December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd)
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: | | Forwarded message: | | > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:22 EDT | > From: "E. Allen Smith" <EALLENSMITH(a)ocelot.rutgers.edu> | | > Umm... because you'll eventually accumulate _lots_ of addresses | > that don't work, which will slow things down tremendously in sending | > mail out? | | The current subscription is between 1,000 and 2,000 I don't think that is | _lots_. All we need to do is count the number of bounces per address in | a given period, the SSZ end is trying to decide between weekly or | monthly cleanings, and then clear that address. At no point would I need | to archive the original bounce. qmail has bounce management software for its list management tools. (bounceman) "Russell Nelson has a bounce manager which <b>totally</b> eliminates any need to deal with bounces." www.qmail.org -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

1 0

Re: New group
by Jeremiah A Blatz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk writes: <snip> > > I pressed the URL alt.cypherpunks and my Netscape server said > > "no such thing" or words to that effect. > > The control message may take a few more hours to propogate, either > that or your newsadmin has rmgrouped it. The charter was clear and > concise and explained the issues so I don`t see why it should have > been rmgrouped. Can you mail me if it hasn`t been created by the time > you get this email and I`ll re-issue the cmsg. However, I`m sure it > was OK as Robert Hettinga (sp?) found it on his news server today... Yet another "me too," alt.cypherpunks is alive (dunno about well, time shall tell) on my news server. Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwKe2Mkz/YzIV3P5AQGQYQMAkwiuqAV/PsdcCscHVbsT6rxoKMv63UQh ebBIUh9QnXxVqjxcv3dvoanYGrP1Ldyvza9GXgLlTBIwtAuC+Od026mcV0NljUT/ 9WSg3iaHdUBReHpXbTsOVF+a9lQp4fzP =Hfgq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Private property rights on cypherpunks (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:58:42 -0500 (EST) > From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)pathfinder.com> > Subject: Private property rights on cypherpunks > I forward articles to cypherpunks that are copyrighted by my employers, or > magazines like Playboy and Wired for which I write freelance pieces. > > I like to think these articles have some value. I will not forward any of > them, nor would I be able to, if they magically became "public domain." > > "De facto public domain" is an idea that deserves to die. Now. Really? Do you have a priori permission from your publisher, who owns those stories, to distribute them elsewhere? If not please explain why I or any other person should be a willing acomplice? You could also still post them anonymously. You could also simply include a 'fair use' proviso somewhere. In such a case it would be in your publishers best interest to require a copyright notice. In that case there is no confusion about who owns those rights. Especialy when you consider the traffic is global which means your 'implied copyright' here don't mean squat there. I suspect just about every place that recognizes a copyright recognizes an explicit one. Instead of "De facto public domain should die" how about, "Implied a priori contracts should die now" Lord a mighty, haven't you heard? Information wants to be free. Let the thing go. If you really think your words are something that will someday win a Nobel or make Mr. Bill look like a pauper note it explicitly. However, it would seem to me that implicit copyright works against the axiomatic crypto-icon. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

FIGHT THE INTERNET TAX
by Robalini＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subj: [Fwd: New Internet Tax--Can YOU Afford It?] Date: Wed, 12 Feb, 1997 05:00 PM EDT From: pentiumpower(a)internetx.net You have until tomorrow to protest the new Internet "tax" which the FCC will be entertaining. Here is the message which I sent out to everyone that I could. I suggest that you spread this message as QUICKLY as possible. It is extremely important the FCC be bombarded by messages and then maybe, just MAYBE, we'll beat this thing! This is a VERY SERIOUS ISSUE!!!! It is extremely important and will determine whether or not the Internet continues to be available to all of us or just those who can afford massive fees. Figure it out, $.10 per minute is $6.00 per hour and this doesn't include your present monthly fees! Are YOU going to be willing or able to pay it! The following is a message which I sent out a week ago. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is entertaining the possibility of permitting the telecommunications industry to impose a per minute charge on Internet Service Providers (ISPs). This charge will, obviously, be passed directly on to the user; US! Needless to say, this new "tax" will increase the cost of access to the Internet tremendously! I strongly believe that this will curtail the growth of the Internet dramatically. At a time when access to knowledge and learning is at an all time high, this additional "tax" will impose an incredible burden on the average user, to say nothing of very likely forcing many smaller ISPs out of business. In addition, this will cause an extremely adverse affect on the rural user who does not have toll free access to the larger ISPs, i.e., AOL, Prodigy and others. If you feel as I do, drop an Email message to the FCC who has requested comments. Their address is: mailto:isp@fcc.gov You may "click" directly on the address which will bring up an Email message box in most programs. Add your comments, pro or con, and send it off! Deadline for all comments is Thursday, February 13, 1997! My message follows. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Allowing the imposition of a per minute charge on Internet use will not only destroy the growth of the Internet, it flies in the face of improving the education of our children. Published figures indicate that--for the first time in decades--the television is being replaced by the computer. This growth, undoubtedly, will be wiped out by this proposed new "tax". In addition, to virtually eliminating access to sources of information over the entire world, no small Internet Service Provider (ISP) will be able to compete with the larger ones who will be able to negotiate lower rates. Another "kick in the pants" to small business! I summarily reject allowing the telecommunications industry to "reach into the pockets" of those of us who use the Internet (and rely on it) for our access to information! This single act--if permitted--will set back the "information age" decades! I IMPLORE YOU NOT PERMIT THE IMPOSITION OF THIS NEW TAX"!!!!!! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ | Put Forth: | | "Your Best Image" | | with | | Computer System Configuration & Assistance | | Business Consulting, Guidance & Management Services | | Employer/Employee Human Relations Counseling | | Technical & Business Writing & Graphic Arts | | REsumEs, Interview Training & Employment Counseling | | | | Professional Business Consultants with over 30 Years Experience! | | | | Post Office Box 1438 Telephone (406) 642-3900 | | Hamilton, Montana 59840-1438 Fax (406) 642-3993 | | | | Email World Wide Web | | mailto:info@yourbestimage.com http://www.yourbestimage.com | |______________________________________________________________________| | Because e-mail can be altered electronically, | | the integrity of this communication cannot be guaranteed. |

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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. Here's the .procmailrc that takes care of this: (OTHER_HOSTS will be redefined to include, e.g., cypherpunks(a)ssz.com) # Please check if all the paths in PATH are reachable, remove the ones that # are not. # # NOTE: I use lockfiles extensively (and even excessively) because # I do not want to overburden the system. Since I am on a # PPP link that is not always on, sometimes large amounts of # submissions come in simultaneously and that may impair # performance of the overall system. You do not REALLY need # to use these lockfiles otherwise. ################################################################### PATH=/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin:$HOME/bin MAILDIR=$HOME/Mail # You'd better make sure it exists DEFAULT=$MAILDIR/mbox # VERBOSE=ON LOGFILE=$MAILDIR/from LOCKFILE=$HOME/.lockmail OTHER_HOSTS="cypherpunks(a)zzzz.com" :0 c $MAILDIR/allmail ############################################################ mailbombing ############################################################ end mailbombing :0 * ^TOcypherpunks * !^X-Loop: * !FROM_MAILER * !FROM_DAEMON { # # This recipe removes duplicates! # :0 Wh: msgid.lock | formail -D 128000 msgid.cache # send it to all other hosts :0 c !$OTHER_HOSTS # add X-Loop: :0 fhw | formail -I "X-Loop: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com" # send it to people :0 c | cypherpunks-send-subscribers # Accounting, logging :0 | cypherpunks-accounting } :0: * ^TOcypherpunks-request $DEFAULT # all the rest is trash :0 $DEFAULT # thats where it should be #/dev/null > 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. > The address is 'cypherpunks(a)ssz.com' but as alluded to above. I would like > to let it run 1 way for a day or so to get an idea of the stability of our > network link. You might consider creating a bogus username on your end. > Subscribe that user to the SSZ remailer and to your own mail list. Then use > procmail to filter all outgoing mail of that user since its incoming would > be from your list and its outgoing would go to mine, which then forwards > them to your list. We might want to call the bogus user 'gatekeeper'. Yes, we really should make darn sure that no loops are poissible before inviting people to subscribe to our lists. > If its agreeable lets get together on the cpunks-hosts list tomorrow and > discuss this a little more. > > If you don't mind, please forward this to the cpunks@toad list with your > responces. I would like to expose it to a little criticism. > - Igor.

1 0

Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, We have established the first link between cypherpunks(a)ssz.com and cypherpunks(a)algebra.com. Testing will continue for about 24 hours and we hope to have the link going two-way within a couple of days. If testing proceeds at the current pace we should be ready to go for a 3-way link if anyone will be ready this weekend. If we can get a 3-way going we should be ready for prime time. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: New group
by Rich Burroughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:38 AM 2/12/97 -0800, Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> 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. It has to be created on your local server, Dale. Wait a bit, and if doesn't show up speak to someone st your ISP. Rich ______________________________________________________________________ Rich Burroughs richieb(a)teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~richieb U.S. State Censorship Page at - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/state dec96 issue "cause for alarm" - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/cause

1 0

No Subject
by Mark Krell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--=====================_855820976==_ Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970212205911.8620J(a)crl8.crl.com> you are forwarding messages to me... stop it. remove markk(a)ra1.randomc.com from your mail list... all of a sudden I'm getting mail from bunches of people i don't know and who don't know me. help me out... go to the place where you got my email address and have them correct their links. Thank you. markk --=====================_855820976==_--

1 0

Re: whois cypherpunks.org ?
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Aleph1 (Levy) is a grey hatted hacker. Amongst other things, he moderates the bugtraq mailing list. Decent fellow. Adam Anil Das wrote: | With all this talk about relocating the home of cypherpunks, I decided to | see if any second level domains are registered under the cypherpunks | name. | | Both cypherpunks.org and cypherpunks.com are registered by one | Elias M. Levy in Ft. Meade, MD. I haven't seen his name on the list | though. Anybody knows more about this? | | -- | Anil Das | -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

1 0

Re: anonymity and e-cash
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In fact, the Identity Agnostic bits were Doug's, and they were focused on the idea that a bank that did not implement blinding could be used in an anonymous fashion by someone willing to violate the patents. /* Blind(*coin) here would violate Chaum's patent, so we * can't do that */ Adam Tim May wrote: | At 1:19 PM -0800 2/12/97, Lee Tien wrote (on the Cypherpunks(a)toad.com list): | In August of '95, Doug Barnes released a long article on "Identity | Agnostic" systems. (His article is no longer at the www.communities.com Web | site, so I can't refer you to it. Maybe he'll post it again.) | In fact, Ian showed, the Chaum patents on blinding are NOT USED by the | Mint/Bank; only the CUSTOMER uses the blinding patents (and the MERCHANT in | some cases, not in other cases). This means that "anyone a mint" does not | violate any of the Chaum/Digicash patents, and "mint clients" are likely to | be written by third parties. (The _customer_ is presumably on the honor | system to abide by the Chaum patents...except the patents are only being | licensed to banks...go figure.) | | (This is where, as I recall, Doug's "agnostic" system came in...it is | possible his thinking was similar to Ian's...I don't have Doug's paper | handy.) -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

1 0