December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Lack of PGP signatures
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:38 PM 7/5/96 -0400, "Mark M." <markm(a)voicenet.com> wrote: >OK, now the point of this message: somebody pointed out that if a binary was >clear-signed using an option that would strip it down to 7 bits, the binary >would be corrupted and therefore, such an option on PGP would be a Bad Thing. >Then, I pointed out that not only would there be no point in a clear signature, >since that would make the binary useless to someone without PGP anyway. It >is best to sign a binary and extract the certificate to a separate file, which >you noted above. So an option that would strip data down to 7 bits would not >affect the ability to sign a binary. Such an option would probably be a Good >Thing. Not everybody limits their language to the 96 characters supported by ASCII; many people use languages that have umlauts and cedillas and accent marks and haceks and other inkblots above/under/around their letters, or symbols like section markers and Yen and British Pound currency symbols. A signature form that trashes files down to 7 bits would not only annoy these people, but also their readers :-) One readily obvious alternative - hashing only the lower 7 bits of each letter, but not damaging the letter itself - is probably worse, because the message can be altered by changing high bits without changing the signature, while the shred-them-all method at least leaves you sure what you're signing. But they're both pretty bad.... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs # Re-delegate Authority!

1 0

Defend Mail Bomb
by Jerome Tan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is it possible to defend mail bomb? If not, detect who they are?

1 0

Organized Crime Home Page - Four Horsemen, No Waiting
by Charley Sparks 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well, with the UCMJ ( Uniform Code of Military Justice ) and the Oath of Allegiance Military Personnel take on induction being re-written to Support and defend the United Nations and to accept direct and lawful orders from UN personnel, this doesn't surprise me.Soon, UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, or someone like him will repeal more of the amendments to our constitution. First our guns, then our code. I'll give up my pass phrase when they pry it from my cold dead fingers ! >Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 18:22:00 -0700 >From: Alan Bostick <abostick(a)netcom.com> >Organization: Arrogant Opinions 'R' Us >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Subject: Organized Crime Home Page - Four Horsemen, No Waiting >X-URL: http://www.mywebsite.com:1080/cgi-bin/bvolmgr.cgi?BVpage=management >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > >Cypherpunks interested in establishment scaremongering are invited >to take a look at the Organized Crime Home Page >(http://www.alternatives.com/crime/index.html) sponsored by a group >called The Committee for a Safe Society, about the world-wide threat >of organized crime. Apparently every evil known to post-Cold-War >society, even the bad weather in Chicago, is the responsibility of >organized crime. Now you know why governments need GAK. > >Alan-Bob says check it out. >-- >Alan Bostick | [Spielberg's] latest is TWISTER, a film that >mailto:abostick@netcom.com | gives whole new meaning to the phrase "giant >news:alt.grelb | sucking sound." -- Patrick Taggart >http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~abostick > >

1 0

Questions from a Wannabe
by Charley Sparks 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all, I have been reading all of the posts for a few days now and I have a couple of questions, if someone has time. In the event of GAk, how can we be forced to register our keys ? We could always scrounge some old outdated but functional TEMPEST equipment .... and could someone please explain ITAR in a simple way for me ? One last thing.. If I have the US PGP and a friend uses the export version, I assume we are compatible, yes ? Thanks all, Charles E. Sparks<sparks(a)bah.com> In God we trust, all others we encrypt ! http:/www.clark.net/pub/charley/index.htm Public Key At http://www.clark.net/pub/charley/cp_1.htm

1 0

Re: Can't block caller ID in Massachusetts?
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> > That is interesting as I don't recall ever being offered a choice of >> > toll free or being billed when I dial an 800 number (sometimes the only >> > number offered for a company). >> I haven't noticed too many business telephones that don't appear in >> Directory Assistance. >That is assuming that you know which area they are located in. There are businesses that _only_ list their 800 numbers, and you can't find out the real phone number associated with them through directory assistance. It's especially annoying when they've got an in-state or other non-nation-wide 800 number, or when you're calling from outside the US, especially when they're a business you'd like to be able to reach from anywhere, any time, like the travel agent your office uses :-) But it does make it hard to call them directly for ANI-avoidance as well. And they may _only_ have the bank of phones that's got ANI service on it, and not have other phones. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs # Re-delegate Authority!

1 0

ccMail SMTPLINK Undeliverable Message
by Charley Sparks 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >Well, with the UCMJ ( Uniform Code of Military Justice ) and the Oath of >Allegiance Military Personnel take on induction being re-written to Support >and defend the United Nations and to accept direct and lawful orders from UN >personnel, this doesn't surprise me.Soon, UN Secretary-General Boutros >Boutros-Ghali, or someone like him will repeal more of the amendments to our >constitution. First our guns, then our code. > >I'll give up my pass phrase when > they pry it from my cold dead fingers ! > >>Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 18:22:00 -0700 >>From: Alan Bostick <abostick(a)netcom.com> >>Organization: Arrogant Opinions 'R' Us >>To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >>Subject: Organized Crime Home Page - Four Horsemen, No Waiting >>X-URL: http://www.mywebsite.com:1080/cgi-bin/bvolmgr.cgi?BVpage=management >>Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com >> >>Cypherpunks interested in establishment scaremongering are invited >>to take a look at the Organized Crime Home Page >>(http://www.alternatives.com/crime/index.html) sponsored by a group >>called The Committee for a Safe Society, about the world-wide threat >>of organized crime. Apparently every evil known to post-Cold-War >>society, even the bad weather in Chicago, is the responsibility of >>organized crime. Now you know why governments need GAK. >> >>Alan-Bob says check it out. >>-- >>Alan Bostick | [Spielberg's] latest is TWISTER, a film that >>mailto:abostick@netcom.com | gives whole new meaning to the phrase "giant >>news:alt.grelb | sucking sound." -- Patrick Taggart >>http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~abostick >> >> > > > >

1 0

Re: Metered Phone
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:19 PM 7/7/96 +0800, you wrote: >Does anyone have any ideas about this metered phone? >I am from Philippines and heard some news that it will be >existing in 1997. Quite a big problem! Every dial will be counted, >every seconds will be measured... That sounds like you're getting newer telephone technology. In the US, most areas with newer telephone switches offer you the choice of flat rate service (you pay a constant price per month for calls in your city or other local area) or measured service (you pay a lower price per month plus a few cents per minute for local calls.) In many places with measured service, the phone company measures how much time you use for local calls, but doesn't record who you call, only how many minutes. For long-distance calls, which always charge for time, they do record what number you call. For computer users, there are two issues - - recording who you call is, of course, bad - if you have flat rate telephone service, you can stay connected to your Internet provider full time, instead of calling up every N minutes or when you have mail. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs # Re-delegate Authority!

2 1

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: PGPfone Beta 7 Now Available for Download
by Harry Hochheiser 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 12 Jul 96 at 21:31, Arun Mehta wrote: > At 23:38 10/07/96 -0700, Will Price wrote: > >ANNOUNCEMENT: PGPfone Beta 7 Now Available for Download > > Sorry if this has been discussed before (please point me in the > right direction if that is the case), but VSNL, my government-owned > ISP (which also has a monopoly on all international traffic) made me > sign that I will not use my Internet connection for voice traffic. > Is there any way they could find out if I were using PGPfone, or > rather, could I prevent them from finding out? Arun: I can't give you a definitive answer here, but I'll take a shot. Most Internet telephony systems use UDP packets to transfer speech, since the lower overhead of UDP (as opposed to TCP) allows for better throughput. I assume (but I'm not certain) that PGPfone works the same way. Unfortunately, most of your other TCP/IP communication will be based on TCP packets. Therefore, it's theoretically possible for your ISP to monitor your traffic, watching for large numbers of UDP packets. --------------- Harry Hochheiser harry(a)tigger.jvnc.net 08 3A B5 F6 47 7F C7 C4 28 B4 8D D2 2E DF F6 1E

4 3

Re: [NOISE, FLAME] Cypherpunk kook slanders
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:23 PM 7/14/96 EDT, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: [Alot of bullshit deleted] >I remember how someone recently argued on news.groups that Bruce Bough's votes >should be invalidated because he's dying from AIDS. I strongly disagree with >Dan's (?) reasoning, which was, I recall, that someone with only a couple of >months left to live shouldn't be telling others how to run Usenet after his >death. I think we should consider Bruce's opinions as being representative. >After all, a Usenet vote is an interest poll, and the voters are just a sample >of a larger population. Not everyone who thinks like Bruce Bough is going to >die together with him from AIDS within a few months (sigh). Let him vote. I have no idea where you got the idea that Bruce has AIDS. I know Bruce well. He does not have AIDS. You have no clue as to what the hell you are talking about. I understand him being pissed at the accusation. This society does not deal very well with people with AIDS. Bruce has a justifiable concern as to lasting damage to his reputation due to unfounded allegations. (Of course, it is not as bad as accusing someone of being a child mollester, as your friend Dr. Grubor enjoys doing to people he disagrees with...) Bruce *does* have health problems. He has worked DAMN hard to overcome them. They are not a figment of his imagination, nor are they the result of AIDS. They are a very real problem which he is trying to deal with in the best way he can. As for him "dragging outside articles into this group"... You must mean him mentioning your recieval of the "Net Kook of the Month Award". It probably was off topic. After reading your forwards however, it was not undeserved. Another thing that you need to do is learn how to comprehend written english. You stated: >In article 2, Bruce Bough follows up on my article and threatens to prosecute >me under the Americans with Disability Act for misspelling his name. He did nothing of the sort. He threatened to prosecute you for slandering him (by stating he has AIDS when he does not), not for the spelling of his name. He stated: >Further, you might want to read up on the Americans With Disabilities >Act. Slanderous and defamatory statements about the handicapped - and my >government agrees that I do have a real problem, though it's not AIDS - >open you up to interesting liability. I don't understand why you feel the need to cast aspersions on those you disagree with. But you should not be surprised when it pisses people off. Bruce is a very nice guy who has some health problems. I know few people who have met him who have not gotten along with him. Why I should take the word of someone with your attitude over his is unclear to me. Acting like an asshole does not gain any sympathy for your cause. Bruce has killfiled you. I do not blame him. You remade my killfile list as well. Get a life. --- Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ "We had to destroy the Internet in order to save it." - Sen. Exon "Microsoft -- Nothing but NT promises."

2 1

Re: Markoff on Clipper III
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:35 PM 7/14/96 -0700, David Sternlight wrote: >Did you miss the part in the Constitution about "provide for the common >defence" That's a meaningless part of the Preamble. And in any case, it's a statement of why "the People of the United States" wrote the Constitution. It's not an oath of the President. >and about the President's associated responsibility to "take care >that the laws be faithfully executed"? There is no law that specifically controls export of crypto, is there? I was under the impression that is an item on a list of regulated items drawn up by bureaucrats and could be changed any time the Executive Branch chose. a reg isn't a law. >And what oath do you suppose binds him because "The President shall be >commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States"? That's a job title. It doesn't command him as to what he should do in the job. In fact, the Commander In Chief is not under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and so can do anything he wants with that particular "office" subject only to impeachment and the willingness of the armed forces to obey him. It certainly doesn't require him to adopt any particular regulatory strategy. President Browne could legalize the export of all crypto by executive order on January 20th 1997 without violating his oath. That's one of the effects of a "strong executive." DCF

2 1