December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: MODERATION
by Butler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sandy writes: > >C'punks, > >I'm ending my participation in the moderation of the list. Well that was short and ..... errr bitter! > It would have been an interesting experiment if list members had >been open minded enough to give it a good faith effort. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ There's a difference between being open minded and gullible Sandy. Nothing like ducking and running away when your little game didn't turn out the way that you wanted it to! This is not a flame, it is my opinion but none the less I'm sure that it will end up in the flames list or be conveniently lost in the masses of mail that John's majordomo receives every day. Scott. >

1 0

Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation
by Jerry Basham 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- > From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> > To: Jerry Basham <2ndSun(a)bigfoot.com> > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com; freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:48 PM > > Jerry Basham wrote: > > > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > > for you. > > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. > > Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in > them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa > my ass. > > OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out > who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm > not optimistic. >

1 0

Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation
by Jerry Basham 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- > From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> > To: Jerry Basham <2ndSun(a)bigfoot.com> > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com; freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:48 PM > > Jerry Basham wrote: > > > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > > for you. > > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. > > Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in > them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa > my ass. > > OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out > who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm > not optimistic. >

1 0

Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation
by Jerry Basham 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You're going to have to fine a way to get me off of your piss-ant mailing list. ---------- > From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> > To: Jerry Basham <2ndSun(a)bigfoot.com> > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com; freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:48 PM > > Jerry Basham wrote: > > > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > > for you. > > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. > > Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in > them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa > my ass. > > OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out > who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm > not optimistic. >

1 0

What's next?
by Thomas Koenig 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Now that we appear to be at a sustainable 300 MK/sec (which I could hardly believe at first :-), is there any chance we could be attacking the 56-bit DES key next? DES is rumoured to be faster than RC5; also, there are likely to be optimized assembler versions out there already. We could also make better use of 64-bit architectures, since DES uses 64-bit blocks. However (and this is a very big however), that's still a keyspace of 7.2*10^16 keys to search. Assuming 10^9 keys/second (three times our current speed, which may be attainable with a good DES implementation) that's still a bit over two years; too long by a factor of 10 or so. Soo.... How fast are current DES implementations? People could try des.c from the ssh distribution as a starting point. How much more computing power could we bring online? Do people have optimized DES for Alpha, UltraSparc, HP 8000 and all the other nifty 64-bit architectures? Does it make sense to use MMX or equivalent for DES? -- Thomas Koenig, Thomas.Koenig(a)ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de, ig25(a)dkauni2.bitnet. The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double logarithmic diagram.

1 0

Re: lead remailer is shut down
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970207:0339 zinc <zinc(a)zifi.genetics.utah.edu> said: +i came in today to find they (university system admins) had pulled the +plug on my machine. this is all because some luser spammed usenet +using the remailer on my machine. thanks a lot. +so, the lead remailer is gone for good; it lasted almost exactly one +year. that is the universal problem. we make the remailer chains so they guarantee privacy, but we cannot filter for spam... unless it is the last mixmaster in the chain. it sounds like we need a postprocessor which can 1) contain addresses and domain numbers of known spammers; 2) log senders to obtain a usage profile (over a very short time, and that is itself encrypted) which can spot enormous expansion headers. for instance, linda thompson is accusing a cypherpunk [more like a cypherpunk hater] of faking her address on threatening material to all 100 senators plus Al Bore; interestingly, the perpetrator left enough information in the header, which was returned for addressing Al Bore incorrectly, to be able to narrow the field; and, 3) most spamming seems to follow a pattern which it should be possible to scan for. the problem, of course, being that "innocent" messages will potentially be trashed. whatever it takes, there are a finite number of sites which can host remailer traffic. for instance, I have been debating whether or not we can afford the load on our single T1 which is currently supporting 200 simultaneous ppp connections plus some high-volume commerical web pages. We are at least a year away from T3 due to lack of circuit facilities. let's figure a way to stop at least some of the abuse; you can not stop the individual abuse, but does a spammer have any rights? --attila -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMv4nxb04kQrCC2kFAQHAngP+J+JRSKLXsLcug00moPK78brGzzmSTRVI BQmHM9845OWXazbQVj6Q9+HiV5I+7wGY2INm7i6PI9ebNRptORfCTlHkmMzrwfmj Ji/WzhDkJ0eRvmDwHxBuq5unqYLe9ACtMrOCGQo+EYywNcscsXKKuMvFKAPC/Bp8 M46FHO9AphM= =NEYd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: My messages not appearing on either of the lists?
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:36 AM 2/7/97 -0800, Mike Duvos wrote: ... >Now that a few weeks have passed, I have decided that moderation delays >are the most annoying feature of the new experiment. I am subscribed to >the unedited list under another account, and its almost instantaneous >traffic is in great contrast to the time required for posts to trickle >through the Sandfort-Bot. ... >Messages apparently do not get moderated in the order in which they >are received. Some messages take a very long time, as other later >messages pass them by and are posted to the list. Again, I have no >explanation for this unusual behavior. Actually, I noticed that often times the posts were out of order when they got to me over about two months ago. This was probably due to my location on the mailing list heirachy, (another reason for a distributed list). I also remember there being a rather lengthy delay between my posting something to the list and it getting sent to me by toad. (I stayed at the computer reading other messages, erasing them and checking if any more had been sent. This was, is, my primary way of keeping my eudora disk from getting clogged to the point where it won't compress.) The problems that you describe aren't new to the list, mostly they are the product of a long list of subscribers. Although, manual moderation certainly adds time between posting and turnaround.

1 0

ANON: anonymizer.com thru proxy server is bad news
by Damaged Justice 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: jmccorm(a)galstar.com (Josh McCormick) Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.misc,alt.anonymous,comp.infosystems.www.browsers.misc,alt.2600,ok.general Subject: NOT ALWAYS ANONYMOUS: "www.anonymizer.com" Date: 9 Feb 1997 19:25:46 GMT Lines: 43 Message-ID: <5dl8bq$6h3(a)mercury.galstar.com> THE CLAIM: > Our "anonymizer" service allows you to surf the web without > revealing any personal information. THE PROBLEM: > If you access The Anonymizer through a proxy server, it may add a > variable, such as "HTTP_FORWARDED", that The Anonymizer does not filter > out, revealing your true identity. THE DATA: > Below is a printout of the variables from an "anonymous" session done > through The Anonymizer when accessed through the Squid proxy server. REMOTE_HOST=darkmatter.infonex.com REMOTE_ADDR=206.170.114.24 HTTP_USER_AGENT=Mozilla/3.01 (via THE ANONYMIZER!) HTTP_HOST=sol.infonex.com:8080 HTTP_FORWARDED=by http://galaxy.galstar.com:3128/ (Squid/1.0.20) for 204.251.83.41 HTTP_PRAGMA=no-cache HTTP_PROXY_CONNECTION=Keep-Alive THE RESULT: > A CGI script could see that you were using The Anonymizer to hide > yourself, but your true IP address is revealed in the "HTTP_FORWARDED" > string. THE SUMMARY: > Beware using an anonymous browsing service if you are going through a > proxy server. Until they remove the information provided by proxy > servers, using their service isn't as anonymous as they say. THE QUOTE: > (from The Anonymizer home page) "Many people surf the web under the > illusion that their actions are private and anonymous. Unfortunately, it > isn't so." ===================================================================== == Josh McCormick Galaxy Star Systems == == jmccorm(a)galstar.com Providing Quality Internet Access == == Systems Administrator WWW: http://www.galstar.com/~jmccorm == ===================================================================== -- http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~frogfarm/ ...for the best in unapproved information "Would I had phrases that are not known, utterances that are strange, in new language that has not been used, free from repetition, not an utterance which has grown stale, which men of old have spoken." - inscribed on Egyptian tomb

1 0

ComLaw> URGENT!! SET UP IN PROGRESS!! (fwd)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm forwarding this from the commonlaw list because of the usage of the name, "cypherpunks." >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 00:50:48 +0100 (NFT) >From: Slater <slater(a)ts.umu.se> >To: commonlaw(a)teleport.com >Subject: ComLaw> URGENT!! SET UP IN PROGRESS!! (fwd) >Sender: owner-commonlaw(a)teleport.com > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 00:46:40 GMT >From: Linda Thompson <lindat(a)iquest.net> >To: aen-news(a)aen.org >Cc: robert(a)iquest.net >Subject: URGENT!! SET UP IN PROGRESS!! > >This morning near 3:00 a.m., somebody sent messages to ALL the Senate and >House members, putting *MY* email name and address on them, and another set, >putting *AL'S* email name and address on them, threatening to delete all the >House and Senate files (whatever THAT means), saying: > >"All files on the Senate's computers will be deleted by our >gang of cypherpunks dedicated to the eradication of your systems." > >[The one to the House members was the same, except the word "Senate" was >"House."] > >Some of the messages had bad addresses, though, so they bounced to us, since >whoever the real sender was had put our names as the "sender," which is how >we found out about it. > >This looks like someone could be really intending to do something to the >House/Senate computers and they are obviously trying to lay it at our feet. > >Is there legislation pending somewhere that somebody needed a so-called >"terrorist threat" to get it passed ??!! > >I have a 1 meg file of the messages we got and the messages we sent out to >our service provider and to the Secret Service I would appreciate if people >would be willing to store for safe keeping. > >Can anyone make the file available for FTP? We don't have an FTP site. > >We are definitely being set up. > > > > >Kind regards, > >Linda Thompson > >******************** V *************************** > DEATH TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER >*************************************************** >Dr. Linda Thompson >Attorney at Law >Chairman, American Justice Federation >Internet: lindat(a)iquest.net > >**************************************************** > Remember Waco. > The Murderers are still free. >**************************************************** >Have you seen this yet? > > http://206.55.8.10/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum > > > > > Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Who's Censoring Who?
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Young wrote: > Sandy's e-mailed several of us who've sent messages about Vulis's > ploy to put Sandy in a conflict-of-interest bind -- a well-known attack > on moderators of all kinds, not just on the net. Now you've admitted that Sandy, ever more desperate, is grasping for allies for some future attack. And you've accused Dr. Vulis of plotting against Sandy. Tsk tsk. > What's worth admiring is how Vulis has adeptly managed to get others > -- targets and witting and unwitting cohorts -- to go along with his attack, > attack, attack, by opposing or supporting it. A useful lesson. This is not the healthy kind of paranoia. > Smart dude, that Vulis, but no more so than others on the Net, say, > Tim May, and in the world who've done the same elsewhere, maybe > by even smarter dude(s) who provoked, angered, insulted, an unwitting > Vulis, or May, to attack on behalf of ... Tim May in the same breath as Dr. Vulis? I underestimated the level of desperation here. > But such deception is to be expected, along with feigned suprise and > outrage at the unfairness of opponents fighting as dirty as one's own > pure-blackhearts. Neither I nor (I'm certain) Dr. Vulis are surprised by any of this. Who were you referring to? > Sandy's not censoring cypherpunks, nor is Vulis or May or any single > person alone. As Pogo said, it's all of us, posters and lurkers and spooks, > each trying to get one's way to prevail, under guise of a high principle not > easily honored when the squeeze is on alone in a dark cell. Come on out > Sandy, it was just a drill. Well, he claims he's not censoring anymore. If you believe that, you're probably waiting for the Easter bunny. > It's probably worth saving accusations of censorship for the real thing, > after trial usage here for what is truly nasty high-stakes global info-war > gaming. Blah blah blah blah. Bottom line is this: "Moderation" is really censorship. You can go on with this "plausible denial" all you want to, but the jig is up, so to speak. They've been caught being sneaky and deceptive with people's mail. Naughty naughty.

1 0