December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Removal from newsgroup listing
by Terry L. Davis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm not certain how I got on the cypherpunks newlist, but it's way over my head. Please removed terryld(a)earthlink.com from cypherpunks(a)toad.com Thanks

2 1

Message-Id / mail2news gateways.
by das＠razor.engr.sgi.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is for all the volunteers who are working on setting up the distributed cypherpunks mailing lists. 1) Please preserver Message-Ids while resending messages. The Message-Id is intended to be unique to a message and can be used to reject duplicates. Usenet software in particular, detects duplicates by Message-Id. 2) In response to Igor's query, I would very much like at least on of the distributed lists to be set up such that messages sent there will *not* be gatewayed to Usenet. As I mentioned, I will not post to Usenet with my real email address, and if all lists get gatewayed to alt.cypherpunks, I have to set up fake email headers to mail to the lists also. If at least one of the lists can gaurantee that it won't be gatewayed to Usenet, I don't have to do that, and as a nice bonus, Prof. Froomkin can continue to be active on cypherpunks. This can be achieved by the list software adding an "X-Post-to-Usenet: No" or some similar header to every message it sends out. Also a header, such as X-List: should be set to indicate under which mailing list a message first entered the system. This will be worthless unless all the list servers honor these headers. Thanks. -- Anil Das

2 1

Re: The Science Generations, II
by drose＠azstarnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To Toto, Dimi, D.Thorn, whomever, etc.: while I may appreciate being subscribed to a million and one lists that I never knew I needed (and so quick!--appreciate the service, dude) this address, like c-punks(a)toad.com, is going away *real * quick, so save your keystrokes.

1 0

Re: The Science Generations, II
by drose＠azstarnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

My dear fellow: I suppose you missed the notion that, on the Internet, *some* folks know that you are a dog. P.S. You, Dimi, D. Thorn, Dimi, "Nurdane Oskas", Dimi, "Awaken to Me", Dimi,"World's Youngest Cypherpunk", Dimi, "Andre the Cypherpunk", Dimi, etc. etc. are to be commended if not appreciated for your efforts in ruining an amazingly good thing. See you in alt.baloney. Incidentally, do you habitually defecate (FYI, that's "to discharge feces from the bowels") in your own single-wide? (Son, that's a rhetorical question.) The very fact that you shamelessly and boneheadedly refuse to keep your head down after all of the damage that you and your lot have caused (with 1K+ lurkers "looking on") is worthy, certainly, of some serious consideration. Ia! Ia! Cthulhu Fhtagn! >drose(a)azstarnet.com wrote: >> >> With regard to chemicals, may I suggest a perusal of the PGI and PML lists >> (respectively, Pyrotechnics Guild Inc. and Pyrotechnics Mailing List)? > > Sounds like this is an on-topic post for the 'flames' list. > >Toto > > >

1 0

Message-Id / mail2news gateways.
by Anil Das 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is for all the volunteers who are working on setting up the distributed cypherpunks mailing lists. 1) Please preserver Message-Ids while resending messages. The Message-Id is intended to be unique to a message and can be used to reject duplicates. Usenet software in particular, detects duplicates by Message-Id. 2) In response to Igor's query, I would very much like at least on of the distributed lists to be set up such that messages sent there will *not* be gatewayed to Usenet. As I mentioned, I will not post to Usenet with my real email address, and if all lists get gatewayed to alt.cypherpunks, I have to set up fake email headers to mail to the lists also. If at least one of the lists can gaurantee that it won't be gatewayed to Usenet, I don't have to do that, and as a nice bonus, Prof. Froomkin can continue to be active on cypherpunks. This can be achieved by the list software adding an "X-Post-to-Usenet: No" or some similar header to every message it sends out. Also a header, such as X-List: should be set to indicate under which mailing list a message first entered the system. This will be worthless unless all the list servers honor these headers. Thanks. -- Anil Das

1 0

Re: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives?
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"reece(a)taz.nceye.net" "Bryan Reece" 17-FEB-1997 23:23:10.06 >> use. However, I do have one problem with this recipe: lack of >> loop prevention if a news2mail gateway is going in the other direction. >All the mailing-list hosts are supposed to check for duplicates before >forwarding anything, so this shouldn't do anything worse than have a >few extra copies of each post get discarded, loading the network and >the hosts a bit more. But posting the list to a widely-distributed Umm... IIRC, the only person who's announced how he's filtering for duplicates is Igor, and he's just checking for messageIDs. Won't those get chunked on going through a mail2news gateway, and thus possibly come back through a news2mail gateway? The filtering mechanism could be improved via MD5 digests, etcetera (someone's already given a recipe for such; thank you), but even so various mungings could still set up a mailing loop. (Yes, I'm paranoid about those; I may have been reading list-managers for too long and seen too many stories on there.) The sensible place to keep track of possible duplicates is at the gateway; it can certainly filter based on that it (or, for that matter, another known bidirectional gateway) sent a message out. >newsgroup seems wrong for noise (both to the list itself and to >posters) and delay reasons. Delay reasons being that mail will go to Usenet, go all over the place there, and then get replied to later than if it were just on the mailing list(s)? A potential problem, yes. But (especially given the options I mentioned below), this would appear to be a matter for individual users to decide by which list they go with and any added control headers. Maximum individual sovreignty (sp?). >> In regards to your later query about whether people want their postings >> going to Usenet, might I suggest that this be individual to the given >> distributed mailing list? In other words, since the recipe is logically >> going to have to not forward to a gateway messages from other mailing >> lists (since it's not a good idea to have multiple copies of the same >> message arriving at the gateway if it can be helped; better to filter >> it out beforehand), >It doesn't seem an especially bad idea, since it Thank you. Were you cut off? >> some of the mailing lists can forward and the >> others cannot. (One could even determine this behavior on application >> of the proper X-header, although I never trust various mailing systems >> to forward such intact.) The same could also be done with gatewaying >> _from_ Usenet - if the news2mail gateway feeds to whatever individual >> lists sign up to it and they _don't_ forward such messages to others, >> people can decide whether or not to receive Usenet postings on >> alt.cypherpunks.* by which list they subscribe to. >The code currently running is a perl script that turns typical email >messages into something INN is happy with. It is probably possible to >get your message rejected by INN if you put obsolete or otherwise >unusual and illegal headers in. This may be a bug. That would probably depend on: A. if any other circumstances other than deliberately sabotaging your message's translation would also disrupt its chances of getting through seriously, particularly if they weren't something you'd spot; and B. if sufficiently bad messages would disrupt INN's operations too much. You'd know a lot more than I would in regard to the latter, and probably the former. I was last a serious participant on USENET on a Vax running VMS (via Bitnet, as a matter of fact... a while back). -Allen

1 0

Re: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives?
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: ichudov(a)algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) >Bryan Reece wrote: >> >> It receives some Big Usenet groups, but only for local users. >> alt.cypherpunks is open, but there will be long delays, on the >> order of a day, for articles there (unless someone better connected to >> Usenet wants to feed me alt.cypherpunks.*---any volunteers?). Well, Lance Cottrell would appear to be a good person to ask on this matter, but... >I just set up a recipe for using mail2news gateways like this: >:0 c >| formail -I "Newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks,misc.misc" | \ > sendmail mail2news(a)anon.lcs.mit.edu mail2news(a)utopia.hacktic.nl >Any objections? given that mail2news(a)anon.lcs.mit.edu gets one of its USENET feeds via cyberpass.net, it would appear to be unnecessary if this recipe is in use. However, I do have one problem with this recipe: lack of loop prevention if a news2mail gateway is going in the other direction. I don't know, but the mail2news gateway folks may not be too happy with this idea either, given massively increased load; this is particularly true since IIRC misc.misc is _not_ the proper place to crosspost stuff from & to; it's only for stuff that _really_ doesn't fall under any other category. (I've crossposted this message to the remailer-operators mailing list to make sure it gets to the operators of the gateways in question.) In regards to your later query about whether people want their postings going to Usenet, might I suggest that this be individual to the given distributed mailing list? In other words, since the recipe is logically going to have to not forward to a gateway messages from other mailing lists (since it's not a good idea to have multiple copies of the same message arriving at the gateway if it can be helped; better to filter it out beforehand), some of the mailing lists can forward and the others cannot. (One could even determine this behavior on application of the proper X-header, although I never trust various mailing systems to forward such intact.) The same could also be done with gatewaying _from_ Usenet - if the news2mail gateway feeds to whatever individual lists sign up to it and they _don't_ forward such messages to others, people can decide whether or not to receive Usenet postings on alt.cypherpunks.* by which list they subscribe to. -Allen P.S. A thank you to Reece for setting up a gateway; I had looked at the program and did _not_ much like the idea of having to maintain it on my limited knowledge of C/C++ and mailing software.

1 0

Re: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives?
by Bryan Reece 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 22:55 EDT From: "E. Allen Smith" <EALLENSMITH(a)ocelot.Rutgers.EDU> Well, Lance Cottrell would appear to be a good person to ask on this matter, but... >I just set up a recipe for using mail2news gateways like this: >:0 c >| formail -I "Newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks,misc.misc" | \ > sendmail mail2news(a)anon.lcs.mit.edu mail2news(a)utopia.hacktic.nl >Any objections? given that mail2news(a)anon.lcs.mit.edu gets one of its USENET feeds via cyberpass.net, it would appear to be unnecessary if this recipe is in use. However, I do have one problem with this recipe: lack of loop prevention if a news2mail gateway is going in the other direction. All the mailing-list hosts are supposed to check for duplicates before forwarding anything, so this shouldn't do anything worse than have a few extra copies of each post get discarded, loading the network and the hosts a bit more. But posting the list to a widely-distributed newsgroup seems wrong for noise (both to the list itself and to posters) and delay reasons. (I've crossposted this message to the remailer-operators mailing list to make sure it gets to the operators of the gateways in question.) In regards to your later query about whether people want their postings going to Usenet, might I suggest that this be individual to the given distributed mailing list? In other words, since the recipe is logically going to have to not forward to a gateway messages from other mailing lists (since it's not a good idea to have multiple copies of the same message arriving at the gateway if it can be helped; better to filter it out beforehand), It doesn't seem an especially bad idea, since it some of the mailing lists can forward and the others cannot. (One could even determine this behavior on application of the proper X-header, although I never trust various mailing systems to forward such intact.) The same could also be done with gatewaying _from_ Usenet - if the news2mail gateway feeds to whatever individual lists sign up to it and they _don't_ forward such messages to others, people can decide whether or not to receive Usenet postings on alt.cypherpunks.* by which list they subscribe to. -Allen P.S. A thank you to Reece for setting up a gateway; I had looked at the program and did _not_ much like the idea of having to maintain it on my limited knowledge of C/C++ and mailing software. The code currently running is a perl script that turns typical email messages into something INN is happy with. It is probably possible to get your message rejected by INN if you put obsolete or otherwise unusual and illegal headers in. This may be a bug.

1 0

Re: The Science Generations, II
by Mark M. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: > You neglect things like the interstate commerce provision, which means > that if it crosses state lines, the feds can regualte it. In addition, > the court (in its infinite wisdom), decided that "the people" meant > the states, then the people. So, as long as it isn't meantioned in the > constitution, the states can do whatever they want. The 10th amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." This sounds pretty clear to me. Theoretically, the states can do whatever they want as long as they don't infringe on the rights of the people. The 9th amendment protects all rights not explicitly stated in the constitution. The 5th and 14th amendments both protect people from losing life, liberty, or property without due process. I believe that the 14th was used as justification for Roe vs. Wade, since the court decided that abortion is a liberty and any law forbidding it deprives a woman of liberty without due process. Of course, in practice, we know that the situation is much different... Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMwkjwSzIPc7jvyFpAQE9QwgAj+op9T6AT858eS89RyAiYnwP02APgr3I 1ZkguMV5JiJWOKrhXu54/k7sVam4sxCftvC3Poon9K4yCQ+rtTUL3bF81+ppdXMr cCfEMU5RNZVDU5sddR5nWkOHagXFatSYK6v7IUqYfquWgq1/9m6NQIO25+RleHmv nz9ZjaeWdljPx0SWjg77Ul8/8fJkNn/sHn3rTBUdNeGBLkipAY82vv4hZFC2A8uf zAjbD+GEYl4Vbu+GpOPkb+RDkECZ762zVQ2DX4yHeGq58Ejs/a4+XHXT6MqYs8Xy phnluL347m/OrDCPekCT4nOgt0zHGoDQ8PYinxbDUjxLHC7rOzKe9g== =5iIy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Removal from newsgroup listing
by Terry L. Davis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm not certain how I got on the cypherpunks newlist, but it's way over my head. Please removed terryld(a)earthlink.com from cypherpunks(a)toad.com Thanks

1 0