- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

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

Re: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:50 EDT > From: "E. Allen Smith" <EALLENSMITH(a)ocelot.rutgers.edu> > Subject: Re: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd) > Well, if you can't deliver mail because their mailbox is full, then > you should simply wait a few days before trying to deliver mail to that > address. If it's because the address isn't there any more, you should delete > it from the subscription lists. Otherwise, the instant people's mail quotas > overflow (e.g., they're on AOL and they haven't been able to get through the > clogged lines), they get bounced... or you're left with a lot of invalid > addresses. If their mailbox is full I might let it sit a day. If I still get a bounce after that I currently yank it. As I stated earlier, I am currently trying to decide if daily or weekly purges are in order. I personaly lean toward daily. I certainly am not buying disk space just so somebody else can use it for storing things they don't personaly have room for. > The address causing the bounce is not necessarily determinable > automatically from the bounce message; if it isn't, then you need to keep a > copy around for a human to look at. Hmmm, to date I haven't had a problem determining where the cause was from the bounces I see. I can't always tell why but it always seems to say whose email address was involved. > Given that there are pre-existing news-mail gateways, I'd think that > the programs should be available. My concern on the programming is more in > the realm of keeping the thing up and running. If you get it up and running there should be no programming involved. Unless you want to reconfigure. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 14:46:04 -0800 > From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> > Subject: Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) > Is this the policy of the majordomo network, that individual list operators > can make their own policies for their subscribers, but may not/cannot > impose them on other list operators or the other lists' members? It sounds > very reasonable, but it would be nice to be clear about whether or not this > is the case. There is no policy at this point. We have not even agreed to a means to institute the network or its basic architecture. The only point of mandatory agreement is between any two individual list operators and the mechanism they use to transfer between those two nodes. This sort of policy distribution won't work, as to reasonable I think not. If everyone does their own thing with no compromise then nothing will get done. > Are there any rules (other than "no rules") which apply to all lists/list > operators/list subscribers? Can there ever be any? Who would write the > rules, and who must agree to them in order for them to take effect? There are no explicit rules at this point. Yes there can be all sorts of rules, both implicit (eg copyrights) and explicit. Anyone can write rules. Nobody must agree to anything other than implicit agreements, course the concept of 'agreement' sorta goes out the window with implicits. > Can individual list operators be forced to or forbidden to "peer" with > other machines, or are these "peer" relationships up to each list operator? Don't see how anyone can force the remailer to do anything. Can't speak for anyone else but can say with some degree of certainty that no participant in cpunks can stop me from subscribing whoever I want. There is certainly no mechanism envisioned to authenticate subscriptions with the remailer operators. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: Dale-Further proof
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Huge Cajones Remailer wrote: > Yet another Dale day (blah): > :From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> > :Another blood stain on Gilmore's shroud, as it were. > As further evidence that Dale is unworthy to participate in any socially interactive behaviour other than grinding (that is, grinding) his nose in the naysayers, collective ass, I submit that he posts mixed and otherwise unclear metaphores. > As difficult as the good doctor can be, Dale is not intellectually worthy to lick his boots, though he tries. Unlike crypto, metaphors are easier to "decode" than "encode", so it takes quite a bit less intellect for you to understand them than it takes for me to make them. But I don't see that as a "bad" thing for you. It's a savage, cruel world out there, and only when you shut yourself off to it (unwittingly in your case) do you feel "good".

1 0

Re: alt.cypherpunks
by Jeremiah A Blatz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- John Pearson <john(a)cognac.apana.org.au> writes: > 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. alt.cypherpunks has been newgroup'ed, and I belive rm'grouped. Smart, consiencous newsadmins probably did not honor the rmgroup, as alt.cypherpunks should be acceptable, but most newsadmins are too overworked to actually look at most of the crap that comes through. For example, it hasn't received any messages on my news server, probably because the one upstream removed it. Therefore, it would be a Good Thing to continue any discussion on alt.config, and convince any cabal'ers who rmgroup it to re-new it. Sending out boosters every couple of weeks wouldn't hurt, either. alt.cypherpunks'less, Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwPWcskz/YzIV3P5AQEEOgMA1YEqI4VN6CbUg+MNHXpoLgzLWVDvCw/m gwiZbwOnXqXl6prS/mj1HIExqRt3AC1b1QIZmHktWvt2rAa1ERuQgkLPhcUzqHzh 5KbcB9XZ/raNELW9YAmXByav0yc/FD+r =rbHX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0