December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Drose / You're a fucking idiot!
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

drose(a)azstarnet.com wrote: > To Toto, Dimi, D.Thorn, whomever, etc.: while I may appreciate being > subscribed to a million and one lists that I never knew I needed (and so > quick!--appreciate the service, dude) this address, like c-punks(a)toad.com, > is going away *real * quick, so save your keystrokes. I generally try to be fairly civil in my postings, and refrain from personal insults, but I will make an exception, here. So listen up, shit-for-brains, and I will try to explain a few concepts that you seem to be too dim-witted to understand. I am a CypherPunk. I have a <Delete> key, and I know how to use it. When my personal account is subjected to spam-attacks and unwanted subscriptions to a multitude of lists, I deal with it. I don't make baseless accusations against others based on their perceived public reputation, or my own subjective perception of their reputation capital. I am not just a CypherPunk, I am also an adult. I take responsibility for my own actions, and I keep those actions within the bounds of what I perceive to be acceptable ethics and personal integrity. If you think that I am responsible for this-or-that action in regard to yourself, then all you have to do is ask me, and I will tell you. I don't make any bones about my beliefs and views, and I don't have any problem with others opposing my beliefs and views. When I launch an attack on someone, right or wrong, it is a frontal assault, not a hidden one. When I post anonymously to the list, or send anonymous email, I do not use remailers, in order that anyone with the will and wit to do so may easily discern my pseudonyms through the headers and use of the 'trace' command. If you think that I am the source of your problems, then you are a fucking idiot. I have no idea who you are, and can only vaguely recall the content or context of your past posts to the list. As such, I would certainly have little motivation for lifting even my little pinkie against you in a conspiratorial attack on you. I would suggest that the only 'fixations' involved between you and myself are coming from your end of the electromagnetic spectrum. I would also suggest that you get your head out of your electromagnetic rectum. Toto

1 0

Re: European crypto export policy
by Jeff A. Hale 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:39 AM 2/18/97 +0100, you (Ulf M=F6ller) wrote: >Swedish Datateknik 97-02 features an article about how COCOM/ Wassenaar >Arrangement effects Swedish crypto exports. > >I wonder if someone whose Swedish is better than mine could summarize >the article? It is at http://www.et.se/datateknik/arkiv/97-02/5.html > >Datateknik 97-01 reports about pressure for crypto regulations from >the US, but also from the EU and OECD [the OECD turned out not to >endorse key escrow shortly after the article was published]. The >Swedish government is currently collecting facts and opinions; so far >it remains an open question which standpoint it will take. England is >preparing a law similar to the French one, while there are policy >discussions similar to the Swedish going on in Germany and Denmark, >says G=F6ran Axelsson, Sweden's representative in the EU's IT security >body. The Japanese are not far behind. Using the emotional -- and often successful -- pretext of "anti-terrorism," (the subway gassing allegedly committed by the "Aum Cult"), the Japanese Ministry of Justice (JMOJ) is about to propose a sweeping new wiretapping/electronic eavesdropping statut= e -- which insiders predict will sail through the Diet (national legislature)=

1 0

Re: Constitution and a Right to Privacy
by Vin McLellan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>(And I always thought the "woman's right to privacy" argument for abortion >was flaky. Accepting such an argument, wouldn't infanticide be equally >protected by a woman's right to privacy?) > >--Tim May Whoa! This begs a thoughful response, but I don't have time right now. Might it suffice to suggest that a privacy claim -- a demand for control over what concerns her, her alone, or (on balance) her more than any other -- seems reasonable to extend to both contraception and early abortion? For many of us, by the same logic, and with the same moral comfort. (As the clock slips onward, and the potential viability of the fetus becomes more likely or certain, I personally believe the woman no longer exists alone, and the privacy argument becomes conflicted and more tenuous. But Tim's golem, Infanticide, is a creature of nightmare -- wholly beyond the pale!) To my mind, any attempt to control what is done to the woman's body (by her choice) while the prospective child is but a bit of enhanced potential, much much less than a viable child, is an unconstitutional and morally-invalid attempt by others (the state, the church, the country club) to pre-empt her will, and prescribe or dictate a wholly new value system for her. Any claim (by the father, the state, the church, etc.) to control what happens in the moments or days after conception (say, forbidding RU-whatever, the French drug,) has no more moral authority than any similar claim to Higher Authority -- to safeguard the potential within her -- which is used to forbid his or her the use of a contraceptive, or which requires him or her to take a drug which makes multiple pregnancies more likely. I always thought the Jesuits had the logical argument straight. If the woman has no inherent right to control her destiny in the languid aftermath of intercourse (just because she has within herself the potential of a new life) then she has no claim to self-possession which allows her to use a contraceptive just before intercourse. If it is the potential for new life that allows external authorities to overwhelm her judgment and violate her privacy, then the case for that Papal Judgement exists before, during, and after sex. Problem is: while logical, the Catholic argument seems silly, authoritarian, and hopelessly abstract in the face of what many of us experience as a less dogmatic and vastly more human context. A context in which the right to privacy or self-possession seems inherent in the people we are, the people we know, the world as we live it. (Jesuits have a certain disadvantage, from this POV;-) The fact that this claim of privacy or self-possession apparently has an echo in the US Constitution (that oh, so-prescient document!) -- and in the libertarian/liberal proclamations of numerous other nation states -- is a validation, a confirmation... but the Right of privacy, the Claim, is inherent in our sense of who we are, and our sense of what an individual is. If the philosophers had not considered it in their musings, we would have to fight harder; we would need to define it as well as defend it -- but it can only be denied if we denied ourselves, as the serfs of the Dark Ages were expected to... and did. Women as vessels. Men as vassals. Suerte, _Vin Vin McLellan + The Privacy Guild + <vin(a)shore.net> 53 Nichols St., Chelsea, MA 02150 USA <617> 884-5548

3 2

Address -- Invalid (was Re: message to USSA Senate) (fwd)
by Alexandra Janssen - Raemaekers 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I really don't know what this is all about!!!! This is one of the messages that I seemed to have sent...... I can give you about Apparently-To: vice.president(a)whitehouse.gov, first.lady(a)whitehouse.gov, Bclinton(a)Washington.DC, feedback(a)www.whitehouse.gov, Senator_Stevens(a)stevens.senate.gov, email(a)murkowski.senate.gov, sessions(a)wrldnet.net, senator(a)shelby.senate.gov, senator(a)bumpers.senate.gov, info(a)kyl.senate.gov, Senator_McCain(a)mccain.senate.gov, senator(a)boxer.senate.gov, senator(a)feinstein.senate.gov, sen_dodd(a)dodd.senate.gov, senator_lieberman(a)lieberman.senate.gov, senator(a)biden.senate.gov, bob_graham(a)graham.senate.gov, connie(a)mack.senate.gov, senator_coverdell(a)coverdell.senate.gov, senator(a)inouye.senate.gov, tom_harkin(a)harkin.senate.gov, chuck_grassley(a)grassley.senate.gov, larry_craig(a)craig.senate.gov, dirk_kempthorne(a)kempthorne.senate.gov, senator(a)moseley-braun.senate.gov, lugar(a)iquest.net, wendell_ford(a)ford.senate.gov, senator(a)mcconnell.senate.gov, senator(a)breaux.senate.gov, senator(a)kennedy.senate.gov, john_kerry(a)kerry.senate.gov, senator(a)mikulski.senate.gov, senator(a)sarbanes.senate.gov, Olympia(a)snowe.senate.gov, senator(a)levin.senate.gov, michigan(a)abraham.senate.gov, mail_grams(a)grams.senate.gov, senator(a)wellstone.senate.gov, john_ashcroft(a)ashcroft.senate.gov, kit_bond(a)bond.senate.gov, senator(a)cochran.senate.gov, max(a)baucus.senate.gov, conrad_burns(a)burns.senate.gov, senator(a)faircloth.senate.gov, jesse_helms(a)helms.senate.gov, senator(a)conrad.senate.gov, senator(a)dorgan.senate.gov, email(a)hagel96.com, bob(a)kerrey.senate.gov, mailbox(a)gregg.senate.gov, opinion(a)smith.senate.gov, frank_lautenberg(a)lautenberg.senate.gov, torricel(a)torricelli.com, Senator_Bingaman(a)bingaman.senate.gov, senator_domenici(a)domenici.senate.gov, senator(a)bryan.senate.gov, senator_reid(a)reid.senate.gov, senator_al(a)damato.senate.gov, senator(a)dpm.senate.gov, senator_dewine(a)dewine.senate.gov, senator_glenn(a)glenn.senate.gov, senator(a)nickles.senate.gov, senator(a)wyden.senate.gov, senator(a)santorum.senate.gov, senator_specter(a)specter.senate.gov, senator_chafee(a)chafee.senate.gov, reed(a)collegehill.com, senator(a)thurmond.senate.gov, senator(a)hollings.senate.gov, tom_daschle(a)daschle.senate.gov, senator_thompson(a)thompson.senate.gov, senator_frist(a)frist.senate.gov, senator(a)hutchison.senate.gov, senator(a)bennett.senate.gov, senator_hatch(a)hatch.senate.gov, senator_robb(a)robb.senate.gov, senator(a)warner.senate.gov, senator_leahy(a)leahy.senate.gov, vermont(a)jeffords.senate.gov, senator_murray(a)murray.senate.gov, Senator_Gorton(a)gorton.senate.gov, russell_feingold(a)feingold.senate.gov, senator_kohl(a)kohl.senate.gov, senator_byrd(a)byrd.senate.gov, senator(a)rockefeller.senate.gov, mike(a)enzi.senate.gov, craig(a)thomas.senate.gov names who got this message from the gang of cypherpunks. What is this ???? Forwarded message: > From home(a)collegehill.com Tue Feb 18 15:05:24 1997 > Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970218100100.00731388(a)pop03.ca.us.ibm.net> > Precedence: bulk > X-Sender: chill03(a)pop03.ca.us.ibm.net > X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) > Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 10:03:05 -0500 > To: alexandr(a)win.tue.nl > From: College Hill Internet <home(a)collegehill.com> > Subject: Address -- Invalid (was Re: message to USSA Senate) > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > At 12:45 AM 2/18/97 PST, you wrote: > >All files on the Senate's computers will be deleted by our > >gang of cypherpunks dedicated to the eradication of your systems. > > > > I'm furious! Now I get about 10 messages every 15 minutes of mail delivered and lots of other trash. Who 's got the courage to admit this crime ?

1 0

Re: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives?
by Bryan Reece 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

E. Allen Smith writes: > From: IN%"reece(a)taz.nceye.net" "Bryan Reece" 17-FEB-1997 23:23:10.06 > > >> use. However, I do have one problem with this recipe: lack of > >> loop prevention if a news2mail gateway is going in the other direction. > > >All the mailing-list hosts are supposed to check for duplicates before > >forwarding anything, so this shouldn't do anything worse than have a > >few extra copies of each post get discarded, loading the network and > >the hosts a bit more. But posting the list to a widely-distributed > > Umm... IIRC, the only person who's announced how he's filtering > for duplicates is Igor, and he's just checking for messageIDs. Won't > those get chunked on going through a mail2news gateway, and thus > possibly come back through a news2mail gateway? My script preserves the Message-ID, assuming that the incoming message has one. Other gateways I've seen also appear to preserve Message-ID lines (or at least messages posted through them appear to have mail-like ID lines). > The filtering > mechanism could be improved via MD5 digests, etcetera (someone's > already given a recipe for such; thank you), but even so various > mungings could still set up a mailing loop. (Yes, I'm paranoid > about those; I may have been reading list-managers for too long and > seen too many stories on there.) The sensible place to keep > track of possible duplicates is at the gateway; it can > certainly filter based on that it (or, for that matter, another > known bidirectional gateway) sent a message out. Not immediately sending a message back to the host that it came from does look like a good idea (it came from foo.com, so foo.com obviously has it). Filtering out other gateways' messages will reduce load at the possible expense of delay (assuming a smallish network of news servers that feed each other the list; obviously the message will flood the majordomo net before it floods the real usenet unless something is seriously broken). > > >newsgroup seems wrong for noise (both to the list itself and to > >posters) and delay reasons. > > Delay reasons being that mail will go to Usenet, go > all over the place there, and then get replied to later than if > it were just on the mailing list(s)? A potential problem, yes. I didn't exactly say, but I was comparing a small network of news servers feeding each other cypherpunks.list to, say, alt.cypherpunks.list. > But (especially given the options I mentioned below), this > would appear to be a matter for individual users to decide > by which list they go with and any added control headers. I'm trying to come up with a way to provide NNTP access (and an experimental alternative to the net-of-majordomos) that won't offend anybody too much. I can filter out messages that the authors don't want sent out; I'd prefer to deal with what would make the authors want the messages filtered out instead. > Maximum individual sovreignty (sp?). > > >> In regards to your later query about whether people want their postings > >> going to Usenet, might I suggest that this be individual to the given > >> distributed mailing list? In other words, since the recipe is logically > >> going to have to not forward to a gateway messages from other mailing > >> lists (since it's not a good idea to have multiple copies of the same > >> message arriving at the gateway if it can be helped; better to filter > >> it out beforehand), > > >It doesn't seem an especially bad idea, since it > > Thank you. Were you cut off? Yes. Should have read: It doesn't seem an especially bad idea to send a gateway multiple copies of the same message, since theextra messages won't increase the load much but will increase the reliability and decrease the propagation time compared to a network where there are no duplicates. The only case where filtering duplicates is certain not to hurt delay or reliability is when the gateway in question is known to have a copy of the message already. Usenet uses the Path header for this; there doesn't seem to be such a thing in the majordomo net. > >> some of the mailing lists can forward and the > >> others cannot. (One could even determine this behavior on application > >> of the proper X-header, although I never trust various mailing systems > >> to forward such intact.) The same could also be done with gatewaying > >> _from_ Usenet - if the news2mail gateway feeds to whatever individual > >> lists sign up to it and they _don't_ forward such messages to others, > >> people can decide whether or not to receive Usenet postings on > >> alt.cypherpunks.* by which list they subscribe to. > > >The code currently running is a perl script that turns typical email > >messages into something INN is happy with. It is probably possible to > >get your message rejected by INN if you put obsolete or otherwise > >unusual and illegal headers in. This may be a bug. > > That would probably depend on: A. if any other circumstances > other than deliberately sabotaging your message's translation would > also disrupt its chances of getting through seriously, particularly > if they weren't something you'd spot; and The main way to get a message rejected seems to be using obsolete news headers on it. If you don't want your message posted, add a Posting-Version line to the header. > B. if sufficiently bad > messages would disrupt INN's operations too much. No more so than a sufficiently bad news posting that came in over NNTP (since the mails do turn into news postings over NNTP).

1 0

##$!@#$#@!$#
by Japhy Ryder 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

cual es la fecha? czesc, tak mal na dodjze kajka.... -- -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAzLvsCAAAAEEANHTflxW1D4mB/h3dnEV7K1jzXvmBOrSh+EHbkCn+ZjLislg LW51QG9CuS81VaHx75xdxV1C11RXJybaqqrtT186aQfmEuTQP0rLJYy859xdHpcu DldUZ9ry3xXACtQAk3bPlvo6Yd3TmucoPXDl55w95Hru+H7TIzR2UortBxKZAAUR tAtKYXBoeSBSeWRlcg== =0WVf -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

alt.cypherpunks.ebonics
by camcc＠abraxis.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Igor, A friend, who, in the CP tradition requested to remain anonymous, and I were doing an informal analysis of those subjects/topics which over the past year generated the most discussion and, by implication, interest on the CP list. Since the list at that time was reportedly unmoderated, we felt some weight should be given to members' interests/desires as measured by their posts, regardless of the applicability to the list topic. With the exceptions of AP (oh so clearly way off-topic), list censorship (too tedious), and remarks either questioning or affirming the sexuality/virility/femininity (or lack thereof ) of almost every CP subscriber, the topic which claimed the most bandwidth was Ebonics. It seemed to touch on several layers of CP interest: freedom of speech, obfuscation, tolerance, intolerance, phonetics, linguistics, race warfare, etc. You name it; just about every well-known c'punk jumped in to make some urbane statement on this, sadly, now dead and ignored issue. Nevertheless, the bandwidth was there! Note; any messages followed by Punctuation Art were excluded if they seemed to lack "dignity," for want of a better word. Based on the above stats (available from my friend on request), my anonymous friend and I request that you add Ebonics as an area of interest to Cypherpunks in your List Intro. Please judge this request on its merit and not on what you may think of me or my anonymous (asexual) friend personally, thereby, by that very action, initiating a New Order of Cypherpunks! Thanks for you consideration. More importantly, thank you for helping to keep this vibrant list alive. Alec (and friend) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 Comment: Message PGP 2.6.2. signed/encrypted. Public key available on request or from keyservers. iQCVAgUBMwnVrSKJGkNBIH7lAQEl9gP/XIujtLKrVf2l7MaR50rM/BO9wCkYQeHy 7UoISphHlxs8PScnxkw6PQsVHerd+FnxPJQ2xAnCa1gUujxuif8OrsYpInVcfEap 99KkC39DzAe+/zHrOR2Kt7MK+X8267oCIWl4Yt1VBkCSt8ruktCnIXF41ghyuHUt 3N7reRPx6Hs= =EMeF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

##$!@#$#@!$#
by Japhy Ryder 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

cual es la fecha? czesc, tak mal na dodjze kajka.... -- -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAzLvsCAAAAEEANHTflxW1D4mB/h3dnEV7K1jzXvmBOrSh+EHbkCn+ZjLislg LW51QG9CuS81VaHx75xdxV1C11RXJybaqqrtT186aQfmEuTQP0rLJYy859xdHpcu DldUZ9ry3xXACtQAk3bPlvo6Yd3TmucoPXDl55w95Hru+H7TIzR2UortBxKZAAUR tAtKYXBoeSBSeWRlcg== =0WVf -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

No Subject
by Trevor Goodchild 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dimi Vulis is just another garden variety KGB whore that has been misusing its `manhole' so badly that the overstretched sphincter cannot hold back the shit that all KGB spooks are full of and it spills out onto this mailing list. ,/ \, ((__,-,,,-,__)), Dimi Vulis `--)~ ~(--` .-'( )`-, `~~`d\ /b`~~` | | (6___6) `-6-`

1 0

BXA to Newt
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thanks to Greg Broiles we offer a December 1996 letter from BXA's William Reinsch to Speaker Gingrich with a Report to Congress on the purpose and plan of export controls of commercial encryption items. http://jya.com/bxahouse.htm One note of interest: a battalion of crypto enforcement troops is being trained to spot EAR EI violations and nab Bernsteins, Karns, Jungers and rogues.

1 0