- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Unacceptable slander by dclunie [FLAME]
by bill＠anubis.network.com 12 Mar '93

12 Mar '93

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [ a bunch of bickering deleted concerning who was wrong to have lost their temper first. ] Folks, this is the cypherpunks list. I have three observations to make. 1. Joining it is voluntary. 2. It generates a tremendous amount of traffic. 3. Many people on it can write filters and such. It's a technical list. Why do I mention three obvious points? Here's my personal situation. I suspect it is similar to many here. I read many mail lists. The traffic on them is large, and the unsubscribe messages are numerous. Being a pro-code kind of person, rather than complain frequently about people being stupid with unsubscribe requests, I filtered 'em. So, I've never seen the unsubscribe requests. Anything with unsubscribe in the subject gets filtered. I've never seen any of you complain about a problem with the list. Suddenly, some genius craps in my mail file. My problem was with said genius, so I replied to him. End of problem, right? Wrong. Someone with a chip on his shoulder makes a federal case about it and starts name calling. It's really ironic that Tim May gets blasted as a petty vandal for mailing George back a third of George's post. I'm not in any position to be able to help with a problem with the subscription list. When it comes down to a choice between writing a quick filter to make sure I don't see mail that irritates me or complaining, I write a filter. When it comes down to passively accepting "punishment" from someone who voluntarily joined the list, wants to quit the list due to traffic, and then hypocritically worsens the situation by doubling the traffic for a day singlehandedly, I refuse. If this list was for beginning computer users and children, I'd be much more patient. I didn't want George's mail, so I gave it back to him. - -- Bill O'Hanlon Network Systems Corporation bill(a)network.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.2 iQCVAgUBK6EZ+uUL0gzXlqP9AQGZYAP9G9f/WukRsNPZG4F5MrlVB+gUINW0L2pJ qbYgvbIOReNXckNrDtm/soToE+tMVcRbj3r0fv3VW14fveQssIJE02fpiTxJ/LAZ +pIuOEzYV/tUubm5F5ZeunAt5tnsfCofvqisWVan4tJr8mpL4sx+0z9dTM6xsZcb mLSkZPrDImk= =hpCC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Returned mail: User unknown
by lefty＠apple.com 12 Mar '93

12 Mar '93

Apparently, Mr. Habrecht's problems have been solved. > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- >>>> RCPT To:<ghabrech(a)ultrix.ramapo.edu> ><<< 550 <ghabrech(a)ultrix.ramapo.edu>... Addressee unknown >550 <ghabrech(a)ultrix.ramapo.edu>... User unknown -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

MISC: steganography & pics
by Karl Barrus 12 Mar '93

12 Mar '93

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Cypherpunks, I too have played around with graphics formats, specifically the TIFF format. It's a large and complicated format, but it does leave room for customization. I just mention this because I'm more familiar with TIFF than the GIF format. Skipping over 99% of the details: the TIFF format has a header (magic numbers and stuff), tags and corresponding information fields, and picture data - real terminology exists, like image file directories and so forth, but I'll skip that. The TIFF format allows you to specify quite a bit of info: information fields such as time of creation, author name, comments, host system; picture information such as rows, columns, whether the minimum value corresponds to black or white; color models: RGB, CMY, CMYK, greyscale; compression model: none, LZW, JPEG; alpha values, and many other fields. Finally, the picture data is stored, non-sequentially if desired (that is, row 1, then row 137, the row 54, etc.) TIFF is extendible by simply defining new tags. Because the TIFF format is so all encompassing, few software packages can read and write the entire thing - that is, valid TIFFs may be created that may not be recognized by other software. Sam Lieffler (sp?) at sgi has written a comprehensive TIFF manipulation package available via anonymous ftp which helps to overcome this problem. Anyway, for steganography purposes, we wouldn't want to define a "crypto" tag obviously! Maybe we could adapt one of the other fields, like host computer or whatever, so that the signal that a TIFFs contains hidden information is that one of the fields has a certain value, to be arranged in advance or whatever. A 256x256 image contains 65536 pixels, each of which could contribute 1 bit to a message, which comes to 8192 bytes (say each pixel is 8 bit and not 24 or something fancy like that), more than enough for a message. This sounds like fun - I imagine in a few weeks there will be a message to the list to retrieve the recently posted image from alt.binaries.pictures.misc and read the hidden message! /-----------------------------------\ | Karl L. Barrus | | elee9sf(a)menudo.uh.edu | <- preferred address | barrus(a)tree.egr.uh.edu (NeXTMail) | \-----------------------------------/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.2 iQCVAgUBK6DvpoOA7OpLWtYzAQG1PgP/bI+s4p6kcMkHcv2iR+iJJV9TK32zicos fNOqufuPZvWepfxbEqhsY70RBQAZjuqEhKcjP54yFr7wuDbroFhbfIBMQQLn1znj v5dcaM7GrykNMhR9andfskRG6k72dxlmyBhQRcR3pbhwpPZLdw141yS4VPzHnez7 VgQ9Z+Gsb9s= =qGIH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

[FLAME] (Was Re: UNSUBSCRIBE ME!!!!!)
by lefty＠apple.com 12 Mar '93

12 Mar '93

>Please explain to me, lefty, why you insist on flaming someone who simply >wants to unsubscribe from the list. Mr. Brennan, I wouldn't ever flame anyone who simply wanted to unsubscribe from this list. I _would_, however, certainly flame a fool with a room-temperature IQ who feels that the best way of dealing with his _own_ _personal_ problem unsubscribing from the list is to send 80,000 bytes of garbage to over two hundred people who couldn't do anything about his problem even if they wanted to. People who may, in fact, be paying good money to receive electronic mail and who didn't have any particular need for 3,600 copies of the words "Unsubscribe me!!!!" >This is truly beyond comprehension. Given the apparent level of your comprehension, I'm not in the least surprised. I imagine this sort of thing must happen to you frequently, say, whenever you're faced with a situation more complicated that deciding whether you want fries with your Big Mac. >I had thought for a moment that the cypherpunks were rising above petty, >>arrogant slanders, but evidently I was wrong. I suggest you look up the word "slander" in the dictionary. Get one of the big kids to help you with it, if necessary, and if you can find one who won't beat you up on sight. It doesn't mean what you apparently believe it does. >Clearly uri and lefty wish to drag this whole affair down to new depths. And >why? Just to prove to everyone that you can insert your head up your ass >>further than anyone can imagine? > >You are truly pathetic. Gosh, Mr. Brennan, those are pretty strong words for a fellow who cries "slander" at the apparent drop of a hat. If you keep this sort of thing up, you're liable to convince me that you're not only an idiot but a hypocrite as well. Somebody's got his head up his ass here, but I suspect it's not me, Chucko. -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

No Subject
by bmullane＠ultrix.ramapo.edu 12 Mar '93

12 Mar '93

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 12:56:02 -0500 From: uri(a)watson.ibm.com #FLAME ON [ Rest of flame deleted.] What I don't understand is, why are people complaining? We're just seeing people exercise their sacred right to free speech..... all over this mailing list. After all, isn't this what you were working towards? So now that this group is getting a taste of free speech, why do we see people sending mail to system administrators, asking that certain people be censured for sending messages to this mailing list? Not too long ago, people were saying that censuring people for their speech, even after the fact, was tantamount to censorship! It seems just a little hypocritical to me, given the strong and sprited defense of anonymous remailers just a week or two ago..... - Ted Ted, don't you realize that people only believe in things as long as it is convinient(sp) or nonoffensive to them? Maybe the admins will yell at me for being on this list now that they got mail from the net.nazis concerning ghabrech's action. maybe they will find out what the file pgp is in my acct and force me to delete it... later, Brian -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.2 iQCVAgUBK6DittvH71LYWYb3AQHzYAQAgzC5znnv0gsOO+NiUDN+hwHOVYOdvwhc 0yTkigSx/FaS1YuHy2Wntlh0NbLJ59n6ZyyVOHhiE0cWwksXsQ4jwfU0KulUa5cF nR06UDLqrhFtkRS2HcA99vPbXlbGFeVCV+02pVbc1NDSmvMTMpAvFrwlRQuQEfBW WFZrOl1NCfU= =2yTO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: UNSUBSCRIBE ME!!!!!
by lefty＠apple.com 12 Mar '93

12 Mar '93

>DAMN!!!!! UNSUBSCRIBE ME ALREADY!!!!! >GHABRECH(a)ULTRIX.RAMAPO.EDU >ghabrech(a)ultrix.ramapo.edu You know, if you went down to the local expressway and lay down along one of the broken white lines and worked on perfecting your impression of a median strip, your problems would soon stop bothering you. -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

2 1

Unacceptable slander by dclunie
by mbrennan＠netcom.com 12 Mar '93

12 Mar '93

>Date: Fri, 12 Mar 93 17:41:03 CST >From: dclunie(a)pax.tpa.com.au (David Clunie) >To: Postmaster(a)ultrix.ramapo.edu >Subject: Unacceptable behaviour by ghabrech >Cc: root(a)ultrix.ramapo.edu, ghabrech(a)ultrix.ramapo.edu, cypherpunks(a)toad.com > >>From one of the very popular mailing lists I received the following posting >by one of your users. While I can understand his frustration at having >difficulties unsubscribing from a relatively high volume list, or his >ignorance at not being aware that such requests should be directed to the >"x-request" alias not the "x" list, this is no excuse for such a long and >unpleasant post that has consumed considerable expensive bandwidth for no >good reason ... I am surprised you tolerate students with such a childish >attitude on your system and they do no credit to your institution's >reputation. [ abridged quote from metioned user's posting deleted...] Think about this scenario for a moment: dclunie sends mail to the system adiministrator of an institution complaining of the mail sent by a particular user. The system administrator confronts the user, who then explains the situation. He explains that he has sent numerous requests to be unsubscribed from the list, but they continue to send large volumes of mail. Out of frustration, he sends an 80K file to the list hoping it will get someone's attention. The mail continues, and several members of the list makes threats of "dirty tricks" and "mail bombs" against him. Now one of the "cypherpunks" is sending libelous mail to the system administrator. The system administrator now understands the situation; an educational institution on the net is made aware of a rapidly developing campaign of harrassment and vandalism by the cypherpunks. So what happens now? Are the cypherpunks winning? Are you people blind to what you are doing? What fools!!! What upsets me the most about all of this is that I am truly an advocate of net freedom, privacy, and anonymity. But the cypherpunks is setting itself up for a big fall and they threaten to tarnish the whole movement toward net freedom and privacy with their petty, puerile, and vandalous behavior! ----- Michael Brennan - mbrennan(a)netcom.com

2 2

Cypherpricks think they're cool
by mbrennan＠netcom.com 12 Mar '93

12 Mar '93

>Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 01:01-EST >From: Marc.Ringuette(a)GS80.SP.CS.CMU.EDU >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Subject: Cypherpunks know they're cool > >Hey, man, we're the cypherpunks. We're too hip to worry about a >trivial little mail bomb. But if we did get upset...well, who >do you think has the bigger arsenal of dirty tricks, him or us? >Date: Thu, 11 Mar 93 21:41:04 -0800 >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >From: tcmay(a)netcom.com (Timothy C. May) >Subject: HABRECHT=EMAIL HARASSEMENT > >P.S. What I did was to _reply_ to Mr. Habrecht, explaining the situation. I >attached my reply to a *quoted copy* of his message AND MAILED IT BACK TO >HIM! (Actually, my mailer splits incoming messages into 24 KB pieces, so I >only mailed one of these back to him....he got off lucky. If several more >people do this, he'll think twice about mail-bambing a list again.) What arrogant little pricks you are, Mr. Ringuette and Mr. May! So is this what cypherpunks is really all about: "dirty tricks", "mail bombs", endless harassment of people on the net who simply wish to be left alone? I had originally thought that cypherpunks had higher objectives in mind than that, but evidently at least some of you simply fancy yourselves as some sort of cyber-terrorists (although you're really no better than petty vandals). I've seen many of you raise issues about responsibility on the net. Is proving that you have a "bigger arsenal of dirty tricks" you're idea of responsibility? And do you really think that cypherpunks could survive such a war? You yourselves have admitted that you have many enemies in your quest for net privacy and anonymity. Do you foolishly believe that they won't seize upon this irresponsible behavior on your part and use it to prove their point? You will only succeed in bringing about precisely what you claim to oppose: oppressive controls on the internet to stop petty vandals like yourself. I would hope that there are some among you that have some scrap of sanity left, and realize that there is nothing to be gained from bringing a needless war down upon yourselves. Wise up! >From tcmay: >I don't know what the delay has been in unsubscribing people. As always, >send requests to the list maintenance address, >"cypherpunks-request(a)toad.com". The list manager, Eric Hughes >(hughes(a)soda.berkelely.edu) has been away at the CFP conference this >week...perhaps this is part of the delay. I sent one request to cypherpunks-request about three weeks ago, and a second about a week ago. Was Eric Hughes at the CFP conference then? And you may have noticed that a third person has now stepped forward and expressed frustration over being in the same predicament. Do you still want to pretend there is no problem? What will it take for you to realize there is: the third person, the fourth, fixth, sixth? I'll say it again: Wise up! I've been very patient over this, but I'm disgusted at your arrogant promises of "dirty tricks" and "mail bombs" against those who simply want to unsubscribe from the list! What phenomenal assholes you are!!! ----- Michael Brennan - mbrennan(a)netcom.com

3 2

Re: HABRECHT=EMAIL HARASSEMENT
by lefty＠apple.com 12 Mar '93

12 Mar '93

George "I don't give a shit who I inconvenience" Habrecht writes: >If, in a while, things get straightened up I may resubscribe but for now, I >don't have the time. I would hope that, if you _do_ ask to be added to the list in the future, the list admin would put you on the "Periodic BSD UNIX Kernal Binaries" list instead. -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

REMAIL: help with utter.dis.org
by Karl Barrus 12 Mar '93

12 Mar '93

Cypherpunks, I'm having trouble using the new remailer at utter.dis.org. I've sent several test messages, but have received none back. Recently, I tried to email to the person running the remailer (shipley(a)merde.dis.org?) but my mail bounced: [stuff deleted here and there] >Return-Path: MAILER-DAEMON(a)soda.berkeley.edu >From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON(a)soda.berkeley.edu> >Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- >550 merde.dis.org.tcplocal... 550 Host unknown >550 <shipley(a)merde.dis.org>... Host unknown: Inappropriate ioctl for device >From: Karl Barrus <elee9sf(a)Menudo.UH.EDU> >To: shipley(a)merde.dis.org I'd like to include this new remailer in the scripts, but would first like to verify that it works... So Peter: I'd like to help work out any problems, but I can't reach you at shipley(a)merde.dis.org (unless this is related to soda's disk crash?) /-----------------------------------\ | Karl L. Barrus | | elee9sf(a)menudo.uh.edu | <- preferred address | barrus(a)tree.egr.uh.edu (NeXTMail) | \-----------------------------------/

2 1