December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: active practice in America [RANT]
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Marc J. Wohler wrote: > At 11:19 PM 9/30/96 -0700, you wrote: > >I'm glad you asked. I wouldn't pretend to have *the* answer, but rather > >than screw around with basic Constitutional enumerations, I think the > >"authorities" should have had the guts to challenge those cases (at > >least the most obvious ones at first, to get the ball rolling), by > >investigating and declaring mistrials based on some kind of jury > >manipulation which showed bad faith on the part of the locals. > Theory sounds great, but what if, as often was the case, the > "authorities" were the major part of the problem. I presume heirarchical authority. That's what we had in the U.S., even in the 1960's. The specific authorities running bogus juries were generally county-level. One could argue that the states, and by extension the feds, looked the other way as long as they could, and indeed they did. Once they could no longer look the other way, those higher-level authorities should have proceeded against the local governments as I specified, rather than undermining the Constitutional enumerations. If there should happen to be a good argument that the feds and states couldn't proceed against the locals because these higher-level authorities were somehow compromised (other than general scumbagness), I'd like to know how.

1 0

Re: FW: Dr. Vulis is not on cypherpunks any more [RANT] (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all, There is one important legal aspect which the operator of the Cypherpunks mailing list has opened themselves up for with this action. In short they have now opened themselves up for defamation and liable suites by imposing an editorial policy on the contents of this list (1). This opens up the potential, for example, for Tim May to sue the operator of the Cypherpunks mailing list now for posts from users (even anonymous ones) which defame or otherwise liable his character, reputation, or ability to pursue income in his chosen field. In short the operators of the list becomes publishers and distributors of the material. It is the legal difference between a bookstore and a book publisher. Censorship is censorship, irrespective of the source of the limitation. Free expression is impossible in an environment of censorship. The right to speak not only implies a right to not speak, it also implies the right to emit complete mumbo jumbo. The actual content of the speech is irrelevant. The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and press. This does not imply in any way an abrogation of responsibility by the party speaking or distributing it. Only that they would not have limitations on their actions imposed by the federal government. ARTICLE I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. And just to make shure it is clear, the right to put something on the paper (ie speech) is distinctly different from being the one doing the actual printing. I have argued in the past that this list is a defacto public list because of the way it is advertised and to the extent it is advertised. All the protests by the operator to the contrary will not convince a court. Hope you folks have a good lawyer. (1) ;login:, Oct. 1996, V21N5, pp. 27 Jim Choate

4 4

Vulis profile (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 05:57:54 +0100 (MET) > Subject: Vulis profile > From: nobody(a)replay.com (Anonymous) > > He harasses people all over the net with the most offensive sorts > of messages, and uses dirty tricks to retaliate to the people who > do get offended. Among his accomplished feats is a series of > articles about cat-eating dogs posted to rec.pets.cats (which > caused a wave of complaints and made him lost his CUNY account) ; > a series of porno binaries with obscene comments about his > opponents posted to math-related newsgroups (he lost another > academic account, at fordham.edu, after this scandal); and a > series of racist articles denigrating all aspects of romanian > life and culture which used to haunt the romanian newsgroup for > years. Well it is nice to know that part of the system is working anyway.... Jim Choate

1 0

Blocking addresses by default
by Mark M. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- With remailer abuse becoming more popular and remailers going down because of complaints, there seems to be some interest in remailer software that will block all email by default and will only pass along email that is explicitly unblocked. This way, someone won't receive harassing anonymous email unless they ask to receive anonymous email. This would also allow remailers to only pass along mail that is destined for another remailer. Looking at the source code for the various remailers, this doesn't seem to be too difficult. In the Freedom and Mixmaster remailer programs, there is a function which determines whether an address is in the block list or not. Both of these functions use strstr() to search for the address in each line of the block list. In both programs, the strstr() call is within an if statement, so changing the strstr() to !strstr() should invert the return value for the blocking function. I haven't tried this out yet, so there may be some problem I overlooked. The Ghio Type I program doesn't require any modification at all. If my understanding of the way the dest.block file is processed is correct, a file such as the following should do the trick: #dest.block file * !address1 !address2 ... All the addresses following the "!" are addresses that anonymous mail can be delivered to. Has anyone else managed to implement something similar to this? Mark - -- finger -l for PGP key PGP encrypted mail prefered. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMoFtASzIPc7jvyFpAQFN/wgApJOSQpqZylOlfE0SH5HYGxT4hOa41glC Ce2V67f8KzHOn4iZpS2E+ytOGpetdJ0A+7eZ3DQx/TGrpbOzWihKWMLT1uEWA+En BxpnRdfJ2lCeW5fYsVhb2alkG1DeSbBSxz53NhzsrlkA+S30joUhV2K3TC0Yc5Zh eFC2zh72cm0W6uiORCyB7dIRDfQMP9F1Vpa0/fZk7RapDoqmnuS+NxBXqE7TgLMG KlF+7rWjhFsG1eokdbyAPPiuQdo1HLsxLumonyv6mlzVifsU6p2aFTMH0r5tq9tp axD66L1D07XwdUFR1zNjifNzeDU+zDq9jrBx+4K/6qPeJoF0XzY4Mg== =NMs7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Is there a Win PGP?
by AwakenToMe＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

subject says it all.... Im just wondering is (and where) there is a windows version of PGP.. thanks!

1 0

Bay area cypherpunks meeting - Special Guest
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We will probably have a guest speaker from Intel at Saturday's meeting, talking about: > Common Data Security Architecture (CDSA) a security infrastructure for > managing crypto, certs, trust, etc. Netscape chose > CDSA about 2 weeks ago as the security infrastructure for Netscape > communicator and suitespot servers. The press release can be found at > http://www.netscape.com/newsref/pr/newsrelease268.html # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk

1 0

Mixmaster Test
by nobody＠cypherpunks.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sorry for the spam, folks ... just looking for a mixmaster that puts the Subject: line into cypherpunk messages. Name-Withheld-By-Request Editor in Chief, Cypherpunk Enquirer

1 0

Re: FW: Now we have it all
by Hendra Halim 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>X-Sender: tcmay(a)mail.got.net >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 10:04:52 -0800 >To: CYPHERPUNKS(a)toad.com >From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> >Subject: Re: FW: Now we have it all >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > >At 10:47 AM +0100 11/6/96, Butler, Scott wrote: >>> >>Abaddon wrote: >> >>>>susbscribe >> >>Surely we have seen it all now. >>I find it hard to believe that a word like >>suscribe....subsribe....subcribes.. >>SUBSCRIBE..is so difficult to spell correctly. >> >>:-) > >This is actually steganography. Various spellings of "subscribe" are being >used to communicate a bit or two per message. > >Actually, the practice becomes a code, as in: > >"Suscrive if by sea, sudcribe if by land." > > >--Klaus! von Future Prime > > >Please unsubscribe me from your list > > >Hendra

1 0

Cypherpunk mailing list
by Hendra Halim 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: CHALAKKI(a)worldnet.att.net >X-Sender: CHALAKKI(a)postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Unverified) >To: Cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Subject: Cypherpunk mailing list >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 22:38:08 +0000 >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > >Please put me on your mailing list > > >Please unsubcribe me from your list Hendra

1 0

Mixmaster Test
by John Anonymous MacDonald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sorry for the spam, folks ... just looking for a mixmaster that puts the Subject: line into cypherpunk messages. Name-Withheld-By-Request Editor in Chief, Cypherpunk Enquirer

1 0