- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

ADMIN: incoming ftp site works now
by Eric Hughes 02 Jun '93

02 Jun '93

I've arranged so that the pub/cypherpunks/incoming directory will accept uploads now. So if you have stuff to send, please ftp it to that directory rather than using e-mail. Of course, if you don't have ftp access, please continue to use email. For those of you who tried this before, the problem was that the wuarchive ftpd that the system was running needs a line in its configuration file to say that uploads are peritted in a directory. Eric

1 0

RE: Software infrastructure
by Pat Farrell 02 Jun '93

02 Jun '93

In Message Tue, 1 Jun 1993 22:13:48 -0500, Eric Hughes <hughes(a)soda.berkeley.edu> wrote: >Let's go back to the DOS-as-terminal issue. The politics and >economics of DOS shareware is such that source code is almost never >made available. > >I propose that interested cypherpunks write a DOS terminal program >which _is_ free software. I think writing a "terminal" program, such as Kermit, is not particularly useful. I am writing a SMTP/POPPER client program that will work over standard serial (dial-up) lines. It will not require SLIP, PPP, or any other magic (mostly because getting _my university_ to provide competent TCP/IP access is impossible). Enhancing it to support SLIP or PPP will be simple, but it is not the market that I'm aiming at. Clearly any decent mail client has to have a roledex of commonly accessed coorespondents. It is trivial to enhance the data structure to add a flag that says "Use encryption" and another with "PGP (or RIPEM) key available" and another to hold a handle (PGP's 0x123456) that identifies the key. Spawning your favorite encryption program is then also trivial. The audience is not the cypherpunks. The audience for strong cryptography is the art, history, econ or english major. It has to be "pig easy" and reliable. My program is written for Windows. Like it or not, Windows has 80% or more of the total computers being sold. I want my mailer client to reach mass markets. The program will be free, and sources will be available under some restrictions that I haven't yet figured out. In a while, I'll be looking for beta testers. Pat Pat Farrell Grad Student pfarrell(a)cs.gmu.edu Department of Computer Science George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Public key availble via finger #include <standard.disclaimer>

1 0

Re: FYI: White House Mail
by Mark 02 Jun '93

02 Jun '93

> President Clinton Vice President Gore > > PRESIDENT(a)WHITEHOUSE.GOV VICE.PRESIDENT(a)WHITEHOUSE.GOV Hmm, 10 bucks says some larrikin sends fakemail from PRESIDENT to VICE.PRESIDENT asking him 'what this little red button does' etc. Though in real.life I suspect 10 press secretaries sitting behind the mail alias. They're going to need them. Lets hope no one is stupid enough to try busting into there... Mark mark(a)coombs.anu.edu.au

1 0

GIMME YOUR GOODIES!
by Stanton McCandlish 02 Jun '93

02 Jun '93

NitV is still hoarding all sorts of PGP utils for any and all platforms, mail systems, and potential uses. If you make anything new, please send it along (uu it, or upload it to the board, or whatever). I get QUITE a few calls for such material (suprisingly much of the Unix stuff is downloaded, and long distance at that, so I guess there is a lot of value in having a BBS-based, multi-platform crypto-tools site.) I MUCH prefer to get the new material direct from the author, so please do send it!! Help spread crypto to the OtherNets! -- When marriage is outlawed only outlaws will be inlaws! Stanton McCandlish, SysOp: Noise in the Void DataCenter Library BBS Internet anton(a)hydra.unm.edu IndraNet: 369:1/1 FidoNet: 1:301/2 Snail: 1811-B Coal Pl. SE, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87108 USA Data phone: +1-505-246-8515 (24hr, 1200-14400 v32bis, N-8-1) Vox phone: +1-505-247-3402 (bps rate varies, depends on if you woke me up...:)

1 0

Another chaining utility
by nobody＠soda.berkeley.edu 02 Jun '93

02 Jun '93

I am working on a utility I call "chain" which is inspired by Karl Barrus's hopmail and related scripts. I am sending this message with the command: chain -m -s "Another chaining utility" cypherpunks(a)toad.com caltech jarthur extropia soda The "-m" means for chain to pipe its output into sendmail so that it is actually sent (otherwise it just writes to standard out and you have to arrange to mail it on your own). The "-s" sets the subject for the last leg of the message to the following arg. Then comes the destination address, then a list of remailer nicknames, which are just substrings of the remailers, read from an initialization file. This message is passing through four remailers. The "-m" feature is implemented only on Unix systems. On DOS you always get the output in a file and then send that however you normally would. I also have a "-e" switch which encrypts the message using a public key looked up by the destination address. Cypherpunks doesn't have a public key so that's not appropriate here. But if I wanted to send an encrypted note to, say, Phil Zimmermann, I could just do: chain -em prz(a)sage.cgd.ucar.edu portal mead Hi, Phil, give me a call when you have a chance -- Hal ^D and it would go via the Portal and Mead remailers, encrypted at each step, and finally to Phil, encrypted with his public key. Pretty easy. I couldn't get Karl's hopmail.bat to run on my PC (not enough environment space?) so I wrote this in C and it works OK. I'll be sending the code to Eric to be archived in a few days. If anyone has any wish lists for features I will be glad to try adding them. (I am composing this on a Unix system in order to demonstrate the -m switch, so I can't cleartext sign as I normally would. I am in the vi editor and I am sending the message with "1G!G", which tells vi to pipe the whole file into a command, followed by the "chain" command line above, verbatim. That's all there is to it.) Hal Finney 74076.1041(a)compuserve.com

1 0

EFF, AT&T, Clipper, and $
by greg＠ideath.goldenbear.com 02 Jun '93

02 Jun '93

Eric Hughes writes: > The EFF is going to be involved with the cryptography issue. More > than that and I defer to John Gilmore, who is on the EFF board and > this list and who can speak more authoritatively than I. The 5/24/93 issue of "The New Republic" has a (largely uninteresting) cover story about Mitch Kapor and the EFF. One interesting tidbit gleaned from that article, however, was that AT&T has contributed money to the EFF. I am particularly curious to see how AT&T and the EFF will deal with each other with respect to the Clipper chip, and the politics around that. If anyone knows anything more about this, I'd love to hear it. -- Greg Broiles greg(a)goldenbear.com Golden Bear Computer Consulting +1 503 465 0325 Box 12005 Eugene OR 97440 BBS: +1 503 687 7764

1 0

How about it? My letter to the Pres
by Clark Reynard 02 Jun '93

02 Jun '93

What about some form of my letter as the form letter petition? Not as critical as I was, of course. But STRESS issues he used in his campaign (Prescott Bush, opposing Vietnam); and maybe one of his flunkies will have the smarts to cope with it. The email response for the form letter from postmaster(a)whitehouse.gov was very fast, so they have put money into it. Maybe they actually DO give a damn. Try it. ---- Robert W. Clark Just Say No! to the rclark(a)nyx.cs.du.edu Big Brother Chip

1 0

My letter to the President, for all the good it'll do
by rclark＠nyx.cs.du.edu 02 Jun '93

02 Jun '93

Well, this and fifty cents will get you a cup of coffee, but here's my letter to the Pres. ------ I oppose the Clipper chip vehemently. As the President, or the duly authorized representative of the President, you will understand that I find the idea that you will monitor my communications reprehensible and intolerable. You have espoused a policy of covert surveillance of American citizens of which Bush would be proud. You, a protester of the Vietnam War, who understands that the government can, and should be opposed when it is wrong, should understand why privacy is necessary to the people of any democracy, lest it cease to be a democracy. Nevertheless, you approved the Clipper Chip proposal, which is the furthest step backward that even a politician could take. Shame on you! Even George Bush's father, Prescott Bush, who despised and opposed Senator McCarthy's Communist witch-hunt, would loathe such a retrogressive move! We computer professionals, who supported your rise to power, feel betrayed by your sudden reversal, by no means unique among your sudden reversals. By siding with those who would rob Americans of those freedoms which are our inalienable right, you have betrayed democracy and made a sham of the Bill of Rights. If, as a White House official suggested, criminalizing alternative, secure encryption standards is an "option on the table," I am disgusted by your betrayal. You, who seemed proud to have protested an unjust war, and should understand why protest, even anonymous protest, should be an inalienable right, have no right even to consider this as an option. If you consider criminalizing privacy, and encryption, you have signed over the soul of the nation to be monitored at will by the NSA and CIA, organizations which you, at one time in your life, opposed. Perhaps, like many Sixties rebels, you have been bought by the government, and no longer care about the rights of the American people. It would not be the only time this has occurred. While I doubt that you, the President, shall read this, perhaps some subordinate shall. Perhaps, if the miraculous is possible, that subordinate shall deem this worthy of your consideration. While I am not used to pleading, I plead that you reconsider this policy, which, if enacted, would doom privacy in the United States, and turn this nation into the sort of nation that the Soviet Union has finally decided not to be. I beg that you consider, at least for a moment, the evil that you may unleash. You may be motivated by an understandable concern for the protection of the American people from drug dealers and mobsters, but it is not the mobsters you shall crush in supporting the Clipper chip. It is those eager, agile young minds who oppose the government when it is wrong, and only wish to be able to have their voice, without being monitored by the CIA and NSA in case that voice occasionally is overly strident. Thank you, Mr. President. I hope that you have carefully studied the holy Consitution of this nation, which you have sworn to uphold. I fear for the consequences if you have not. Robert W. F. Clark 440 S. Franklin St. Bloomfield, IN 47424 Telephone # (812) 384-3465 email addresses: clark(a)metal.psu.edu rclark(a)nyx.cs.du.edu

1 0

WH email petition.
by J. Michael Diehl 02 Jun '93

02 Jun '93

In light of the White House getting on the net, how effective do you all think an electronic petition, about the BigBrotherChip, would be? Do you think that they would listen? Do you think that, perhapse, we would simply be put on a list of "trouble makers?" I was thinking of writting a petition and distributing it in every way I can think of, and encouraging people to send it to the White House. Any comments? +-----------------------+-----------------------------+---------+ | J. Michael Diehl ;-) | I thought I was wrong once. | PGP KEY | | mdiehl(a)triton.unm.edu | But, I was mistaken. |available| | mike.diehl(a)fido.org | | Ask Me! | | (505) 299-2282 +-----------------------------+---------+ | | +------"I'm just looking for the opportunity to be -------------+ | Politically Incorrect!" <Me> | +-----If codes are outlawed, only criminals wil have codes.-----+ +----Is Big Brother in your phone? If you don't know, ask me---+

3 4

Re: WH email petition.
by smb＠research.att.com 02 Jun '93

02 Jun '93

In light of the White House getting on the net, how effective do you all think an electronic petition, about the BigBrotherChip, would be? Do you think that they would listen? Do you think that, perhapse, we would simply be put on a list of "trouble makers?" I was thinking of writting a petition and distributing it in every way I can think of, and encouraging people to send it to the White House. Any comments? In general, petitions are a notoriously ineffective way to lobby. That's doubly so for email versions, for obvious reasons. Even without that problem, an electronic petition will (rightly) be ignored on the grounds that it represents the opinions of a small elite minority. With signatures collected in the streets and shopping malls of America, you have at least some chance of reaching a cross-section of people. But on the net? (And even if I'm wrong about the net's population, would they know it?) As for a trouble-maker list -- not likely. Apart from the political hell there'd be to pay if word ever leaked (the right to complain to the government is quite explicit in the Constitution, and is legally far stronger than the still-controversial right to privacy (remember Bork?)), I haven't seen any evidence that broad-scale ``enemies lists'' have been collected since Nixon's day. That may, of course, mean they've just gotten smarter about how they do it... Based on my past experience, your name will be collected -- but just as a person interested in certain issues, so that you can be solicited for funds on certain issues. --Steve Bellovin

1 0