- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Pynchon as roadkill on the digital superhighway
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Cyrus Shaoul writes: > Pynchon may not be as stupid as that. Has anyone gone to check up on Mr. > Vineland lately? Perhaps the address in the DMV computer is that of a > fried chicken franchise in Lost Hills, CA! Just cause you have some data > doesn't mean it's useful. Yes, I did. The point of getting the address is because I discovered he lived in Aptos, CA, same as I do. (My source saw my W.A.S.T.E. reference and assumed I was merely making a joke....he was surprised to learn I actually live in Aptos, and then volunteered the NLETS record.) His house was (rumors that he's been back on the East Coast for the past couple of years) about 3-4 miles from my house, less as the crow flies. I shot a dozen or so photos of the house and surrounding countryside, for my scrapbook and for that of the source. Not a fried chicken stand. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power:2**859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.

1 0

Re: RFC822 compliant, and already deployed hack for return addresses
by jpp＠markv.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I do love to learn, I just wish it didn't have to involve pageing through many bounce messages. I have learned that most mailer programs are unhappy with very long reply-to addresses. You can rely on about 200 to 300 chars, no more. Too bad -- it looks like the real easy hack won't work for too many hops. It should work through two remailers each with 512 bit keys, or one with 1024 bit key. One reply I got mentioned that author's previous experiments along these lines. (I am not mentioning the author's name so as to keep their private message private.) They mentioned trouble with the reply-to field hack I tried; some mailers wee dropping the nice long magic numbers. They said the most reliable field was the subject field. I bet many mail agents are unhappy with long subjects too. Hopefully they support subjects atlease as long as reply-to fields. j' -- O I am Jay Prime Positive jpp(a)markv.com 1250 bit fingerprint B06229 = B8 95 E0 AF 9A A2 CD A5 89 C9 F0 FE B4 3A 2C 3F 524 bit fingerprint 2A915D = 8A 7C B9 F2 D5 46 4D ED 66 23 F1 71 DE FF 51 48 Public keys via `finger jpp(a)markv.com', or via email to pgp-public-keys(a)io.com Your feedback is welcome directly or via my symbol JPP on hex(a)sea.east.sun.com Resist the Clipper Chip, write "I oppose Clipper" to Clipper.petition(a)cpsr.org

1 0

Re: UNSUBSCRIBERS PLEASE READ
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Perry posted a note saying that "Internet mailing lists are run by HUMAN BEINGS, NOT MACHINES", and that you should EXPECT humanly-slow behavior when you subscribe to a mailing list. I disagree. Cypherpunks is run by a human (thanks, Eric!), but many or most mailing lists out there on the net are low-level managed by machines named majordomo or listserv or foo-request, and a large percentage of users expect the rapid response of servers like that, at least for getting off lists if not for getting on. I was briefly on the sf-raves mailing list, which has an even higher volume than cypherpunks, and it was very nice to be able to send mail to the majordomo server and get off it, and one of the automagic notices mentioned sf-raves-calendar which is a once-a-week announcement. I understand how people getting flooded with cpunks mail must feel, especially if they're using brain-damaged mailers that can't defend them. Cypherpunks makes this problem additionally difficult because of one of Eric's self-defense mechanisms for the list, which makes messages appear to come from their authors rather than *cypherpunks*. This is good for bouncegrams and non-germane replies, but means that users of vanilla Mail can't just do a 'd cypherpunks' and trash them all. Users should NOT expect slow human-speed behavior from mailing lists, and they don't. (This doesn't mean they should be totally surprised by it, either, since machines can generate garbage out faster than you can dispose of the stuff :-). It would be nice if, at minimum, there were several administrative addresses, including a cypherpunks-unsubscribe and maybe a cypherpunks-request that autoreplies with an "Are you sure you want 50-100 exciting messages per day, with an occasionally slow turnaround time for unsubscribing? If so, reply to this message" which goes to cypherpunks-yes-really-subscribe or some such address. (As well as forwarding requests saying "unsubscribe" in them to cypherpunks-unsubscribe.) Bill, surrounded by depressingly stupid machines

1 0

Mr. Remailer Operator Responds
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Yes, we have been thinking about this sort of thing (protecting against >sabotage/abuse/etc). Unfortunately, we haven't come up with any brilliant >ideas. I'm attaching a post of only a few days ago that addresses the >future of the cpunks remailers. I think it answers a lot of your points. It is interesting, thank you. I really drool over anything by the Big Macs. >You still didn't answer my point about other modes. Is the postman >responsible when a threatening letter arrives in your mailbox? No. Is AT&T >responsible when a bomb threat is 'anonymously' phoned in? No. If the >phone company did not exist, perhaps terrorists would have to drop >threats in person. Does this mean that the phone company should be >outlawed, because it allows abuse that would otherwise not exist? I will answer your questions. YES. The postmaster and the mail office and AT&T are RESPONSIBLE for PROVIDING ALL INFORMATION THAT EXISTS when some illegal communication has been detected. That is, if someone has been sending violent death threats, these communications services are RESPONSIBLE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION. Sometimes no such information exists because of the *inherent infrastructure*. E.g. with mail, it is possible to send an anonymous letter. E.g. with phones, it is possible to make anonymous telephone calls. Instances of my claims are common. The post office may be contacted by law enforcement officials attempting to track the origination of mail. The telephone company may be subpoenaed to provide information on calls. >No, because the functionality of the phone system is such that its >plusses are greater than the abuses it makes possible. Such is the case >with the remailer system. You completely neglect the subject of *design*. Whoever *designs* these systems *chooses* whether traceability is inherent to the design. And a sense of morality and ethics is central to this decision. A communication system is not simply something that Exists and must be Tolerated. A system is something that is *designed* to meet *criteria*. And sometimes the criteria is, how do we prevent *illegal* uses? Mr. Remailer Operator, YOU CHOOSE. are there ILLEGAL USES OF THE REMAILERS, like HARASSMENT, BOXXIAN DEATH THREATS, LIBEL? or are there NONE? Tell me what world I live in. It is so confusing for me when you take contradictory positions. Cypherpunks, a year ago, and for many months, you essentially said to me: there is nothing illegal in ASCII text alone. But you have screeched and shrieked at me and my postmaster and anyone who will listen to you that anything *I* write is a violent death threat, harassment, a libelous post that is ILLEGAL and that I should be CENSORED. one person told my postmaster that it was ok for me to post as long as what I said was TRUE. What if I say, cyberanarchists are slime? Is that true? Is that Satire? Are the Cypherpunks the new Truth Police. Oh, what ridiculously funny hypocrites you all are. imagine that a certain string of letters is illegal! That it should cause the author to be *censored*! *even* if he used a remailer! What a shocking concept! I am deliberately evading the question of whether libel, death threats, etc. *exist*, that is, *illegal* postings. Our legal system certainly seems to think so-- death threats are illegal in the postal mail. Surprise! How many of you knew that? And recall that there are *limits* on free speech-- you cannot advocate violence, or attempt to instigate a riot legally, for example. Could someone be so kind as to post the law? I think cyberspace will change some of these boundaries in a significant way. But as long as You, Cypherpunks, say that Libel and Death Threats and Illegal ASCII Text Exists and should be Banned, I think I will believe you, because you do have some experiences in the area, and you seem to have started to grasp the consequences of your decisions, and even the idea that your *decisions* have *consequences*.

2 1

Re: PGP docs - where?
by consensus＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:40 PM 1/22/94 -0800, Jeremy Smith wrote: >The zipfile pgp23docA.zip at aql.gatech.edu is corrupted. I was >wondering if anybody knew of another site where I might find a working copy? > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Jeremy Smith -*jersmit(a)eis.calstate.edu*- > Please leave your name and number after the seizure. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- It may not actually be corrupted. I noticed that when I logged on manually that the files were all compressed with gzip, an gnu zip-like compression utility. However, when I used Mosaic to download the files Mosaic showed them without the gzip identifier, and downloaded them thinking they were ordinary files. However, they were in fact compressed with gzip. I suspect that they have some kind of software that spoofs some ftp clients into giving ftp'ing an uncompressed version, but the spoofing does not work with other ftp clients so you get gzip versions. ..Christopher Allen ..Consensus Develoment Corporation ..4104-24th Street #419 ..San Francisco, CA 94114-3615 ..(415) 647-6384 Fax ..(415) 647-6383 Voice ..email: consensus(a)netcom.com ..mosaic frontpage: .."ftp://netcom.com/pub/consensus/www/ConsensusFrontDoor.html"

1 0

Archiving mail-lists...
by Jim choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi Folks, I am bringing up a inet node in my house in the near future (would have been this week but software bugs were discovered) and over the next year I am going to add a r/w CD (Tahiti to be specific). This drive holds either ISO- 9660 or 1G formats. The plan at this point is to archive the usenet newsgroups (all 4k+ of them) and then once a year make like 500 regular CD copies and resell them. I am looking at adding mail-lists of general or unique intererst, because of this I am strongly looking at adding the cypherpunks list. I would be interested in a discussion on the mail-list on this issue. Please refrain from sending personal mail. In particular do you think such a archive without every members permission is un-ethical? Would a archivist necessarily need the permission of the mail-list sponser? Thanks for any opinions or insight.

1 0

A Message to my Enemies
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello, Enemies. You have succeeded in scaring my postmaster with your ranting and raving about `harassment', `anonymous death threats', and `libel' from anonymous posts. You have come very close to convincing him that somewhere in ASCII text coming out of remailers and my own address (supposedly there is some correspondence) lies illegal strings, and that I am allowed to post as long as what I say is `true'. I don't understand why the cypherpunks have suddenly become so fascinated by these subjects, regarding the subversive uses of remailers. When I brought them up long ago, about a year ago, when I first joined the list, no one was interested. I talked about restricting the abuse of remailers, so that the antisocial and psychopathic uses could be minimized or even prevented. Obviously, in designing a remailer, the subject of `what to pass through' is a rather obvious consideration, that operators have mostly wholly neglected. When are you going to codify your Cypherpunk Code of Ethics, and explain what constitutes a death threat, a libelous message? Or is it just that the rule is, if I type it it is a violent death threat, and libelous harassment, but if anyone else writes it there is nothing wrong? Will the rules be devised at the next Cypherpunk Meeting? Will Mr. May or Mr. Hughes (list moderator) grace us with some eloquent proclamation on the subject? Will Mr. Gilmore favor you with some enlightened musings on the topics? When are you going to police your remailers to keep that which you call `illegal' from passing through them? You weren't interested in `ethics' when I proposed them many times, but I am certainly delighted with your newfound piousness. * * * But I am not just handing you the standard L.D. rant about Cypherpunk Hypocrisy above (even I am growing tired and bored of pointing out your stellar and freakish hypocrisies out so often and so easily). I am writing to tell you some GOOD NEWS (for you): last week you succeeded spectacularly in attempting to censor me at my current account. My account is still hanging by a thread. Mr. Dempsey told me he would allow me to keep it under the constraint that the `noise stopped' from his mailbox. But this is obviously something I cannot guarantee (I didn't really have any other choice at the time than to say that I would do my best), and in fact you have the power to yell some more and perhaps cast the `final stone' that kills me `here'. But I tell you, tear down this Temple and in three days I shall raise it up. Why are you so maniacally attempting to get me to lose my favorite account? Do you think it will prevent me from posting? From using your remailers? From continuing my crusade? Aren't you being just a tad bit naive beyond your usual hypocrisy? Isn't that you *religion*, that if someone wants to smuggle something in Cyberspace, there is no stopping them? Would you like me to get a netcom account? or several? or do I already have several? Would that make your day? Don't you think that losing my account of 4 1/2 years would really kind of piss me off, way beyond my current wrath? That things might get *really* ugly? So, you have a choice. Continue to harass my postmaster, and perhaps even succeed in censoring me from my native address, the very first Death caused by Cypherpunk Hypocrisy, and *really* piss me off. Or, leave Mr. Dempsey alone, and figure out more proactive ways of dealing with whatever is troubling you. Ironically, I have suggested many myself, over my lifetime on the list and recently. The choice is up to you.

2 1

Re: Remailers: The Next Generation
by norm＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Perhaps the following nested headers might be more cost-effective to quantizing message length: Pad-Me-By: 3289 (Add 3289 random bytes to the end of this message) Truncate-Me-To: 1433 (Remove all but the first 1433 byte of this message.) The message would then change size as it traveled thru the mixes.

1 0

Re: Where can I get RFC-822?
by norm＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:22 1/21/94 -0700, Philippe Nave wrote: >If I recall correctly, RFC-822 defines the standards for e-mail. Anybody >know where I can get a copy? I have e-mail access and can ftp (at least for >a while yet) from this system. Any help will be appreciated. If you can use ftp then the following is the root of all RFC's: For anonymous ftp, please use host ftp.nisc.sri.com:rfc/rfc882.txt

1 0

CA legislative data *online*
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Darling cyberanarchists out there, I am delighted to foward this announcement that all of CA bills and legislative data are now available for perusal based on the passage of a revolutionary bill for Cyberdemocracy, AB1624. You will obviously want to stay away from this FTP site at all costs, because to visit it would indicate that you are actually interested in this nation's government, democracy, and may even want to participate in the system you live in, all antithetical to the goals of `cyberanarchy', as you have yelled into my and others' ears with excruciating noise and frequency. ===cut=here=== Date: Sat, 22 Jan 1994 17:50:40 -0800 From: Al Whaley <Al.Whaley(a)snyside.sunnyside.com> Subject: GOV-ACCESS #4: Calif legislation, statutes & constitution NOW ONLINE (fwd) According to Jim Warren: >From jwarren(a)well.sf.ca.us Sat Jan 22 17:36:08 1994 Date: Sat, 22 Jan 1994 17:11:30 -0800 From: Jim Warren <jwarren(a)well.sf.ca.us> Subject: GOV-ACCESS #4: Calif legislation, statutes & constitution NOW ONLINE Jan. 22, 1994 On Friday, Jan. 21, 1994, the California Legislature began offering global online access to almost-all public information about legislation-in-process, all current state statutes, and the volumous California Constitution. The state is prohibited from charging *anything* for access to or re-use of this electronic information. Access is by Internet ftp and ftpmail ["ftp" = file transfer protocol]. Note: ftpmail allows anyone with access to the Internet at least for email purposes to access these files (that are often large). ftpmail provides access for users of FidoNet, CompuServe, GEnie, Prodigy, etc., as well as offering Internet users an option to direct ftp . README and help files provide complete details. FOR A GOOD TIME, CALL ... To receive the help file, send the following email: To: ftpmail(a)leginfo.public.ca.gov subject: <optional, the system ignores the subject-line> Message lines: connect leginfo.public.ca.gov help quit To receive the two README files, send the following email: To: ftpmail(a)leginfo.public.ca.gov subject: <optional, the system ignores the subject-line> Message lines: connect leginfo.public.ca.gov get README_WELCOME cd pub get README_FIRST quit And await details of how you may finally participate in the process of your own governance. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, California is the first state in the nation to offer almost all of its public legislative, statutory and constitutional information via the Internet, *especially* without charge by the state. - --jim Jim Warren, columnist for MicroTimes, Government Technology, BoardWatch, etc. jwarren(a)well.sf.ca.us -or- jwarren(a)autodesk.com 345 Swett Rd., Woodside CA 94062; voice/415-851-7075; fax/415-851-2814 - -- al(a)sunnyside.com +1-415 322-5411 Tel, -6481 Fax, Box 60, Palo Alto, CA 94302 ------- End of Forwarded Message

1 0