December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

To pay credit when it's due
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Cpunks, I forgot to mention that during the design phase of my robomod I have received a number of thoughtful and helpful advices from Dr. Dimitri Vulis KOTM, mostly regarding authentication protocols, as well as some other programming matters. For example, a suggestion to add an option requiring all preapproved posters to sign their articles was originally made by him. - Igor.

2 1

Re: Sandy and I will run a cypherpunks "moderation" experiment in Jan
by Against Moderation 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 18:29:51 -0500 (EST) > From: "Mark M." <markm(a)voicenet.com> > > The problem with making an undelayed, unedited version of the list > available is that it would increase the burden on toad.com. I > suppose someone could run a mail exploder that would receive the raw > version and mail it out to all subscribers. I don't see the > increased lag as much of a problem. If an automatic moderation > program is used, the lag should be insignificant for most posts. Why do you think that load is a problem? I mean most people are not going to want to subscribe to multipel versions of the mailing list, right? So why are three mailing lists with a total of ~3,000 users any more of a load than 2 mailing lists with a total of ~2,000 users? Hell, I'll even volunteer to run the cypherpunks-raw list on my own hardware (thus blowing my nym, if it's really necessary) if I can get the articles as they are submitted in real time. > This would not only increase the load on toad.com, but would also > make it more difficult for people who want to receive the moderated > version and monitor the moderators decisions. Mail filtering can be > done simply on many mail programs, but checking a list of moderation > decisions against the mailing list traffic would be just too > complicated. NoCeM is a nice idea, but most people on this list > probably do not have the platform needed to run the software. 1. How would this increase the load? I don't see how multiple mailing lists cause more load if it doesn't mean more subscribers. 2. Even if it did mean more subscribers, why is load a problem? I mean, even sendmail can easily handle the current load of cypherpunks, and there are many packages way faster than sendmail (exim should be particularly good at this kind of load, for instance. Qmail is also generally way more efficient than sendmail). And don't tell me these are hard or a pain to install, because I'm willing to set this up and run it on my hardware if that's what it takes to get an unedited, unmoderated cypherpunks list. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMtGXboCHQnqYPZ9VAQHzcwQArv9i3yiYlqRxqM1zAN/lhS8z9biL1guM 5YQJRGX8MFdh7IxYBkCvsV6r3qfmpfRKJuF/GqZZ0boYfwIF0BRPT3PGV/qoh1IR 5ltGMAaj/k5fpSIxRBk4NdtWR5RhpvMJSdqo7WDNWBuZtYCozno2G8BXwKPkZ5a2 Phqjs68VswE= =WWIq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Moderation
by thad＠hammerhead.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I think that this is a completely fabulous idea, an commend John and Sandy for doing this. Let me add my own suggestion. This will fail if flames migrate from cypherpunks-flames to cypherpunks, I would attempt to prohibit threads that only exist in cypherpunks-flames being continued into the moderated list. This'll be hard to do, Sandy, I know, but if you could think of a way to do this, I think that your experiment is more likely to succeed. Phrases like "As I said in the letter that only got sent to cypherpunks-flames" should cause the whole article to be yanked, IMHO. thad -- Thaddeus Beier thad(a)hammerhead.com Visual Effects Supervisor 408) 287-6770 Hammerhead Productions http://www.got.net/people/thad

4 3

Modified Token Posting Scheme
by Mixmaster 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>The proposal to limit "noise" posts by using re-usable tokens is >interesting because it has the effect of filtering and at the >same >time remains responsive because the "moderator" passes judgement >after posting has occurred. > >In essence, the poster is betting that the moderator will approve >the post retroactively. > >The purpose of limiting the tokens available is to give them >value >so that there is a cost associated with losing the bet. > >However, distribution of the tokens has the same problems that >centrally >planned economies have distributing bread. Should people wait in >line, >receive bread at random, or get their bread through connections? > None of >these solutions is attractive. > >The right way to implement the scheme is to use dollars for >tokens >because the USG has already solved the problem of giving the >tokens >value. > >The "moderator" returns the money to people when posts are >worthwhile >and keeps it otherwise. This means that the "bet" can be quite a >bit >larger than a dollar because responsible posters will get their >money >back. Starving graduate students will not be discouraged from >posting. >Abusive posters, anonymous posters, or spam artists will have to >pay >a substantial fee for the privilege. > >Of course, there's no reason to have just one moderator on the >list. >A moderator could just be an e-mail account that forwards mail to >the list if valid payment is received. (Moderators should PGP >sign >their messages so mail forging won't work.) Readers could filter >on which moderators have approved the kinds of posts they want to >read. > >The effect of this scheme is to allow newcomers, infrequent >posters, >or anonymous posters to get through killfiles without taking the >time and effort to develop a reputation. > >Peter Hendrickson >ph(a)netcom.com Why the FUCK don't we just find the antichrist or call on GOD to kill all spammers and then buy a gun and shot holes in the computer?? this whole isssue will never be solved without action get a fuckin real job!!!!!!

1 0

Re: Modified Token Posting Scheme
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:55 PM 1/6/97 -0800, Ed Falk wrote: > >How about this simple policy scheme: > > 1) posts from known list members forwarded to list automatically > 2) posts with "approval cookie" also forwarded automatically > 3) otherwise, forwarded only after approval by moderator, whose charter > only permits spam filtering. Seems this is what the STUMP scheme we read about yesterday does. I suggest Sandy and John take a good look at it. -- 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

No Subject
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim C. May's aberrant sexual life has negatively impacted his mental integrity. o)__ (_ _`\ Tim C. May z/z\__)

1 0

RE: IWD_ism
by pclow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>John Young wrote: >> >> ... injecting the attackers' computers with "a polymorphic >> virus that wipes out the system, takes it down for weeks." > >Looks to me like somebody's trying to land a job writing X-Files >scripts. I beg to differ! Sounds more like Independence Day to me. Is Jeff Goldbum on the list?

1 0

PWL's how ?
by will 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

How has the Windows PWL's been de-crytped ? Also I don't like to seem too much like a rookie, but was is a polymorphic virus ? . Marc Theriault * . * + * . * Email: WILL(a)BBSI.NET * . * . .+ ___ . . * + ___....-----'---'-----....___ . . ========================================= + * * . ___'---..._______...---'___ * . .

2 1

The Upcoming DES Challenge
by mpd＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Peter Trei (trei(a)process.com) writes: > 1. I'm astonished at the low level of reaction RSA's > announcement that they will be sponsoring a DES Challenge, > with a $10,000 cash prize. I'm certainly jumping up and down and cheering. I said a while back that the life expectancy of DES would be about two weeks if anyone forked over serious cash. I'm also pleased to see they will be offering prizes for trying to break Ron Rivest's new RC5 cipher, which scrambles using data dependent rotates as its only non-linear operation. This is very speedy, and if it turns out to be robust, will be a nice fast efficient drop-in replacement for most other popular block ciphers. > I've been working with people at RSA to get this set up. It looks > like there'll be an ascii-plaintext challenge (we won't know the > full plaintext - just that it's ascii, and long enough to be > unambigious), and the full prize will go the first person who > emails them the key. Ick. Why overly complexify things? A known plaintext attack would be far more straightforward. After all, the goal is to recover the key, not the message. Having to find a key which decrypts to something having all high bits clear will discourage people who might want to take a crack at this independent of the canned program you are going to distribute. [snip] > It will NOT run as a screen saver. Too bad. The screensaver paradigm is something the unwashed masses can easily understand. > The very first time it is started up on a given machine, if > it is not given a specific chunk at which to start, it will > pick one at random. The checkpointing scheme means that on > later runs, it will pick up where it left off, advancing to > the next chunk as it completes each one. This is VERY IMPORTANT. Unlike factoring problems, where the data supplied by people can be checked in a small fraction of the CPU time used to generate it, searching a keyspace is very vulnerable to sabotage or stupidity on the part of the people doing the searching. It is well worth the extra factor of 2-3 to guarantee that the exercise will eventually terminate. Sounds good, but I would prefer matching plaintext and ciphertext with the goal of recovering the key. This is really the situation that would exist for someone tapping financial data on a line, and knowing the plaintext of a transaction he deliberately generated for testing purposes. K.I.S.S. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd(a)netcom.com $ via Finger. $

3 2

Why This List Should Be Moderated
by Raymond Mereniuk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The following message is a very good reason why this list should be moderated. I keep writing rules (filters) to catch and delete such messages but the sender keeps changing something and I must write a new rule. The moderation proposal sounds great and I would like to thank the moderators in advance for stopping messages like the following from reaching my mailbox. Also, could Mr. Haystack please advise the group of his current medication(s), we don't want anyone to suffer the same side-effects. >>> Bovine Remailer <haystack(a)cow.net> 1/6/97, 04:51pm >>> Tim C. May's aberrant sexual life has negatively impacted his mental integrity. o)__ (_ _`\ Tim C. May z/z\__)

1 0