December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: RICE v PALADIN ENTERPRISES
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Duncan Frissell wrote that the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote: >Certainly, such a conclusion would be reasonable based upon this >promotional description coupled with the singular character of Hit >Man, which is so narrowly focused in its subject matter and presenta- >tion as to be effectively targeted exclusively to criminals. This claim is demonstrably absurd. There are roughly 26,000 murders a year in the United States each year. The number of contract killings is probably a good deal less than 10% of this which leaves 2600. Let's be generous to the Court and say 10% of these murders are committed by people who read the book. (This can probably be shown to be entirely false by comparing suspected contract murder rates before and after publication of the work.) If we treat the Court with extreme charity we will say that each contract killer reading the book has only killed one person. Total: 260 killers read the book. Presumably many more copies of the book were sold and will be sold. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that most of the people purchasing the book did so for reasons of morbid curiosity. This should not be very surprising. It appears that the judges in this case allowed their eagerness to punish Paladin get in the way of their duties, the law, and common sense. This decision should be overturned. The judges should be impeached. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: Re: RICE v PALADIN ENTERPRISES To: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com 25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No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

1 0

Qualified Traffic Key to Toys..
by shop＠ns.alpina1.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

and Hobbies Internet Sales. Special Announcement..First Time Offered to selected web sites - Exclusive Banner Program - **only four spaces available in Toys/Hobbies** As the Web gets more and more congested, you know that attracting qualified buyers to your site gets even more challenging! This New Exclusive Offer for your Toys/Hobbies Site will bring you specific, targeted, exposure. Established in 1994, our award-winning, World Wide Shopping Complex with avg 1.5 million hits a month now offers you EXCLUSIVE banner ads in our FOUR highly-visited Toys/Hobbies category directories. This is an exceptional opportunity at a very affordable rate and has not been previously offered. You will get tremendous exposure in four shopping locations. You could not get a more targeted audience for your products. These visitors are specifically looking in theToys/Hobbies section. Introductory Rates: ONE ONLY banner per location at top of Toys/Hobbies category directory. Per Location.....$495.00 for one year All Four Locations...$1495 for one year. What some of our storeowners have accomplished: One storeowner, after just over a year, grew to 5-figure Internet sales,another doubled their sales in just one month, another's business grew to over 70% international, an industrial client reports great response and sales, wholesalers and mfg. are getting distribution for their product lines, another storeowner has built a tremendous catalog mail order business, one store introduced a new product which started selling the first weekend online... To get full details of this exclusive banner offer, please hit reply and type BANNER OFFER in the subject line. However, there are only Four Banner Spots available in your category, so if you are interested, please email back at once. (We will also include other options for your information). +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ If you wish to be permanently removed from our announcement mailings, please hit reply and type remove in subject line. Thank You. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1 0

Re: [RePol] Bill Stewart kills babies after he molests them. Honest! / Re: Pasting in From:
by Charlie Comsec 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- TruthMonger <tm(a)dev.null> wrote: > > So what's the problem? Has everyone forgotten how to use their > >delete key? Does nobody have anything better to do with their time > > >and resources than to waste them being offended by people who are > > >trying to offend them? > > > > Well TruthMonger (if that is your real name,) I think you are missing the > > point. For purposes of the discussion, no one cares about the content of > > the messages, who or why they are being sent, nor is anyone bothered by > > anything concerning the message itself. What's being discussed is scarce > > resources of remailer operators. > > I was responding to Bill and Lance's comments in regard to forgery > victims being set up as targets of retribution. I think references to > "deplorable content" indicate some measure of judgement in regard to > defining what is considered 'abuse' of a remailer. You start to tread on dangerous ground when you concern yourself with the content (body) of a post. If, for example, you start to filter on content, then you're implicitly approving anything that you do allow to pass through. That sets a precedent that's hard to contain and exercising editorial control over the contents increases the remailer operator's legal liability for material posted. > However, you are right about the thread basically dealing with the > reprecussions to the remailer operators and their resources as an end > result of the particular modes of remailer use. At the risk of actually > being on-topic in a thread, I should point out that I have always been > of the opinion that it is up to the individual remailer operators to > judge what level and types of use they are able to provide as a service > with their given time and resources. Agreed. My main concern is that those policies should be explicitly disclosed in advance. If certain keywords are forbidden in the Subject: line or body of a message, or if it is forbidden to post to certain NGs or to cross-post to certain combinations of NGs, those restrictions should be explained in the remailer's help file. I don't know whether remailers are currently engaging in content-based filtering or not (none are currently flying the "filter" flag in Raph's remailer list), but there seems to be a strong suspicion among certain posters to the alt.privacy.anon-server NG (probably from newbies) that this is indeed occuring. The usual scenario is that the person tries to make a bunch of posts, none of them show up, and it is assumed that they were blocked by the remailer operator based on their content. My guess is that in most cases the person screwed something up, like sending a message to a mail2news gateway with a malformed or missing Newsgroups: line, but it's rather rare that the poster is reassured by someone in a position to know what might have happened. It would be great if these people were told "we have no restrictions on content other than the length of the message" or at least, "it has become necessary to block certain types of posts, but those cases are spelled out in our help file". > > Most remailers are operated with donated time and resources. Problems with > > the remailer, especially artificially generated ones, are just simply not > > desired. > > True, but I doubt that the artificially generated attacks on a > remailer are possible to fully deter, no matter what convolutions > one puts themselves through in order to stop it. It's important that such attacks not succeed, lest they encourage even more such attacks. They succeed, or course, when they convince the remailer operator to do what the attacker wishes done. Often what is required is a bit of creative damage control. For example, when an attacker starts making posts with pasted From: headers in an attempt to get remailer operators to disable this feature, offering him source blocking instead. - --- Finger <comsec(a)nym.alias.net> for PGP public key (Key ID=19BE8B0D) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNIVb4gbp0h8ZvosNAQH2Ywf9H6HrrV/QA1TxdLo5OzA/RKKxmfnonuLI Kjd38SnXXw9WtVsTwbvGGdt7HiQ4BP93JWMSDseM0Rg61Rvsa5sBp017V3xeHqzF mr8wE70VkXGa/P0Dmk8ToP0R0wIQoFasyrK8QeBXNZpII0VZo0qlsz1SctwIhmpZ NQ44yBDRramc3zOy2OFzKoxM4iBz3TBLuZodqeiFFWbJtwmvK9PxxmZ3wYgxjDGA JnqHriOMwG74qUBYmmyrrR877HIL6WJreQR+m0PAiuzSvKSyJngT44ejcS1e33zf XMipKUZAAyVqmtfkRLsgBd3aVDS/zwBQWWgDMnLNo/Fzo70vhs33BQ== =OCx/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Bill Stewart kills babies after he molests them. Honest! /
by Charlie Comsec 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > It never fails to amaze me that complainers point out that an > >'abusive' letter started out, "I hate niggersfaggotsjewsyou!" > >and then proceed to list the other fifty 'abusive' things that > >the writer had to say. > > The real problem, besides the emotional distress some people feel > at the abuse they get in response to forged postings, > and the potential loss of reputation capital, is that people > keep trying to call their ISP to get them shut down, > and some ISPs do this sort of thing, squashing abusive-sounding customers > first and asking questions later. Ok, soon-to-be-ex customers... Any ISP that would react that way should probably be avoided, anyway. Knee-jerk censorship like that is one of the best arguments around for posting via remailers. Not to mention the fact that posting anonymously prevents one's e-mail address from being misused in that fashion. But personally, the most persuasive argument is to keep people from compiling a de facto dossier on you based on your public postings, selling it to potential employers, and perhaps keeping you from getting a certain job because of your controversial, unpopular, and/or un-politically-correct opinions. IMO, people who rely on placebos like those "X-No-Archive" header flags are fooling themselves if they think they will be universally honored. Most so-called "forged postings" are rather crudely done, and the ones done using a remailer to paste headers are the most obvious ones of all. I'm not sure what the legal standard for "forgery" is, but if it's anything like that for fraud, it requires that a REASONABLE PERSON would be fooled. Given all the disclaimers present in the headers of remailer output, I doubt that any posts with pasted From: would meet that standard. Yes, I've heard the argument that "people don't read headers", but so what? Most of them probably don't read the fine print on contracts, either, but they're still responsible for what it says. - --- Finger <comsec(a)nym.alias.net> for PGP public key (Key ID=19BE8B0D) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNIVRpAbp0h8ZvosNAQHcBAf+MCa1DBhmtI4h93zsegO6/fR0RJPko68+ f5ImWOnzxdg1eN4WkbdD4ELn00jLTZC+7+Xw94BkeT9wj1KLmP/BE6NUANdYFzdW YRyAHIK/WsYN6k9dal54TdDviC7SpBUH3IHnQa2USYJjfd9raviYp5NoCpBz5D7s E0+mnfxo8ufTE9Z09qRGmjtxrEfO+gug6lYYCG0h5j7SD+6mVcGuWFmoxbDzhqma IkzngE1dn3xXmwdMTQ5WNvWj+qths52hnszeQ7ZPE/pwrROVobhMevlabM2NYPA0 BLv5L0Te+p12Hj2599znmzJyY5NdqsqBzBbg9yFfaqoavdM/bg4wVw== =4Ppz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Cypherpunks, PGP Buyout, & Writing Code...
by Nerthus＠server1.efga.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[NOTE: This message was remailed by an anonymous remailing system. The original sender is unknown, and has inserted the From: header. This information has not been verified. As with all mail or news messages, you should examine the headers carefully before responding. Direct questions about this system to <admin(a)anon.efga.org>.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jim Choate wrote: >Perhaps the buy-out of PGP is a good thing. Consider that now there is a >clear and present motive for Cypherpunks to start writing the next wave of >world-class crypto...it really is the *only* shure way that the process >doesn't get subverted...we're no longer able to rely on a single commen >source of crypto tools. Perhaps we should hold a Requiem for PGP, or maybe an Irish wake instead. Let's take a look back at some of the good things PGP did toward furthering the use of crypto. Phil Zimmerman took public key cryptography and brought it to a fairly wide base of users: 4 million people, plus or minus a million or two. :-) That's rather substantial given that less than 100 million people are estimated to be on the Net right now. Think of how many more yet-to-be Net users will demand strong cryptography in their communications, be it personal, financial, legal, recreational...who knows what else? PGP also showed how both a freeware and paid-for version of encryption software can be marketed together. The paid-for version of PGP 5.0 allows users to generate the new El Gamal/DSS keys as well as the familiar RSA keys, while the freeware only allows for the former. The important lesson here, I think, is that the writers of "the next wave of world-class crypto" can make money from the paid-for versions with the extra bells and whistles that some of us like, but they are not stifling the expansion of their software's user base because they are offering a freeware version that implements the basic protocols for communicating with users of the paid-for version, and of course other freeware users. Nerthus -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNIUHwxa1d3zm4nqOEQIG4wCgsDqyMsl64IsDwz814eL9SwdJmu0AoJ9M OaSWiBx2cZZqq97f0GZ1GuJR =Mqbu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: ATTN: Gary L. Burnore
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

gburnore(a)netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote: > :The remailer help documents I'm familiar with say they will act to prevent > :"harrassment" through the remailer. I presume the above would be viewed by > :the remailer owners as harrassment. > > Interesting presumtion. Hopefully true. The ONLY difference between remailers > and ISP's in this case, is that with an ISP, if you forge another's real ^^^^^ > address there's at least a possibility that you can be held accountable for > it. It's nothing at all to do with the CONTENT of the post. If same can be > said of a remailer, ie if you get UCE based on a post made with your address > as a from line the _real_ poster can be held accountable, then there is no > issue. That argument might have some validity if Netcom (your own ISP) didn't allow its own mail servers to be utilized by spammers and tell people who complain about this practice to G.F.Y. Just read some of the complaints about Netcom on the news.admin.net-abuse.email NG. If you had been "UCE baited" by someone using Netcom's mail servers, rather than those of a remailer, would you attempt to harass Netcom like you did Jeff Burchell who ran Mailmasher and the Huge Cajones Remailer? Would one of your associates at DataBasix demand that Netcom be shut down since they are unable or unwilling to stop the abuse of their servers? Would you threaten legal action to get Netcom to turn over all of their sendmail logs to you? What do you mean by "held accountable"? Having a throwaway Netcruiser account (perhaps one of many), acquired under a phony name, cancelled? You've already been informed, and admitted that it has been effective, that if you don't wish your e-mail address to appear in a From: line from a remailer you can request source blocking. It's sort of like the blocking of a/c 900 telephone numbers. If you are worried about abuse of your phone, you can request that calls to 900 numbers from your phone be blocked. You don't have to insist that they be blocked from EVERYONE'S phone just because they're a problem FOR YOU. Can you point to any equivalent safeguard against someone's e-mail address being forged through Netcom's SMTP servers, either by a Netcom user or by someone else? If not, isn't it time to make sure your own house is in order before meddling in the neighbors' houses? IMO, the remailers are already doing more to prevent what you perceive to be a problem than your own ISP is willing to do -- and this by VOLUNTEERS who are not being paid by you, or anyone, for their efforts. I also note that you're using the word "forge" again. Yet in another post from you within a day or two of this one, you claimed that you weren't concerned about forgery. Which is true? --

1 0

More microsoft monopoly::Re: NT 4.0 Option Pack released (fwd)
by Ray Arachelian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Microsoft has now broken up the Service Packs into Bug Fix and Option Pack (new feechures) packages. However the catch is this: they require you to have Internet Exploiter 4.01 installed *BEFORE* you can install the Option Pack (whose features have little to do with Internet Exploiter, though they are part of the IIS web server. For example RAIDUS Remote Access Authentication has nothing to do with Exploiter.) IMHO: This is a cheap shot at making their browser more "incorporated" with the OS, that way they can get around the Justice Dept. :( Lame. Another message claims VC++ requires IE as well -- can anyone confirm this? =====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos============== .+.^.+.| Ray Arachelian |Prying open my 3rd eye. So good to see |./|\. ..\|/..|sunder(a)sundernet.com|you once again. I thought you were |/\|/\ <--*-->| ------------------ |hiding, and you thought that I had run |\/|\/ ../|\..| "A toast to Odin, |away chasing the tail of dogma. I opened|.\|/. .+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"|my eye and there we were.... |..... ======================= http://www.sundernet.com ========================== ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 08:08:57 -0500 From: Russ <Russ.Cooper(a)RC.ON.CA> To: NTBUGTRAQ(a)LISTSERV.NTBUGTRAQ.COM Subject: NT 4.0 Option Pack released FYI, the final release of the NT 4.0 Option Pack has been posted, you can get full details at; http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/default.asp For those that aren't already aware, Microsoft has split the old Service Pack into two components. One is the Option Pack, which includes new features and functionality, while the Service Pack will be kept to bug fixes or patches only (or so they say, we still haven't seen what this new SP will look like). Amongst other things, this first release of NTOP includes; IIS 4.0 Microsoft Transaction Server 2.0 Microsoft Message Queues 1.0 Microsoft Certificate Server 1.0 Internet Connection Services for Microsoft RAS (Radius) Microsoft Site Server Express (Web Usage and Content analysis/reporting) Internet Explorer 4.01 These components will now ship on a separate CD included with NT. Its important to note that IE4.01 *must* be installed prior to installing any of the NTOP components. Cheers, Russ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 17:05:35 +0200 From: "Juha [ISO-8859-1] Jäykkä" <juolja(a)utu.fi> To: NTBUGTRAQ(a)LISTSERV.NTBUGTRAQ.COM Subject: Re: NT 4.0 Option Pack released > Its important to note that IE4.01 *must* be installed prior to > installing any of the NTOP components. And MSIE must be installed before installing Visual C++.. Soon we hav= e it that MSIE must be installed before TCP/IP is installed... and then befo= re NT in installed! Is there no limit to this??? Is there any way to prevent = MS from *FORCING* us to install MSIE - other than boycott all MS products entirely (with NT5 it would seem that we have to boycott even the OS to= save ourselves from MSIE)??? Sorry the bitter tone - I just don't like programs that require me to install yet another program which I don't want to install. --=20 ----------------------------------------------- | Juha J=E4ykk=E4, juolja(a)utu.fi | | home: http://www.utu.fi/~juolja/ | | pgp-key: http://www.utu.fi/~juolja/pgp.txt | -----------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article)
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 10:42 AM 12/3/97 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: >This is nothing new. Honest (self-identified) leftists like my friend Bob >Chatelle complain about the censors on the left almost as much as censors >on the right. Other fave leftist censorship causes: > Not to forget the CPUSA's long time platform plank that promised to make racisim a crime punished by imprisonment. DCF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNIWH6oVO4r4sgSPhAQH7YwQAo/vMb7hqDMQ/6GP+gBXtruClj31qstbx mBSrb8VG8+9ZQO8/Tl8zY3h2FzRKea/sOQIlhpVeD2kryQUyqc2D6z79dklru5vu D7b5iJEY1na8xkQW/c3nD3ejsJRQ/5kjcNcZBQ4zxG/jM95B0tt3Wmn4B0/uMmid bJZDE0fMMEQ= =9qf9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Another of Gary Burnore's Lies Exposed (was: Re: not so fast Re: Kudos to NETCOM!)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Sam" <sam-001(a)dpinc.ml.org> wrote: > In article <3485813d.117631170(a)nntp.best.ix.netcom.com>, > gburnore+NOspam(a)netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) writes: > > > On 2 Dec 1997 14:59:30 GMT, "Sam" <sam-001(a)dpinc.ml.org> wrote: > > > >:Found it: > >: > >:Subject: Re: Burnore forgeries easily solvable > >:From: Sam <sam-000(a)usa.net> > >:Date: 1997/07/10 > >:Message-ID: <5q3ms3$phq(a)chronicle.concentric.net> > >:Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy.anon-server,alt.anonymous,alt.anonymous.messages,alt.censorship,news.ad > >: > >: > > > > > > Nice try Sam but no go. > > Not so fast. In the message that this was a follow-up to, > <gburnoreED2z89.GHs(a)netcom.com>, your own exact words were: > > > This one dated 9 July 1997 > > is a good example. See the forged from line? Ths did not come from > > mmdf(a)databasix.com > > Well, no matter how you look at it, it was. It did came from > mmdf(a)databasix.com. There was no forgery. And that was precisely the > point of my initial post. I cannot believe that someone who is supposed to > administer a mail server cannot recognize an auto-ack generated by his own > machine, instead insisting that the message came from a third party, forged > with his return address. > > This puts all other claimed forgeries from a mail2news gateway, that you ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > have taken an issue with, and used as a basis to form your claims against > UCE-baiting, and such, as suspect. ^^^^^^^^^^ You've noticed that too, huh? Gary Burnore's "big lie" technique depends upon his claims being retold over and over, by himself and his associates such as Belinda Bryan <eridani(a)ix.netcom.com>, WITHOUT SERIOUS ANALYSIS like yours, in order to be believed. Gary's continuous whining about "forgeries" is becoming pathetic. In his haste to falsely claim that something was "forged" he missed the fact that the claimed "forgery" was traceable back to HIS OWN SERVER. He shot himself in the foot trying to frame the remailers this time. What would be the point in trying to forge a Usenet post to make it look like it came from "mmdf(a)databasix.com", anyway? Gary Burnore's forgery allegations against Mailmasher are similarly suspect. First of all, before planning the attack, somebody apparently didn't do his homework, or he'd have realized that Mailmasher was a web-based 'nymserver, not a remailer. Despite being challenged to do so, Gary has never been able to produce a single piece of documentation showing that Mailmasher ever had the ability to paste From: headers. The "evidence" that was posted had truncated Path headers that stopped at the mail2news gateway and contained "X-No-Archive" headers, just as Gary's own posts do, presumably to explain why none of these posts is independently available from third-party archives for verification. If the posts even existed in the first place, they are more likely to have been generated from a Netcruiser account, complete with headers designed to frame Mailmasher, than from Mailmasher itself. --

1 0

Re: CDT and the Threat of Gov't Intervention
by David Honig 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:46 AM 12/3/97 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: >Besides demonstrating that cyberporn is a topic that will >never disappear, the Kids and the Net summit has >highlighted the tensions between the different types of >Net-advocacy groups here in Washington. I'm sure the Feds are happy that their Good Cop (Clinton) / Bad Cop (Freeh) routine is having the divisive effect they planned, and making sacrifices seem acceptable. ------------------------------------------------------------ David Honig Orbit Technology honig(a)otc.net Intaanetto Jigyoubu Information is a dense, colorless, odorless material readily transmitted across empty space and arbitrary boundaries by shaking charged particles.

3 3