December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: [STEGO] e$
by nobody＠wazoo.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dumbbell L(agging) Viscera K(rud) Of The Moment was delivered by a vet, like the swine he is. v-v-v-@@-v-v-v (..) Dr.Dumbbell L(agging) Viscera K(rud) Of The Moment

1 0

Re: Diffie Hellman signatures
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dead Vomit the self-admitted child molester possesses a rudimentary dick less than one inch long, half the size of his mother's clitoris, that barely makes a fistful. Thereby hangs the root of this Jew-hating sissy's sick fixation on little boys and Usenet forgeries. _ /| `o_O' Dr.Dead Vomit ( ) U

1 0

Re: Need a good bi-directional mail-news gateway
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jonathan M. Bresler wrote: > your expected mail volume is 100,000+ messages a day? > > i run lists that do 200,000+ routinely. > recent peak of 350,000 messages > > does that meet your needs? Yes. This is great. You can join a discussion of people who will help hosting the cypherpunks list at cypherpunks-hosts(a)algebra.com. Subscribe by asking majordomo(a)algebra.com - Igor.

1 0

Re: Network of majordomos
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Paul Bradley <paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk> writes: > > Greg Broiles wrote: > > > I sent a proposal to alt.config last night and intend to newgroup > > > alt.cypherpunks in a week or so > > > Greg. > > Don`t bother, I have already drawn up a draft charter and newsgrouped > it. Wouldn`t have bothered if I knew you were already on it but I > didn`t see your post in alt.config... > > Seeya there... What was your chater? Could you Cc a copy to the list? Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

1 0

Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Against Moderation" writes: > Your bigotry seriously undermines the effectiveness of any > anti-censorship arguments you make. Are you just trying to get > everyone to hate those who oppose censorship on cypherpunks. The relevance and applicability of an anti-censorship argument has nothing to do with the non-related personal positions of advocates or opponents of that argument. Arguments should not be won or lost by the reputation of the arguer or one risks one's own manipulation by irrelavent data. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet He who has made a door and a lock, has also made a key.

1 0

anonymity and e-cash
by Lee Tien 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The NSA's research report on e-cash says: "The ideal situation (from the point of view of privacy advocates) is that neither payer nor payee should know the identity of the other. This makes remote transactions using electronic cash totally anonymous: no one knows where Alice spends her money and who pays her. "It turns out that this is too much to ask: there is no way in such a scenario for the consumer to obtain a signed receipt. Thus we are forced to settle for payer anonymity." Keeping in mind I am only a lawyer, my skim of Schneier (2d ed.) didn't illuminate. The discussion of digital cash seemed to assume no payee anonymity. But the immediate previous section of dining cryptographers involved (it seemed) recipient untraceability. Is payee anonymity technically possible? Under what conditions? If so, is the issue social, e.g., as NSA notes, the lack of a signed receipt? Thanks, Lee

2 1

Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ISP_Ratings writes: > I hate censors Dr. Grubor. Dave says hate is a destructive > emotion but when properly channeled it can be quite valuable. I didn't exactly say that. Hate is merely an absence of harmony, and destruction is sometimes appropriate. What I did say was that the best way to strengthen an enemy is to hate them. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet The King decided to force his subjects to tell the truth. Nasrudin was first in line. They asked him, "Where are you going? Tell the truth or be hanged" "I am going," said Nasrudin, "to be hanged on that gallows." "I don't believe you." "Very well, if I have told a lie, then hang me!" "But that would make it the truth!" "Exactly," said Nasrudin, "your truth."

1 0

Re: New group
by Lance Cottrell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have alt.cypherpunks on my server (all 1 message). I would be happy to feed that group (and alt.anonymous.messages) to any news server that asks. -Lance At 6:38 AM -0800 2/12/97, Dale Thorn wrote: >Paul Bradley wrote: >> Well despite the obvious problems of propogation I thought it was time >> someone actually did something to get us a new home, even if it`s only >> temporary. So I have created alt.cypherpunks... See you all over on >> usenet!... > >I pressed the URL alt.cypherpunks and my Netscape server said >"no such thing" or words to that effect. ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell loki(a)obscura.com PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server. http://www.obscura.com/~loki/ "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche ----------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks"
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> writes: > > At 1:20 PM -0600 2/11/97, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > >If the people decide for creation of a new USENET newsgroup, > > >we need to think very hard about actually moving it to a different > > >hierarchy from alt.*. I would propose comp.org.cypherpunks, > > >comp.cypherpunks, sci.crypt.cypherpunks or something like that. > > > > > >A comp.* or sci.* newsgroup, if created, has the following advantages > > >over an alt.* newsgroup: > > > > > >1) There is usually less spam in sci.* or comp.* > > >2) There are virtually no completely irrelevant flamewars > > >3) The propagation will be a lot better > > >4) More people will be able to read it because of the issue of providers > > > not carrying alt.*. > > > > > >I see nothing that would make a sci.* or comp.* newsgroup worse than > > >alt.* newsgroup. > > > > Sure, and this has come up in every past discussion of creating > > "alt.cypherpunks." > > > > But the creation of alt.cypherpunks is _easy_, and needs little permission > > or support, whereas the creation of "soc.culture.cypherpunks" or whatever > > takes work, requires a vote, blah blah blah. And so it never gets off the > > ground. > > > > (Nor is it clear to me, and perhaps not to others, that it belongs in the > > the various places Igor mentioned. Comp.org.cypherpunks probably is the > > best fit, but then many would cite the "comp" part to try to insist that > > only _computer_ topics be discussed. Likewise, the "soc" domain would skew > > discussion...etc. "Alt" has the nice advantage of explicitly not be part of > > sci, or comp, or soc, or even talk.) > > > (I apologize to everyone whose e-mail has gone unanswered this week - I've > had a bunch of other stuff to do, but I'll get to it eventually. Also, > I posted > the Anshel+Goldfield zeta function paten number - do check it out.) > > Random thoughts: > > 1. A newsgroup like comp.privacy.cypherpunks will be carried on a lot of > corprate news servers that don't carry alt.* (or even soc.*). Note that > soc.org.cypherpunks is inappropriate since cp is *not* an organization. :-) > Another possibility is sci.crypto.cypherpunks. (True, people whose corporate > newsservers don't carry soc.* and talk.* can use dejanews - provided their > firewall lets them.) > 2. It takes more work to create a comp.* newsgroup than an alt newsgroup. > It takes a vote. I'm willing to be one of the proponents and generally help > with the process. (Both I and Igor have been co-proponents of major Usenet > newsgroups - don't know about other people onthis list. :-) Not only it takes a vote. What is more important is what a vote gives: a good discussion of the newsgroup and the formal RFD/RFD/CFV process ensures that, on average, a good balance is found between various groups of readers. I am not concerned as to what the name of the group will be, it is not important. What is important is that it should be in a more or less flame-free zone. It is too late to stop alt.cypherpunks, but if I had to make a prediction again, I would predict that soon posters will BEG to help them create comp.*.cypherpunks, because of spam and alt.flamage. > 3. An unmoderated Usenet newsgroup would have even ore crap than this mailing > list. I've been thinking of how to deal with crap, and with the obvious desire > by some people to delegate their decision what to read and what not to read > to other people. It is alt.* and soc.* that has most crap, sci and comp are way better. > Most people don't have nocem-enabled newareaders yet... Which is where the > network of cypherpunks majordomos Igor's been busy creating comes in very > handy. > It is a very good idea to let NoCeM issuers and filterers work independently from list nodes. - Igor.

4 5

Cypherpunks@Cyberpass.net New List
by Lance Cottrell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I am gratified to see that several people have stepped forward to offer their services to host this list. I have been contacted by various list members to host the list here at Infonex. I think there are several reasons I was approached to do this. As a long time remailer operator I am used to taking heat for the services I offer, and dealing with attacks on the services I run. As the owner and President of Infonex, the list is in no danger of being pulled by the administration of this site. As the author of Mixmaster I am reasonably well known (and I hope respected) member of the list. I have been completely uninvolved in the politics which have plagued the list of late. I personally favor the multi-node list model, where no one site can censor the list, the loss of any one node is not catastrophic, and the load on any one machine is not excessive. Unfortunately I don't think it will be up and functional in time for the transition. I have already set up the list on my majordomo server and subscribers are welcome now. The list address is cypherpunks(a)Cyberpass.net and the subscription address is majordomo(a)Cyberpass.net. The list on my server is subscribed to the unedited version of the current cypherpunks list. Once the multi-node list system is perfected I will integrate this list with the other nodes. Having dealt with the abuse heaped on remailer operators, I think I have an inkling of what John Gilmore has withstood for years. He has agreed to forward his list to mine (and possibly others) for a while after the 20th. It is my opinion that the primary Cypherpunks list should be completely uncensored and unfiltered. An ecology of filtered lists has developed in exactly the way many predicted they should. For the record I regularly read only a filtered version of the list, and subscribe to the full list only to be able to read referenced articles which were filtered. -Lance Cottrell -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMwIyFMogYxMMzklZAQFTzAf+Jya8WIdWpZhyialw6GtGbj3D4mQp0PRJ +J4cBn3qCXX4sLkPcO9Cn0+3Sea20yclvZh9KXXlVM8RxGwzOhVeDDzuQ8dX+LwG QQDdjYfzUAyoSk3OJjWj92DXEZmyEGerahYdoIB7HkIkFw+OY6lJ56cTYUZvKlHe XkJakJ7F5zKdZitvx3wl7Qj6j2lMUh3SegDKz4Ig+WoOe7odbN2F6FDbp1t8WlvI b5YjhwsaOXJ56/ZuWDUuK/yjgq7obPHCtdR3jANIq+Ch01HD+idsU/CH4GCwgiNU 7/GLO+FWlrjL3QIVrl13GiixJFu70Ng37KMAbkoaPqL1Cnip1A4g/g== =fcW6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell loki(a)obscura.com PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server. http://www.obscura.com/~loki/ "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche ----------------------------------------------------------

1 0