December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: crosspost re remailers
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:30 PM 5/14/96 -0700, Rich Graves wrote: > > I'd have thought that a remailer going down > > because of political/legal pressure would raise more of a ruckus. At 11:02 AM 5/15/96 -0700, Bill Frantz wrote: > I thought the statement that remailers are supposed to be ephemeral > and common was the answer. Exactly so: Some nyms are valuable, most are valueless by design. All remailers should be valueless by design. The penet.fi remailer design is unsatisfactory precisely because it penet.fi is valuable, hence a target. If it gets shut down a lot of people lose their nyms, causing much inconvenience. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

2 1

Re: Fingerprinting annoyance
by Paul S. Penrod 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 14 May 1996, Black Unicorn wrote: > On Mon, 13 May 1996, Paul S. Penrod wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, 13 May 1996, Senator Exon wrote: > > > > > in connection with a character and fitness report i have been > > > asked to supply a review board with a set of my fingerprints > > > i have never been fingerprinted before > > > i am not very keen on the idea now > > > of course refusing will attract suspicion > > > short of getting someone else to put their fingers in ink for > > > me does anyone have a cute method by which to obscure my prints > > > on those cute little cards without it being obvious? > > > i can fill out and manipulate the card myself i just need a > > > working method. > > > is there no privacy advocate who can help me? > > > > > > > First off, if you were born in the US, they have your feet and/or hand > > prints on record. Secondly, fingerprints are not an absolute proof > > positive means of identification. They are sufficiently unique enough > > that it satisfies the statistical error acceptability for many > > governmental agencies. > > > > I wouldn't worry about it personally. There are more effective ways of > > getting around such things if you really need to. If you don't have any > > historical baggage, then don't make waves. > > More effective? Why not share them with the list? The guy obviously IS > worried about it, and maybe reasonably so. > Yes. No, and for obvious reasons. If the guy is worried because he is paranoid, then that is his reality. It's not as difficult as you might think to find someone if you really want to - with or without fingerprints. If he is paranoid because he has baggage, then that is also his problem. We live by our own choices everyday - both good and bad. There are some consequences that take time to catch up with us, and some of those are unavoidable. If the job is worth it to him, then he will submit - otherwise there are lots of other places to work that don't require printing. ...Paul

1 0

[NOISE] Re: Edited Edupage, 9 May 1996
by mccoy＠communities.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Doug Hughes writes: > "Jean-Francois Avon" <jf_avon(a)citenet.net> wrote: [... regarding the unfortunate poor who Mr. Avon hates...] > >You got to choose to do what is needed to live a better life. And > >most of them ain't doing what it takes. > > Are you saying those poor people in rural West Virgina only live > there because they are not trying hard enough to get out? Yes he is. They are poor and it is all their fault. [flame-bait approaching...] There are two kinds of libertarians, those who hate the poor and those who don't. I always seem to meet the former, I am beginning to suspect the latter don't exist. [...] > >> Education is one > >> thing (perhaps the only thing) that deserves to be subsidized in > >> this country. > >I think that it should not be subsidized. > >If you feel like subsidising education, then by all means, do it. > >But why should you stick a gun in my back to do the same? What if I > >do not want to do the same as you? > > > Then you will be living in a country with lower education standards, > increasing illiteracy, and a pretty pitiful base with a declining > socio-economic structure. Are you arguing that people are not equal > and those with more money should of necessity get better education? Yes, he is. It is times like this that I must count myself among the pitchfork and torch wielding mob, if only because I have been cursed with a small amount of compassion for those who were not as lucky as I. BTW Mr. Avon, the reason we, the unruly mob of collectivists, socialists, and [insert libertarian/anarchist buzzword here] should stick a gun in your back and make you cough up money for education is because we can. If you don't want to do so, they why don't _you_ move? Are your feet cast in concrete blocks? Welcome to the real world. jim

3 2

RE: Why does the state still stand:
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 14 May 96 at 22:01, blanc wrote: > From: Hal [on the idea of companies operating fully anonymously] > > It might be interesting to make a list of all the problems people > can think of why this idea won't work, paired with proposed > solutions and workarounds - sort of a mini FAQ for this important > (some might say ultimate) cypherpunk model. > .................................................................... > > > I think this is a much needed discussion - in particular as it > comes at a time when Uni is is "somewhat disconcerted" at the > defeatist attitude of some cypherpunks and since TCMay is getting > ready to read us the Cypherpunks Bill of Rights regarding the > subsidizatoin of other's people's cyber existence (heh). > > 3 problems which immediately come to mind: > > . What if someone, hired on one occasion but fired at another, > decides in anger to "turn coat" and report everyone to the IRS (or > other fine government agency)? > > . What if a company does not pay as expected - other than adopting > Assassination Politics, what method could an employee use towards > getting their expected remuneration for work done? The nature of anonimity, IMO, precludes any legal mechanism since the anonymity structure was established precisely to avoid any legal consequences. Here, I might be tempted to differeciate between two cases: 1) the entity who wants to get out of the reach of the governmental system 2) the entity who wants to get out of the reach of everybody (to con others) The only problem is, how will you differentiate between 1) and 2) *before* a conflict arises? The involved party would then have to resort to use some sort of unofficial tribunal. It would create a set of parrallel law system, and as much of them as there would be groups doing business together. Again, depending on the context, AP might wery well be the only solution or be no workable solution at all. But here, I think that AP would be the single most important factor ruling the socio-economical behavior of individuals or entities in the world. It already works that way in many countries of the world, especially in south america. In many places, you don't screw around too much or you get killed. As a friend of mine who lived in the jungle told me "if a guy fools around with you wife, you just shut up and take it, but if a guy fools around with your girlfriend, you have the sorcerer mix you a beverage... One of my friend had one and he died within ten days..." He said: "This system might very well go against our common moral principles, but in theses places, you can leave anything on the public place for several days and when you come back, it'll still be there. In theses countries, when you give your word, it *is* binding. Most business deals are simply verbal and there is an astonishing low level of defaulting on them. Thoses who tend to default dishonestly tend very much to die quickly. In thoses countries, no con man ever survives." > . Wouldn't everyone need to have two jobs (or source of regularly > accepted cash), in order to be able to pay for services where > suppliers do not accept virtual cash transactions? (TCM has > mentioned before about the need to pay for some things in tiny > quantities - like quarters for a phone call, etc.) Any physical currency can be made traceable (put a chemical or radioactive tracer or a zillion other tricks...) JFA PLEASE NOTE: THIS POST DOES NOT MEAN THAT I ENDORSE MR. BELL'S SYSTEM. MY RATIONNAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT IT'S INTERNAL MECHANICS AND IT'S INTRINSIC LOGICS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I LIKE NOR ENDORSE THE SYSTEM. I SIMPLY CONCLUDED THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PREVENT THE SYSTEM FROM BEING IMPLEMENTED. IMO, IT IS UNAVOIDABLE. DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee Limoges porcelain, Silverware and mouth blown crystal glasses JFA Technologies, R&D consultants. Physists, technologists and engineers. PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891

2 1

Re: Fingerprinting annoyance
by pjb＠ny.ubs.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sometimes it has nothing to do with the employer. For example, for those of us who work on Wall Street, that is to say, in the financial services industry, the SEC requires that all employees submit to a background check, drug test and fingerprint check (National Agency Check) before you can be hired. Failure to require these checks, and to refuse employment to those that don't pass these test, results in a very large fine for the employer. This is not a one-time thing. You must undergo these test everytime you change jobs, even when moving from one firm to another in the same business. Many of us find this an onerous process, but for the compensation, (top grade Sys Admins and developers can make >$250,000 per year), many of us put up with it. This, BTW, does not apply just to traders, etc, but to everyone. Not only must you put up with all this bull shit, but you must also deal, on a daily basis, with some of the biggest assholes on the face of the earth. Suffering fools is just the beginning. We do it all for, $$$, of course. As someone once said, we are all whores, it's just a matter of determining our price. Cheers, -paul > From cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com Wed May 15 03:05:51 1996 > Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 22:28:38 -0700 > X-Sender: tcmay(a)mail.got.net > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type> : > text/plain> ; > charset="us-ascii"> > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > From: tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) > Subject: Re: Fingerprinting annoyance > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Content-Length: 3095 > > At 6:26 PM 5/13/96, Mark O. Aldrich wrote: > >On Mon, 13 May 1996, Senator Exon wrote: > > > ><snip> > >> i can fill out and manipulate the card myself i just need a > >> working method. > >> is there no privacy advocate who can help me? > >> > > > >I think most privacy advocates would advise, "Refuse to submit." It > >sounds like you're looking for more of a hack on the fingerprinting process. > > And if you are working for me, and I ask for a fingerprint, and you refuse > or "smear" the results (repeatedly, as the first smearing I may just take > as your token protest and have you printed again), you'll be out the door > by the end of the day. > > (Personally, I've never worked for a company which demands fingerprints, > but I've worked for companies which demanded ID badges and signatures, and > these are effectively as intrusive. And I suspect that my former employers > are now using thumbprints, and maybe full prints.) > > What one "doesn't like" and considers an "invasion of privacy" varies from > person to person. Some people think having their picture taken is a > stealing of their soul. Others fear nefarious things will be done with the > DNA from their blood samples. > > Trying to convince a company that photo ID badges and fingerprints are Bad > Things is perhaps admirable, just realize that in a free society that > employer is under no obligation to hire someone who refuses to go along > with the company's security policies. (This relates to the "civil rights" > thread.) > > > >of like a key certificate. If you really can dork the card, have ten > >different people volunteer one print each. There's no way that they'll > >ever be able to use that as evidence in a court or for any other purpose, > >either. > > A stupid idea. As the employer, I wouldn't have to prove it a court of > law...suspicion alone that some of my employees were fucking up a security > system might be enough for me to either a. promote them to the Tiger Team, > or b. fire their asses. > > (I just can't understand where this pervasive meme is coming from here on > this list, the notion that employers are severely limited in what they can > do to employees unless they can "prove it in court. Like it or not, most > employees in the United States are still employed "at will," and are not > covered by employment contracts such as some executives and the like get.) > > >If you're forced to do this in person with a tech, you can continuously > >"fight" the grip they have on your hand and smudge the card. However, > > Sure. It makes it easy for the employer to simply say "Next candidate." > > > --Tim May > > Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! > We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. > ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- > Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, > tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero > W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, > Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. > "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." > > > > >

1 0

Re: Why does the state still stand:
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:59 PM 5/15/96 +0200, bryce(a)digicash.com wrote: >Excuse me? Here James, have a penny. > >- -----BEGIN ECASH PAYMENT----- > >oLmQgwABTaGgiqCukIFPkIECkIEBkIEEkIEBkYQxmiZEkIQxrJtEkIFPkoFAlJR9 >yFLULqd42MJyDwR0ruJbWY5+uZSUo+mMUWbmdjpzJNZ9FGwRyEPh9iqQgRCSlEhl >cmUgaXMgbXkgb25lIGNlbnQukoCUgJCBApGEAAAAAJCBAKGguKCrkIIBwJPgI5bU >zb3E4EjtpuGYz+mutWIDdy7q8vMW9FtgCDNAsaakvTK1vyHv+qeVyu9im5u7eRoA >ElARFDxpszgN6MV0jpYebNwHuCLHZgCmRVd9uKvV5RQgDHrgzrfpZqzeP+WWk+AI >FXnhJgU1PoFlndx3LwCbM9D6c4afILXuqSSsz2viGDR0mT1VRaqaZTrTtdkWKkTq >xh1vqh190ajm10SPQMMvujBMzDGiqZocPDKneSMKVww3Nuw74vXH+Z8yKCcgW5GQ >gQGhoaE= >- -----END ECASH PAYMENT----- > > >That took me all of about 5 seconds. If you had Mark Twain >ecash it would take you less time to accept that penny that it >takes you to read "----BEGIN ECASH PAYMENT-----" with your slow >human eyes. But what I'm looking for is full payee/payor anonymity. (three guesses as to why...) Can you do this? If not, why not? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Past one terabit/second on fiber
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:44 AM 5/15/96 CDT, Daniel R. Oelke wrote: >> "Wow", I said. Far faster than the 2.5 Gb/sec transmission that is >> currently fairly standard for long-haul fiber trunks. > >The ads say they are selling it - that doesn't mean shipping it... yet >at least. (Note that my employer is a direct competitor of Lucent >so I have a vested interest in setting the facts straight) Yes, I should clarify that the article indicated that the whole system will be available in the "second quarter of 1996." They say the fiber itself, "TrueWave" is available now. > >> I wasn't prepared, however, for page 38, in an article titled "Research >> Teams Achieve 1 Trillion bits a Second." In fact, three separate groups did >> this. I copy the article below. > >Yes - this is still very much a lab situation only though. >It will be quite a few years before we hit that in real systems. True. In fact, it may be that we simply don't need that rate of transmission yet. Maybe somebody familiar with routers can tell us what kind of CPU horsepower would be required to do that effectively. Economics dictates that such an extraordinarily fast and multiplexed system would only be used when it is cheaper than the alternative, using multiple lower-speed fibers. If anything, I think the main impediment to the use of the higher rates is fact that fiber signals must be broken down whereever the fiber is terminated, and the cost of that termination would be astronomical if it had to handle 1 Tb/s. Chances are good that one of the few places that such a system would be economical would be long-haul undersea cables where breakouts are rare and terminations are few. >> Even if we only consider that 20 Gb/second fiber from Lucent, that is >> equivalent to about 300,000 simultaneous voice calls. > >An OC48 signal (~2.5 Gb/sec) will handle 48 T3's or 48 * 672 voice calls. >Multiply by 8 for 20 Gb/second and you get 258048 voice calls. >Pretty close to 300k I guess. I was figuring they'd cut out silences...as well as echo-suppression cutouts. Do they still do this? Given modern fiber's capacity, I wonder if they bother. >I don't know that any number fiber cable is "standard" but >36-fiber cable is not unusual. To find the capacity of a cable, you >have to cut the number of fibers in half (as you did) because >generally each fiber is used only for a single direction of traffic. >You then have to cut it in half again because phone companies have >everything redundant. So, for a connection between two cities, >there are generally 2 cables in different locations (so one backhoe >doesn't get both), with on average only 1/2 the fibers in each carrying >paying traffic. There's also a lot of 'dark fiber' out there, right? Fiber laid as part of a cable but not activated, because it's not yet needed. I got a look at a segment of the operation that laid a cable from Seattle (Vancouver BC?) to around San Francisco, about 5 years ago. Got a chance to talk to an engineer, and ask a bunch of technical questions. They laid three smaller (2" or so) plastic tubes in a larger outer tube, and the engineer said they'd later blow a cable through a single tube with compressed air. He said they had no current plans to fill the other two tubes, because of lack of need. And at the rate the fiber companies are improving transmission rates, it is unclear whether they will ever run out of capacity in such situations. >> If we assume that the fiber cable costs $1/meter per fiber, and the cost of >> trenching, burial, and interconnects raise this to $10/meter/fiber, and if >> we generously assume that the average LD call goes 3000 miles (5,000,000m), >> that call occupies 1/150,000th of a $50 million fiber for a few minutes. If >> we suppose that the fiber has to gross $100,000,000 per year to pay for >> itself, and even if it's only operating at an average 10% load level(both >> assumptions are pessimistic, that only works out to a cost of 1.3 cents per >> minute per call. That's why these LD phone companies are so scared: If we >> can transmit Internet on fiber, that fiber can accept this extra traffic at >> very low marginal cost. > >I can't vouch much for your cost numbers - other than to apply the >factor of 2 adjustment noted above. My numbers are not totally a WAG (wild-ass guess) but they are probably out of date even if they had any resemblence to the truth a few years ago. I'd appreciate hearing more accurate figures if you know them. Don't divulge company secrets or anything; I'm only interested in ballpark figures for the industry as a whole. > I would add that much of a >phone companies cost is in billing and customer service, etc. >Not the cost of installing and maintaining the fiber and equipement. This suggests that there would be a market for a LD phone company that charged, say, a yearly payment of $200-300 for essentially unlimited use. (The main impediment to this would be regulatory; as I understand it LD companies have to pay local telco's for connections on a per-minute connect basis. Is that right? This needs to get fixed.) Their billing costs would be very small. >Internet telephony should make the use of bandwidth even more >efficient - thereby cutting costs. The big guys who own >the fibers will still make money - the pipes that carry internet >traffic are still needed. But the little guys will get squeezed out. >(until they become ISPs ;-). Internet traffic could theoretically >be carried over this large amount of protection fiber (mentioned above) >that is out there for a much lower marginal cost than the current >T3 or OC3 pipes that are being used. The only "problem" being that these >are lower priority channels, so that if a failure occurs anywhere, >the traffic on them is dropped. Most customers are demanding >high uptimes so much that the idea of a very lost cost, >but much less reliable service hasn't caught on yet. I think the market will have to migrate towards such services. A backup fiber is an asset whose capacity can be easily "mined" for a substantial payback. True, its availability is not particularly reliable, but that's exactly what the Internet was intended to be able to use, right? I suspect that the real reason Internet hasn't migrated to such transmission systems is simply that its needs still don't demand anywhere close to the current-available fiber technology. However, if traffic is tripling per year we'll need to see a substantial migration to full-fiber links within 3-5 years. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

RE: Why does the state still stand:
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:04 PM 5/15/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: >On Tue, 14 May 1996, blanc wrote: > >> From: Hal [on the idea of companies operating fully anonymously] >> >> It might be interesting to make a list of all the problems people can >> think of why this idea won't work, paired with proposed solutions and >> workarounds - sort of a mini FAQ for this important (some might say >> ultimate) cypherpunk model. >> ..................................................................... >> >> I think this is a much needed discussion - in particular as it comes at a >>time when Uni is is "somewhat disconcerted" at the defeatist attitude of some >>cypherpunks and since TCMay is getting ready to read us the Cypherpunks Bill >>of Rights regarding the subsidizatoin of other's people's cyber existence >>(heh). >> >> 3 problems which immediately come to mind: >> >> . What if someone, hired on one occasion but fired at another, decides >in anger to "turn coat" and report everyone to the IRS (or other fine >government agency)? > >The entire organization would clearly have to be double blinded. If this >can be done for mailing lists (which I believe it can) it can be done for >corporations too. The real trick is getting the costs of anonymous (and I >mean secure anonymous) communications low enough. If all you need to do is beat the cost of commuting 20 miles/day, no problem. >> . What if a company does not pay as expected - other than adopting >> Assassination Politics, what method could an employee use towards >> getting their expected remuneration for work done? > >If payment is made weekly, it should be made in advance to an escrow agent >who would issue a certificate that the payment for employee r2dd54 has >been received. The payment would then not be released to anyone without >the consent of the corporation and the employee. > >Obviously the escrow agent would have to be trusted. > >... > >Even if a payment gets hung up in a dispute, it's only for a week. You could require daily payment and forgo the escrow agent. (Assuming you are willing to risk a day's pay as an experiment in reputation.) Note that AP won't work if everyone is anonymous because you won't have a target. What may be a problem for such a company is a social problem. All the creative groups I have worked with have had close personal relations. (Although they have not had wide agreement on significant non-work subjects!) I don't know if good, creative, group-produced products can be built without such a relationship. Does anyone know of an example of such a product from an "anonymous" environment? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

2 1

Securing CDROM from piracy
by Vipul Ved Prakash 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We have developed a multimedia resource that will be cut on a CD-ROM for retailling. Since we don't have our own distributers newtwork we will be collobarating with another firm for distribution. Is there any way of making sure that the guy doesnt pull a fast on on us? Can we ensure that he cannot duplicate the thing and start selling it without sharing the profit. Or alternatively is there any protocol we could follow that will ensure a fair game? Vipul -- .od8888bo. \|/ .d%::::88::888b. (@ @) .d888::::::::8:888%. ------------------oOO-(_)-OOo----------------- 88888:::::::88888::%. You walk across with your flowers in your hand d888888:::88;888888::b Trying to tell me no one understands 888888888:888888888888 Trade in your hours for a hand full of dimes Y8888888::::::888888%P Gonna make it baby in our prime. '8888888:::::::8888:%' ---------------------------------------------- '88888888:::888888%' Vipul Ved Prakash Fax : +91-11-3328849 '8888888::88888%' Positive Ideas. Internet : vipul(a)pobox.com '"Y88%B8P"' ----------------------------------------------

4 3

RE: Why does the state still stand:
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 15 May 96 at 17:32, Black Unicorn wrote: > I disagree. The key is prior or on site clearing. Anonymous > businesses will have to depend more on reputation, and even > reputation has its limits when it comes to parties that obviously > have no accountabilty at all. > > Participants in such a market will have to be wary of the "last > shot" or "last round" problem. (Specifically that one party to the > transaction may no longer wish to participate in the market, and not > need to and thus is free to screw the market, "cash in" his > reputation and retire on the proceeds as a result. > > Still, escrows or multiple escrows will be the answer here. > > Again, depending on the context, AP might wery well be the only > > solution or be no workable solution at all. > > Now, tell me how AP is a solution if everyone in the corporation is > double blinded? Who do anonymous parties put out betting pools on? Agreed. I just supposed there might be some of the involved entities that are not totally anonymous. I don't think that you'd deliver completely anonymously a bulldozer or any other physical goods to some "anonymous" address. Somehow, if the transaction involves anything physical, there is potential for a anonimity breach. > > Any physical currency can be made traceable (put a chemical or > > radioactive tracer or a zillion other tricks...) > > And so? Because I possess or have received cash from someone does > not mean that it is mine, nor that I earned it, nor that I am not > merely holding it, nor that I am not acting as trustee. Agreed too. But still, it might attract troublemakers. > Income tax and currency taxes depend on realization events. Even in > the strictest sense, realization is a thin and vague concept. Since I am not a layer, would you care to elaborate a bit more on that? > Your only remaining option is to tax possession of currency. Good > luck. Why? Don't they already do that through Tax on Capital? > Again, who are you going to kill? Nobody. I thought that through you long law studies, you did learn to read... Or is it my english that is too imperfect? Dear Unicorn, what in the hell makes you concludes that my "disclaimer" means that I am going to kill somebody? I just say that after having turned the idea around for some time, I see it as ineluctable that *some* groups will implement it. Just bring me *one* single fact of reality that will show me that it is not possible to implement and you will have made my day. Even if it is implemented for any entirely wrong reason, I do not think that we can prevent it's implementation. BTW, since I was off from CPunks for a while, would you please tell me if you published the suite of you writings on assets concealement? I would then proceed to get it from the archives if it was published. Regards. JFA DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee Limoges porcelain, Silverware and mouth blown crystal glasses JFA Technologies, R&D consultants. Physists, technologists and engineers. PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 Unsollicited commercial e-mail will be proofread at US165 $/h Any sender of such material will be considered as to have ac- cepted the above mentionned terms.

2 1