- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

FAQ? how to set up a cross-platform encrypted mailing list/forum
by Rachel Willmer 01 Mar '01

01 Mar '01

This might be a FAQ. Or it might just be a question with a really obvious answer that I can't see for looking. How can I set up a mailing list or online forum with encrypted traffic? The clients are varied platforms: Win98, WinNT, OpenBSD, FreeBSD. I thought about tweaking the listserver to send out encrypted mails. But that doesn't help the inbound traffic. I thought about using some online forum. But the only one I can find which looks to make any mention of the word security is Groove. Which is Windows only. I thought about setting up a VPN between the various mailservers. But we'd have to secure all the MX hosts to be sure, and some of them aren't adminstratively accessible by me. and anyway one of the potential users uses a public ISP, so um, help! is this a FAQ with no answer? or is this a question with an answer so obvious I'll blush when I'm told what it is... All suggestions welcome... Rachel

14 23

Re: [Re: Microsoft Trial Judge Based His Break-Up "Remedy" On Flawed Theory, Not Facts]
by LUIS VILDOSOLA 01 Mar '01

01 Mar '01

It's all in the timing. If the censors are the last to judge, they self proclaim the right to punish or take corrective action. So justice is held in a pyramid scheme where those not fortunate or not able to be on top are by definition the only liable to be judged by terrestrial powers. The odd thing about this is judgments are punitive in nature, so those at the bottom slip further down; distancing the judging party from the judged. Kind of a reinforcing cycle. Can you think of mechanisms to trigger this cycle Jim? Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> wrote: > > > On 27 Feb 2001, LUIS VILDOSOLA wrote: > > > Your last paragraph is a little too complicated for me Jim, > > I'm interested in what you have to say but please break it > > down for me. > > Somebody does something. As a consequence another party is considered to > have contributed to the first persons act, without actually participating > in the act. > > So, if the first person is not fully responsible, why is the second > party fully responsible? How do you test this? > > If a party whose actions contribute is responsible for the consequences > then isn't the censor themselves, since they take an active role, also > responsible? > > Doesn't this put a party in the defence in the role of presecutor and > judge? That seems to be a considerable conflict of interest. > > ____________________________________________________________________ > > Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a > smaller group must first understand it. > > "Stranger Suns" > George Zebrowski > > The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate > Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com > www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 > -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1

2 1

[Resend]
by jimmythetulip19＠earthlink.net 01 Mar '01

01 Mar '01

[Resend] Was Not Able To Take Last Entry.. Please Fill Out Again. Hey... We Haven't Talked In So Long!! How Have You Been? Thought I would Forward you this email! I usually delete these but I opened this one, like what I saw, and thought you would like to see this. http://www.geocities.com/newest8989/ IF THE LINK IS NOT HIGHLIGHTED OR YOU CANNOT CLICK ON IT. COPY AND PASTE IT IN YOUR BROWSER.

1 0

RE: Microsoft Trial Judge Based His Break-Up "Remedy" On
by David Theroux 01 Mar '01

01 Mar '01

Flawed Theory, Not Facts Cc: freematt(a)coil.com (Matthew Gaylor) Dear Mr. Hallam-Baker, If you knew anything about the academic debate over "path dependence" ("network externality") theory you would know that the work by our research fellows, Stan Liebowitz and Stephen Margolis, has been appearing in the leading, scholarly, peer-reviewed, economics journals for the past ten years. They have conclusively shown that "network externality" theory has absolutely no empirical evidence. And, no economists or any others have been able to show any errors in the devastating Liebowitz/Margolis analysis. Indeed, hundreds academic economists have signed our Open Letter agreeing with this analysis. As a belief system without any scientific evidence and with people such as yourself who accept this urban legend without proof, "path dependence" is a house of cards that is being used to advance the corporate welfare ambitions of various major business and government interests. In so doing, the Microsoft case has nothing to do with consumer welfare and everything to do with corporate welfare. (For your information, it was the acclaimed, New Left historian Gabriel Kolko who first showed how antitrust has been used repeatedly for corporatist purposes since its initial adoption.) So, since you have obviously not even seen the Liebowitz/Margolis book, WINNERS, LOSERS & MICROSOFT: Competition and Antitrust in High Technology, and you apparently prefer to defend the blatant campaign for corporate welfare (antitrust protectionism), who indeed is the crank and right-winger here? Incidentally, so you do not continue to embarrass yourself, I would suggest you first learn the difference between the terms, "network effects" and "network externalities." Reading the book, WINNERS, LOSERS & MICROSOFT, would make an excellent way to do so. David J. Theroux Founder and President The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA 94621-1428 510-632-1366 Phone 510-568-6040 Fax DTheroux(a)independent.org http://www.independent.org >> Microsoft won because of superior reviews? Come on, how stupid do you >> think we are? So if a company pays for glowing reviews that would be >> okay? > >Matthew's argument is that 'network effects' do not exist, based on a >tendentious piece of propaganda pushed by a right wing crank tank. The crank >tank is attempting to proove that the free market is perfect, unsullied by >the possibility of monopoly that obviously ignorant writers such as Adam >Smith wrote at great length about. > >Hence the anecdotes such as QWERTY, Betamax are attacked as if they were the >best evidence, the sole evidence even for network effects. This is >historical revisionism in the service of dogmatic ideology. > >Positive feedback exists, get over it. > >>Obviously they have never tried to sell a product. It's very >> dificult to get consideration such that you could prove the technical >> merits when there is a large existing supplier. > >That is only a weak network effect. People buy from Amazon because they have >a well known brand name, have established a customer reputation etc. But >there is no intrinsic advantage buying from a large online bookseller than a >medium sized one. > >There is a big advantage having a VHS video over Betamax however. If you >have VHS you can rent movies from stores, you can send tapes to friends who >have equipment to play it. The fact that a modern day VHS recorder is >technicaly superior to any Betamax machine made is irrelevant. At the time >the standard was set Sony and Betamax had the clearly superior technology. > > >A network effect exists when there is an intrinsic advantage to join the >bigger network. Operating systems have been understood to have strong >network effects since the 1950s. My company only supports one version of >UNIX for certain products because the cost of QA on each O/S variant is >significant. If we were choosing the technically best O/S platform we would >probably look at of the stripped down, hardened BSD variants, but we choose >the platform that most of our customers are already familliar with - >Solaris. > >When I wrote video-games for a living I wrote for the Sinclair ZX Spectrum >with a market of several million users, not the vastly more sophisticated >BBC computer - even though the spectrums would die after about 100 hours use >and need replacement. I would typically replace a spectrum three or four >times within the guarantee period. Writing a game for the bigger market gave >bigger returns. Customers bought the machines supported by the most games. > > >Network effects are the alpha and the omega of Internet business strategy. > >Ironically despite paying for the tendentious propaganda Microsoft appears >to be benefitting from the argument that network effects and 'tipping' >explain the emergence of a single operating system. > >I don't know if the DoJ should interpret recent events in Seatle as a divine >attempt to breakup Microsoft. If so it is really time for the DoJ to give up >since it evidently failed. > > Phill -- David J. Theroux Founder and President The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA 94621-1428 510-632-1366 Phone 510-568-6040 Fax DTheroux(a)independent.org http://www.independent.org ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt(a)coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per month) Matthew Gaylor, 2175 Bayfield Drive, Columbus, OH 43229 (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ **************************************************************************

1 0

RE: Microsoft Trial Judge Based His Break-Up "Remedy" On
by David Theroux 01 Mar '01

01 Mar '01

Flawed Theory, Not Facts Cc: freematt(a)coil.com (Matthew Gaylor) Dear Mr. Hallam-Baker, If you knew anything about the academic debate over "path dependence" ("network externality") theory you would know that the work by our research fellows, Stan Liebowitz and Stephen Margolis, has been appearing in the leading, scholarly, peer-reviewed, economics journals for the past ten years. They have conclusively shown that "network externality" theory has absolutely no empirical evidence. And, no economists or any others have been able to show any errors in the devastating Liebowitz/Margolis analysis. Indeed, hundreds academic economists have signed our Open Letter agreeing with this analysis. As a belief system without any scientific evidence and with people such as yourself who accept this urban legend without proof, "path dependence" is a house of cards that is being used to advance the corporate welfare ambitions of various major business and government interests. In so doing, the Microsoft case has nothing to do with consumer welfare and everything to do with corporate welfare. (For your information, it was the acclaimed, New Left historian Gabriel Kolko who first showed how antitrust has been used repeatedly for corporatist purposes since its initial adoption.) So, since you have obviously not even seen the Liebowitz/Margolis book, WINNERS, LOSERS & MICROSOFT: Competition and Antitrust in High Technology, and you apparently prefer to defend the blatant campaign for corporate welfare (antitrust protectionism), who indeed is the crank and right-winger here? Incidentally, so you do not continue to embarrass yourself, I would suggest you first learn the difference between the terms, "network effects" and "network externalities." Reading the book, WINNERS, LOSERS & MICROSOFT, would make an excellent way to do so. David J. Theroux Founder and President The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA 94621-1428 510-632-1366 Phone 510-568-6040 Fax DTheroux(a)independent.org http://www.independent.org >> Microsoft won because of superior reviews? Come on, how stupid do you >> think we are? So if a company pays for glowing reviews that would be >> okay? > >Matthew's argument is that 'network effects' do not exist, based on a >tendentious piece of propaganda pushed by a right wing crank tank. The crank >tank is attempting to proove that the free market is perfect, unsullied by >the possibility of monopoly that obviously ignorant writers such as Adam >Smith wrote at great length about. > >Hence the anecdotes such as QWERTY, Betamax are attacked as if they were the >best evidence, the sole evidence even for network effects. This is >historical revisionism in the service of dogmatic ideology. > >Positive feedback exists, get over it. > >>Obviously they have never tried to sell a product. It's very >> dificult to get consideration such that you could prove the technical >> merits when there is a large existing supplier. > >That is only a weak network effect. People buy from Amazon because they have >a well known brand name, have established a customer reputation etc. But >there is no intrinsic advantage buying from a large online bookseller than a >medium sized one. > >There is a big advantage having a VHS video over Betamax however. If you >have VHS you can rent movies from stores, you can send tapes to friends who >have equipment to play it. The fact that a modern day VHS recorder is >technicaly superior to any Betamax machine made is irrelevant. At the time >the standard was set Sony and Betamax had the clearly superior technology. > > >A network effect exists when there is an intrinsic advantage to join the >bigger network. Operating systems have been understood to have strong >network effects since the 1950s. My company only supports one version of >UNIX for certain products because the cost of QA on each O/S variant is >significant. If we were choosing the technically best O/S platform we would >probably look at of the stripped down, hardened BSD variants, but we choose >the platform that most of our customers are already familliar with - >Solaris. > >When I wrote video-games for a living I wrote for the Sinclair ZX Spectrum >with a market of several million users, not the vastly more sophisticated >BBC computer - even though the spectrums would die after about 100 hours use >and need replacement. I would typically replace a spectrum three or four >times within the guarantee period. Writing a game for the bigger market gave >bigger returns. Customers bought the machines supported by the most games. > > >Network effects are the alpha and the omega of Internet business strategy. > >Ironically despite paying for the tendentious propaganda Microsoft appears >to be benefitting from the argument that network effects and 'tipping' >explain the emergence of a single operating system. > >I don't know if the DoJ should interpret recent events in Seatle as a divine >attempt to breakup Microsoft. If so it is really time for the DoJ to give up >since it evidently failed. > > Phill -- David J. Theroux Founder and President The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA 94621-1428 510-632-1366 Phone 510-568-6040 Fax DTheroux(a)independent.org http://www.independent.org ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt(a)coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per month) Matthew Gaylor, 2175 Bayfield Drive, Columbus, OH 43229 (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ **************************************************************************

1 0

Re: [Re: Microsoft Trial Judge Based His Break-Up "Remedy" On Flawed Theory, Not Facts]
by LUIS VILDOSOLA 28 Feb '01

28 Feb '01

Your last paragraph is a little too complicated for me Jim, I'm interested in what you have to say but please break it down for me. Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> wrote: > > > On 27 Feb 2001, LUIS VILDOSOLA wrote: > > > Relating how code can infringe on someone else's rights will > > be an abstract argument. > > Not at all, code itself can NEVER infringe anothers right, UNLESS it's > executed (acted upon). > > Speech in and of itself is powerful because of its two characteristics, > > - It's harmless and does nothing in and of itself. > > - It motivates peoples imagination to act. > > It is the second point that ALL regulation of speech, expression, press, > distribution, etc. exists for. > > Fundamentaly all government regulation of speech is nothing more than a > covert attempt to manage your consequent behaviour. It is not the speech > but what others may do with it. It is clear the person emitting the speech > has no control over the person receiving the speech. But we can't control > the second party until it's too late. So we try to control the first > party. Further, if we accept the premise that the first party is > responsible for the acts of the second party, then what of the unmentioned > parties acting on the first party? And if we claim the first party is > acting of their own free will then what character of the second party is > our litmus test? What aspect of the relationship between the first and second > parties is missing in the relationship between the first and unnamed > parties that relieves the unnamed parties of responsibility for the acts > of the first party? And isn't the regulation of PREVIOUS speech by such a > unnamed party also proof that the first party isn't acting of their own > free will? Isn't the fact that this unnamed party removed the potential > good from banned speech from the situation and thus itself participated in > the affront? And because they did so with forethought doesnt' this > compound their part? > > ____________________________________________________________________ > > Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a > smaller group must first understand it. > > "Stranger Suns" > George Zebrowski > > The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate > Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com > www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 > -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1

2 1

Do your part to support asset forfiture!
by atek3 28 Feb '01

28 Feb '01

I thought that would get your attention :) http://www.stealitback.com/ The police's page to auction off stolen goods. Some stolen from people by criminals, some stolen by the government from its citizens. god i hate forfiture, goto http://www.fear.org and learn more about this disgrace to the bill of rights. brent

1 0

disconnect (fwd)
by Jim Choate 28 Feb '01

28 Feb '01

http://einstein.ssz.com/cdr ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 17:36:14 -0500 From: steven moore <stevmoore(a)EarthLink.Net> Reply-To: cypherpunks(a)ssz.com To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: CDR: disconnect somehow my e-mail address got linked to yours and I'm receiving dozens of (unwanted) messages daily addressed to your e-mail. Any idea how I can get disconnected from your address? (I'm a computer novice.)

1 0

Re: [RE: ]
by LUIS VILDOSOLA 28 Feb '01

28 Feb '01

The punishment has been justified but is unjust, it lacks cognitive coherence. For all the good deeds taxes are justified to exist, they are not sustained under close scrutiny; not the scrutiny under which a court decides over physical restraint of a "tax evader". All things being equal, these people are slaves of a new master, a government with the spirit of a ghost. "B.Chandler" <b.chandler(a)gte.net> wrote: > > yes quatloos, injustices occur every day. > > answer this, what class of citizens existed before the 14th amendment? > was every congressman and every president that served prior to the 14th > amendment frauds? NO . > Before the 14th Amendment "citizen of the United States" did NOT exist. > > Again, were every congressman and every president that served prior to the > 14th > amendment frauds? > > > > Quatloos Wrote: > > > California Couple Sentenced for Helping Clients Evade Taxes > > February 23, 2001 > > By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON > > A California couple who helped their clients evade at least $13.8 > million in federal income taxes were sentenced to long prison terms > yesterday, sentences the judge extended after they said that the > tax laws were invalid and did not apply to them. > > The couple, Dorothy and George Henderson of Roseville, Calif., > sold trusts through which, customers were told, they could put > their money beyond the reach of the Internal Revenue Service. The > couple kept 5 percent of the deposits. > > Mrs. Henderson, 56, was sentenced to more than 11 years in prison > and Mr. Henderson, 59, was sentenced to six and a half years by > Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. of United States District Court in > Sacramento. > > The Hendersons did not testify at their trials, but at a > sentencing hearing yesterday they told Judge Burrell that the > I.R.S. had no authority over them and that they would pursue claims > against the government. > > They also said they were exempt from tax under Section 861 of the > Internal Revenue Code, contending that the statute excludes most > Americans from income taxes. > > Donald Dorfman, Mrs. Henderson's lawyer, said that he tried to > show his client that she had misread the law and that rather than > exempting anyone from taxes it extended the reach of American tax > law to income from foreign sources. > > "She wouldn't listen," Mr. Dorfman said. "She insisted on speaking > and telling the judge about the 861 position and how as a sovereign > citizen of California the federal courts had no jurisdiction and > all sorts of gibberish." > > Mr. Dorfman said the speech caused the judge to add five months to > Mrs. Henderson's sentence beyond prosecutors' request. > > The judge gave Mr. Henderson an extra eight months. > > The 861 > position is being advocated by a small but growing number of > business owners and others who, calling themselves the tax honesty > movement, say that the government operates the I.R.S. illegally. > These business owners have boasted in ads in USA Today and on the > Internet that they do not pay taxes and say the I.R.S. has not > acted against them. They cite that as proof that the tax laws are a > hoax. > > The case against the Hendersons began several years ago and grew > out of another case in which four other Californians, including a > lawyer, were convicted and are now in prison. ____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1

1 0

Re: American Bar Association - 1 click patents
by mmotyka＠lsil.com 28 Feb '01

28 Feb '01

> > At 2:08 PM -0500 2/28/01, Adam Shostack wrote: > >So, this web page doesn't work without javascript. I find that > >somewhat ironic, because you'd think that the ABA would be aware of > >the Americans With Disabilities act, which requires a reasonable > >accomodation; in this case that accomodation would be one less line of > >html (the meta-equiv refresh line) > > The ADA does not require writers, whether lawyers or novelists or > whatever, to write their material in ways that the blind can read, > that retarded persons can understand, or that the Java-less can > process. > > (Though I admit that many of these rent-seeking vipers would of > course _like_ the ADA to be extended to cover such things, if only to > increase the rent they can collect in thousands of lawsuits.) > > > --Tim May > Gotta get that animal analogy stuff right. A viper is an honest to goodness, fend for yourself, not on the dole, tooth and nail predator. Perfectly respectable by any reasonable standard. The rent-seekers are more accurately portrayed as something from a list of parasites : louse tick flea tapeworm roundworm bilharzia mosquito deerfly botfly giardia. Some of 'em have a pretty ghastly effect on the host - imaging growing grubs under your skin or having your sphincter muscles eaten away permanently from the inside. Yuk! http://www.techlawjournal.com/censor/20000210.htm While I agree in principle that those with disabilities should be able to participate in everything that society has to offer it seems inherently dangerous to have the government mandate how this issue will be addressed. I don't want to see paved roads into great wilderness areas and I don't think an old building that doesn't meet modern accessibility requirements should become a target for multimillion dollar lawsuits. I don't know how to solve this thing and neither do those who wrote the ADA. Mike

1 0