December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re :Re?
by Mark Krell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>X-Sender: camcc(a)smtp1.abraxis.com >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:36:16 -0500 >To: Mark Krell <markk(a)randomc.com> >From: camcc(a)abraxis.com (Alec) >Subject: Re :Re? >Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > >At 10:02 PM 2/12/97 -0500, you nastily wrote in the form of : >: >:Attachment Converted: "c:\remove1.txt" >: >How, do you imagine, did you get on this God-forsaken list? Anger abounds. > >Is this Kismet that you are here now at this crucial moment of the list's evolution? > >Perhaps you have something to offer of which you are not aware. > >Avail yourself of our hospitality as we implode. Flee not. > >There is meaning to this. So our savants have told us. > >Speak the words to Majordomo(a)toad.com in the message panel (no quotes): > >"unsubscribe cypherpunks" > >Speak only thus. > >Bother us no more at our moment of transfiguration. > >Hail and farewell, Bro. > > > > >

1 0

Re: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:25 PM 2/12/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >Having said this, the flaw remains that "junk mail" is "free" to the >sender. This is a flaw in the ontology of e-mail, and needs to be fixed. >Digital postage is one approach. I decided long ago (okay, well, many months ago) that the "solution" is to invent a mechanism to allow spammers/advertisers to include a small amount of ecash as a gift with every spam. I figure that if USnail junk-mailers are willing to pay $0.32 for postage and probably $0.50 for production, printing, and labelling costs, all for no guarantees of results, they should even more happy to pay, say, 10 cents to each recipient. At that rate, an average person would probably receive enough "spam" to pay for his Internet account, quite analogous to the way advertiser-supported TV is presented to the public for no explicit charge. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: anonymity and e-cash
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:59 PM 2/12/97 -0800, Hal Finney wrote: >From: tcmay(a)got.net (Tim May) >> You missed a very good talk by Ian Goldberg of UC Berkeley at the Saturday >> Cypherpunks meeting at Stanford, where Ian talked for more than an hour on >> just this issue. (He also talked for an hour on his crack of the RSA >> challenge using 250 workstations...this was also a good talk.) > >I wish I could have heard that, it sounds good... > >A simple idea we have discussed for full anonymity uses the idea of >exchanging coins at the bank. You make an anonymous connection to >the bank, supply some ecash you have received along with some blinded >new ecash. The bank verifies that the ecash is good and signs your >blinded ecash, sending it back to you. You unblind it and have good, >fresh smelling ecash which you can keep, spend, or later deposit in >your account. > >If the merchant performs this exchange operation on-line as soon as >he receives ecash, then his anonynmity is protected. The customer is >protected too, by the blinding he used when he withdrew the ecash earlier. >So both sides remain anonymous. > >It sounds like Ian may have worked out details of a system where third >parties do these exchanges. Banks may be reluctant to allow them for >liability reasons, and the market, abhoring the vacuum, will supply >intermediaries who perform exchanges for a fee. > >Resolving the various forms of cheating is the hard part. When Lee asks >about a signed receipt, it is hard to understand what is the point if the >seller is fully anonymous! A signed receipt from a freshly-minted key >is not of much use to anyone. > >If the participants are using persistant pseudonyms then whatever >reputation capital they have can be put on the line when cheating happens, >although it still may be hard to tell who cheated whom. Did the customer >pass bad cash and claim it was good, or did the merchant deposit good >cash and claim it was bad? > >The same thing could happen every day at the supermarket, of course. >A customer insists they paid $20 but got change for a $10. If dozens of >customers say the same thing has happened to them, we start to mistrust >the market, while if several businesses say this particular customer >has made the same claim to them, we blame the customer. Here is another idea. The merchant and customer agree on a price, with the merchant knowing that the "bank" will take a cut for their services. The merchant and customer both LOG IN to the bank seperately, each type in their agreed upon price and cut & paste in the services rendered information. If they match, the bank makes the necessary transaction between the accounts, e-cash stash, etc. The bank also supplies both parties with a clear signed receipt. The bank can now no longer alter the receipt, as the merchant and customer both have a copy. And the customer and merchant can not alter the receipt, because then it would fail the test on the signature. If a receipt for a transaction number were used, then the only threat would be the same one that exists for remailer operators. This could be negated by daisy-chaining banks in a similair manner. If each bank took a cut of non-customers of $.0002 or .02% of the transaction, whichever was greater, then a suitable system could be set up. Another idea that has been festering. If we could get a CPA involved in this forum, I would be willing to have h[im/er] sign my key, (which is seldom used, mostly because this is the only place I use e-mail), for that reasonable fee that CPA's can charge. I know that it is not a standard, or even legally recognized, post for CPA's, but I think that enough people would trust them. This would take care of some of the "newly minted" key problems. Since getting someone who is trusted to sign your key is a recognized method of getting people to believe you are who you say you are. Just an idea. Actually two, one half thought out, one that has been bugging me.

1 0

Procmail during the transition, anyone?
by Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At various stages in the transition, we will be getting multiple copies of the same messages as the are re- cross- whatever-posted to lists, newsgroups and anything else handy. Anyone have a procmail script that will show me just ONE copy of messages, even if the headers are not identical (e.g. one looped, another was forwarded, etc.)? I have yet to find a good guide to procmail coding. My file is long, and inefficient, and a pain to maintain...and I'm too busy to learn it right. == The above may have been dictated via Dragon Dictate 2.52 voice recognition. Please be alert for unintentional word substitutions. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin(a)law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here.

1 0

Unsubcribe
by George Leerhuber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Unsubcribe <lerhuber(a)joshuanet.com>

1 0

Re: subscribe
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:48 PM 2/12/97 -0600, Igor Chudov wrote: >Jim Choate wrote: >> >> >> Hi Igor, >> >> > I will not impact me negatively. I do, however, suggest very strongly >> > that hosts should be subscribed to each other thgrough another mechanism >> > and not majordomo, in order to prevent mail loops, header rewriting and such. >> >> Suggestions? What I had in mind was that any messages that get sent on >> cpunks(a)ssz.com get sent over to algebra. One mechanism I would like to play >> with is a 'linked list' of remailers. Remailer A sends only to B and >> receives only from C... >> >> >> A >> ^ v >> C < B > >> Then to stop loops B deletes all outgoing mail from B. Since email can be >> forwarded from many sites the search must traverse the entire forward chain >> killing the message if B appears as a source. I suspect a simple procmail sort >> can accomplish this. My next step is to brush up on my procmail. I hope to >> have something in a couple of days that will allow you to subscribe >> cpunks@algebra to cpunks@ssz and both ends will be filtering. > >Here's how I do it (it is pretty close to your proposal): > >1) I delete duplicate messages (by looking up the database of >message-IDs) right away >2) I bounce all incoming messages to several other list servers >3) I pipe the article to majordomo for distribution. > >Note that majordomo changes headers and I wuold like to feed >other servers with UNCHANGED articles. ... >> Another nice advantage of this architecture is that 'rings' of remailers can >> be interconnected by simply sending output to more than one site. Might even >> be a good stability rule, "Never have a remailer send to more than 1 machine >> in its 'own' ring". I see no limit other than resources that would limit the >> number of rings an individual remailer might be in. > >A very good point. > ... Something to consider. If anyone of the distributed remailers is removed from a ring, the messages that need to travel across that ring can no longer do that. This makes the loop only as strong as its most at risk remailer. The star approach has already been seen in action, the trouble here is a single choke point. Full interconnectability is only feasible in a small net, but I would advise this at first. Check for the x-loop to see if another one got it first. If none, add one and send it on down the line. A disjointed mess, if the remailers are given first access to the list, could work quite well as long as that x-loop remained to point to who sent the message, and the x-loop contained an unalterable message number, and the remailers could eliminate duplications, probably based on message number. This should work as the net grows and would only be as weak as the strongest two connected remailers. Sounds like the internet.

1 0

Re: subscribe
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sean Roach wrote: > ... > Something to consider. If anyone of the distributed remailers is removed > from a ring, the messages that need to travel across that ring can no longer > do that. This makes the loop only as strong as its most at risk remailer. > The star approach has already been seen in action, the trouble here is a > single choke point. > Full interconnectability is only feasible in a small net, but I would advise > this at first. Check for the x-loop to see if another one got it first. If > none, add one and send it on down the line. > A disjointed mess, if the remailers are given first access to the list, > could work quite well as long as that x-loop remained to point to who sent > the message, and the x-loop contained an unalterable message number, and the > remailers could eliminate duplications, probably based on message number. > This should work as the net grows and would only be as weak as the strongest > two connected remailers. > Sounds like the internet. > I'd suggest a simplier solution: to connect each server with a couple, or maybe three, other servers. This scheme is rather robust, does not consume too much CPU time and bandwidth, and is easy to implement. - Igor.

3 2

Re :Re?
by Mark Krell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>X-Sender: camcc(a)smtp1.abraxis.com >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:36:16 -0500 >To: Mark Krell <markk(a)randomc.com> >From: camcc(a)abraxis.com (Alec) >Subject: Re :Re? >Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > >At 10:02 PM 2/12/97 -0500, you nastily wrote in the form of : >: >:Attachment Converted: "c:\remove1.txt" >: >How, do you imagine, did you get on this God-forsaken list? Anger abounds. > >Is this Kismet that you are here now at this crucial moment of the list's evolution? > >Perhaps you have something to offer of which you are not aware. > >Avail yourself of our hospitality as we implode. Flee not. > >There is meaning to this. So our savants have told us. > >Speak the words to Majordomo(a)toad.com in the message panel (no quotes): > >"unsubscribe cypherpunks" > >Speak only thus. > >Bother us no more at our moment of transfiguration. > >Hail and farewell, Bro. > > > > >

1 0

Re: (2)Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970212:1525 "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> said: +At 6:21 PM +0000 2/12/97, Attila T. Hun wrote: +> maybe relief is in sight; can we spell excedrin? +> +>on or about 970211:1433 educom(a)elanor.oit.unc.edu said: +> +>+COURT GRANTS COMPUSERVE INJUNCTION AGAINST JUNK E-MAIL +> +>+A U.S. district court in Ohio has granted CompuServe's request for a +>+preliminary injunction barring Cyber Promotions Inc. from sending +>+unsolicited e-mail to its subscribers while the commercial provider +... +Were I a customer of CompuServe, I'd ask on what basis CompuServe was +intercepting e-mail to me. In fact, a CompuServe account holder has +made just this point: "I'll decide what's junk mail and what's not."]] + I could not agree more, in theory, except for the postage you discuss below which permits spammers greed to exceed responsibility, let alone the public interest. I am, of course, a theoretical anarchist; I believe I could put aside greed (and have) to be sufficiently altruistic to make a society of anarchists work (in a limited population model). However: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein as long as we have a >30% third and fourth generation welfare class which the dogood liberal bleeders say we are obligated to sustain their breeding; and another 30% which are functionally illiterate, there is no hope for idealism. our "neighbors" have no idea how to spell anarchy, let alone understand the price of freedom. just because I would cut off the permanent welfare class at the knees, and disenfranchise the functionally illiterate if I had the chance, does not make anarchy any more feasible; it's just a more rigid police state for the havenots --again, something we do not need. sorry to be a pragmatic pessimist, but it went down hill with the 16th amendment and the Federal Reserve Act to benefit the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, Rothschilds, Chases, etc. at our expense. +Having the court system involved in deciding what mail is valid and +what is not valid is not my idea of a free society. + again, you are correct except anarchy requires responsibility. free agency has its requirements and this is why junk fax was banned. too many members of our society can not spell anarchy or responsibility --their knowledge of vocabulary starts and ends with greed. +Having said this, the flaw remains that "junk mail" is "free" to the +sender. This is a flaw in the ontology of e-mail, and needs to be +fixed. Digital postage is one approach. probably cut down on our postings to cp as well! 32 cents to post? +I'm not holding my breath, but I sure don't want a "District Court" +deciding. I don't like the regulatory agencies either, but at least they are not Judge Roy Bean, Law West of the Pecos. unfortunately, until the irresponsible tone down their greed, we need the regulation to protect ourselves from the predators. in other words, I agree with you in my heart, but our society refuses to cooperate. ___________________________________________________________attila_____ "Explain to me, slowly and carefully, why if person A, when screwed over on a deal by B; is morally obligated to consult, pay, and defer to, person C for the purpose of seeing justice done; and why person C has any legitimate gripe, if A just hauls off and smacks B around like a dead carp." ___________________________________________________________attila_____ "attila" 1024/C20B6905/23 D0 FA 7F 6A 8F 60 66 BC AF AE 56 98 C0 D7 B0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMwKgzb04kQrCC2kFAQEK0AP+PBClPteXMYFpcfJaeYgP8c077LZwFE5i O2taYhGGY2oiuw5U2r3Y4Qv2P/8CsCtZ/eSrBlmvMTOrYEi2Le0fjiefAFKte2g4 FSJ67ttFC3gSQyj75r99TJ+roYnJzGgec9X5f/kOr3Z0m3Da6u+m/l7siNmDOPae RDWsxwmjcyM= =huRr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Unsubcribe
by George Leerhuber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Unsubcribe <lerhuber(a)joshuanet.com>

1 0