December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

NYC meeting?
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hi there, are there any Cypherpunks-Meetings in NYC? Ciao Harka -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMvw4/DltEBIEF0MBAQEHXwf8D93/Y2XUteMNha8/sISuETEHz5U+t1Jo P27CX706L6qidSxUU8ytMLERAjpIw1khId6DBm/XiHNCS7lSR4PPLs3iW+wJRWTf 1OslxP8c7QuXLsr8QwFQQJ8S9BfYPMN08Kev9hUd7zX7tZJV6DToKe4msROME7Wx s5weFEpsRqUDH44c0fsDdo5486vuoSuqCmbfhfKqhvR4PwErwxLHoQ4AvUyj3YfL jSkt5QJFbA1iMDOQQBh4N/gKS0qsIUotDLtI+gLb7RI4828wF87M4pJLwyqOIohS oiV1PFWQx4n1gmG2kZh3PbkXYlOU1dzDwS6nDNx1ZR9mjdTiZ+cWdQ== =Cnr+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: is there a FAQ
by John Ioannidis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I am working on getting 3DES working (it's in the ipsec-0.4 code > base, but no doc on how to configure it!) now and could use more > documentation my self. Use the setsa program provided in the utils directory. Something along the lines of setsa esp 3des-md5 i key should do the trick. It was really a choice between distributing the code and lingering on it for a few more days until the docs were better, and I chose the first. Bsides, the source *is* the ultimate documentation :-) /ji

1 0

Privacy Problems with the IAHC New TLD Report SLD Policies
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The International Internet Ad-Hoc Committee released its report on new Top Level Domains for the Internet. It's interesting, and resulted from much political wrangling and religious conflict, and for the most part I think it's taking a reasonable approach to the problems, and I'm certainly not going to go postal like Postmaster Karl Denninger :-) A few particularly nice features: - .nom TLD, for name-based domains - Multiple registrars per name space, reducing the monopoly problem - trying to keep governments or PTTs from controlling it, though it's a bit big-business oriented for stability reasons. Mostly I wasn't worried, because sensible people were going to make sure they didn't do anything totally disastrous. Apparently I _should_ have been watching more closely, because the SLD _Second_ Level Domain part has some policies that seriously interfere with the privacy of potential domain name users. References and long quotes are below... To a large extent, they've been trying to avoid getting stuck in trademark problems by collecting lots of information and defining jurisdiction. In the process, they're asking you to sign away your first-born child in return for getting your name in the Yellow Pages(tm), and they're requiring all the Registrars to reject your application unless you do. The rules are especially inappropriate for the .nom domain, which is for personal names and such, and don't need overkill. There's a place for serious high-value commerce behaviour, and much of this isn't too inappropriate for .firm - but even that ignores the radical communication-pushed changes in the economy that make everybody able to run a worldwide business. It's not just that they want your email address (highly reasonable) or your phone and physical address (ought to be optional) or your IP address (they don't ask) or domain name (ok) or digital or written signature. It's not even just obnoxious things like demanding that you swear (against _my_ religion...) to a bunch of things, like "the reason for requesting this particular domain name" or what you're planning to do with the domain name (perfectly reasonable things to ask for as optional extras, and business may want to reveal these, but "Decline to State" or "" or "MYOB" are perfectly reasonable responses.) It's things like designating an agent for service of process, and "submits to the personal and subject matter jurisdiction and venue of a competent tribunal in the country where the registrar resides". Aside from believing that you ought to be able to choose what governments, if any, you're going to subject yourself to, I'd also expect that this would be annoying to people who don't live in one of the <=28 countries that get Registrars in them. And certainly if you're going to designate someone as an agent for service of process (you can use the Registrar) there'd better be some contractual language available so you can tell what you're swearing to. Is it reasonable to have a policy that users need to indicate how they'd like to receive communications about name and trademark disputes? Sure. And that they hold the Registrar harmless in such disputes? Probably. And which dispute resolution organization they're willing to have resolve disputes over names (a _much_ milder statement than "submit to personal and subject matter jurisdiction"....)? Yeah, even if the default is "the Registrar can disconnect your name if you don't respond to trademark complaints in N days." Certainly the Registrar ought to have some options here. ======================== REFERENCES =================================== The Final Report is at http://www.iahc.org/draft-iahc-recommend-00.html (nice name for a "final" report :-) The Application Forms for SLDs aren't in the draft on the web page, so I'm assuming they're referring to something similar to the December draft's Appendix. Mailing list archives are at http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/ ========================================================================== QUOTES FROM THE REPORT ========================================================================== 6.1.5 Second-Level Domains SLD application Application for a second-level domain name must include: Sufficient contact and intended use information Appointment of an agent for service of process Agreement to jurisdiction in the event of trademark litigation. Mediation and arbitration clause (discussed in a later section) A separate document entitled "SLD Applications" (see section 1.4) contains the information that must be included in a SLD application. Applications submitted electronically must include state of the art electronic identification; written applications must be signed by the applicant, if an individual, or by an officer or other legally authorized representative if the applicant is an entity. Renewal and non-use To promote accountability, discourage extortion and minimize obsolete entries, SLD assignments must be renewed annually. Appendix B, attached, includes the information that must be included in a renewal application. Renewal applications submitted electronically must include state of the art electronic identification; written renewal applications must be signed by the applicant, if an individual, or by an officer or other legally authorized representative if the applicant is an entity. In addition to requiring annual renewal, CORE will develop policies to ensure the recovery of sub-domains which no longer have an authoritative source (lame delegations). 6.2 Discussion In order to ensure consistency of basic service across registrars, certain information is required in all applications for SLDs under gTLDs. It is desirable that a domain name application include sufficient information regarding the applicant and the applicant's intended use of the domain name to ensure applicant accountability and to ensure that sufficient information is available to enable trademark owners to assess the need for a challenge to the proposed SLD domain. ================= [more stuff] ================================================ 7.1.3 Publication All applications for SLDs in the gTLDs will be published on a publicly available, publicized web site, immediately upon receipt by the registrar. Such publication entries will include: Name of the SLD; Contact and use information contained in the application; A permanent tag or label (created by CORE) indicating whether the applicant chose the option of waiting 60 days prior to assignment of the requested SLD or chose to forego the 60 day wait; Entry validation using accepted digital signature and timestamping techniques. Those applicants choosing not to wait will not be in a position to claim the defensive benefit of the waiting period against a challenge, at any time, by a trademark owner. =================================================== ======================================================================= APPENDIX FROM DRAFT - SLD APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS ======================================================================= 11.1 Appendix A - SLD Application Requirements Every application for assignment of a SLD must include the following elements (incomplete applications must be returned to the applicant for completion): 1.Applicant's name, business or residential address, email address, fax and phone number(s). 2.The state or country of incorporation or partnership (if applicable). 3.The name and address of a designated agent for service of process where the registrar is located, which may be the applicant in the case of an individual. (The applicant may designate the registrar as the agent for service of process.) 4.A sworn statement by the individual applicant or by an officer or general partner of a corporate or partnership applicant: 1.that there is a bona fide intent to use the domain name publicly within 60 days of registration, and a bona fide intent to continue such use in the foreseeable future; 2.that the domain name will be used for [fill in the blank, e.g., "for a web site to advertise applicant's candy manufacturing business"]. This may be a broad statement and is not intended in any way to restrict actual use. However, to the extent that a commercial use is intended, this statement should identify the industry in which the use is intended to be made and should indicate which of the following uses will be made: web site, email, bulletin board and/other describe); 3.that the applicant believes that the intended use of the domain name will not infringe any rights of any other party; 4.that the reason for requesting this particular domain name is that it conforms to [check one of the following]: ___ applicant's company name or variation thereof ___ applicant's trademark or variation thereof ___ individual applicant's name or variation thereof ___ other (provide full explanation) 1.that the applicant submits to the personal and subject matter jurisdiction and venue of a competent tribunal in the country where the registrar resides for purposes of any action brought under trademark law, unfair competition laws, or similar/related laws arising out of actual or intended use of the domain name applied for; and applicant waives all rights to challenge such personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction and/or venue. ============================================================================ ======== # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

Re: lead remailer is shut down
by bs-org＠c2.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 21:42 1997-02-07 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: >Raph's remailer list is at > http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~raph/remailer-list.html >and indicates lots of different remailer features, >including whether they accept or require PGP, >and what reliability they've been getting recently. Thanks, and it worked too... > >The remailer that was shut down was the remailer named "lead"; >you may have noticed that your reply went to a machine named "zinc"..... > >At 11:56 PM 2/7/97 +0100, you wrote: >>Can anybody give me the address of reliable remailer which accepts >>pgp messages. >> >>BTW which remailer was shut down and why? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ># Thanks; Bill ># Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com ># You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp ># (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) > >

1 0

Re: unimbibing
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I have been trying to get off this list for nearly a week now. The instructions given in the welcome message don't work. > Get me off this list now.! > I joined to learn about cryptography, not listen to some socially retarded juveniles argue over who's got the biggest dick. I participate in this list to discuss cryptography and related issues. If you have been reading posts discussing large genitalia you are probably confusing list traffic with private email from your gay friends. Here are instructions telling you how to unsubscribe: To unsubscribe from the cypherpunks mailing list: Send a message to majordomo(a)toad.com with the *MESSAGE BODY* reading exactly as follows: unsubscribe cypherpunks you(a)your.domain.com Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0

Re: faulty moderation software: duplicate messages
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970207:1759 "Mark M." <markm(a)voicenet.com> said: +All messages with "Sender: owner-cypherpunks-unedited(a)toad.com" are +received from the flames list. The difference between the unedited and +moderated lists is that the moderated list changes the message ID, +appending toad.com, and deletes all received headers before +"majordom(a)localhost.*by toad.com". None of the messages are being +doubled; this is just the result of buggy software if you receive both the unedited and the censored plus flames, each message should be doubled --unedited sends all messages, but fails to always mark them in sender -basically, you need to key on the fact the Message-ID is NOT ....(a)toad.com for the unedited file no, I dont have a problem with that, it is just stupid on toad's part (John?) to not correctly identify the pass through messages with 'Sender: owner-cypherpunks-unedited(a)toad.com' --a few are, but the vast majority are still shipped out as 'Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com' (and the 'Received' chain as I pointed out in my original post). to me that is piss poor list management. unfortunately, I can not use procmail at this point on my mail reader platform, but the internal filters are multilevel and do allow enough flexibility. I use procmail extensively on my host for autobots, spam filtering, objectional posters filtering, etc. I think you probably have an error in your procmail script as to sending 'unedited' to flames. the theory stated is: mainline (censored) + flames == unedited but I will not test it since I prefer to read/respond off line with MR/2 than Pine online. I will request Nick Knight for the construction of his folders (except he has no lock mechanism) and I might write a PPP POP3 mail recovery program, pass it through procmail which passes it to a function to write it to MR/2's folders. however you slice it, censorship on a freedom of speech list just does not make it and we make fools of ourselves if we think otherwise. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMvxHR704kQrCC2kFAQFQyAP+LXpWz1bFoGAs2tu+stR4YD8OBbRPv8cO /vLuf/oB6auYCI3I4mx1raPEFmg0Ul7dKf7Z9hINukkLbjMQtK4exCSlXeDK7kyz 2N6IbUYviauCHr2CM5w/kZ6GBKiajCfa+QysoKLIfrHGr35WUrSY+as/5cJ4XtYQ c+yw9WLbIuk= =B67K -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: censorship and headers
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- the "message" example which follows is obviously a message which should have been destinated for owner-cypherpunks-flame. there is absolutely no indication of the differentation and the header shows: Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com when it should have shown: Sender: owner-cypherpunks-edited(a)toad.com let's put it this way, if cp is to be censored, might as well do the job correctly as this message was dumped into the main list. regardless, censoring what is supposed to be the free speech defenders of the online world is a poor example of our toleration for differing viewpoints, regardless of their alledged stupidity or off-topic value, or lack of value. So far, cypherpunks is showing less tolerance for freedom of speech that the United State Supreme Court. You all know something I dont? or do I need to start cleaning and oiling real soon? --attila +Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) + by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA10780 + for <attila(a)primenet.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 05:23:55 -0700 (MST) +Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id +EAA21727; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 04:19:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from +sirius.infonex.com (root(a)sirius.infonex.com [206.170.114.2]) by +toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA21718; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 +04:19:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.infonex.net +(dfbfl4-37.gate.net [199.227.103.228]) by sirius.infonex.com +(8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA26850 for cypherpunks(a)toad.com; Fri, 7 +Feb 1997 04:19:33 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: +<199702071219.EAA26850(a)sirius.infonex.com> Date: Friday, 07 Feb 97 +07:19:25 EST +To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com +From: winsock(a)rigel.cyberpass.net (WinSock Remailer) +X-Mailer: WinSock Remailer Version ALPHA1.3 +X-Comments: - +X-Comments: This message is NOT from winsock(a)rigel.cyberpass.net. It +was X-Comments: remailed by an automated anonymous remailer. +X-Comments: - +X-Comments: SEND ALL COMPLAINTS AND BLOCKING REQUESTS DIRECTLY TO: +X-Comments: REOP-L(a)cornell.edu <Remailer Operator's Network> +X-Comments: - +X-Comments: WinSock Remailer (winsock(a)rigel.cyberpass.net) +X-Comments: http://www.cyberpass.net/~winsock/ X-Comments: - +X-Remailer-Setup: Maximum Message Size -- None +X-Remailer-Setup: Reordering is ON, Mail Poolsize is 3 +X-Remailer-Setup: News Posting DISABLED +X-Remailer-Setup: Subject Header KILLED +X-Remailer-Setup: Logging OFF +X-Remailer-Setup: All messages must be PGP encrypted +Subject: Re: Sphere packings +Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com +Precedence: bulk +X-UIDL: e2bae6a70f8b97f156939d711ba124ba -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMvxVZr04kQrCC2kFAQG7TwP/XI3wSXvMUgYdIqyjrXUN5CT5W/XVONqF jOfGDNxeTj+UbvIGuMzfcdxZB0X2lMCm8IptXncDfQgULIt6Fex9xfBmrlr1F12G xdnZKwoU9QUga27UX1Lyfw3V8uJYgx10h1o1/54CPAoFJVBhWwA5aI6RL/7hvoeI E/l3Tx9iIyE= =djYo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Successfully Routing Around Censorship In Italy
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In Cu Digest, #9.07 -- see Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/ * is a nice article on how an Italian mailing list was blocked by the University bureaucracy. LISA (Lista Italiana Sull'Accesso a Internet) is "an unmoderated area devoted to discussion about social, cultural and economic aspects related to the development of the Internet in Italy." Two days later they were up and running on a machine in Utah. > Choosing censorship instead of an open debate is > something we will never be willing to silently accept. > Laura Caponi > Owner of LISA > Lista Italiana Sull'Accesso a Internet * This issue isn't on the web page quite yet.... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

WANTED: Tolerant, anonymity-friendly news admins 1.03
by aga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 7 Feb 1997, lcs Remailer Administrator wrote: > aga <aga(a)dhp.com> writes: > > > Who attacked the network and for what reason? > > Well, as best I can tell I've gotten caught in the crossfire of a > spam/"anti-spam" spam war. People are forging articles through > anonymous remailers to solicit spam to non-spamming customers of > "spam-friendly" ISPs, in the hopes of driving those customers away. > In other words, a lot of articles are being posted to groups like > alt.make.money.fast with headers like: > > From: customer(a)isp.under.attack (My^ISP^spams^I^should^switch) > > Then the spam bots collect the addresses, and send lots of mail like > > To: customer(a)isp.under.attack (My^ISP^spams^I^should^switch) > Subject: Great opportunity!!! > > My^ISP^spams^I^should^switch, > > I saw your post the other day, and have an oportunity for you that's > so good you can't miss it... > > It would be amusing if it weren't causing me hassles. Ultimately, > however, the person doing this is clearly trying to get ISPs to set > more restrictive policies about what mail/news customers can send, Well, that is bullshit, and that person needs to be stopped. Anyone trying to get more restrictive policies needs weeded out and identified, and then dealt with. > while knocking off a few anonymous remailers and mail2news gateways in > the process. > > > Well, just who is cutting you off and for what reason? > > And what is their telephone number? > > At issue here are a number of complicated high-level administrative > issues. It's not just that someone is trying to pull the plug on me. > I've been asked by someone who is not the one getting the phone calls > or exerting anti-mail2news pressure if I would stop using MIT news > servers. The reason is that that person needs to maintain good > relations with the people who are being harassed over the fogery. > Just who is getting harassed over this. All you need to do is get me the names and phone numbers, and we will eliminate this problem immediately. > I don't really want to go into details. No, do not do it in this list, but respond by a private response to this address. This is a place you can trust. The point is that this > situation is a lot more subtle than whether the pro-mail2news people > can "out-harrass" the people complaining about forgeries. Therefore, > I would sincerely appreciate it if you did not try to make any phone > calls or do anything to use up any more of these people's time. Well, it sounds like you are being a chicken shit now. The whole world runs on the telephone, and it all runs by voice, and not by text. I > fully intend to keep mail2news running, and am just trying to get more > news servers (after having lost one) to maintain reliability and > strengthen my position. > > > Just what is your definition of "abuse?" > > This got answered in a separate message. > yes it did. But why the fuck do you not want to find out who did this to you? I mean, Jesus fucking CHRIST! Let's get some fucking balls here. You can not let that mothetfucker get away with that! All you need is telephone numbers for some VERY nice phone calls. Learn to use your voice and not just your keyboard.

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks-unedited 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0