December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Your Web Site in 200 Search Engines - $49
by sitesubmit＠allvip.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

* To Remove: Please hit reply & type "remove" in the subject. Expose Your Web Page to ALL the Internet Your Competitors Are! Your Satisfaction is 100% GUARANTEED! AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy & Many other ISP's Give Members a FREE Web Site - Check it Out! We'll Submit Your Web Site to 200 Search Engines & Directories 5 Day Wholesale Special ~ Only $79 (Reg. $249) 1st 100 Orders S a v e an E X T R A $30 - O N L Y $49 B e s t V a l u e - M E G A S a v i n g s ! We'll Submit Your Web Site to over 500 Search Engines & Directories 5 Day Wholesale Special ~ Only $129 (Reg. $499) 1st 100 Orders S a v e an E X T R A $30 - O N L Y $99 You will receive a Confirmation Report listing the Search Engines & Directories Your Site has been submitted to! Have more than 1 Web Site? - Big Discounts Available!! Respond NOW & We'll also include our FREE Bonus: Our Mega List directing you to over 2500 Web Sites offering FREE Advertising for YOU! (Retail $69) Yours FREE! To Immediately Reserve, Email: sitereserve(a)allvip.com * To Remove: Please hit reply & type "remove" in the subject.

1 0

Re: remailer spam throttle
by Jeremiah A Blatz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> writes: > I think there are two broad models of complaints/problems with remailers: > > 1. The recipient is angry because they received a message they didn't like. > (because it's an advertisement, or it's rude, or it's an image that their > parents didn't like ..) > > 2. A third party is angry because the sender sent some information to the > recipient which the third party thinks should not have been sent. (copyright, > trademark, defamation, tortious interference with [prospective] contract, > etc.) > > Your "contract" model (which looks like you really mean it to be a waiver of > warranty/damages and/or an indemnification agreement) addresses (1) to the > point of overkill, but it doesn't reach (2), because there's no contract with > the third party, who is the party who's likely to be filing suit. > (Indemnification by the sender might work, if you worded the contract > correctly - but then you've got to abandon anonymity, and the value of > indemnification from person you don't know whose assets/finances are unknown > is pretty low.) <snip> Does anyone here actually know the requirements for common carrier status? (A web search proved mostly uniformative, except that now I know that Ohio University offers a course in CC Regualtions.) While my intuitive notion of what a CC is does mean that ISP's are not good CC's (ISP's want to not carry every newsgroup, want to not let people have accounts for any old reason, etc), remailers seem like a perfect candidate. For example, you could have a remailer that has one simple rule: they only allow 10 messages a day from people who aren't other anon. remailers. That way, the system isn't rejecting any traffic "unreasonably," and gains some legal protection. If someone form, say, a praticularly profitable religous institution calls up and says "We belive that certain copywritten internal documets were sent through your remailer." You say "Sorry, dude, I just pass the messages along." I imagine that there would be problems keeping messages anonymous ir regards to the feds, as I imagine that there would be some analogy to phone taps, but legal protection from civilians is a step in the right direction, and a few remailers in civilized jurisdictions would make the feds' lives difficult. 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 iQB1AwUBMzii4Mkz/YzIV3P5AQFy4gMAqdL2XMwr34JoJspqkXgrUpfv77s4OwWb S+l/AYQxQJD97eGyG9NgqglJ87tiIv9H9zzCdm3wYjA1syycQlMoI+rUQ0t/OMZz mytZNRk3SmT2OBQ4zl2VvFfB6pqLm035 =7Ehu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Why a U.K.-style law against key-signings won't fly in the U.S.
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> writes: ... > If not, then the Constitution is a joke. It is. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

PGP-integrated mail reader for Windoze?
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello, Not being a Windows user, I wonder what do you think is the best mail reading program for windows 95 that has some pgp integration? The mail criteria, pretty much, is ease of use and some degree of fool proofness. Thank you. - Igor.

1 0

Re: PGP-integrated mail reader for Windoze?
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:39 PM 3/25/97 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >Hello, > >Not being a Windows user, I wonder what do you think is the best >mail reading program for windows 95 that has some pgp integration? >The mail criteria, pretty much, is ease of use and some degree of >fool proofness. Eudora Pro 3.0 <http://www.eudora.com/> and PGPMail <http://www.pgp.com/>, without a shadow of a doubt. Neither is free, but you sure get your money's worth. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi

1 0

Re: Corrupted "From:" headers in my posts
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam Back wrote: > > Here's one example for the problem I've been having: > : > A million monkeys operating under the pseudonym > : > "Thomas M. McGhan" <tmcghan(a)gill-simpson.com> typed: > : > : actually, there are only 5737 of us... > Do these appear to other people the same as above? I realized, recently, that the header problems could probably be resolved in a short period of time by consulting the person who has had to deal with this type of thing for many years, having hosted the CypherPunks list for quite some time. I emailed John Gilmore, asking his advice, and he informed me that he has run into this problem before, and would be happy to provide the solution, on one condition. He wants one million monkeys to send 5737 messages to the list, saying "John Gilmore is NOT a cocksucker." Then, he will provide the solution, and not a moment before. -- Toto "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/xenbody.html

1 0

game theoretic analysis of junk mail
by Wei Dai 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The junk mail problem (also known as spam) is well known to just about everyone who receives e-mail. There has also been many solutions proposed. Noticeably, the idea of having e-mail senders include ecash payments with their mail has come up several times (I believe as the result of independent discovery). In order to evaluate the effectiveness of this proposal, I will construct a game theoretic model of the interaction between the sender and the recipient of an e-mail, and compare the solutions with and without the ecash payment option. The Model Players: A - Sender, B - Recipient A: Send mail? / \ no / \ yes / \ (0,0) B: Read mail? / \ no / \ yes / \ (0,0) B: Accept offer? / \ no / \ yes / \ (0,-c) (s,r-c) Assumptions: - sending the e-mail is costless to the sender - c (the cost of reading a piece of e-mail) is known to both the sender and the recipient. - s and r (the profit of the proposed deal to sender and receiver, respectively, both assumed to be non-negative) are distributed according to the probability density function f(s,r). The sender knows s and r before sending the e-mail, but the receiver does not learn s and r until he reads the e-mail. Solution of the game: To solve this game, we apply the method of backward induction. In the last stage of the game, B decides whether to accept A's offer. Clearly he always accepts since r-c >= -c. Therefore, in the next to last stage, B knows that the expected payoff if he reads the mail is the expected value of r-c, E(r)-c, so he will read if E(r)-c > 0. Finally, we come to A's decision. If A knows that B will not read, then he is indifferent between sending and not sending. However, if we assume that there is a small probability that B will read and accept irrationally, then we can conclude that A always sends the mail. Conclusions To summerize, if E(r) > c, B always reads the mail and accepts the offer, otherwise B never reads. A always sends regardless of the value of the parameters. Now we can see the outcome is not socially optimal. For example if E(r) < c, both A and B would be better off if A only sends when r>c. The above model is not very realistic. The most unrealistic assumption is that the sender knows the exactly value of his offer to the recipient. However I believe the model captures the essence of the junk mail problem. Next time I will analyze the proposed solution of adding the option of a pre-payment. For those who want to try it themselves, I give the game tree here: A: Send mail? / \ no / \ yes / \ (0,0) A: Decide pre-payment p | | | B: Read mail? / \ no / \ yes / \ (-p,p) B: Accept offer? / \ no / \ yes / \ (-p,p-c) (s,r-c)

2 1

A new classical cipher
by klimt gustav 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If answer please mail to : alexandermail(a)hotmail.com A new classical cipher by Alexandre PUKALL : This crypto is in Normal Pukall's Cipher mode 1 ( NPC mode 1 ) Try to break it ! ORISI / DERME / LOEEE / RNDNO / EEPRA / ITSUL / SEUOC / ELEDE / OSEGE / IRUEU / LTUUA / LEARP / RACLO / ROPRA / IETST / AUDEN / EUSMO / ROTTN / NNREF / NLEID / FEERE / EISNE / ROTO / This crypto is in Enhanced Pukall's Cipher mode 1 ( EPC mode 1 ) Try to break it ! REHUA / AVRLL / CELYU / CAICC / ATNOP / TGBEX / RMETE / LLSDO / SEEQE / MACVD / EDFVE / ESENE / MLMPL / EICPU / TEIEM / NCPAP / ELEHT / OPNRU / CAUEA / DFSNS / REANC / CCDLE / RISEU / USESA / EIDTS / MLTOA / MIOGF / ULORD / STHUA / LEUSU / CANIL / AOMUP / IEALS / BNXLD / RIUEI / EECOE / EITDN / GCLDE / JENKE / GOEAP / ESLTD / IEZOR / SEELM / AO / --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Your Site Builder Network Membership!
by Site Builder Network 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Welcome to Site Builder Network - Guest Membership. We went to your site(s) and were unable to find the Microsoft Internet Explorer logo and link which would qualify you for level 1, or an ActiveX control which would qualify you for Level 2. You are currently a guest member and have access to the Guest Download Area. Your ID and password are listed below for your convenience. Do you think you qualify for Level 1 or 2? Would you like to? Your registration may have failed due to any of the following reasons: You did not register the exact URL where the IE logo and/or the ActiveX control are located. ==================================================== Our automated system can only check pages, not entire sites. Please go back to http://www.microsoft.com/sbnmember/apply/apply.asp , click 'upgrade your membership' then enter your ID and password (which is listed below). This will bring up your registration information. Be sure to list the exact URL where the IE logo/link is located as well as the exact URL the ActiveX control is located (if applicable), and we will check your site again. In the meantime, enjoy your Guest Membership, and we will notify you of your membership status within 5 days after you apply for an upgrade. You are displaying the IE logo, but it is not linked to anything, or it is linked incorrectly. ===================================================== If you are displaying the Internet Explorer logo, please return to your site and check the link. When you click the logo, does it send you to http://www.microsoft.com/ie/ ? When you are ready to have your site checked again, please go back to http://www.microsoft.com/sbnmember/apply/apply.asp , click 'upgrade your membership' then enter your ID and password (which are listed below). This will bring up your registration information. Be sure to list the exact URL where the IE logo/link is and we will check your site again. In the meantime, enjoy your Guest Membership, and we will notify you of your membership status within 5 days after you apply for an upgrade. You have an intranet or secured site. ====================================== Please send an .htm page, or your html code as a text file to SBN(a)microsoft.com and we will check your site that way. Be sure to delete any confidential or sensitive information. Please send your ID and password in the email (Both are listed below.) so we can upgrade your membership more quickly. Please note that it could take up to 10 days due to the manual upgrade. You think you have done everything by the book and can't understand why your registration failed. =================================================== Perhaps the connection failed due to your server being down or heavy internet traffic. Or there may be a typographical error in your registered URL's. Please go back to http://www.microsoft.com/sbnmember/apply/apply.asp , click 'upgrade your membership' then enter your ID and password (which are listed below). This will bring up your registration information. Be sure to list the exact URL where the IE logo/link is as well as the exact URL the ActiveX control is located (if applicable), and we will check your site again. In the meantime, enjoy your Guest Membership, and we will notify you of your membership status within 5 days after you apply for an upgrade. You are using neither the IE logo or an ActiveX control, but would like to upgrade your membership. ==================================================== To find out how to qualify for Level 1 and/or Level 2, please go to http://www.microsoft.com/sbnmember/levels/levels.asp. You will find detailed instructions on qualifying your site for Levels 1 and 2. When you are ready to have your sites re-checked, please go back to http://www.microsoft.com/sbnmember/apply/apply.asp , click 'upgrade your membership' and follow the instructions. Once again - welcome to Site Builder Network, and enjoy your Guest Membershipbenefits. The Microsoft Site Builder Network Team ======================================== ID: 643361 Password: writecode ========================================

1 0

Confirmed Usenet Faggots 1.01
by Pittsburgh Admin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, aga wrote: > On Tue, 18 Feb 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > > Date: Tue, 18 Feb 97 00:32:19 EST > > From: "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" <dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com> > > Reply-To: freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org > > To: freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org > > Subject: Re: Is Thomas Lee Another Homosexual Net-Terrorist? > > > > (Back from WashDC, not Phila) > > > > "Dr. Jai Maharaj" <jai(a)aloha.com> writes: > > > > > One Thomas Lee has been complaining that he has trouble > > > with my posts in certain newsgroups (he will not say which > > > posts in which newsgroups) and has caused one or more > > > others to terrorize my ISP with false, unfounded > > > complaints. When I asked this Lee character directly > > > about this, he answered: > > > > > > Thomas Lee <tfl(a)psp.co.uk> wrote at 04:49 pm on 2/16/97: > > > > > > > > In message <3.0.1.32.19970216062849.007a7860(a)aloha.com>, > > > > "Dr. Jai Maharaj" <jai(a)aloha.com> writes: > > > >> . . . I will attempt to help you understand if you will let me know >> > > > as to which posts in which newsgroup you are referring to. > > > > > > > Sorry Jai - If you don't know which groups you are off topic in, > > > > I'm sure not going to help you. > > > > Please stop mailing me. > > > >-- > > > > Thomas Lee > > > > tfl(a)psp.co.uk > > > > > > Evidently, Lee cannot substantiate his claims -- a behavior > > > typical of many other members of the homosexual Lynch Mob > > > which attempts to terrorize the Net. > > > > I hope he dies from AIDS like Jason Durbin and all other Usenet faggots. > > > > --- > > > > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM > > Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps > > > > Thus we see that what is needed is a permanent list of -confirmed- > Usenet Faggots to be kept up and updated periodically. So when you > update this list, please do it by single digit increments, so that the > next list is "UseNet Faggots 1.02" etc. > > ====================================== > Confirmed Usenet Faggots 1.01 > > Peter Berger > Jason Durbin > J.D Falk > Tim Skirvin > Hardrock Llewellyn > > ====================================== > > note these are *confirmed* Usenet Faggots. > please add any more confirmed faggots that you know about. > > thank you, > aga.admin > UseNet Freedom Council > ufc(a)pgh.org > > post to: > alt.censorship, alt.fan.karl-malden.nose, alt.god.grubor, alt.underground, soc.culture.usa, news.groups, alt.usenet.admin, news.admin.censorship, mail.cypherpunks, alt.webgod, alt.wired, soc.men, news.admin.misc

1 0