December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

unsubcribe
by George Leerhuber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

UNSUBCRIBE <lerhuber(a)joshuanet.com>

1 0

Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 14:46:04 -0800 > From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> > Subject: Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) > Is this the policy of the majordomo network, that individual list operators > can make their own policies for their subscribers, but may not/cannot > impose them on other list operators or the other lists' members? It sounds > very reasonable, but it would be nice to be clear about whether or not this > is the case. There is no policy at this point. We have not even agreed to a means to institute the network or its basic architecture. The only point of mandatory agreement is between any two individual list operators and the mechanism they use to transfer between those two nodes. This sort of policy distribution won't work, as to reasonable I think not. If everyone does their own thing with no compromise then nothing will get done. > Are there any rules (other than "no rules") which apply to all lists/list > operators/list subscribers? Can there ever be any? Who would write the > rules, and who must agree to them in order for them to take effect? There are no explicit rules at this point. Yes there can be all sorts of rules, both implicit (eg copyrights) and explicit. Anyone can write rules. Nobody must agree to anything other than implicit agreements, course the concept of 'agreement' sorta goes out the window with implicits. > Can individual list operators be forced to or forbidden to "peer" with > other machines, or are these "peer" relationships up to each list operator? Don't see how anyone can force the remailer to do anything. Can't speak for anyone else but can say with some degree of certainty that no participant in cpunks can stop me from subscribing whoever I want. There is certainly no mechanism envisioned to authenticate subscriptions with the remailer operators. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: (2)Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 13 Feb 97 at 5:00, Attila T. Hun wrote: > > 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. Attila: I am shocked that you would make this statement. What makes you think that the 'regulators' would go away, once the greedy spammers "toned down their greed"? Spammers as Predators? Are you being sarcastic? Are you seriously saying that spammers are preying on the weak? I am one-thousand % AGAINST regulation of any sort. > > in other words, I agree with you in my heart, but our society > refuses to cooperate. If cooperation means regulation, count me out. Ross =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

1 0

Re: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:50 EDT > From: "E. Allen Smith" <EALLENSMITH(a)ocelot.rutgers.edu> > Subject: Re: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd) > Well, if you can't deliver mail because their mailbox is full, then > you should simply wait a few days before trying to deliver mail to that > address. If it's because the address isn't there any more, you should delete > it from the subscription lists. Otherwise, the instant people's mail quotas > overflow (e.g., they're on AOL and they haven't been able to get through the > clogged lines), they get bounced... or you're left with a lot of invalid > addresses. If their mailbox is full I might let it sit a day. If I still get a bounce after that I currently yank it. As I stated earlier, I am currently trying to decide if daily or weekly purges are in order. I personaly lean toward daily. I certainly am not buying disk space just so somebody else can use it for storing things they don't personaly have room for. > The address causing the bounce is not necessarily determinable > automatically from the bounce message; if it isn't, then you need to keep a > copy around for a human to look at. Hmmm, to date I haven't had a problem determining where the cause was from the bounces I see. I can't always tell why but it always seems to say whose email address was involved. > Given that there are pre-existing news-mail gateways, I'd think that > the programs should be available. My concern on the programming is more in > the realm of keeping the thing up and running. If you get it up and running there should be no programming involved. Unless you want to reconfigure. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

crypto restrictions
by anand abhyankar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hi guys, i am a bit confused. what exactly are the us govt crypto regulations. what i mean is that : 1) is it illegal to develop an encryption tool (s/w) in the US which uses > 40 bit size session keys and then export that s/w outside of the US. 2) is it illegal to encrypt some data inside the us with a key > 40 bit in size and then send that data outside the US. thanx. anand....

4 5

unsubcribe
by George Leerhuber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

UNSUBCRIBE <lerhuber(a)joshuanet.com>

1 0

Technology and the Electronic Economy
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We've put the IEEE Spectrum special issue on Technology and the Electronic Economy, with 13 articles previously listed here, at: http://jya.com/tee.htm

1 0

crypto restrictions
by anand abhyankar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hi guys, i am a bit confused. what exactly are the us govt crypto regulations. what i mean is that : 1) is it illegal to develop an encryption tool (s/w) in the US which uses > 40 bit size session keys and then export that s/w outside of the US. 2) is it illegal to encrypt some data inside the us with a key > 40 bit in size and then send that data outside the US. thanx. anand....

1 0

Re: (2)Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 13 Feb 97 at 5:00, Attila T. Hun wrote: > > 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. Attila: I am shocked that you would make this statement. What makes you think that the 'regulators' would go away, once the greedy spammers "toned down their greed"? Spammers as Predators? Are you being sarcastic? Are you seriously saying that spammers are preying on the weak? I am one-thousand % AGAINST regulation of any sort. > > in other words, I agree with you in my heart, but our society > refuses to cooperate. If cooperation means regulation, count me out. Ross =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

1 0

Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s)
by Kent Crispin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Greg Broiles allegedly said: > > At 09:04 AM 2/13/97 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > >This is where the distributed nature of the list comes in. > > > >if someone disagrees with Jim's AUP, he or she can use soem other > >mailing list host. > > Is this the policy of the majordomo network, that individual list operators > can make their own policies for their subscribers, but may not/cannot > impose them on other list operators or the other lists' members? It sounds > very reasonable, but it would be nice to be clear about whether or not this > is the case. > > Are there any rules (other than "no rules") which apply to all lists/list > operators/list subscribers? Can there ever be any? Who would write the > rules, and who must agree to them in order for them to take effect? > > Can individual list operators be forced to or forbidden to "peer" with > other machines, or are these "peer" relationships up to each list operator? Both realistically and idealistically speaking, the peer relationships should be up to each list operator. And, once again, both realistically and idealistically speaking, each list operator should set their own policies. The beauty of this scheme is that it gives maximum freedom to both the list operators *and* the list members -- if a list operator wants to filter out clever asci art, they can, and contrariwise, if the list members want to change list operators as a result, they can. In fact, I don't see why moderated versions of the list couldn't happily coexist as part of the distributed list. Let those flowers bloom! BTW, I am planning on an upgrade to majordomo 1.94.1 this weekend, and I will be setting up cypherpunks(a)songbird.com at that time. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F

1 0