December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: [NOISE] Airport legal question
by William Knowles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lucky, >I know that it is a violation of federal law to joke about explosives at >the X-ray machine. Would an "I love Explosives" sticker on carry-on >luggage violate any laws? Dunno, But you might get a kick out this from The Chicago Reader that published a list of the "bomb threats" made at O'Hare International airport a few weeks back. 7/18: "I have nothing other than the bomb I am going to put on the plane." 7/18: "I have a bomb that's going to go off in 30 seconds." 7/18: "You mean the bomb I have in my bag?" 7/19: "I don't have an ID, but I have a bomb." 7/21: "There's a bomb in the bag in my hand." 7/23: "I don't have a bomb in the bag." 7/23: "I got a bomb in my bag to kill everyone here." 7/24: "Well no, I left my pipe bomb at home." 7/25: "The one that looks like [there's] a bomb in it." 7/26: "I have a bomb in my bag. Boom." 7/27: "Where should I put the bomb?" 7/27: "No, nothing but a bomb." 7/31: "Are you checking for bombs? I've got a bomb in my bag." 7/31: "I have some explosives to transport." 8/1: "It's not as if we were Swedish and here to blow up the airport." 8/2: Offender: "It's a bomb in the bag." Witness: "That's not funny." Offender: "I'm not playing." 8/3 "I have a bomb." -- William Knowles erehwon(a)c2.org -- William Knowles <erehwon(a)c2.org> PGP mail welcome & prefered / KeyID 1024/2C34BCF9 PGP Fingerprint 55 0C 78 3C C9 C4 44 DE 5A 3C B4 60 9C 00 FB BD Finger for public key -- Vote for Harry Browne in November -- http://www.HarryBrowne96.org

1 0

Re: Hackers invade DOJ web site
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:31 PM 8/20/96 -0500, Frank Stuart wrote: >Since we don't know how the intruders broke in, we can only speculate. I >can think of several scenarios where cryptographic techniques could help. >I can also think of several where they wouldn't. When you've only got 20 >seconds to explain to a non-technical audience, I don't think it's dishonest >to say that it might have prevented it. > >Off the top of my head, here are a couple examples: > > 1. It's possible that a DOJ employee logged in from a remote site while > the intruders were snooping somewhere along the way. If the link had > been encrypted, that would have made things much more difficult or > impossible for the attackers. > > 2. Perhpas the intruders used IP spoofing and .rhosts to break in. If > machines had to be cryptographically authenticated, a rsh from the > wrong machine wouldn't work. One of the best comments I have seen (from another list) was: "These are the people who want us to escrow our encryption keys with them and yet they can't protect their own web site." I think this can be used as a very valid example as to why they are untrustworthy to be in charge of keeping anything private and/or protected, let alone private encryption keys. --- | "Remember: You can't have BSDM without BSD. - alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com "| |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ | alano(a)teleport.com |

1 0

Re: Husband/Wife jailed for saying Clinton Sucks
by Z.B. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 20 Aug 1996, Alan Olsen wrote: > At 08:23 PM 8/20/96 -0700, you wrote: > > >A more detailed version of this story was posted on talk.politics.guns > >last week. I could dig it up and post it if anyones interested. > > Post it. I would like to see it at least... > You got it... Published in Washington, D.C. July 9, 1996 Insult to Clinton leads to 2 arrests ------------------------------------------------------ By Ruth Larson THE WASHINGTON TIMES ------------------------------------------------------ [A] Chicago-area couple were arrested on charges of disorderly conduct and interrogated for more than 12 hours last week, simply because the woman told President Clinton exactly what she thought of him. Last Tuesday, Mr. Clinton made an impromptu stop at the "Taste of Chicago" festival in Grant Park at midafternoon. According to her husband, Patricia Mendoza, angered and upset by the recent deaths of 19 U.S. airmen in Saudi Arabia, told the president, "You suck, and those boys died!" Once the president left the area, Secret Service agents and Chicago police converged on Mrs. Mendoza and accused her of threatening the president, a charge her husband, Glenn, vehemently denies. "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if my wife had threatened the president -- which she did not -- I can guarantee we wouldn't have been locked up on charges of disorderly conduct," the Westchester, Ill., man told The Washington Times in a telephone interview last night. Mr. Mendoza served in the Navy for 4 1/2 years, and he was on a ship off the Lebanese coast when the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut killed 241 Marines and sailors. "I didn't sit on an aircraft carrier for four years to be railroaded by a bunch of Secret Service agents," he said. Secret Service spokesman Ar nette Heintze said: "People don't get locked up just for saying, 'You suck.' You could say that all day long and it's not a violation of law or local ordinances." Mr. Heintze insisted that Mrs. Mendoza "made a threatening statement" to the president, but he refused to elaborate, saying that the matter was under investigation. "It's a situation that happens from time to time, but it's something we take very seriously," he said. The incident sparked a media frenzy in Chicago but had yet to surface on the East Coast until radio talk-show host G. Gordon Liddy discussed it on his nationally syndicated program yesterday. Mr. Liddy told The Times: "I think it's outrageous. Everybody agrees that if there's a threat, the Secret Service clearly can detain the individuals and do an investigation. "But 'You suck, those boys died' is not a threat. It's an expression of anger, contempt or ridicule. It's wrong for the Secret Service to detain someone if there's no threat," he said. Mr. Mendoza, who owns a small electronics firm, and his wife were at the festival with their employees, unaware that the president was coming. Suddenly, he recalled, the Secret Service descended on the park, throwing up barriers and preventing anyone from leaving the area. A black car drove up, Mr. Clinton leaped out and began shaking hands with onlookers, and Mrs. Mendoza found herself face to face with the president, Mr. Mendoza said. Mr. Clinton shook her hand and she reacted by pulling it back and telling him, "You suck, those boys died," Mr. Mendoza said. He said the president looked at her, then motioned to an assistant as he moved along the rest of the line. "He wasn't pleased," Mr. Mendoza said. Soon afterward, Mr. Mendoza said, Secret Service agents began accusing his wife of threatening the president's life. At that point, he said, he began directing his wife: "Trish, don't say anything. We need a lawyer." An officer told him to shut up and he responded, "Screw you. I have a right to tell my wife to get a lawyer when she's getting interrogated by the Secret Service," Mr. Mendoza said. He concluded, "The fact is, I was arrested because I was swearing at my wife." Chicago police arrested the couple at the request of the Secret Service. The Mendozas were questioned until their release on personal-recognizance bond at 4 a.m. Mr. Mendoza denied any political ill will toward Mr. Clinton. "I'm apolitical. I was in the military, had a good record, have a wife and two kids, a small business," he said. But he fears the incident will be exaggerated because of election-year politics and the Democratic National Convention coming to Chicago next month. "They're making us look like Bonnie and Clyde, Republican poster children. And that's not who we are," Mr. Mendoza said. ------------ Published in Washington, D.C. July 10, 1996 By Ruth Larson THE WASHINGTON TIMES The U.S. Secret Service yesterday sought to distance itself from the arrest of a Chicago-area couple who "insulted" President Clinton during his visit to a festival there last week. Yet even as it was discounting its role in the arrests of Glenn and Patricia Mendoza, the Secret Service was consulting with the U.S. attorney in Chicago about criminal charges against the couple. And Secret Service and Chicago police spokesmen differed on several details of the incident, which is triggering growing outrage on talk radio and even from a prominent Republican member of Congress. The Mendozas were at the Taste of Chicago festival in Grant Park on July 2 when Mr. Clinton dropped by to shake hands in the crowd. Mrs. Mendoza, upset over last month's bombing deaths of 19 U.S. airmen in Saudi Arabia, told the president as he took her hand: "You suck, and those boys died." Mr. Mendoza said the president looked at her, then motioned to an assistant as he moved along shaking hands. After the president left, Secret Service agents accused Mrs. Mendoza of threatening the president. Her husband stepped in and ordered her not to say anything until they called a lawyer. "That is not accurate," Secret Service spokesman Arnette Heintze said yesterday of the Men dozas' version. "A direct threat was made, but I'm not going to elaborate. Mrs. Mendoza has a right to fair representation of her case, as does the prosecution, and the newspaper is not the proper place to air this case. "We were there because a verbal threat was made to the president, and the Secret Service is responsible for the physical safety of the president." Rep. Robert Livingston, Louisiana Republican, is among those angered by what he called Secret Service overreaction. "Is this going to be the norm? If you criticize the president, are you going to be arrested by a bunch of federal agents and thrown in jail overnight? That's a frightening thought." "I think on the heels of this FBI investigation, with these FBI files in the White House, this kind of symbolizes an appalling lack of respect for human rights and for the rights of people to speak out in this country," Mr. Livingston said in a C-SPAN interview. Mr. Heintze, who complained about continuing media interest in the Mendoza matter, said the Secret Service thought there was no need to arrest the couple at the festival because Mr. Clinton had moved on. He said Chicago police arrested the Mendozas because of their conduct after the president left. "The Mendozas refused to follow police directions, and so they opted to arrest them. We supported them in their action, but it was an independent act by the police. "The arrest was separate and incidental to our questioning of the Mendozas," Mr. Heintze said. The Mendozas were charged with disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor, and were interrogated for 12 hours before they were released. No federal charges have been filed. The case has been complicated by conflicting details from the principals: The Chicago Police Department says it is handling the matter. Department spokesman Patrick Camden said yesterday, "There's no Secret Service involvement, to my knowledge." The couple are scheduled to appear in misdemeanor court Aug. 27. But Ralph Grayson, special agent in charge of the Secret Service's Chicago office, said his agency has an "ongoing investigation" into the matter. The Secret Service said Mrs. Mendoza made a "threatening statement" to the president that was far more serious than the one Mrs. Mendoza says she made, but it declined to say what the threat was. Mr. Camden said Mrs. Mendoza had hinted at "blowing up the president." "She said something to the effect that 'He [Mr. Clinton] should have been blown up instead of the 19 servicemen.'" Mr. Heintze said emphatically, "That is not accurate, and don't try to find out what the threat was." A Chicago police spokesman said yesterday that the Secret Service had not asked them to arrest the Mendozas, as was previously reported, but that the couple were arrested for creating a disturbance. The extent to which alcohol contributed to the incident is also in question. Mr. Camden said: "Sure, there was alcohol. They both had been drinking. A rational person doesn't act that way. This was a family event, there were kids around, and these people were saying a lot more than 'You suck.' In fact, it rhymed with 'suck.'" Mr. Mendoza acknowledged that when Secret Service agents accused his wife of threatening the president's life, "I was screaming at the top of my lungs. Granted, I was angry, scared, upset, and if that's disorderly, I guess so." He said he was not drunk. Mr. Mendoza said he repeatedly demanded that he be given a blood breath test, but the police refused. "We wouldn't do a Breathalyzer test, even if he asked," the police spokesman said. "We are so sensitive about First Amendment rights," said the Secret Service spokesman. "I can assure you that if the Secret Service was doing anything contrary to the Constitution, the president would not tolerate it, and he would make big changes," he said. * Joyce Price contributed to this report. --- þ KWQ/2 1.2i NR þ Friends don't let friends run Windows. --- Zach Babayco zachb(a)netcom.com <----- finger for PGP public key http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/4127

2 2

Re: Securing Internet mail at the MTA level
by droelke＠rdxsunhost.aud.alcatel.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > It's also clear to me that for E-mail, you don't want transport level > > security for the system; you want "object" security, that is, digital > > signature and encryption of the mail message. > > Yup. This is a frequently missed point. Link security and object > security have different uses at different times -- and people confuse > them way too often. > With the question of "Do you want object security or link security for email?" The answer is (as with all security questions) "What is your threat model?" For example: Your company does not have mailreaders capable of doing encryption (at least not easy enough for average users). Your supplier has the same situation. You have accepted this fact for the time being, and trust that your employees won't tinker with the email if they want their job for long. However, the email you send to your supplier and vice-versa should not go over the Internet unencrypted as it potentially contains sensitive information. So, a link-level encryption that the two co-operating sys-admins can set up would be a good solution. This would be easier to set up and maintain than a encrypted router tunnel through the net, and solve your problem. Of course, I'll submit that object security on email would be preferable, but that might not be pratical right now. Dan ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Oelke Alcatel Network Systems droelke(a)aud.alcatel.com Richardson, TX

1 0

Re: Post Office restrictions
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Mon, 19 Aug 1996 10:18:42 -0400 (EDT"), Arley Carter wrote: >> I've told some people about a few of the loopholes mentioned on the list >> about the new post office restrictions on airmail packages. What's >> disturbing is that none of the people I'd talked to, all of whom are >> at least reasonably intelligent, had thought or heard, for instance, >> that PanAm103 only took 12 ounces or that someone could just send two >> packages. How does the news media justify its existence? (Down here, it >> seems to be serving as a propaganda arm for the Republicans) > ************ > >Where are you that the news media serves as a lapdog for the Republicans? >The local media, esp. the print media around here, Winston-Salem, NC >leans so far to the left the letters fall off the page when you up the >newspaper. :-) I'm talking about the San Diego Union-Tribune, the paper that posted huge billboard welcoming the RNC around the area, the paper that paid for the biggest fireworks display ever west of the miss, the paper that had a 6-20 page RNC insert daily, the paper that "spammed" the opinions page with pro-RNC articles. Are we starting to see what's it like? By the end, I was something like "I don't care if Bob Dole gets raped to death by a donkey, I don't want to hear about it!" >As for the national media, esp. the (C)linton (N)ews (N)etwork, need I >say more? Agreed |Home: Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp |Autoresponder: send email w/subject of "send resume" or "send PGPKEY" |Work: cadams(a)acucobol.com | V.M. (619)515-4894 | (619)689-6579 |AcuCOBOL-85: Migrate the easy way - 100% legacy compatible, |easy GUI, ODBC, 650+ platforms w/o recompiling (like Java).

1 0

Re: Spamming (Good or Bad?)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:16 AM 8/21/96, Paul S. Penrod wrote: >On Tue, 20 Aug 1996, Ross Wright wrote: >> Market Droids???? As a salesman I take offence at this slur. Sales droids are subservient to market droids...sort of like R2D2, a sales droid, getting his marching orders from C3PO, a market droid. >As for spamming, I get enough of it via snail-mail, I don't want to see >it in my Inbox too. And, for the record, there are lots of people out >there who pay on the bulk charge, not by time. Sending advertising or >junk mail to these folks costs them money, maybe not much for the one >message you sent, but several thousand over a month of a quarter add up >to real money. > >There is a time and place for legitimate advertising. I am sure that >given time and impetus, a number of clear channel venues will open up to >allow precision marketing and sales to happen electronicly. > >At the moment, it's bad nettiquette... The basic problem is that, unlike paper mail, it costs a sender essentially nothing to send nearly any size file to as many people as he wishes. This is the basic economic fact of the Net at this time. Until this eventually changes, spamming will be with us. (I understand experts in the field of "spamming" have various names for various flavors: spam, velveeta, jerky, etc. I'll call them all "unwanted messages.") The problem is one of economics and allocation of costs. Other industries have the same issues: * fax machines: costs of paper are borne by receiver, leading to high bills when "junk faxes" are received (and hence some laws restricting such faxes) * cellular phones: receiver of calls usually is charged air time. Thus, "junk calls" cost money. (My physical mailbox probably gets about $1 a day of junk mail, in terms of postage paid. More, in terms of costs to print catalogs, fliers, freebies, etc. It takes me about 20 seconds, tops, to decide what to discard immediately and what to save, so at this point "their costs" > "my costs.") In my view, attempting to legislate what is "junk" and what is not junk is misguided. (And I suspect it rarely works in halting junk mail.) Junk is in the eye of the beholder. There are technological fixes which I would favor over attempts to ban unwanted messages. --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."

7 9

Re: Hackers invade DOJ web site
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:17 AM 8/21/96, Alan Olsen wrote: >One of the best comments I have seen (from another list) was: > >"These are the people who want us to escrow our encryption keys with them >and yet they can't protect their own web site." > >I think this can be used as a very valid example as to why they are >untrustworthy to be in charge of keeping anything private and/or protected, >let alone private encryption keys. Something for future hackers to think about adding in future attacks (*): "Press HERE to access National Law Enforcement Master Key Database" or "Back Door" (with some semi-realistic-looking computer files....) or "Click HERE to download confidential FBI dossiers on Clinton's political enemies." (with a few entries on leading Republicans and former White House occupants, for verisimilitude) In other words, the DOJ attack _could have_ made some much stronger points than merely saying DOJ is linked to Hitler and pornography, etc. (* I am not by these words _encouraging_ such hacks, at least not in any active, conspiratorial, RICO sense.) --Tim May Illegal speech if said to Herr Clinton: "You suck, and those boys died!" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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: [NOISE] Airport legal question
by nathan poznick 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 20 Aug 1996, Lucky Green wrote: > I know that it is a violation of federal law to joke about explosives at > the X-ray machine. Would an "I love Explosives" sticker on carry-on > luggage violate any laws? i'm not sure about any specific laws, but i know the airlines take *any* talk of explosives VERY seriously... a few years back, while i was in high school, i was on an airplane with about 15 other students, returning from an excursion... one of the other students said something to the effect of, "oh sure...yea, my cd player is really just a clever bomb in disguise.." one of the flight attendants overheard him say this, (to another student) and he was promptly taken to the front of the plane and restrained...they actually took his cd player apart to make sure there were no explosives in it...the only thing that stopped them from pressing criminal charges was the fact that all of the adult sponsor on the trip vouched for him and pleaded with the flight crew that he was just kidding... he got off with a SEVERE talking to and a cd player in less-than perfect condition... nate. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ Nathan Poznick ^ ^ <npoznick(a)harding.edu> ^ ^ http://www.harding.edu/~npoznick ^ ^ ^ ^ "640k should be enough for anybody." ^ ^ ^ ^ --Bill Gates, 1981-- ^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

1 0

Re: Spamming (Good or Bad?)
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Or About 20 Aug 96, 23:12, Rich Graves wrote: > > > So is mailbombing the motherfucker, or more productively, > > > virtually picketing his ISP until they kick him off for net > > > abuse > > > > That is the kind of self righteous crap that gives me the > > creeps!!! > > Good. That's called deterrence.* The market decides. > > >From your earlier message, though, describing the "spamming" you > >do, I > really don't see you as needing deterrence <SNIP> > indiscriminately. OTOH, if you really target your audience well, > especially if a human and not a bot is in charge of selecting > prospects, then I'd call that "cold calling," not "spamming." Well, that's just the way I look at it. But some people overreact... > Unsolicited email is moderately annoying, but I don't think it's > anything to complain about. I filter all mail from unknown addresses > anyway. > > * - The cool thing about this kind of deterrence is, since you're > only defending virtual turf, you can sabre-rattle to your heart's > content without worrying about having to actually follow through. I do enjoy a little of that from time to time. Ross =========== Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

1 0

Fwd: Re: No Subject - Lesson in cracking (cryptoanalysis 001)
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

==================BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE================== >From: "Chris Adams" <adamsc(a)io-online.com> >To: "Scottauge(a)aol.com" <Scottauge(a)aol.com> >Date: Wed, 21 Aug 96 00:14:19 -0800 >Reply-To: "Chris Adams" <adamsc(a)io-online.com> >Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: Chris Adams's Registered PMMail 1.52 For OS/2 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Subject: Re: No Subject - Lesson in cracking (cryptoanalysis 001) > On Mon, 19 Aug 1996 19:34:07 -0400, Scottauge(a)aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 96-08-19 05:44:34 EDT, you write: >> SAMPLE MESSAGE: ("HAIL ERIS") >"e" is a very popular letter, so is t and s. Collect enough cypher text and >ya just match frequency to frequency - a high number of 6's are replaced with >an e, and so on down the line. >Now we just start chunking up the peices according to spelling rules we know >about - then with the help of a handy dandy spell checker like thing, when we >get close to a word, we clump the chunks together. >Actually, mixing your letters around helps cuz one needs to do a lot of >shuffling here - but believe me, algorithms are out there. Plus, the more >cipher text you provide, the easier it is to nab your info cuz there is >more >information for the particular algorithm I'm thinking of to work with. Okay wise guy. I'm going to give you a 14300 character string that starts out EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. . . How are you going to tell *what* I was talking about? I guaruntee with any message of practical length (i.e. not " ckosuuy") will have multiple possibilities, particularly when you take things like mispellings, software artifacts ("----- BEGIN PGP --------" "X-Received ..." etc.) and deliberate attempts to throw you off. That's why it's unbreakable - by anyone! |Home: Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp |Autoresponder: send email w/subject of "send resume" or "send PGPKEY" |Work: cadams(a)acucobol.com | V.M. (619)515-4894 | (619)689-6579 | Member in good standing of the GNU whirled hors d'oeuvre ===================END FORWARDED MESSAGE=================== |Home: Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp |Autoresponder: send email w/subject of "send resume" or "send PGPKEY" |Work: cadams(a)acucobol.com | V.M. (619)515-4894 | (619)689-6579 | Member in good standing of the GNU whirled hors d'oeuvre

1 0