- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: TWA 800 - Serious thread.
by Jim Ray 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: gary(a)systemics.com, cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Wed Sep 11 07:41:52 1996 Gary wrote: <...> > Ah, but isn't "jury selection" the process of selecting those that > don't > know they are judging the law as well as the case? But Gary, don't you see that's good? We need to get laws *back* against witches, against fugitive slaves, against forming unions, against drinking alcohol, etc. and truth certainly shouldn't be an absolute defense against libel! "Our" country is slowly lapsing into anarchy, and would likely go even further if we didn't have the moral Exons, Packwoods, Clintons, and Rostenkowskis to lead us and protect us! [For those who don't know me, I'm being sarcastic.] JMR Regards, Jim Ray -- DNRC Minister of Encryption Advocacy "As govt.s grow arithmetically, corruption grows exponentially." -- Ray's Law of official corruption. Defeat the Duopoly! Stop the Browne out. Harry Browne for President. Jo Jorgensen for Vice-president. http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/ http://www.twr.com/stbo ___________________________________________________________________ PGP id.E9BD6D35 51 5D A2 C3 92 2C 56 BE 53 2D 9C A1 B3 50 C9 C8 <mailto:liberty@gate.net> http://www.shopmiami.com/prs/jimray ___________________________________________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMjalhW1lp8bpvW01AQHgLwP/Y2wSCTCqt9BDeGlcCyde3UMHb5VwthKB 0axWAEsQgdL9sDwbAlT8H1nT36q6ofBf6Hk97KB8eL5SnLQgBjA1xMMNVc2IBcFm gG8+k4Y9PndEzvYO+HreYVYEF8TFB/WhZt42mYm7ZzpkHHok3iMEHIW3ZpEzPlxc cJVATpNS6NA= =i6Nw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

ALERT: Call the Commerce committee! 1-800-962-3524
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

checking my files and verifying the number this morning, I find that there is an active 1-800 number to call Congress. (Don't know who'se it is, but it reaches the Congressional switchboard...) The Capitol Switchboard can be reached at 1-800-962-3524. At 12:42 AM 9/11/96 -0400, Voters Telecommunications Watch wrote: >======================================================================== > > SENATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE VOTE TOMORROW IN QUESTION > WHITE HOUSE STALLING; THE NET CAN SAVE THE VOTE > > OFFICES ARE RECEIVING 'LOTS OF CALLS' > MAKE A CALL TO THE COMMERCE COMMITTEE > > September 11, 1996 > > Please widely redistribute this document with this banner intact > until September 30, 1996 > >________________________________________________________________________ >CONTENTS > The Latest News > What You Can Do Now > Background / What To Expect This Week > Description of S.1726, Pro-CODE Bill > Chronology of Pro-Crypto Legislation > For More Information / Supporting Organizations > >________________________________________________________________________ >THE LATEST NEWS > >Sometimes things work out better than imagined. This was the feeling >tonight as I waded through my email from people all over the country that >called the commerce committee. This was the feeling as I heard from visitors >to one Senator's office who, while waiting for a few minutes in the lobby, >listened to the receptionist take two quick calls from netizens calling >about the bill. > >Receptionist, cutting the caller off: "S.1726? Yes, I'll pass that along >to the Senator, thanks. We've been getting a lot of calls." > >Another netizen emailed us saying that he also called his Representative. >It turns out this Rep. has some friends who have co-sponsored HR 3011, the >House version of Pro-CODE. The calls and elevated publicity from this phone >campaign have convinced him to consider co-sponsoring HR 3011. > >This is great, but our success has mobilized the anti-crypto forces >into action as well. The Clinton Administration, who has long opposed >the right of citizens to use non-Clipper encryption, has begun working >behind the scenes to make sure that the vote on Pro-CODE (S.1726) never >happens. > >To have the Senate Commerce committee go on record that encryption exports >should be loosened, against the will of the Administration, would be >an embarrassment to the White House. They have begun pushing hard to >pressure Democratic Commerce Committee members to put the brakes on the >bill, and do everything they can to prevent the vote this Thursday. > >To see the business community, the industry, and the public line up the >Administration would be extremely hard to take and still seem >credible. > >It's crucial that we continue to make noise and ring those phones. By >pulling enough favors with members of the Senate Commerce Committee, it's >possible that the White House could prevent this vote from happening. > >WE MUST NOT LET THAT HAPPEN. Appropriately forward this to everyone you >know until the expiration listed above. Go to work, bug your neighbor >in the cubicle or office next to you. Have they called yet? Bug them >until they do. Call the rest of the members you haven't gotten around to >yet. > >And don't forget to sign the petition at http://www.crypto.com/petition/ ! > >[Rest of alert is the same from last time] >________________________________________________________________________ >WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW > >It's crucial that you call the Commerce committee members below and >urge them to pass S.1726 out of committee without amendments. (This is >also known as a "clean" bill.) Any opportunity for amendments (even if >they are good) opens us up to the possibility of hostile amendments >that could restrict the use of encryption even further than today's >abysmal state. It could even prohibit the use of encryption without >Clipper Chip-like key 'escrow' technology, which includes built-in >surveillance and monitoring functionality. > >1. Call/Fax the members of the Senate Commerce committee and urge > them to pass S.1726 out of committee "cleanly". Do not use email, > as it is not likely to be looked at in time to make a difference > for the markup on September 12th. > > Use the sample communique and directory listing below to make it a > simple TWO MINUTE task. > >2. Sign the petition to support strong encryption at > http://www.crypto.com/petition/ ! Join other cyber-heroes as > Phil Zimmermann, Matt Blaze, Bruce Schneier, Vince Cate, Phil Karn, and > others who have also signed. > >3. Between now and Wed. September 12, it is crucial that you call all > these members of Congress. > > P ST Name and Address Phone Fax > = == ======================== ============== ============== > D SC Hollings, Ernest F. 1-202-224-6121 1-202-224-4293 > D MA Kerry, John F. 1-202-224-2742 1-202-224-8525 > D HI Inouye, Daniel K. 1-202-224-3934 1-202-224-6747 > D KY Ford, Wendell H. 1-202-224-4343 1-202-224-0046 > D WV Rockefeller, John D. 1-202-224-6472 1-202-224-7665 > D LA Breaux, John B. 1-202-224-4623 1-202-228-2577 > D NV Bryan, Richard H. 1-202-224-6244 1-202-224-1867 > D ND Dorgan, Byron L. 1-202-224-2551 1-202-224-1193 > D NE Exon, J. J. 1-202-224-4224 1-202-224-5213 > D OR Wyden, Ron* 1-202-224-5244 1-202-228-2717 > > R SD Pressler, Larry* 1-202-224-5842 1-202-224-1259 > R MT Burns, Conrad R.(*sponsor) 1-202-224-2644 1-202-224-8594 > R AK Stevens, Ted 1-202-224-3004 1-202-224-2354 > R AZ McCain, John 1-202-224-2235 1-202-228-2862 > R WA Gorton, Slade 1-202-224-3441 1-202-224-9393 > R MS Lott, Trent* 1-202-224-6253 1-202-224-2262 > R TX Hutchison, Kay Bailey 1-202-224-5922 1-202-224-0776 > R ME Snowe, Olympia 1-202-224-5344 1-202-224-1946 > R MO Ashcroft, John* 1-202-224-6154 1-202-228-0998 > R TN Frist, Bill 1-202-224-3344 1-202-228-1264 > R MI Abraham, Spencer 1-202-224-4822 1-202-224-8834 > > * supporter or cosponsor. The bill also enjoys broad bi-partisan > support from members not on the committee including Senators Leahy > (D-VT) and Murray (D-WA). > >4. Here is a sample conversation: > > SAMPLE PHONE CALL > You:<ring ring> > Sen:Hello, Senator Mojo's office! > > You: > >SAY I'm calling to urge the Senator to pass S.1726, the >THIS-> Burns/Leahy/Pressler bill, S.1726 when the committee votes on > it on Thursday. It's critical to the future of privacy, security, > and electronic commerce on the internet. > > Sen:Ok, thanks!<click> > > IF THEY SAY > "The Senator has concerns about the bill", > please answer, > "Please try to work these issues out as it moves to the Senate floor, > but passage out of committee will send an important signal to > the Administration." > >5. To help us measure the effectiveness of the campaign, WE NEED TO HEAR FROM > YOU. Please tell us who you called, and how they sounded. We'll be > passing this information to folks in D.C. who can help apply pressure > where needed. > > $ Mail vtw(a)vtw.org > Subject: I called so-and-so > > Hey, I called Sen. Mojo. He sounded iffy, call in the > reinforcements. > ^D > >6. Forward this to your friends and colleagues in appropriate forums > until the date of expiration at the top. Forward a copy of this to > your Internet Service Provider as well, and ask them to put the following > text in their message of the day (motd), or on their WWW page: > > ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT > > The U.S. Senate will be voting on a proposal to encourage > better security on the Internet on Thu Sep. 12th. Your help is > needed to call Congress. See http://www.crypto.com/ for more > details. > > ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT > >________________________________________________________________________ >BACKGROUND / WHAT TO EXPECT THIS WEEK > >For the past 3 years, Cyber-Rights Activists, citizens, and industry >leaders have been working hard to reform US encryption policy. > >Support has been building behind several legislative proposals this >year because they send a clear signal to the Administration about the >need for security and privacy in the Information Age. The digital >revolution is currently being held hostage by the White House's Cold >War restrictions on privacy-enhancing encryption technology. > >Now, with Congress less than a month away from adjournment, everyone >who supports encryption and privacy is working to see this bill leave >committee in order to send a clear message to the White House that they >are on the wrong side of the encryption issue. Although this bill may >not become law this year, its passage out of committee will be a >landmark event that will clearly tell the White House that the >Congress, the public, and the computer industry care about security and >privacy, and need strong, reliable encryption technology in order to >make the Internet a viable platform for commerce, education, and >democracy. > >Success for our side is not certain, and the next week is not without risks. >On September 12th, the Senate Commerce committee will hold a "markup", >where the bill is examined, voted on, and if there are enough votes, >passed out of committee. Two things could happen: > > -the committee could pass the bill as written, > -the committee could pass the bill with amendments. > >Any amendments are not likely to be friendly, and in particular, quiet >sources have told privacy activists that the Clinton Administration has been >readying a legislative assault on your right to use encryption for several >weeks now. A Clipper-like amendment could be attached to the bill if >our side does not have enough votes to block all amendments. > >It is crucial that all netizens who consider privacy and security important >take a moment to call members of the Commerce Committee right now and >urge them to vote S.1726 out of committee without amendments. > >________________________________________________________________________ >DESCRIPTION OF S.1726, PRO-CODE BILL > >Privacy-enhancing encryption technology is currently under heavy restrictions >kept in place by the White House. Encryption that is currently allowed to >be exported is not sufficient to protect confidential information. This >policy acquires an "Alice-in-Wonderland" quality when one realizes that >strong encryption products are available abroad both for sale and for free >download off the Internet. > >The Pro-CODE Act resolves to: > >1. Allow for the *unrestricted* export of "mass-market" or "public-domain" > encryption programs, including such products as Pretty Good Privacy and > popular World Wide Web browsers. > >2. Requires the Secretary of Commerce to allow the less restricted export > of other encryption technologies if products of similar strength are > generally available outside the United States, roughly up to DES > strength. > >3. Prohibits the federal government from imposing mandatory key-escrow > encryption policies on the domestic market and limiting the authority > of the Secretary of Commerce to set standards for encryption products. > >________________________________________________________________________ >CHRONOLOGY OF PRO-CRYPTO LEGISLATION > >9/12/96 (scheduled) >Senate Commerce committee will hold markup of S.1726 and hopefully pass it >out of committee with no amendments. > >7/25/96: Full Senate Commerce committee holds positive hearings on S.1726. >FBI Director Louis Freeh testifies along with many cyber-luminaries. >Hearings are cybercast Internet Cyber-Rights activists with HotWired >and WWW.Crypto.Com. You can see the photos, read the testimony, and >listen to the audio transcript at http://www.crypto.com/events/072596/ > >6/26/96: Senate subcommittee holds positive hearings on S.1726. Hearings are >cybercast Internet Cyber-Rights activists with HotWired and WWW.Crypto.Com. >You can see the photos, read the testimony, and listen to the audio >transcript at http://www.crypto.com/events/062696/ > >5/2/96: Bi-partisan group of Senators introduce Pro-CODE Act, which would >free public-domain encryption software (such as PGP) for export, free much >commercial encryption for export, and reduce the government's ability to >push Clipper proposals down the throats of an unwilling public. Original >sponsors include: Senators Burns (R-MT), Dole (R-KS), Faircloth (R-NC), >Leahy (D-VT), Murray (D-WA), Pressler (R-SD), and Wyden (D-OR). > >3/5/96: Sen. Leahy (D-VT) and Rep. Goodlatte (R-VA) announce encryption bills >(S.1587/H.R.3011) that significantly relax export restrictions on products >with encryption functionality in them, as well as free public domain software >such as PGP (Pretty Good Privacy). > >________________________________________________________________________ >FOR MORE INFORMATION / SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS > >There are many excellent resources online to get up to speed on crypto >including the following WWW sites: > >http://www.crypto.com http://www.privacy.org http://www.eff.org >http://www.cdt.org http://www.epic.org http://www.vtw.org > >Please visit them often. > >The following organizations have signed onto this alert: > > Center for Democracy and Technology > Electronic Frontier Foundation > Electronic Privacy Information Center > Voters Telecommunications Watch > >________________________________________________________________________ >End alert >======================================================================== > > Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Ban CU Secrecy, Keep TLA's!
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > Mr David Bickford, the first British intelligence lawyer > to speak publicly in the UK, said at a conference in > Cambridge, 50 miles north-east of London, that there > "appears to be no justification at all for offshore bank > secrecy other than to protect the criminal". Apart from tehe confidentiality of the customer, bank, all those they trade with and all other interested parties, well then, they can`t be that important can they > > He said "offshore bank secrecy can and must be abolished" > and "the UK should be the first to abolish this secrecy > given their control of their dependent territory offshore > centres". So because we choose to maintain a statist and totalitarian empire we had better set an example of how to do it to the rest of the world??? > > Mr Bickford, who now runs an international legal > consultancy, said "endemic corruption" is caused by > offshore secrecy, and it is "difficult to see why it is > tolerated by any other than those with an unlawful > disposition". It is also diffult to see why I don`t go round to mr. Bickfords house and kill him, his dog, and his pet hamster, but I don`t, nor do I intend to, to say that we cannot see a reason for people wanting privacy is no justification for legislation that prohibits such privacy. <for any spook agencies etc. reading the above, it is NOT a death threat, it is a sarcastic comment> > He said allowing countries to maintain offshore banking > secrecy is "a classic example of the corruptive influence > of organised crime". It is a classic example of privacy and freedom in a free society (not that I believe Britain falls into this category) Has anyone got this guys IQ, it`s probably the first ever negative IQ in the history of the world, cheer everyone, its a historic find. Mr. Bickford, I believe you to be a fuckwit, feel free to prove me wrong.. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Http://www.fatmans.demon.co.uk/crypt/ "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6 mQCNAjH9j+cAAAEEAMBvREiQR0ot9dFCO0TiSCSunAYLv2g1Bc6I3bz8FzKXNH53 6mieJf/W4rD+CxJpT0q9RQaaoRtkHJLwbjfK2il3D7mEahMAyqvF/xRJNqkXfhM3 sRJM0Jh43l+W0M5vwokbEbk25/bxWWGspTsLD3YHbzKnG6pOcL5OPIRbv66xAAUR tCdQYXVsIEJyYWRsZXkgPHBhdWxAZmF0bWFucy5kZW1vbi5jby51az4= =riHc -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

Re: Conjuring up the latest utopia for a minoritarian sect of illuminati
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:43 PM 9/11/96, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) writes: >> And who might these people be? I suggest you name them, as I have not even >> mentioned your name to anyone. You don't rate a complaint from me. > >E.g. Kelly Goen is one of the people who told me that Tim May's been >complaining about my alleged "spit" posts. I've only spoken to Kelly Goen _once_ in many months, and he was calling from his cellphone and we only talked for a few minutes. I don't recall mentioning Vulis. So, who are these "various people"? >Note that Kelly's not on this mailing list (unlike at least two other >people who said to me that Tim complained to them off-list) and that >most of the posts Tim complains about are obvious forgeries. Who are these "at least two other people"? I _do_ think you're a loon. Not in the endearing sense of some net.loons, but in the peculiar kind of foaming-at-the-mouth lunacy that I've seen in several Russian and Armenian emigres. --TCM We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Child Porn as Thoughtcrime
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:48 PM 9/10/96 -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote: >On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: > >> Q: Is a drawing of a child engaging in a sexual act an illegal item? > >Under the original Hatch bill, yes. Certainly under the revised one. Of >course, Hatch's proposal goes even farther. There's no "sex act" requirement. >Judy Krug from the ALA testified about this, opposing Bruce Taylor. > >> Q: Is an image of Raquel Welch morphed to make her look like a 15-year-old >> illegal? > >Even under the original Hatch bill, yes. It seems to me that the logic of these answers would make the movie, "Carried Away" illegal. According to a Boston Globe review (reprinted in the local rag), "... his character cheats on his longtime girlfriend with a new student who's only 17, ..." Depending on how this is depicted in the movie (Rated R), it seems to me that this could go over Hatch's line. (BTW, the review rates the movie 3 stars out of a possible 4.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | "Lone Star" - My personal | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | choice for best movie of | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | 1996 | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: Child Porn as Thoughtcrime
by Rick Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim wrote: : Declan answers in the affirmative that, yes, nearly all of the examples I : cited are indeed crimes. .... : As I well knew, which is why I presented them. (The Jock Sturges case was : in SF, ... I've read in several places that the Jock Sturges case was thrown out of court by the judge. Nobody has dragged me away in shackles for owning "Radiant Images." Stores selling photo books often carry his work, and it is rarely covered with opaque plastic. So it may be nudity that set the gendarmes (sp?) in motion, but that's evidently not what's really illegal. I wonder what would happen if an "adult magazine" were to reproduce Sturges' work. The court case might be interesting... Now apply that to the Web. Imagine there's a Sturges site, and a porn site links to it. Does that make the Sturges material "child porn?" If so, is the porn site illegal or the Sturges site? I suspect the prosecutors will come down on both and let the courts sort it out. Prior restraint, eh? : ...the "little girls in leotards" case was only a few years ago, etc.) Don't know about that one. Is it illegal for little girls to be photographed in leotards now? "Nutcracker" is X rated? Move over, Bambi. Personally, I think the political posturing theory captures the essence of the legislative climate. Rick.

1 0

Unsolicited harrassing e-mail from <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Please stop e-mailing me, cc:ing me, or otherwise harrassing me. I have no connection with the thread you're quoting and don't want to receive any more e-mail from you. stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com writes: > >> There > >> are a number of anonymous remailers out in cyberspace, but it has been > >> stated by a knowledgeable source that a number of them are being operated > >> by law enforcement agencies (presumably to troll for criminal activity). A > > > >Can someone verify/discredit/comment on this statement? Who is the > >knowledgeable source? > > Definitely true. Zero is a number, and there are also larger numbers. > KOTM = Kook Of The Month. > > # Thanks; Bill > # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com > # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> > # You can get PGP software outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto >

1 0

HipCrime and Spam
by nobody＠flame.alias.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

HipCrime <na673130(a)anon.penet.fi> wrote: > Be honest, all you really care about is something which > "threatens the existence" your little baby. I think you were referring to yourself, Robert. :) Since you don't seem to understand the concept of spam very well yet, try this little experiment: Go downtown to City Hall and post advertisements for your website on all the walls and doors. Be sure to put one on the Mayor's office and all the members of the City Council. If they complain, explain to them why they are weak-minded souls who can't remove unwanted messages. Go to the local art gallery and post your signs all over. Tell people that since your web site is an "art project", that you are posting EXACTLY on topic, to an "appropriate group". Ask, "So, what's your problem ?!?" Pass out survey forms. Ask people where they want to see advertisements. Go to these sites and spray-paint your http address. If people complain that you are "harassing" them, ask them why a whopping eighteen letters written on the wall is harassment. Tell them it's not *your* fault, that you're just doing what other people told you to. Explain how many trees you are saving by using spray-paint instead of paper. When the police handcuff you and take you away, complain that they are censoring you. Tell the judge that you want to sue the cops for violating your civil rights. While you're in jail, think about why what you did was wrong.

1 0

Re: Satellite Movement?
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Blak Dayz wrote: >> I was out buying groceries and after they scanned the shit through they >> told me that all the ATMs in the City were out due to connection problems. So i >> go home and start trying to scan for the shits and i cant find them. If anyone >> knows what the hell happened i would appreciate the details. I believe it may >> have been a solar flare that caused the companies to redirect their satellites. Alternatively, it may be that the host earth station that the VSAT providers uses was affected by the hurricane. But different ATM providers use different technologies for connecting their ATM networks, and may mix technologies if that's cheapest. VSATs are one approach, leased lines another (generally multidrop with ugly IBMish protocols), X.25 networks, frame relay networks, etc. Maybe all the ATM machines run by your bank were out. But taking out all the ATM machines in a money-using city like New York would require some major disaster, like a nuclear explosion or a stupid regulation written by a government official. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> # You can get PGP software outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto

1 0

Re: Nonsense, absolute nonsense... [Fwd: HipCrime and Spam]
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sirs: I must agree that having a website invites unsolicited e-mail, if only to comment that people have seen the site. I send unsolicited e-mail to website owners as part of my marketing plan. On Or About: 11 Sep 96 at 21:34, Andy Dustman wrote: > You're sending out messages, inviting people to visit your web site, but > you're using anonymous remailers because... you don't want people to know > who you are? Then why invite them to your site (or even have a site)? That's what makes it smell fishy. When I send unsolicited e-mail I give up the whole deal: phone number and all. If someone complains, I make great effort to never contact that person again. Either you want people to know who you are or you don't. > Which is precisely what you're doing: Sending someone e-mail > costs them time and it often costs them money. As I said having a website invites comments. It's like being a public figure. In effect you are publishing your e-mail address. > 4) It's giving us a bad > rap, man, and that's the *last* thing the remailer net needs now. > The remailers of the world don't exist > to provide non-anonymous anonymous advertising, which you could do just as > well on your own sending forged e-mail headers from netcom. Just like all the seedy low life multi-level-marketing jerks! No need to use a remailer for that. Just 2 cents worth. Ross =========== Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

1 0