December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Japan's Constitution and GAK (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Adam Shostack <adam(a)homeport.org> > Subject: Japan's Constitution and GAK > Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 02:16:36 -0500 (EST) > Does someone have access to a verificable copy of Japan's > Constitution? Someone pointed me to one on the web, which would seem > to make difficult implemmenting international GAK systems. > > http://www.leftjustified.com/leftjust/lib/sc/ht/wtp/japan.html > > Article 21. Freedom of assembly and association as well as speech, > press and all other forms of expression are guaranteed. No censorship > shall be maintained, nor shall the secrecy of any means of > communication be violated. It also outlaws secret or under-cover police such as the Kempetei (or however you spell it, too lazy to look it up). ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: democracy?! (Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: 2 Nov 1997 05:47:36 -0000 > From: Secret Squirrel <nobody(a)secret.squirrel.owl.de> > Subject: Re: democracy?! (Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd) > Adam Back wrote: > >[Ed Note: Jim Choate wrote:] > >> At the height of the range wars there were only 9 murders > >> associated with the conflict, not hundreds as the popular > >> entertainment media and spin-doctor culture would have you > >> believe. Get your fucking facts straight. > > > >I know, that was my point; recall that I said the murder rate was > >low. The point was there were way less laws, and few were telling > >their neighbours what they could think. > > It's not hard to believe that this was the case in some places and in > some times, but a term like the "Wild West" covers a lot of time and > territory. It was the case in all places. The Wild West simply wasn't that wild. > For example, in San Francisco in the early 1860s there was a very high > murder rate, something like 1000 people were killed in one year and > nobody was convicted. (Forgive minor factual errors as I haven't > studied this in awhile.) Damn, I have this book - but not here, at my shop apparently - that was written by a eastern newspaper report who was in California, to write the book, and he described San Francisco in the 1800's during the first gold rushes. He doesn't note significant violence. What really makes the book interesting is that the reporter took the 'long way' to California - across Panama via coastal steamers and such. Very interesting descriptions. I'll make note and get the book next time I'm out there and post to the list for review. Would you happen to remember your source? Nothing I have read has ever mentioned a 1000/year homicide count in San Francisco - ever. > I have also read reports of substantial > violence in the mining communities of Nevada and California with > minimal enforcement action taken. That's interesting since this is a specific and commen example of free market anarchy supporters, the low violence rates in the Cali. gold fields during the rush. In particular J.D. Davidson & Lord W. Rees-Mogg go to great lengths at a couple of places in their book "The Sovereign Individual" to hold it us as a 'model anarchy'. Me thinks something is going on here below the covers when both sides of the discussion use the same example (which is why I intentionaly don't use it but wait for others to bring it up). > It seems likely to me that the low > murder rate claim has some exceptions, even if we ignore the mutual > atrocities between various native groups, Americans, and Mexicans. If you read "My Life as a Indian" this might change your view of how it was in that period. "The Texas Rangers" also has quite a lot to say about what the Indian wars were like in Texas (not really since there really wasn't much). It is interesting to note that when the cattle drives started in the 1800's the people oppossed didn't pick up a gun and fight as a rule, they hired lawyers and sued the cattle owners for damages to their farms and ranches. This one was one of the primary forces behind the closing of the fronteir - putting up barbed wire - the cattle barons kept losing the cases. > I would also like to see how pervasive the temperance movement was in > the Wild West. By the late nineteenth century my impression is that > it was going strong in the Wild West although it possibly hadn't > grasped the levers of power yet. Let us know how your research goes. > >> Face off's at high-noon simply didn't happen and poeple didn't run > >> around having gun fights all the time. > > > >Right! > > I'm pretty sure there were gunfights, but that they happened a lot > more quickly and a lot less formally than we see on TV. But, I could > believe that overall they happened infrequently. Anybody have a > reference? See above books as well as the Time*Life series I mentioned in a previous submission. I would wager that from 1800 to 1900 there were less than a dozen face-to-face shoot-outs at high-noon, if any at all. There is also a very good book that covers the French and Spanish explorations of the southwest starting in the late 1500's up to the early 1800's when they were either forced out by political agreements or force. I believe the University of New Mexico puts it out. If I stumble across it (I'll keep an eye out for it) I'll get identifiying info. Very good book, but a mother to read. > I am told that knife fighting was a lot more common than is widely > known. A lot of poor runaways showed up to work in various mining > towns and they were unable to afford expensive toys like guns. Generaly people shot each other with rifles from a distance or back-shots. But the fact is that most, stats put it as high as 60%, of all homicides (accidental or intentional) were people shooting themselves with their own weapon by accident. These sorts of incidents were clearly much higher than Indians or homicide. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: Clinton's Bigger Gun Ban
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/29/97 8:08 PM, Tim May (tcmay(a)got.net) passed this wisdom: >The Klinton Klan has already effectively banned imported SKS ammo >(7.62x29, as I recall, given that I don't have any rifles >chambering this popular round). > --- >Before you rush to correct me, I _meant_ to write "7.62x39" of >course. > >(A round used by the Chinese, Soviet, and East Bloc nations, and >roughly equivalent to the American M-16 round, known either as the >.223 or 5.56mm. The NATO "7.62" is in a longer case length. >7.62x54, as I recall. Known in America as .308. If I remember right they were able to do this because the only ammo available for 7.62x39 is from the Chinese and uses steel core projectiles not lead. Then when Olympic Arms came out with the cutdown weapon chambered for 7.62x39 it was able to be banned uder a regualtion banning "armor piercing ammo that could be used in a handgun." One thing though, 7.62x39 really could not be compared to the 5.56 NATO, its really more potent out to 2-300 meters; it is still a .30 cal vs 5.56 NATOs .223, but its far less potent than 7.62 NATO (7.62x54). The 7.62x39 was the standard caliber of ComBloc weapons for several decades, most specifically the AK-47, AKM-44 (sniper weapon), and SKS carbine. I think the Dragunov sniper system used a more potent cartridge. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNFyiGMdZgC62U/gIEQJ62gCfbBu3uY42gRThKwxyi1I/uDm6pAwAoMkl GuTW74QapGZbXo/kGN4KokYM =qkl4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Brian B. Riley --> http://www.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "Bacon and eggs: A days work for a chicken; a lifetime commitment for a pig"

3 2

auto signing messages Re: perl from Amad3us
by Antonomasia 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> #!/usr/local/bin/perl > $userID="cypherpunks\(a)algebra.com"; > $pgp="/usr/local/bin/pgp"; > $tmp="/tmp/.sig$$"; > undef($/); > $post = <STDIN>; > ($headers,@body) = split(/\n\n/,$post);$body = join("\n\n",@body); > open(PIPE,"|$pgp -satf +batchmode +verbose=0 -u $userID > $tmp"); Real paranoiacs don't put temporary files in world-writeable directories. If a hostile user symlinks your majordomo binary (or something) to /tmp/.sig999 you're going to overwrite it with garbage. A single purpose directory /tmp/mdsig writeable only by the list account 'majordom' would be my preference. (Correct owner and mode for this directory and parents could be checked by the perl script before it decides to write there.) -- ############################################################## # Antonomasia ant(a)notatla.demon.co.uk # # See http://www.notatla.demon.co.uk/ # ##############################################################

1 0

Re: democracy?! (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 19:55:02 -0800 > From: Steve Schear <azur(a)netcom.com> > Subject: Re: democracy?! (fwd) > >If it's so damn good how come it doesn't exist anymore? If it provided such > >a superior governmental system providing the maximum return on investment > >why did it go away? Why did they instead elect to go with a king? Futher, > >explain how such an anarchic system can be expanded without demonstrating > >the exact same sorts of scaling problems consensual democracies such as > >ancient Greek ran into? It's one thing to rule a few 10's of thousands of > >people who are related, share world-models and have limited resources and > >quite another to rule 4+ Billion people who speak hundreds if not thousands > >of languages and concommittent cultural beliefs? > > So, a solution is to encourage (e.g., through technological means) the > break-up of nation-states into smaller geo-political groupings. Technological, societal, political, religous, whatever non-confrontational (ie avoid the use of force unless physicaly attacked) mechanism that is present in human societies. Exactly! See that is the aspect of our democracy that so few people seem to understand. The relationship between the fed's and the states is supposed to be as equals. If the fed's want to do something they have to get a lot of the states to go along with it or else they don't get the resources. The states can't get too far out of line because of their ability to represent the other n-1 states. The problem now, fundamentaly to my view, is that the states are seen as chatels or sub-servient to the fed's. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Fwd: Re: Fwd: William Louis ... Pol Pot speaks...
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I forwarded a copy of the above article to my friend Roger who lives and works in Thailand and this was his response ... I thought it might be of interest to the list. ---------------- Begin Forwarded Message ---------------- Date: 11/02 9:13 AM Received: 11/02 10:39 AM From: Roger Adams, rogera(a)mozart.inet.co.th To: Brian B. Riley, brianbr(a)together.net >Brian B. Riley wrote: >>I came across this piece the other day and am rereading it for the >>fourth or fifth time. "Food for thought" doesn't even begin to >>describe it in my rarely very humble opinion. > (snip) >>Pol Pot Speaks >> >> On Oct. 16 Nate Thayer, an American correspondent for the weekly >>Far Eastern Economic Review, conducted the first known interview >>since 1979 with Cambodian Communist Pol Pot. The New York Times >>printed excerpts Oct. 23. >Brian, > >Nate is actually based in Bangkok and I have met him quite a few >times in one of my favourite watering holes. I was there last Friday >(31st Oct) and was told that he had gone back to Phnom Penh to >confront Hun Sen for calling him a liar and questioning the validity >of his interview with Pol Pot. Nate apparently got very upset at >this so he decided to sort it out. All of us who know him feel that >he is risking his life by going back to Cambodia at this time. The >situation there is very unstable and life is very cheap. We all >hope he makes it back safely. > >Just for some background information, Nate is a very intense and >proud fellow who takes his profession very seriously indeed. He is >the only journalist to have been able to get close enough to Pol >Pot (by close, I mean in very near proximity) to be able to watch >and film him being tried by his fellow commanders and to interview >him. A very facinating chap and very likeable. I am sure you came >across some of these types during the Vietnam War. > >Will keep you posted. > >Roger ----------------- End Forwarded Message ----------------- Brian B. Riley --> http://www.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men." -- Ayn Rand - The Fountainhead (1943)

1 0

Free Software
by 1gh9TbMi2＠gen.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We are giving away over $700.00 in promotional software that can increase your business by over 150%. How would you like to send your ad to thousands of people that have an interest in your product or service? Just imagine the results. We are giving away the software to do just that. With this limited time offer you can receive an email extraction program that will extract targeted addresses for you to send your advertisement to. You will also receive an email program for sending your advertisement. This software is yours FREE! when you purchase our CD Rom with over 37 million email addresses on it. This CD Rom is ready to use with your email program. If you can click a mouse, you can boost your sales by 150% or more overnight. This offer is for a limited time. As an added bonus, we will submit your web site to over 250 search engines for free when you place your order. All orders are taken by phone, so hurry and call (904) 908-5444 Please mention ID# 6682 when calling...

1 0

Re: Infastructure Protection and Paranoia
by John Kelsey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [ To: cypherpunks ## Date: 10/30/97 ## Subject: Re: Infastructure Protection and Paranoia ] >Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 23:35:41 -0800 >From: Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> >Subject: Re: Infastructure Protection and Paranoia >At this year's CFP one evening we were playing the game of >"You want to cause maximum disruption to the US >infrastructure, and you've got 100 small explosive devices. >Where do you put them?" Much creativity was displayed and >substantial amounts of testosterone reveled in, and the >overall conclusion was that we'd be in deep trouble if >anybody even vaguely competent wanted to monkeywrench the >system. I agree. This has always been my reaction to the infowar folks--anyone who understands how to attack a system can look around and find hundreds of fairly easy targets. Some of these targets just *can't* be protected in a cost-effective way. (Note the way the IRA and various Palestinian terrorists still manage to find soft targets, despite the fact that their intended victims have spent years and millions of dollars hardening the obvious soft points.) >After that, we played the Russell-Brand-like game of >"Destruction is easy. What would you do if you wanted to >create the most joy in the world instead." That was harder >:-) Of course. Any moron with a hammer can ruin a car engine; it takes a skilled mechanic to fix one. The same applies almost everywhere--destroying something takes a fraction of the skill of building or maintaining it. > Thanks! > Bill >Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com >Regular Key PGP Fingerprint > D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639 --John Kelsey, Counterpane Systems, kelsey(a)counterpane.com PGP 2.6 fingerprint = 4FE2 F421 100F BB0A 03D1 FE06 A435 7E36 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNFje30Hx57Ag8goBAQFORgQAtfPNvbzHvsVQXTO8OY7VmKwmyqxWB5By w+WPU4YCMWq8DWG6OywWsK9VoPGePPTZSUhtVd/PXV0lZs/jSbJZoFUYNVM7kscR SA581vMenUYM74Uryut2gTAgUORjvrSLtfM1cm5/sIVGfNefTvmo5VMQzye7gh7d 89SW0QFzo/o= =YmO9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --John Kelsey, Counterpane Systems, kelsey(a)counterpane.com PGP 2.6 fingerprint = 4FE2 F421 100F BB0A 03D1 FE06 A435 7E36

1 0

Copyright commerce and the street musician protocol
by John Kelsey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [ To: Perry's Crypto List, Cypherpunks ## Date: 11/01/97 ## Subject: Copyright commerce and the street musician protocol ] I've been working on various copyright protection schemes from time to time over the last three years. The general goal is (naturally enough) to make some digital data hard to copy without some kind of permission or payment or record being made. Thus, a user may have a book (mostly text, perhaps with some illustrations) he is reading on his computer, and the publisher wants to make sure that that user can't give copies of the book to all his friends, or post it to the net, or whatever. I'm convinced that there will never be a secure solution to this problem. (I can't imagine that this is news to anyone on these two lists.) I have somewhat mixed feelings about this--I'd hate to see my favorite authors and musicians either waiting tables for a living, or having to insert references to their sponsors' products in their stories. (``And then he bought her a Coke, and her eyes lit up.'') On the other hand, a widespread copyright commerce system that really works is most of the infrastructure for a massive censorship mechanism. (Reset the price of books you don't like to a billion dollars US per copy made.) Suppose I want to get paid for the next chapter of my thrilling novel. A whole bunch of people want to see me publish my next chapter. So, I make some statement like ``When I get $1,000 in donations, I will publish the next chapter in this novel.'' Readers can go to my website, see how much further there is to go, and donate money to the cause of getting my novel out. Note that I, the author, don't care *who* pays to get the next chapter out; nor do I care about free riders. Instead, I just care that my $1,000 pot gets filled. When it does, I publish the next chapter. There are basically three things that can go wrong here: a. I set my price too high, and never reach my amount. (It might be possible to decrease the total amount required later, though it would be a little questionable to do this often.) b. I set my price too low, and get lots less than I could have gotten. (This is self-correcting.) c. I get my amount filled, but still don't publish the next chapter of my novel. The trust issues, especially with (c), are worth considering. The obvious (clunky) way to solve this is to have a trusted third party handle the whole transaction. We will call him the Publisher. Now, I submit my novel, or parts of it, to the Publisher. He has his editors review it to see if it's worth trying to sell (like any publisher, albeit with rather low printing/binding costs). If so, he and I agree on a price and split. For unknown authors, the first several chapters, or even the first few books, may be freely available, in hopes of drawing in customers. For known authors, perhaps the first chapter or two is free, and the rest go through the payment mechanism. He has my whole novel, and on his web site, he makes available, say, chapters 1-3 for free, and chapter 4 will become available when $1000 is donated to the cause of getting it out, or on January 1, 1998. If enough readers want to hurry up and see the next chapter, they can make a payment. The publisher needs no identification for this, so anonymous payment systems work quite well. The Publisher holds the payments in escrow until the chapter is released, and then sends me my cut. I think I can build a similar protocol without the Publisher taking anything but a backup role--he gets the money transfers and holds them in escrow, and if the chpater isn't released, either he can release it or he can return the money, or donate it to some charity, or whatever. (The whatever has to be spelled out beforehand, and the money mustn't go to the author, directly or indirectly.) This is obviously not a complete solution. The neat thing is, it can be used with other systems. (Thus, if you want to include a shareware/guiltware message on each copy, or try to use some kind of software or hardware protection for the chapters once they're published, then this system doesn't alter that much--the donors simply get prepurchased copies of the book, released on the normal release date.) Similar ideas may work in other areas. In software, I suspect it would be a way of getting a feel from the market for what new features are wanted. In music, perhaps this could be used for individual songs, or maybe it would work better for whole albums. Television and movie serials could work this way (it works for PBS, doesn't it?). Some books, music, and movies would be *awful* to release this way, though. I wish I had a more useful general solution, but maybe this will help a little. Comments? This is clearly not all that new, but I've never seen it in a crypto context from anyone but me. --John Kelsey, Counterpane Systems, kelsey(a)counterpane.com PGP 2.6 fingerprint = 4FE2 F421 100F BB0A 03D1 FE06 A435 7E36 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNFt4jEHx57Ag8goBAQHQewQA5ri7HOr/z1vlLhIfvagK2Gmcp/BX9fTk FE3NI/L6sg0S5HvGYre6/Pql+zOvbkN6pq/I5C4kepW/K0Y4tQNYiycbzFaQ3htH EA+3ZZPzuj5Ka7ob/AHSnsKpCVJQaMFgZhLJMZPXG9jWjzSG3k8pVKqJklAlu7Tk x6dpqhE1jZ8= =qjO0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --John Kelsey, Counterpane Systems, kelsey(a)counterpane.com PGP 2.6 fingerprint = 4FE2 F421 100F BB0A 03D1 FE06 A435 7E36

12 12

Kyl's internet gambling bill
by John Kelsey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [ To: cypherpunks ## Date: 10/30/97 ## Subject: Kyl's internet gambling bill ] >Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:31:21 -0800 >From: Steve Schear <azur(a)netcom.com> >Subject: Re: Kyl S-474 Anti-Gambling Bill passes committee [Stuff about Kyl's anti-internet gambling bill.] >Prediction: this bill will be about as effective as >outlawing spring. >About 20% of gamblers are 'problem' types who now regularly >game illegally and could careless about the penalties. Once >all on-line casinos offer real and 'play-money' wagering and >strong crypto it will be neigh impossible for the Feds to >know or prove which players are wagering real money and >therefore gambling. Once Onion and Crowds routers are >operational and widespread the Feds won't even be able to >find the casinos, and even if they do they may not be able >to shut them down (especially if they are built in a >distributed fasion). I always find these laws entertaining. In Missouri, we have state-run gambling in the lottery system, and state-licenced gambling on the riverboat casinos. Our Attorney General has been very vocal about shutting down internet casinos, to protect Missouri's citizens from being exploited. His concern for the welfare of problem gamblers in our state is touching. Odd that he isn't worried about those same citizens being taken advantage of by the in-state operations. Of course, the real issue here isn't about protecting citizens from themselves, or even about keeping citizens from being cheated by the electronic equivalent of weighted dice. It's about protecting the financial interests of those who now benefit from having local gambling monopolies. The state gets quite a bit of money from the lottery, and the companies that have invested in building riverboat casinos here are surely concerned about potential competition via the internet. The cities that have riverboat casinos typically get some part of the money made from them, which nicely brings those city governments into line. Presumably, something similar is happening with various states' Indian Reservations opening casinos. It's an interesting side-point that really anonymous communications and payment systems applied to gambling systems mean not only that *governments* can't shut down competing gambling schemes, but also that organized crime can't shut them down, whether through influencing corrupt governments to try to shut them down, or through direct action. Ob Crypto: There are cryptographic gambling protocols that can be verified (given some set of assumptions about underlying operations) to be fair. Thus, it's possible for a gambling operation to make their client software freely available in source, and allow people to see what it does and review it for fairness. If you find a reviewer or two you trust, you can ask them to digitially sign the executable they got when they compiled the code, and refuse to use any other code. This gives you a level of certainty that you're not being cheated by weighted dice that you simply can't get in physical casinos. (Sure, government agencies inspect those casinos, but the inspectors aren't incorruptible, and they can't be everywhere at once.) For a simple example, consider a situation where Alice and Bob need to agree on a shared seed. Assume they already have established a secure (encrypted and authenticated) session. They can easily generate a new shared seed by doing something like this: 1. Alice generates random R_0 and sends hash(R_0) to Bob. 2. Bob generates random R_1 and sends hash(R_1) to Alice. 3. Alice sends R_0 to Bob. 4. Bob sends R_1 to Alice. 5. Alice and Bob each generate their shared seed, R_0 XOR R_1. If the hash function doesn't leak information about its inputs, and if it is collision-resistant, then this protocol should work. If either party generates a random number, then the resulting seed is random, regardless of the other party's input. (You still have to work out administrative issues, like what happens when communications fail conveniently just after Alice sends Bob R_0, but these are easy enough to solve.) >--Steve --John Kelsey, Counterpane Systems, kelsey(a)counterpane.com PGP 2.6 fingerprint = 4FE2 F421 100F BB0A 03D1 FE06 A435 7E36 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNFje6UHx57Ag8goBAQEsZQP/TWqpL70gThhETuqDlrTJsCCy5PeTMNte t0tzg8fwPFK3cESSN+5ndRAjUXmdS8dmNZW1U8RcDFpH8YRd1uAfJ4CdmMrK8zgk OGcegYoSDgwtdLw43Zslx88nl7OgkfvyQqzZZmDkWwyXn0g1RMLcTVt8nyccm6O+ WPH3VLc+7Ho= =H+YB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --John Kelsey, Counterpane Systems, kelsey(a)counterpane.com PGP 2.6 fingerprint = 4FE2 F421 100F BB0A 03D1 FE06 A435 7E36

1 0