- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: distributed mailing list architecture
by Peter Hendrickson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:11 PM 2/7/1997, Adam Back wrote: >Igor Chudov <ichudov(a)algebra.com> writes: >> I'd suggest a simplier solution: to connect each server with a couple, >> or maybe three, other servers. This scheme is rather robust, does not >> consume too much CPU time and bandwidth, and is easy to implement. > I'm not sure what the architecture you are suggesting is, but this is > what I suggest as the simplest to set up. > Have one main majordomo. > Have many mail-exploders. > You subscribe to the main majordomo request address, and it forwards > your subscription request to a random mail-exploder. > You unsubscribe to the main majordomo request address, and it forwards > your subscription to all the mail-exploders request addresses > (unsubscribe traffic is low anyway, keeping track of who is subscribed > where at the main major domo doesn't seem worth it). > Each person who wishes to run an exploder is subscribed (manually) to > the main majordomo. > You submit articles to the main majordomo, and it sends copies of the > articles to it's subscribers (the mail-exploders). > The mail-exploders send mail to the address on their subscriber lists. > (John Gilmore suggested this architecture, as a simpler alternative). This mostly solves the performance problem, but performance was not the only choke point. It is important to have many machines which accept posts and which send them to other machines. (Also, many interconnections means that few messages have to go through more than two machines which should make message distribution extraordinarily fast and highly redundant. Standing in the way of the cypherpunks list will be like standing in the way of the wind.) I suggest we consider the problem of subscriptions to be independent of the problem of posting and distributing messages. Some machine owners may wish to pool subscription activities. The fast and easy approach is to have an official cypherpunks subscription page which lists all of the mail servers which will accept new subscribers. (The person who maintains this page would ideally not be somebody running a mail server.) The interested person looks at the page and then picks a majordomo to subscribe to. It seems beneficial to me from a technical and social standpoint to have a web of relationships between list managers and subscribers. If as a subscriber you have some sort of problem (technical or social), it will work better if there is just one person to talk to rather than a loose network of volunteers. Peter

1 0

Re: anonymity and e-cash
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:28 PM 2/12/97 -0800, Hal Finney wrote: >From: Sean Roach <roach_s(a)alph.swosu.edu> ... >> Another idea that has been festering. If we could get a CPA involved in >> this forum, I would be willing to have h[im/er] sign my key, (which is >> seldom used, mostly because this is the only place I use e-mail), for that >> reasonable fee that CPA's can charge. I know that it is not a standard, or >> even legally recognized, post for CPA's, but I think that enough people >> would trust them. > >The big question with identity certificates is what procedures were followed >in verifying the identity when the cert was issued. If the CPA publishes >some standard method, and his reputation is strong enough that people will >trust him to follow it, then it might well be worth money to you to have >him sign it. This is the traditional role of the Certification Authority. > >> This would take care of some of the "newly minted" key problems. Since >> getting someone who is trusted to sign your key is a recognized method of >> getting people to believe you are who you say you are. > >It depends on the circumstances where you expect to use your key. Within >a small to medium circle of associates there may be some group members >who sign keys and are trusted by other members of the group. There is >no particular reason for it to be difficult. If you want a signature which >will be accepted by everyone in the U.S. you have a harder problem. As far as I am aware, a CPA is supposed to require a photo ID. Since this is the method by which absentee voting is accomplished. A supposedly anonymous system, (using two envelopes, the postmaster only knows that you voted, the vote counter only knows that it came by mail, the public only knows how many people are absentee voters, and who, the voter assumes that the system works), requiring the CPA as a witness to the identity of the voter. The problem would be getting the public to recognize the CPA as a key signing authority. This would presumably require a public announcement, the backing of existing trusted users, etc. Personally, I think that the netherlands? toying around with the post office would be ideal for keys used solely for signing. I just wouldn't trust the government to have access to the one I used for encryption. Maybe that's a better idea. Let's all use a government accessable key for signing, making it as long as possible to reduce identity theft. And use homebrew, super encryption for the actual secrecy. Let GAK be our CPA.

1 0

Re: alt.cypherpunks
by John Pearson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Hey, folks, > > I thought all you had to do to create an alt.group was to have a news admin > somewhere just make a group; send out a control message of somekind. I > thought that alt groups didn't have to go through a charter, or voting > process, or anything else. They just happened. > > Then, everyone just has to tell their local news admin that they went to > see it, or they can wait until their news admin sees it flying by, and adds > it to the available groups list at his own discretion. > > It's not like we want comp.cypherpunks or something, with a voting process, > right? > It's not quite that simple. While a "Big 7" group requires CFD, charter and voting, once you pass tthose hurdles you're virtually guaranteed good propagation. alt has no "set" creartion procedure, but your group will not receive good propagation unless the powers that be "approve" of the idea. In this case, the people you have to convince are the news admins who must permit your control message to be honoured; time was most sites ran on autopilot, but joke and badly-named groups mean that most news admins now drop most newgroup messages on the floor. These people hang out in alt.config, and you should propose the group's creation there, followed by a couple of weeks of discussion, hopefully featuring many more supportive messages than non-supportive ones. After that, a newgroup message stands a much better chance. > Cheers, > Bob Hettinga > > > Hip hip, John P. john(a)huiac.apana.org.au

1 0

Re: NSA Rainbow Series.
by Genocide 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Tobin Fricke wrote: Turns out they were just late in gettin it to me, but I did get it. > > 1-800-688-6115 press 0 or just wait for the operator. My second > > order consisting of posters and video has not arrived either. It has been > > about 6 weeks. The Rainbow order was only 2 weeks. Be prepared that when > > you order the Rainbow series you will be getting a large box.Their are > > something like 30+ booklets in the series. > > There is a set of security posters that include a Santa > > poster.And there is also a video with two films on it (Acess Ins and outs > > adb Acess Control). > > How much does all this stuff from the NSA cost? > > Tobin Fricke > (please reply privately, tobin(a)mail.edm.net) > > Genocide Head of the Genocide2600 Group ============================================================================ **Coming soon! www.Genocide2600.com! ____________________ *---===| |===---* *---===| Genocide |===---* "Courage is not defined by those who *---===| 2600 |===---* fought and did not fall, but by those *---===|__________________|===---* who fought, fell, and and rose again." Email: gen2600(a)aracnet.com Web: http://www.aracnet.com/~gen2600 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion. It is by the Mountain Dew that the thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion. ================================================================================

1 0

Re: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997
by Pete Capelli 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jim bell wrote: > > At 03:25 PM 2/12/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: <Some deleted> > even more happy to pay, say, 10 cents to each recipient. At that rate, an average > person would probably receive enough "spam" to pay for his Internet > account, quite analogous to the way advertiser-supported TV is presented to > the public for no explicit charge. Yes, but why does monetary compensation make it then O.K.? I'd rather pay for my Internet access, then be bombarded by spam, no matter what they paid me! I think the best soln. is the one that is currently in place for phone calls - they can call once, but if I tell them not to call me again and they do, I can then begin legal action against them. I pay more per month for my phone service than my Internet service ( although in NY, *everything* is more expensive. ), and junk phone calls are way more intrusive then spam. > > Jim Bell > jimbell(a)pacifier.com -pete -- Pete Capelli, CNE UB Networks, Inc. pcapelli(a)ub.com ***** Finger pete(a)idaho.ubisg.com for my PGP Public key !! ***** They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin, 1759

2 1

Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s)
by Firebeard 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>>>> Igor Chudov @ home writes: IC> This is where the distributed nature of the list comes in. if IC> someone disagrees with Jim's AUP, he or she can use soem other IC> mailing list host. And once I'm up and running, my cypherpunks list server will not be interconnected with any server which has a similar AUP. The implication of the AUP is that if you _don't_ comply with it, you will be blocked. Without such an implication, the AUP is meaningless, and I'm dedicated that there should be no filtering/blocking of any kind, of the list. Persons behaving 'unacceptably' should be handled by social pressures by others in the 'community' of the list, and not by policies of the list operators. -- #include <disclaimer.h> /* Sten Drescher */ Unsolicited bulk email will be stored and handled for a US$500/KB fee. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning, it is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. -- Carlos Nunes-Ueno, 3/29/95

1 0

Re: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks"
by Leonard Janke 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ichudov(a)algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes: > > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > [...] > > Timmy has a valid point: the reason why a comp.* newsgroup might have less > > cross-posted and "off-topic" crap is because net.cops would be more > > likely to complain to posters' sysadmins. [...] > > As for net.cops, check out what Scott Nudds does in comp.lang.c++ > [...] Yes, Scott Nudds is a good example of how dedicated flamers (or maybe he is just a flamee trying to defend himself, I came too late to say for sure), and those who fuel them on, can cause even a comp.* newsgroup to be as noisy as this list. (Btw, if you think comp.lang.c++ is bad, check out comp.lang.asm.x86, sometime!). I think it is, thus, important to distinguish between noise from "outsiders", and noise caused by "insiders" who actually read the newsgroup but disrupt it for fun or grudges, or what not. A comp.* newsgroup will help reduce the former noise, for the reasons Dr. Vulis cites, but not so much the latter, since many insider trouble-makers are often their own adminstraters or providers, or who have found providers or who now have admins who will not cut them off. That being said, I fully support the idea of a comp.* newgroup, over an alt.* group. The important advantages are the greater propogation many have described, and the reduction in "outsider" noise. I also think that people interested in computing in general might be more likely to stumble onto the newsgroup, since the comp.* hierachy is so much smaller than the alt.* hierachy. I do worry, however, that some of the more mischevious people around this list might try to disrupt the voting process with forged e-mail, or turn the discussion over creation into a less than civil debate. In this unlinkely worst case scenario, however, not much would be lost since we could still fall back to alt.cypherpunks, and it would, later, make for good net.legends. :) To be fair, though, I doubt that anyone would seriously try to disrupt the creation, given the dedication I am seeing people putting into finding a new home (or homes!) for the list, and that there does not seem to be anyone dedicated to distrupting that process as John Gilmore worried there would be. (And I am on the unedited list, too!) Let's give it a shot! Leonard

1 0

Re: NSA Rainbow Series.
by Genocide 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Tobin Fricke wrote: Turns out they were just late in gettin it to me, but I did get it. > > 1-800-688-6115 press 0 or just wait for the operator. My second > > order consisting of posters and video has not arrived either. It has been > > about 6 weeks. The Rainbow order was only 2 weeks. Be prepared that when > > you order the Rainbow series you will be getting a large box.Their are > > something like 30+ booklets in the series. > > There is a set of security posters that include a Santa > > poster.And there is also a video with two films on it (Acess Ins and outs > > adb Acess Control). > > How much does all this stuff from the NSA cost? > > Tobin Fricke > (please reply privately, tobin(a)mail.edm.net) > > Genocide Head of the Genocide2600 Group ============================================================================ **Coming soon! www.Genocide2600.com! ____________________ *---===| |===---* *---===| Genocide |===---* "Courage is not defined by those who *---===| 2600 |===---* fought and did not fall, but by those *---===|__________________|===---* who fought, fell, and and rose again." Email: gen2600(a)aracnet.com Web: http://www.aracnet.com/~gen2600 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion. It is by the Mountain Dew that the thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion. ================================================================================

1 0

Re: (2)Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 13 Feb 97 at 5:00, Attila T. Hun wrote: > > I don't like the regulatory agencies either, but at least they > are not Judge Roy Bean, Law West of the Pecos. > > unfortunately, until the irresponsible tone down their greed, we > need the regulation to protect ourselves from the predators. Attila: I am shocked that you would make this statement. What makes you think that the 'regulators' would go away, once the greedy spammers "toned down their greed"? Spammers as Predators? Are you being sarcastic? Are you seriously saying that spammers are preying on the weak? I am one-thousand % AGAINST regulation of any sort. > > in other words, I agree with you in my heart, but our society > refuses to cooperate. If cooperation means regulation, count me out. 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

Re: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" (fwd)
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:18 PM 2/12/97 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: [quoting Tim May] >> I was making the point that _any_ site distributing a list is likely to >> face legal pressures not to carry certain items. Read between the lines (or >> read the unedited list) the discussion by John Gilmore, Sandy Sandfort, and >> the products of Sandy's company, and legal pressures applied, to see what I >> mean. > >This is exactly the reason that my suggestion to anyone setting up a >remailer with any sort of controversial content should do it as some sort of >outreach of their business. It is too expensive in time, money, and hassles >to do for grins and giggles. I disagree strongly that a controversial or legally troublesome list (or other data stream) should be closely associated with a business. While I agree that it's important that a list be supported by a robust hardware/software/network infrastructure, businesses tend to be focused on making money and maintaining business relationships, not on abstract or philosophical goals like "free speech". (Also, what is the "right" thing to do where a particular exercise of free speech looks like it has serious potential to harm the business, thereby harming or eliminating the list which makes the speech possible? Isn't every choice a person could make in such a situation reducible to "censorship"?) Every "forum" for free speech occurs exists in the context of economic and political relationships - and there will always be some message which threatens (to some degree) the stability of those relationships, and by implication, the forum itself. Unless we can eliminate economics and politics (ha, ha) I think that will always be the case - and there will always be some messages which raise "conflict of interest" problems. But some forums rest on less stable relationships (like, for example, most small businesses) and are more easily threatened by difficult messages. It's much easier to disrupt the income stream of a small business than to disrupt the income stream from a portfolio of investments or savings. But even a system whose upkeep was funded by something as unremarkable as interest on a savings account or a CD would still theoretically be "conflicted" were someone to use the system to propose or carry out a scheme to, say, overthrow the U.S. Government, or eliminate the FDIC and loot various savings & loans. The threat(s) to systems providing transport/storage for controversial messages are not limited to liability after a judgement; it is becoming more common for civil plaintiffs to seek (and get) discovery of the actual hardware owned and used by defendants, in order to look through the storage media for discoverable information, including "deleted" files. The tactics the Co$ used against its critics were shocking but also legal (modulo some irregularities). It's certainly not unimaginable that similar tactics would be used against a remailer or majordomo operator were the list to pass traffic that someone didn't like. And if a computer system is the target of a search warrant in the criminal arena, you'll be lucky if you get to keep your electronic alarm clocks after the search. Count on everything with a chip in it going away in the police van. Most businesses don't want to expose themselves to the threat of civil or criminal seizure or discovery, especially not at random times and for non-business reasons. So, to the extent that they're paying attention, they may choose not to expose themselves to extra liability which carries little (or no) business value. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |

1 0