December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: EAY, SSLeay, and Open Source (Re: [ssl-users] Re: C2Net announces OpenSSL Project)
by Soren 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam Back wrote: > This is confusing, several people have alluded that there will be no > future versions of SSLeay from Eric and friends. Would someone in the > know care to divulge the goods: why is this? > > Has Eric suffered an accident? Been incarcerated by the Australian > spooks in retaliation for major contributions to crypto deployment? > Has he been bought out by the dark side (say microsoft?). Had a major > change of philosophy regarding open source? EAY was amongst the > "least likely to go closed source" I thought. > > What gives? I seem to to recall sometime ago when he was being pressured by the Oz Gubmint, and decided that going corporate was a decent way out. From what I recall, he ended up on the RSA payroll. Sayonara buggy freeware.

1 0

Sammerseers Theft of Ben lauries Intellectual Property(i.e.apache
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To: cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net cc: Subject: Sameers ande C2 Nets Appropriation of Apache-SSL(Bens Code) -------- For the clueless or history deficient C2 gots its start by purloining without compensation Ben Lauries Apache-SSL patches.... Sameer used these and then had the fucking gall to remove source from apache-ssl for the mod_ssl.c... all was rosy until Ralf releases a mod_ssl.c of his design... result?? C2's business worlwide took a nose dive...(layoffs etc) so now Sameer is trying to coopt Ralf's mod_ssl.c project (mark my words if Sameer gets his way the source for future verions will NOT be available no matter what he says now...) I seen it happen once so now when the litte sob trys it again I am blowing the whistle...(and retelling history openly) how about it Sameer are you now going to Sue the Mix network:) ? the turds in Sameers Swimming pool p.s. to the clueless Jim Finder..Happy now asshole...? BTW I will post when and where I feel like !

2 1

Forwarded mail...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 19:50:34 -0600 (CST) > From: Missouri FreeNet Administration <measl(a)mfn.org> > Subject: Re: I must admit. . . > On Thu, 24 Dec 1998, Reeza! finally got to the point of the matter: > > <massive snip> > :, that does not mean I'm willing to allow one > :expansionist dictator to sanction another country and gain control of > :enough of the worlds oil supply to impact the well-being of my country. > > I believe this is the the only true argument here. The US (and you) are > not "pleased" with the fact that the one place on the planet that has the > worlds largest oil deposits is not beholden to the USG. Actualy there are equivalent oil and gas deposits in SE Asia and Antartica. But they doesn't belong to the USG either. Of course the point is valid. Though it almost begs the question of why in such a situation there is not a more powerful search for alternatives. There are actualy very few technologies that care whether oil or gas is used in energy production or some entirely different process. ____________________________________________________________________ What raises the standard of living may well diminish the quality of life. The Club of Rome The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

and justice for all but the Goldmans and Jones
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:09 AM 12/24/98 -0800, Eric Murray wrote: >Anonymous writes: > >> I think about putting up about $200 or so (whetever a decent spamming >> will cost me) and spam the internet with the information about jurors >> rights and jury nullification. >> >> Anyone thinks that it is a good idea? > >No, it's a bad idea. The ends do not justify the means. > The ends: justice. The means: a common abuse, which perchance should be illegal like junkfax, but isn't. The means: in the late 90s the people had the chance, for a few years, before the XC Massacre, to publish without convincing corporations. Do the math.

1 0

land of the free
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:24 PM 12/24/98 +0100, Anonymous wrote: >Well if you are going to go to the trouble and expense, then you >should also put something in there to educate the masses about >how to use crypto to protect themselves, and why this is a good >idea. Trouble and expense of what? If you refer to the FIJA spamming, then you will simply confuse the sheeple with too many issues.

1 0

spamactivism
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:07 PM 12/24/98 +0100, Anonymous wrote: >I think about putting up about $200 or so (whetever a decent spamming >will cost me) and spam the internet with the information about jurors >rights and jury nullification. > >Anyone thinks that it is a good idea? Education can only be for the good. Got an anonymous ecash account of some sort? In either case, kudos.

2 1

Re: Sammers eers Theft of Ben lauries Intellectual
by jim finder 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anonymous writes: >For the clueless or history deficient > >C2 gots its start by purloining without compensation >Ben Lauries Apache-SSL patches.... Sameer used these and then >had the fucking gall to remove source from apache-ssl >for the mod_ssl.c... all was rosy until Ralf releases >a mod_ssl.c of his design... result?? >C2's business worlwide took a nose dive...(layoffs etc) >so now Sameer is trying to coopt Ralf's mod_ssl.c project >(mark my words if Sameer gets his way the source for future >verions will NOT be available no matter what he says now...) >I seen it happen once so now when the litte sob trys it >again I am blowing the whistle...(and retelling history openly) >how about it Sameer are you now going to Sue the Mix network:) ? > > the turds in Sameers Swimming pool >p.s. to the clueless Jim Finder..Happy now asshole...? No, I'm afraid I'm not. Could you offer either verifiable evidence of the above, or at least back up your accusation by signing your name? Either would be better than making an anonymous accusation that we have no way to verify. I'm sorry I wasn't privy to what ever went on behind the scene between C2NET, Ben, Ralf, Eric, etc., but I think I speak for most readers when I admit that I wasn't. Ben made a serious accusation that an important member of the open sources and crypto community has a hidden agenda to subvert the availability of open source crypto code. If it is false, let this stop. If it's true, then let's shout it far and wide, and deny them the support of the community. Anonymous and unverifiable accusations advance neither case All I've seen so far is Ben and Sameer throwing shit at each other, egged on by anonymous flamers, without anymone bothering to provider enough information for an outsider to decide how much of it should stick. Right now, all I can conclude is that there is plenty of shit to go around. Ben, would you please spell out your side of the story, and Sameer, would you do likewise so that we can figure this out? Anonymous, put up or shut up. Jim ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

4 3

mysterious PGP release-signing keys
by Dave Del Torto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Please excuse the crosspost, but does anyone know *who* generated and/or owns these keys? 0xBB1EEF1B Verify 0xC8501551 Verify Key for http://www.arc.unm.edu/~drosoff/* 0xAA9AE13F Verify PGP 6.0.2 PP - RSA 0x772B7382 VERIFY <VERIFY(a)gnwmail.com> They seem to be used for signing/verifying PGP releases (e.g. the 602 by CKT at Replay), but there's nothing on the keys that identifies the responsible engineer who compiled the source, nor do some of them seem to be certified by anyone in the WoT. Questions have been raised about the authenticity and security of those compiles and these keys. dave -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.0.2 Comment: Get interested in computers -- they're interested in YOU! iQA/AwUBNn11mJBN/qMowCmvEQI4IwCfad0S9Algw7PPDsgWChimC4Cx6dcAnjtu h2trwMi08tJMCD76W6W8DP/L =TFuT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 3

A #1 SECRET PROFIT MACHINE!!!
by ocnarb＠usa.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We'll Pay You To Make Our Phone Ring... ALL YOU DO IS ADVERTISE OUR 800 NUMBER - THAT'S ALL ! * You get $100 for EVERY SALE plus ENDLESS RESIDUALS! * Just MAKE OUR PHONE RING ! * Easiest, most profitable business around! * You can earn thousands of $$ your very first month ! * No selling required - our expert sales team closes sales for you! * We send out huge checks weekly! * No meetings, phone calls, no hassles! * Advertise any way you want - email, flyers, classifieds, postcards, etc. CALL NOW: 1-800-811-2141 (ID # 60282) If you are an average person like myself who has always wanted to generate a large easy income from home, but you don't want the hassles of inventory, marketing plans, or direct selling, then THIS IS FOR YOU. All you do is advertise our 800 number and yo ur ID number, and our trained staff do the rest for you. Don't just take my word for it - listen to some amazing testimonials from existing members: 1-888-446-6951 (He made $10,000 his first month) 1-888-446-6949 (He erased all his debt in one month) 1-888-715-0642 (She averages $1,000 every week) 1-888-703-5389 (He can't believe it's this easy) You also have the peace of mind of offering one of the best products available: a lifetime membership in a discount service providing guaranteed lowest prices on over 250,000 products and services. Hotel & Travel Services, Major Appliances, Dentists, Legal Services, 8.9 cents/minute long-distance, Groceries... YOU CAN START TODAY - CALL NOW: 1-800-811-2141 (ID # 60282) 8am - 10pm CST Mon-Sat. If you wish to be removed simply place remove in the subject area and you will be removed from the list. Thank you! Have a great Holiday!

1 0

Re: Membership (One user says:)
by John Baskind 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[long and acrimonious discussion, at present ending with this message, clipped] > Let's recall that once this ``situation'' is resolved, the list of > volunteer members/coders will likely increase. Many, I'm sure, myself > included, have held back. I am following this discussion with some alarm, and I am sure that many others who rely on everyone involved in this acrimony to keep our sites running are too. I think competition is very important, and the sort of internal competition you lot are involved in is crucial to the continued speedy evolution of the critical software you are making ( for us users, please be reminded). Those who rely on your skills and expertise--in other words, the vast majority of Apache users, which means, apparently, some 50% of the active Web at this point, NEED you, all of you, as a group. to continue to share your brains and their collective product, with us. Because the vast majority of us couldn't do what you do if our lives depended on it. I use mod_ssl, purely because it seemed easier to install and compile than Apache_SSL, and I really like Ralf's installation notes, not because I formed any judgement about the relative excellence of mod_ssl over Apache_SSL. I am not capable of making that judgement--I rely on YOUR assessments! I really don't care if it actually is easier to install or not; --from my point of view, I honor Tim Hudson and Ben Laurie, Ralf Engelschall and all the less public members of the Apache Group equally. Each of you contributes in a different way to make my life, and therefore livelihood, simpler and more pleasant. Part of my skill set is political consulting--if there's anything I've learned, it is that mud not only sticks to both the flinger and flingee, but also clouds all the subsequent issues between both parties to a remarkably large degree.

1 0