381(1460) ack 98 win 31744 > | 10:17:15.44 client > server: . ack 2921 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:17:15.44 server > client: . 4381:5841(1460) ack 98 win 31744 > | 10:17:15.45 client > server: . ack 2921 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:17:15.64 client > server: . ack 2921 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:17:16.08 server > client: . 2921:4381(1460) ack 98 win 31744 > | 10:17:16.27 client > server: . ack 5841 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:17:16.27 server > client: . 5841:7301(1460) ack 98 win 31744 > | 10:17:16.57 client > server: . ack 7301 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:17:16.57 server > client: P 7301:8760(1459) ack 98 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:17:16.59 client > server: . ack 8760 win 31744 (DF) > | > | In general, the system just seems to be slow in responding to this > network > | traffic. This is a private network for these systems so there should be > | now problem with other traffic affecting these timings. With 1.3.x I see > | total transit times on the order of 30ms on the 10Mbps network. > | > | The same hardware that runs slowly with 2.0.x will run quickly with only > | the kernel changed. > | > | Any ideas as to what could be causing this? > | > | > | Thanks, > | ------------------------- > | Bruce Thompson > | RAF Technology > | (206) 867-0700 > | > |

1 0

Register Your Web Site To Over 590 Search Engines "Instantly" FREE DOWNLOAD
by D.Reynolds 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If you would like to be removed from our mailing list please reply to: remove(a)gw.mailmaster.com Register Your Web Site To Over 590 Search Engines "Instantly". FREE DOWNLOAD. I would like to inform you about an exciting new award winning product that could both, save you countless hours, and increase your exposure on the Internet immeasurably! Known as the Submission Wizard, our program offers web users, such as you yourself, the ability to automatically submit your site to over 590 search engines in just one session . Select from different categories, even countries, the choice is yours. The submission process is very simple, efficient, and most importantly fast. All you do is provide standard site information i.e. site name, address, description, and a few well chosen keywords, the Submission Wizard takes this information changes it into the format required by each different engine, and registers you web site. It's that simple! In addition, the Wizard's database of search engines and directories is constantly being updated every week, thus giving your site fresh and relevant exposure. Also, the Wizard allows you to register multiple URL's. Just imagine the possibilities! Take charge of your web exposure, try out the Submission Wizard demo FREE by following the provided hyperlink. We know you'll be as excited about it as much as we are! Want to be #1 on the search engines, check out our web page we will show how to do it with our new publication. http://www.submissions.com/demo.html NOTE: If you are using an Apple platform you will need windows emulation software. Thank you for your time, D. Reynolds Customer Services.

1 0

Enter the ZDNet Channel Surfing Sweepstakes!
by announce＠lists.zdnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

------------------------------------------------------------------ ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 8/12/97 ------------------------------------------------------------------ **** Win a FREE PC or a $5,000 Shopping Spree! **** Join ZDNet's Channel Surfing Sweepstakes: http://www.yoyosyndication.com/zdnet/ Would you like to win a fully loaded Gateway 2000 PC with MMX technology or a $5,000 shopping spree from Computer Shopper NetBuyer? Then join ZDNet's Channel Surfing Sweepstakes and you can earn chances to win just for surfing your favorite computing site! We'll be awarding three Monthly prizes of a Gateway 2000 computer and a Grand Prize of a $5,000 shopping spree. It's easy to join in the fun and you'll have at least 13 new chances to win every week! Just log on to: http://www.yoyosyndication.com/zdnet/ and start surfing for prizes today! _______________________________________________________________ ZDNet Announcements are periodic notices of new features, special events and free offers available to members of ZDNet. --To subscribe to ZDNet Announcements, please send mail to: announce-on(a)lists.zdnet.com You can leave the subject and body blank. --To unsubscribe to ZDNet Announcements, please send mail to: announce-off(a)lists.zdnet.com You can leave the subject and body blank. _______________________________________________________________ Powered by Mercury Mail: http://www.merc.com ===============================================================

1 0

The Right to Bare Arms on "The slippery slope" of Capital Hill
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Steve Schear wrote: > Justice Brennan and the slippery slope > by Joseph Sobran > > The legacy of William Brennan, who died last week at 91, is summed up in > the phrase "judicial activism." When your "activism" is backed with guns, it's called tyranny. > Or, as he put it, the "genius" of the > Constitution lay in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with > current problems and needs." e.g. - The "Right to Bare Arms" means that we can charge Capital Hill with machete's and and cut those fuckers' arms off to keep their fucking hands out of the public till. The "Right to Free Speech" means that we can cut their fucking throats and free those "honest" words that have been trapped down there ever since they got to D.C. God, I love an Constitution with "adaptable principles." > In plain language, Brennan imposed his own liberal agenda and said it was > the Constitution speaking. > But even when his > goals were worthy, his methods were despotic. > Under jurists like Brennan, we are back where we > started: subject to the arbitrary will of men rather than ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > the impersonal rule of law. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Exactly. The right wing kills us with weapons and the left wing kills us with kindness. The Constitution has always suffered as much or more under the judicial influence of Democrats than it has under the influence of Republicans. The citizen's pocketbook, likewise--the Republicans want to spend others' money on weapons and the Democrats want to give it to "worthy" causes of "their" choosing. If one of their relatives needs a kidney, then the Republicans want to force drug-dealers and child-pornographers to give them one of theirs. The Democrats want to hold a lottery so that all of us are subject to giving them a kidney. Constitution!??!?? How _dare_ you suggest tht drug-dealers have rights? How _dare_ you suggest that someone with no kidneys doesn't have a right to receive your "spare" one from the government? > The test of an honest jurist is whether he is willing to rule against his > own preferences, deferring, however reluctantly, to what the law requires > in the case at hand. Like it or not, when two cops blatantly lie on the witness stand (i.e. - telling you that the husband of a murdered woman was not considered a "suspect" when they climbed over his fence) then their evidence should be thrown out. The majority of the nation (and an elected judge) just coughed and looked at their feet when that happened at the "guilty black man's trial," but the "honest" jurists who held a human life in their hands did not. Halfway through the O.J. trial, someone asked me what I thought the verdict should be. I glanced at the courtroom circus and said, "I think we should find them _all_ guilty!" I have come to the same conclusion regarding our legislators. If I were on the Supreme Court, I might take into consideration my need for fertilizer for my garden when deciding their fate. (Of course, being a strong Constitutionalist, I would only have their "Bare Arms," which the Constitution gives me the right to, cut off to feed my plants.) Timothy May points out that things have reached a point where we no longer need to decide on the "kind" of solution to our problem, but the "calibre" of the solution (or "megatonnage"). Robert Hettinga made a good point that, while we may be having a lot of fun with our discussions about the law and the Constitution, technology and the economy will likely influence most of the future direction of eCa$h (as well as privacy and freedom, etc.). Sadly, they are both more right than most of us would like to admit. I would like to think that Republicans and Democrats, the EFF and Freeh, the Government and the people, Rodney King and the L.A. cops, could "all just get along." The reason we can't? We have no longer have a Constitution to hold on to--to balance the stronger against the weaker, the larger against the smaller, the "little" rights and wrongs against the "big" rights and wrongs. > But Brennan's rulings were the triumph of preference over deference. > For him, as for many of his > generation, the office of Supreme Court justice was an irresistible > opportunity to wield power in the guise of interpreting the law. So we end up with legisltors who now have the power to give our money to the rich _or_ to the poor depending on who holds power, and they have the power to kill us with weapons _or_ with kindness when they hold the majority. We are governed by those who think that "The answer to blatantly unconstitutional laws, is _more_ unconstitutional laws." and "The Legislature interprets the Constitution as damage, and routes around it." "A Vote for TruthMonger is a Vote for Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt." Perhaps we need to start a FUD Party. Run a multi-user persona candidate, such as TruthMonger. (MayMonger, TreiMonger, SchearMonger, snowMonger, CrispinMonger). We can each gather our own brand of faithful under a common flag, telling each faction whatever kind of FUD they want to hear before they will vote for us, and become the next majority. Once we are in power...we restore the Constitution, throw out all other laws, and starch the flag (so that nobody can wrap themself in it). Then we quit. {Disclaimer: The fault in the idea espoused above lies in the fact that I (and proably many others) cannot hold it in my mind for more than a few seconds before I invariably start thinking about a few, small "improvements" I could make before resigning.} ("I have met the enemy, and he is _me_.") TruthMangler p.s. - Or, how about, "If elected, we promise to kill ourselves."?

2 1

A peculiar notion
by Steve Schear 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For those who think that a convenient liberal interpretation of our Constituton, a 'la Justice Brenan, is a relatively recent phenomenon, I offer: --------------- Rethinking Lincoln and his peculiar notion By Joseph Sobran War usually isn't worth the price, even when you win. A new collection of essays, "The Costs of War: America's Pyrrhic Victories," edited by John V. Denson (published by Transaction), takes a new look at our wars without the mythology that portrays them as not only worthwhile but gloriOUB. The contributors to this stimulating collection agree that most of our wars have had the ultimate effect of strengthening government at the expense of liberty and the rule of law. One of the most provocative essays in the volume is the historian Richard Gamble's essay "Rethinking Lincoln." Today Lincoln is a demigod to nearly everyone, with intellectual celebrants on both the Left (Gerry Wills) and the Right (Harry V. Jaffa). We seldom ask whether he was justified in making war on the seceding states. Yet in his own time, this was the crucial queation. The Southern states declared their independence in emulation of the original 13 Colonies, and many Northerners recognized their right to do ao. On what grounda did Lincoln deny that right? On grounds that these states permitted slavery? No, because that would have invalidated the 1776 Declaration, which Lincoln, like most Americans, held sacred. Some other reason had to be found. So Lincoln chose to call secession "rebellion" and "insurrection" - an uprising against the sovereign Union. He managed thus, Mr. Gamble points out, by subtituting for the actual early history of the Union his own version of the American founding." Lincoln offered the. peculiar notion that the Union had somehow pre-existed the Constition, the Articles of Conderation, and even the Declaration of Independence, and that no state, therefore, could withdraw from it. The Union is older than the states," Lincoln argued; "and, in fact, it created them as states." But, as Jefferson Davis, the Confederate president, pointed out, the Constitution had been "a compact between independent states." The powers given to the federal government had been "delegated," and whatever is delegated can be withdrawn. In fact, several states had ratified the Cosstitution on the express condition that they could reclaim the delegated powers and secede at any time. Since the right of secession had been stipulated without challenge in 1789, either the states had retained it or their ratifications had been invalid. Lincoln simply ignored this dilemma. His argument implied that the states had had no choice but to ratify the Censtitution, since they belonged to a Union from which there was no exit. "In Lincoln's mind," Mr. Gamble observes, "the Union was not only perpetual, antecedent to the Constitution, and the creator of the very states that now sought to leave, it was also a spiritual entity, the mystical expression of a People." A superb lawyer, logician and rhetorician, Lincoln must have known how feeble his argument was. Before becoming president, he had several times affirmed the right of any people, sufficiently numerous for national independence, to throw off, to revolutionize, their existing form of government, and to establish such other in its stead as they may choose." This was sound Jeffersonian doctrine, and his later sophistical attempts to wriggle out of it must have embarrassed him. In his prosecution of the war against the Confederacy, he claimed, with similar sophistry, powers that, under the Constitution, properly belonged to Congress, including the powers to raise an army and navy and to suspend habeas corpus. He just)fied himself on grounds that Congress would have done these things had it been in session-which Mr. Gamble calls a peculiar defense of his behavior that conceded his guilt." By Lincoln's wartime logic, no state can ever have the right to secede, no matter how flagrantly the Constition is violated by the federal government. The Civil War, waged in the name of the Declaration actually resulted in the practical abrogation of its principle that any just government must have "the consent of the governed." Lincoln insisted that he was violating parts of the Constitution only to save the whole; but the war ultimately left the interpretation of the Constitution at the mercy of the government it is supposed to restrain. In short, the Constitution itself was a casualty of Lincoln's war. A Pyrrhic victory indeed.

7 9

RE: Forged headers
by rab＠stallion.oz.au 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Try RFC822... > ---------- > From: The Traveler[SMTP:travel23@juno.com] > Sent: Tuesday, 12 August 1997 16:08 > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Forged headers > > > Does anyone know of a URL where you can get information on how to > forge > headers and email addresses? > > The Traveler > > ----------------------------- > "Sometimes you're the bug, sometimes you're the windshield." >

1 0

Crypto Patents and PGP Lib 3.0?
by allan＠spamport.excite.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I haven't seen any mention lately of the mythical PGP Lib 3.0. The last I recall hearing was that it was waiting to be release this month when certain patents expired. Does anyone know which patents or algorithms those are? I know that D-H expired back in April, but what about RSA and any other "basic" algorithms? -- Allan Bailey Excite, Inc. (Austin)

1 0

Re: Feds Seek PKI Bids
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

despite the CBD item, keep your eye on the key recovery demonstration projects; links at http://www.best.com/~geeman At 01:53 PM 8/11/97 -0400, A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security wrote: > > >>USG published a solicitation today in the CBD for a >>Public Key Infrastructure which outlines the system >>requirements: > >> http://jya.com/pkicbd.htm > > >Interesting from what is *not* there - any mention of key recovery/key >escow. Looks like they may finally understand what a Certificate Authority >is (not holding breath). Do not think much of appelations (Classic & Gold) >and suspect they may need more than two but sounds like a good start. > > Warmly, > Padgett > > >

1 0

I'd _like_ to share my source code, but...
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Peter Trei forged: > Does anyone remember what 5 + 7 is equal to? (Send the answer by > encrypted, private email. Secrecy is essential to my work.) For immediate employment contact <the_boss(a)dataETR.com>. Or, if you are merely working on a bid for the following, >USG published a solicitation today in the CBD for a >Public Key Infrastructure which outlines the system >requirements: then, 5 + 7 = 14 (Close enough for government work!)

3 2