December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Cash-Grabber-Reversal !!!
by bizman＠mwt.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Some time ago....you shared an email message with me. I'm not going to tell you to quit doing what your doing but... I will share something that may help and compliment your current offer. Yours FREE! I will send you a copy of my "Reversal Letter" that has made over $1.098.00 last month. Use this powerful letter to anyone who sends you a offer via direct mail. The "Reversal Letter" is sent snail mail only, If you would like to get a copy of this "money-grabbing...cash producing letter" email me your snail mail address. If you are working a Primary MLM or business opportunity...feel free to let us know, The Reversal Letter is sent to people who send you their offers. Powerful! Thank You!

1 0

Re: Old Russian Orthography
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr Yoshimasa Tsuji <yamato(a)YT.CACHE.WASEDA.AC.JP> writes: > Hello friends, a Happy New Year to you all. Thank you! And a Happy New Year to you too. <very interesting stuff - near year's present? - skipped> > Incidentally, I wonder how one can transliterate oldish Russian alphabets? > I am sure fita should be "th", but as to dotted i and jat', I haven't got > the faintest idea. I remember seeing an old Library of Congress transliteration table where jat' was transliterated as e with some accent, and dotted i was an i with some accent. I took a quick look on my shelf and can't find it now. (LOC is not a good scheme, since one can't always recover the original from it. :-) The U.S.G. Printing Office manual seems to suggest that one translates into the new orthography before transliterating (fita to f, dotted i and izhitsa to i, yat' to e or yo). This may lead to an occasional problem: suppose you have an index alphabetized according to the old rules: ib.. ik... (regular i) ia... ie... (dotted i before another vowel) If you fold dotted i into i, you'll be looking for 'ia' before 'ib'. Ditto for yat', which came much later than e in the collating sequence.

1 0

Re: Hardening lists against spam attacks
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:47 AM 12/31/1996, Lucky Green wrote: >At 10:25 AM 12/31/96 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >> The easiest and fastest solution is to set up toad.com to charge a >> dollar per message. (Proceeds to be spent by John Gilmore as he >> sees fit.) >> We can then leverage off the existing e-cash infrastructure which >> already provides blinding software for free on all major platforms. > I am not sure that this proposal would work. Some of the spammers on this > list are rather dedicated. They might gladly pay a dollar per message. Let's try it and see how it goes. If it doesn't work, we can try a more complicated scheme. (I volunteer to modify Majordomo to make this happen. We could have this feature in the near future.) I think we should understand that two features are being discussed. One is protecting the list from spam attacks. By this I mean attacks where somebody sends very large numbers of messages to the list and brings the mail server to its knees. Charging a dollar a message solves this problem - just buy more hardware with the proceeds. If The Enemy wishes to finance the cypherpunks list - more power to him. The other feature is filtering. I do not need anybody to filter my mail. I am quite capable of doing it myself, thank you. If somebody wants to set up a tokened filter scheme, that is great, but let's see it implemented as an added header to the cypherpunks messages. Then people can filter on it if they want, but it should be their choice. Anybody who cannot set up such a filter, or find somebody who can set up such a filter for them, or cannot find somebody who will forward only filtered messages to them, is too helpless to be a cypherpunk. I have seen a lot of complaints about "too much noise". That is not a problem. The problem is too little signal. I can extract the signal - unless it isn't there. I propose that we spend the money on food for the monthly meeting. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

2 1

Zippy, anonymously
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.metahtml.com/apps/zippy/welcome.mhtml Let Zippy provide you with web service. Chaining through the anonymizer works, too. :) Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

1 0

subliminal channels and software failure modes
by David Molnar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just a thought I had the other day. Probably unconciously plagarized, but bear with me. What about using subliminal channels as a tool to signal software failure? That is, suppose we define some kind of condition in which the software could continue to work, but should not. In addition, simple cessation of function is not possible, or not advisable. For examples, all that comes to mind off the top of my head is "stolen" software...though perhaps one might use subliminal channels for diagnostic equipment if competitors are assumed to be listening in? When such a condition is met, the software modifies its output (which should be signed w/something which has a nice, big subliminal channel...SHA?) to signal the condition and the particulars. After modifying itself to produce the altered output, it deletes the code responsible for the modification. Unless caught in the act, or compared to a legitimate copy, the application appears no different than before. I was thinking in terms of crypto (or other) software that attempts to personalize itself to a particular machine. If someone steals the HD or grabs the keys and program, their output will be 'tainted', alerting legitimate users to the theft. Hardware disconnected from its normal environment might use such a channel to indicate its 'stolen' or 'temporarily down - come fix' status. This is security through obscurity...the chances of it working are about the chance that no one notices the change or finds the code responsible. I suppose the software industry (and the pirates) will be too happy to provide examples of many attempts to use such schemes. For this reason, I would only ask if it makes sense for limited distributions of software or hardware products. Is this kind of system already in use? Any ideas on making it more applicable to general distribution, or has this already been tried and discarded? David Molnar

1 0

Re: Just another government fuckover: New crypto regulation
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 31 Dec 96 at 13:56, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > "Cypher punks" write stupid racist flames and postmaster complaints, > not code. Yes, and they are sad that ebonics IS NOT going to be a course taught in school. I spoke with a source at the Oakland School District who said they would not allow papers to be turned in written in ebonics. It is just an effort for educators to better understand how their students may communicate. So everyone who liked Tim May's fake sarcasm are now sad that they made fools of themselves. > > > I am not "here" - I've been unsubscribed by the head censor, > cocksucker John Gilmore at the request of Ray Arachelian and Timmy > May. They're "here" to harrass and to flame and they don't want > followups from the victims of their harrassment. You are correct, there Doctor! Just look at what just happened to me. > > > Freedom for whom, or from whom? I have no great despect for Abraham > "I freed who?" Lincoln, but I like the quote from him: "Those who > deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." > Some folks on this mailing list remind me of hardcore communists > that believe that orthodix marxism works, and everyone who tried and > failed to implement it, was perverting marx's ideas. > U.S.constitution was an instrument of class warfare. > > Yes, let's see some more "dissidents" unsubscribed! Let's see some > more mailbombs and postmaster complaints! Let's see punitive action > in response to speech! That's all "cypher punks" are good for. > Yes, Yes, Yes! =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

2 1

Re: Hardening lists against spam attacks
by Douglas Barnes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The problem with payment schemes like this is that they're hard to rationalize (as Lucky points out here). A direct mail piece (via snail mail) can easily cost the sender more than a dollar when all costs are taken into account. This does not seem to have appreciably slowed down junk mailers IRL. Spam to a large mailing list has a multiplicative effect (although it's also easier to throw out and/or ignore.) Certainly if someone had a real product, it would be worth anywhere from $1 to $25 to post an advertisement to a sizeable mailing list. On the other hand, a blanket charge would serve as a disincentive to people who make valuable contributions, unless it were a completely negligible cost, in which case the advertisers would have no problem coughing up the money. There's a serious imbalance between how annoying spam is and how much we're willing to pay to post (most of us would like to see them charged to the point where they wouldn't do it at all.) Possibly a system of charging for non-list-members? Sort of a closed list with a way for outside posters to contribute if they really wanted to? In general it seems very difficult to balance the various aspects of maintaining a lively discussion, fostering a sense of community, allowing anonymous postings, and keeping the whole thing simple enough to actually implement. The best approach I can think of for dealing with a lot of this crap is to a) ignore outright spam, b) do not feed the energy creatures (the people on the list who thrive on conflict.) and c) instead of responding to noise, contribute to signal. I've been on the verge of responding to certain posters over the last few months, and I've realized before I've hit the "send" key that I'd be giving them just what they want -- attention -- while further degrading the signal to noise ratio. At 11:47 AM 12/31/96 -0800, you wrote: >At 10:25 AM 12/31/96 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >>The easiest and fastest solution is to set up toad.com to charge a >>dollar per message. (Proceeds to be spent by John Gilmore as he >>sees fit.) >> >>We can then leverage off the existing e-cash infrastructure which >>already provides blinding software for free on all major platforms. > >I am not sure that this proposal would work. Some of the spammers on this >list are rather dedicated. They might gladly pay a dollar per message. > > > >-- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred > Make your mark in the history of mathematics. Use the spare cycles of > your PC/PPC/UNIX box to help find a new prime. > http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm >

1 0

Re: Hardening lists against spam attacks
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:01 PM 12/31/1996, Z.B. wrote: >On Tue, 31 Dec 1996, Dale Thorn wrote: >> ...I will *not* install and run PGP. > I agree with Dale here...requiring PGP in order to post would probably > deter low-level, idiot spammers, but it would also keep those people off > the list who, for one reason or another, don't like/want/use PGP. People who don't like using PGP, or can't use it, or won't use it, do not belong on this list. > Also, what about people who post to and read the list from someplace other > than their home computer, like school or work? I have access to this account > from my college, but I'm sure not going to leave my keys lying around > my account just so I can post to a mailing list. Easy. Keep a copy of PGP there and a copy of the list public key. It's okay to leave public keys lying around. I might add that this is not "just a mailing list." It is the Cypherpunks mailing list. It's worth a little trouble. If you don't agree, find a list which is. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

4 6

test
by Success＠midlex.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

All Aboard!! The CD EXPRESS!! One time $50 US purchase Can earn you $500 a day !! World Wide Opportunity! - CD's/CD Rom network - Everyone Loves music - Never have to Purchase another CD - Explosive New Home-Based Business - Debt Free Company The Excitement Has Begun !! Position Yourself NOW! Call: Bill Marple (9am-9pm EST US) Phone: 704-846-8299 Reference Number: INTERNET

1 0

Who is the first new web page of 1997?!
by factnet＠rmii.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Announcing the healthy birth of a bouncing new web page on January 1, 1997 at 12:00 a.m.: FACTNet International Digest, a non-profit Internet digest, news service, library, dialogue center, and archive dedicated to the promotion and defense of global free thought, free speech, and privacy rights. Please come visit and help spin the guest counter at: ********************************** ** http://www.factnet.org ** ********************************** If you would like to subscribe to our free FACTNews newsletter and you cannot access the web, or your browser does not support forms, send e-mail to: facnet(a)rmii.com With a subject line that reads: subscribe-FACTNews =========================================== Happy New Year from the FACTNet staff!

1 0