- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Call for Papers - 3rd USENIX Electronic Commerce Workshop
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text X-Sender: treese(a)mail-60.OpenMarket.com Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 23:07:02 -0500 To: dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu From: Win Treese <treese(a)openmarket.com> Subject: Call for Papers - 3rd USENIX Electronic Commerce Workshop Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: bounce-dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Win Treese <treese(a)openmarket.com> >From: ec-mailing-owner(a)usenix.ORG >Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 21:24:01 -0700 (PDT) >Reply-To: ec-mailing-request(a)usenix.ORG >Subject: Call for Papers - 3rd USENIX Electronic Commerce Workshop >Apparently-To: <treese(a)openmarket.com> > >Dear Colleagues, > >Electronic Commerce is a rapidly growing area with global economic >implications. I'm excited to be able to say that we're putting >together the Third USENIX Workshop on Electronic Commerce, and I >invite your participation. This vital inter-disciplinary field >thrives from a cross pollenation of ideas and techniques from many >areas, and this workshop will be a great opportunity for you to >present your findings as well as learn about other latest results. > >So, mark your calendars! The workshop will take place from August 31 >to September 3, 1998, and paper submissions are due by March 6, 1998. >I hope to see you in Boston! > >Bennet Yee >Program Chair >ec98chair(a)usenix.org >================================================================= > >Announcement and Call for Participation > >3rd USENIX Workshop on Electronic Commerce >August 31-September 3, 1998 >Tremont Hotel, Boston, MA > >Sponsored by USENIX, the Advanced Computing Systems Association > >For more information about this conference, see the Electronic >Commerce Website: http://www.usenix.org/events/ec98 > >IMPORTANT DATES >Extended abstracts due: March 6, 1998 >Notification to authors: April 17, 1998 >Camera-ready final papers due: July 21, 1998 > > >PROGRAM COMMITTEE >Chair: Bennet S. Yee, UC San Diego > >Ross Anderson, Cambridge University >Nathaniel Borenstein, First Virtual >Marc Donner, Morgan Stanley >Niels Ferguson, Digicash >Mark Manasse, Digital Equipment Corp. >Cliff Neuman, University of Southern California >Avi Rubin, AT&T Labs >Win Treese, OpenMarket >Hal Varian, U.C. Berkeley >Doug Tygar, Carnegie Mellon University > > >OVERVIEW > >The Third Workshop on Electronic Commerce will provide a major >opportunity for researchers, experimenters, and practitioners in >this rapidly self-defining field to exchange ideas and present the >results of their work. It will set the technical agenda for work in >electronic commerce by enabling workers to examine urgent >questions, share their insights and discover connections with other >work that might otherwise go unnoticed. To facilitate this, the >conference will not be limited to technical problems and solutions, >but will also consider their context: the economic and regulatory >forces that influence the engineering choices we make, and the >social and economic impact of network based trading systems. > > >TUTORIALS PROPOSALS WELCOME > >One day of tutorials will precede the Workshop on August 31. >USENIX's well-respected tutorials are intensive and provide >immediately-useful information delivered by skilled instructors who >are hands-on experts in their topic areas. Topics for the >Electronic Commerce Workshop will include, but are not limited to, >security and cryptography. If you are interested in presenting a >tutorial, please contact: > >Dan Klein, Coordinator >Email: dvk(a)usenix.org >Phone: 412.421.2332 > > >WORKSHOP TOPICS > >Two and one-half days of technical sessions will follow the >tutorials. We welcome submissions for technical and position paper >presentations, reports of work-in-progress, technology debates, and >identification of new open problems. Birds-of-a-Feather sessions in >the evenings and a keynote speaker will round out the program. > >We seek papers that address a wide range of issues and ongoing >developments, including, but not limited to: > >Advertising >Anonymous transactions >Auditability >Business issues >Copy protection >Credit/Debit/Cash models >Cryptographic security >Customer service >Digital money >EDI >Electronic libraries >Electronic wallets >Email-enabled business >Exception handling >Identity verification >Internet direct marketing >Internet/WWW integration >Key management >Legal and policy issues >Micro-transactions >Negotiations >Privacy >Proposed systems >Protocols >Reliability >Reports on existing systems >Rights management >Service guarantees >Services vs. digital goods >Settlement >Smart-cards > >Questions regarding a topic's relevance to the workshop may be >addressed to the program chair via electronic mail to >ec98chair(a)usenix.org. USENIX will publish Conference Proceedings >which are provided free to technical session attendees; additional >copies will be available for purchase from USENIX. > > >WHAT TO SUBMIT > >Technical paper submissions and proposals for panels must be >received by March 6, 1998. We welcome submissions of the following >type: > >1. Refereed Papers - Full papers or extended abstracts should be five > to 20 pages, not counting references and figures. > >2. Panel proposals - Proposals should be three to seven pages, > together with a list of names of potential panelists. If > accepted, the proposer must secure the participation of > panelists, and prepare a three to seven page summary of panel > issues for inclusion in the Proceedings. This summary can > include position statements by panel participants. > >3. Work-In-Progress Reports - Short, pithy, and fun, WIP reports > introduce interesting new or ongoing work and should be 1 to 3 > pages in length. If you have work you would like to share or a > cool idea that is not quite ready to publish, a WIP is for you! > We are particularly interested in presenting student work. > >Each submission must include a cover letter stating the paper title >and authors, along with the name of the person who will act as the >contact to the program committee. Please include a surface mail >address, daytime and evening phone number, email and fax numbers >and, if available, a URL for each author. If all of the authors are >students, please indicate that in the cover letter for award >consideration (see "Awards" below). > >USENIX workshops, like most conferences and journals, require that >papers not be submitted simultaneously to more than one conference >or publication and that submitted papers not be previously or >subsequently published elsewhere. Submissions accompanied by >non-disclosure agreement forms are not acceptable and will be >returned to the author(s) unread. All submissions are held in the >highest confidentiality prior to publication in the Proceedings, >both as a matter of policy and in accord with the U.S. Copyright >Act of 1976. > > >WHERE TO SUBMIT PROPOSALS > >Please send submissions to the program committee via one of the >following methods. All submissions will be acknowledged. > >Preferred Method: email (Postscript or PDF formats only) to: >ec98papers(a)usenix.org. > >Files should be encoded for transport with uuencode or MIME base64 >encoding. Authors should ensure that the PostScript is generic and >portable so that their papers will print on a broad range of >postscript printers, and should submit in sufficient time to allow >us to contact the author about alternative delivery mechanisms in >the event of network or other failure. If you send PostScript, >remember the following: > >1) Use only the most basic fonts (TimesRoman, Helvetica, Courier). > Other fonts are not available with every printer or previewer. > >2) PostScript that requires some special prolog to be loaded into > the printer won't work for us. Please don't send it. > >3) If you use a PC- or Macintosh-based word processor to generate > your PostScript, print it on a generic PostScript printer before > sending it, to make absolutely sure that the PostScript is > portable. > >4) If you are generating the PostScript from a program running > under Windows, make sure that you establish the "portable" > setting, not the "speed" setting for PostScript generation. > >A good heuristic is to make sure that recent versions of Ghostview >(e.g. Ghostview 1.5 using Ghostscript 3.33) can display your >paper. > >Alternate Method: 10 copies, via postal delivery to: > >EC'98 Submissions >USENIX Association >2560 Ninth Street, Suite 215 >Berkeley, CA 94710 > >For detailed submission guidelines, send email to ec98authors(a)usenix.org, >refer to the conference Web page at >www.usenix.org/events/ec98/guidelines.html, >or send email to the program chair at ec98chair(a)usenix.org. An >electronic version of this Call for Papers is available at: >www.usenix.org/events/ec98/. > > >BIRDS-OF-A-FEATHER SESSIONS (BoFs) > >Do you have a topic that you'd like to discuss with others? Our >Birds-of-a-Feather Sessions may be perfect for you. BoFs are very >interactive and informal gatherings for attendees interested in a >particular topic. Schedule your BoF in advance by telephoning the >USENIX Conference Office at 714.588.8649 or sending email to: >conference(a)usenix.org. > > >AWARDS > >The program committee will offer awards of $500 for the best paper >and the best student paper. > > >REGISTRATION INFORMATION > >Materials containing all details of the technical and tutorial >programs, registration fees and forms and hotel information will be >available in June, 1998. If you wish to receive the registration >materials, please contact USENIX at: > >USENIX Conference Office >22672 Lambert Street, Suite 613 >Lake Forest, CA 92630 >Phone: 714 588 8649 >Fax: 714 588 9706 >Email: conference(a)usenix.org > > >ABOUT USENIX > >USENIX is the Advanced Computing Systems Association. Since 1975 >USENIX has brought together the community of engineers, system >administrators, and technicians working on the cutting edge of the >computing world. For more information about USENIX: > >URL: http://www.usenix.org >Email: office(a)usenix.org >Fax: 510.548.5738 >Phone: 510.528.8649 > > For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to "dcsb-request(a)ai.mit.edu" with one line of text: "help". --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/ Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: <http://www.fc98.ai/>

1 0

Re: apropos list talk and our culture
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 10/29/97 7:38 AM, Brad Dolan (bdolan(a)USIT.NET) passed this wisdom: >"Michael Hays" is a new CBS series about a U.S. District Attorney. Last >night's episode was about how a radio talk-show host incited a listener >to kill a BATF agent and was brought to justice. DA convinced a jury >that some things were "more important" than the first amendment. No that was not the point made, in fact the show made a strong point in favor of the first amendment. They went after the shock-jock because he specifically incited a specific individiual with words which we he knew would have an immediate cause and effect result in getting this guy to go out and kill someone. There is a difference, and I personally thought they made the point well .... now the accused did try to hide behind the first amendment but that was not what the first amendment is all about. You have to pick yopur mountains to die on in those arenas and the shock-jocks cause would not have been one I would have touched were I a Constitutional lawyer. Brian B. Riley --> http://www.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "Never ask what sort of computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him?" - Tom Clancy

1 0

FYI re BATF (fwd)
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 11:04:51 -0500 (EST) From: Peter F Cassidy <pcassidy(a)world.std.com> To: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> Subject: FYI re BATF (fwd) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by pop.sneaker.net id LAA23122 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 06:35:29 -0500 From: Unka Bart <mendicant(a)buddhist.com> To: Peter Cassidy <triarche(a)world.std.com> Subject: FYI re BATF From: John_Johnson <TXJohn47(a)ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 01:30:51 -0600 To: FIREARMS(a)LISTSERV.UTA.EDU Subject: Fwd: Is the BATF Up to Their Old Tricks Again? **** Begin Forwarded Message **** Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 20:32:09 -0700 From: Douglas Davis <davisda(a)rmi.net> Subject: Is the BATF Up to Their Old Tricks Again? > From: byteme(a)msn.com (Karmann Powell) > Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 08:27:52 -0500 > Organization: AirPower Information Services (610) 259-2193 > Subject: Is the BATF Up to Their Old Tricks Again? > > I am cross posting this e-mailed information received from a > Karmann in AZ. She has e-mailed me and sent local newspaper > information via snail mail to support her claims that her > community is being bullied by the BATF. For some reason they > are having a difficult time getting the information out - even > with a whole community and local newspaper of angry citizens. > Anyone that can assist and verify the following would be most > appreciated. > > **************************************************************** > > RIGHTS & FREEDOMS AT RISK IN NEW RIVER, ARIZONA > New River is a small, non-incorporated community 30 miles north > of Phoenix, AZ. On September 10, 1997, the BATF raided the > property of Charles Byers, a former munitions manufacturer. > On the property they found a shed containing chemicals that the > BATF claims are highly unstable and shock sensitive. A list of > the chemicals obtained via court records shows that most of the > chemicals are used in the production of fireworks. The shed has > been described by some as "a glorified high school chem. lab". > Our community, as well as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, > are under an all out assault. The BATF has invaded New River and > plans to create an environmental hazard against our wishes and > without legal permits. On September 23, 1997, the BATF blew up > two bunkers full of explosives. The community was not notified. > The resulting shock wave rattled houses as far as four miles away. > Kids at New River Elementary school were bounced out of their chairs > and scared half out of their wits. The materials in the shed did > not ignite. > The BATF brought in heavy equipment to build a berm around the shed, > then constructed a concrete wall on top of it. The BATF claims that > the heavy equipment did not set off the chemicals in the shed because > they used equipment with "rubber tires." > The BATF decided the only way to solve the problems of the unstable > chemicals is to burn the shed using Thermite as an accelerant to > incinerate the shed and its contents at temperatures between 3000 > and 5000 degrees. This would completely destroy any organic compounds > that might exist. The inorganic compounds would not be destroyed, > but would instead, vaporize and form possible new and deadly airborne > combinations. The EPA approved the BATF's plan, a federal judge > issued an evacuation order, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, went > along. The burn was set for October 18, 1997. The Sheriff, a thirty > year veteran of the DEA, sent his posse to notify residents that they > were to evacuate their property, including all domestic animals and > birds. Since this is a rural area, most people have more than just > a cat or dog. Folks here raise horses, pigs, chickens and exotic > birds and animals. Many raise more than one species and have > multiple head. > At a community meeting with the BATF, EPA and Sheriff Arpaio, > residents asked questions of the assembled panel. The panel could > not or would not respond to residents inquires: "What exactly was > in the shed and in what quantities? What effect would burning the > chemicals have on our soil, air and ground water, both short and > long term? Where were residents to take their animals? Who was > going to pay for any damages sustained to properties (Brush fired > hazard is very high this time of the years)?" > It was evident that the effects of the burn had not been determined. > The EPA representative said numerous times, "We will monitor before > and after." Sheriff Arpaio threatened to forcibly remove anyone who > refused to leave their property. He could not understand why > residents did not want - or appreciate - his 'protection'. He stated > that it is within his power and responsibilities to protect us from > ourselves. So many people refused to evacuate that the October 18 > burn was postponed until November 1, 1997. Three hundred fifty homes > were to be evacuated, for 12 to 24 hours, within a three mile radius > of Byers' property. The evacuation maps provided to us, prepared by > the BATF, were completely wrong. They have been redrawn - with the > radius now only extending 1.5 miles so as not to inconvenience the > people in the Manufacturer's Outlet Mall nearly three miles from the > proposed burn site. When asked, "If these chemicals are so > sensitive, why did the BATF set off explosions near the shed?", they > said it was a mistake. > We have not accepted that the federal, or even local, government can > force us to leave our homes, proceed with reckless behavior with > detrimental effects on our land, lives and livelihoods, and not be > accountable. The BATF and Sheriff Arpaio have tried to make us feel > like we are over-reacting and just need to get with the program. > Sheriff Arpaio did not stop his threats of forcible removal - until > he was contacted by the community's attorney. > On October 25,1997, New River residents held a peaceful demonstration > at the site of the proposed burn. We walked two miles up and down > steep hills and stood before the BATF with American flags. We wanted > to remind the BATF that this is still America and that we have the > right to live peacefully on our property. Our government cannot, on > a whim, destroy what we have worked so hard to build. > Certain sections of our government are testing American's resolve. > They are looking to see where we draw the line. In New River, we > have drawn that line in the dirt we hold sacred. We will not allow > the burn and will not leave our homes. > A talk show host in Phoenix called what's happening here "The New > River Rebellion." We do not want New River added to the list of > American Tragedies that includes Ruby Ridge and Waco. Call your > own congressman or senator. Let them know that you know about New > River. If we let it happen here, where will it stop? > > Contact the following people/locations for comments or more > information: > Karmann Powell - byteme(a)msn.com > The Desert Advocate, Karen Seemeyer, Editor - thedesadv(a)aol.com > The Arizona Republic - being covered by Timothy Tait > timothy.tait(a)pni.com > > -- > (byteme(a)msn.com) > AirPower Services BBS - (610) 259-2193 - info(a)airgunhq.com > Interested in Firearms, RKBA, Airguns, the Shooting Sports? > PRN Regional HQ, Northeast United States > * Jim Henry and AirPower Services take no responsibility for * > * message content as this is an *un-moderated* list. * -- John_Johnson TXJohn47(a)ix.netcom.com © 1997 All rights reserved --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/ Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: <http://www.fc98.ai/>

1 0

Re: apropos list talk and our culture
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 10/29/97 10:06 AM, Tim May (tcmay(a)got.net) passed this wisdom: >>At 5:38 AM -0700 10/29/97, Brad Dolan wrote: "Michael Hays" is a >>new CBS series about a U.S. District Attorney. Last night's episode >>was about how a radio talk-show host incited a listener to kill a >>BATF agent and was brought to justice. DA convinced a jury that >>some things were "more important" than the first amendment. > >I was just about to mention this show, in connection with the Waco >incident. > >I was truly disgusted by the show. None of the relative balance and >realismthat "Law and Order" has, by comparison. For starters, very >unrealistic. Even Freeh and Company understand the role of the >First (to give them theirdue). Just plain bad writers. I really disagree with your overall assessment, but yes it definitely wasn't in a league with L&O and the script was somewhat uneven >Some of the slimy stuff: (all quotes are rough paraphrases) > >* references to Waco followers as crazies: "they seem to show up >everywhere" > >* a black assistant to Hayes talks about the chat rooms and online >discussion groups that the "extreme right wing" people are in: "And >this stuff is completely unregulated!" these were out of line and sort of to be expected these days >* the First Amendment is seen as a minor obstacle to prosecution. >Hayes congratulates his assistant at the end for finding a way >around the First as a defense. Thats not how I viewed it, I don't remeber the words, but I saw it that he was not going to 'go after' the first amendment and cautioned them about how unwise that was. >* the talk show host has apparently done nothing more than many of >us havedone on this list > >* he is convicted because he claimed not to have ever met the >murderer, buta tearful witness (girlfriend of the murderer) says >they did meet, briefly. > >(No evidence is presented that the talk show host participated, >supplied weapons, encouraged the murderer, etc.) maybe I am dreaming about something else, but I think they clearly showed that he had met with the guy and was fully aware that he was a crazy and could be pushed over the line >* Oh, and to add to the sliminess, the DA's office promises the >tearful girlfriend that her boyfriend will get a life sentence >instead of death if she testifies, but "whoops." definite slime >After the assistant to Hayes talks about the Net being "completely >unregulated!," and after finding the "Pentium II with 48 megs of >memory," I was expecting some mention of encryption. As a way to >further show how evilthe online community is. But I saw no mention. well gee maybe we should arrest everyone with a pentium/ppc and more than 16 Megs of RAM for possesion of 'cyber-terrorist' tools >I will admit to a guilty pleasure: the opening scene, where the >BATF agentgets shot in the face, was delicious. I looked at it with mixed emotions ... BATF is made up of guys and gals just like us, some good, some bad, some sheep. The problem with BATF is that their leadership sucked and the bad ones got their way. Just like years ago, when Philadelphia elected Frank Rizzo (former Police Commsisioner) mayor ... he wasn't a bad cop but ran a little rough shod over the Bill of Rights from time to time ... with him as Mayor, the Philadelphia PD went to hell in a handbasket because all his old cronies could get away with murder (often literally!) Brian B. Riley --> http://www.macconnect.com/~brianbr For my PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "...error reading WinOS. (A)bort, (R)etry, (M)acintosh?"

6 9

Here It Is !!
by Selective.Marketing＠dthead.dwt.daewoo.co.kr 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We are giving away over $700.00 in promotional software that can increase your business by over 150%. How would you like to send your ad to thousands of people that have an interest in your product or service? Just imagine the results. We are giving away the software to do just that. With this limited time offer you can receive an email extraction program that will extract targeted addresses for you to send your advertisement to. You will also receive an email program for sending your advertisement. This software is yours free when you purchase our CD Rom with over 37 million email addresses on it. This CD Rom is ready to use with your email program. If you can click a mouse, you can boost your sales by 150% or more overnight. This offer is for a limited time. As an added bonus, we will submit your web site to over 250 search engines for free when you place your order. All orders are taken by phone, so hurry and call (904) 908-5444

1 0

PGPsdk is out, but not for free
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- phelix(a)vallnet.com wrote: >First, PGPsdk has been released: > > http://www.pgp.com/sdk/ > >The bad news: the licensing fees are so high that there will be no >freeware or shareware applications using it. 1. It's not bad news because it didn't cost us anything for somebody else to write it. We are doing just as well as last week. 2. If the licensing fees are really high, this should be a good opportunity for competing software. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFwiF5aWtjSmRH/5AQFBQAf/VoTRpAVMo7r2ebpwYHJL4AUxEL9Muwwr za+Bm0hOMU630ifmqmGXg12AbUAMDOnD/g0Io/bwIL36t4lhTfKTV6Sbzc/I0G6s A8vWR56kX6wo2XjDw/lI5zKbFrrxcIAPtMd0e8Cq2vsjSGBMbzI6GXhO+7TMDQV/ kdgd7b1x5/kPBw88kcmNI72MSrRaPsMavptbGpqVs469dy/6gfRDhIO2nedkDgQI 4eHDjmYc6hKFDUelWVN5PS8u5O/LfCkYDYfkb6BG3VNAJeSIkW+KfQFac5P2i00E cGyf/WZuvWtCmpHgLk5FKPUQS4zQXpeaJJG7LYJY6Cq2I9H+OYusTQ== =gc92 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

[FWD] Further Attacks on "cajones.com" Vindicate Jeff Burchell and the Huge Cajones Remailer
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

dr(a)ripco.com (David Richards) wrote: > It appears that the domain 'cajones.com' is being abandoned due to the ^^^^^^^^^^^ > massive forgery by spammers? No nameservers respond... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Enclosed is a spam recently received, through the open relay 'rio.bravo.net' > from an IBM.NET dialup. > > Note that the only body text in this spam is a URL that doesn't work because > the spammer truncated the URL, and the complete url points to what appears > to be a legitimate site, so he was probably trying to promote a personal > home page or other sub-site on 'http://www.fcl.metronet.lib.mi.us/' > > > === Spam with headers intact === > > From cajones.com!weijoro79 Fri Oct 31 22:58:42 1997 > Return-Path: <weijoro79(a)cajones.com> > Received: from rio.bravo.net (root(a)207.48.46.12) > by XXXXX.ZZZZZ.com with SMTP; 1 Nov 1997 04:58:38 -0000 > Received: from LOCALNAME (slip166-72-172-87.fl.us.ibm.net [166.72.172.87]) by rio.bravo.net (8.6.12/8.6.9) > with SMTP id WAA24372; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 22:32:27 -0600 > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 22:32:27 -0600 > From: weijoro79(a)cajones.com > To: weijoro79(a)cajones.com > Comments: Authenticated sender is <weijoro79(a)cajones.com> > Errors-To: nobody(a)nowhere.com > Subject: Create custom targeted e-mail address lists... > Message-Id: <199711012578NAA22995(a)cajones.bravo.net> > > http://www.fcl.metronet.lib.m That's quite interesting. Spam is arriving with forged headers that attempt to implicate "cajones.com". That domain has quite a colorful history. According to InterNIC records, it's operated by Jeff Burchell, who is also the former operator of the defunct Huge Cajones Remailer which he operated as part of that domain. Along came Gary Burnore <gburnore(a)netcom.com>, CEO of DataBasix, who claimed that Jeff's remailer at cajones.com was being used to "forge" his e-mail address to Usenet articles. His only evidence was a few messages which happened to have a "cajones.com" message id in the headers, and they weren't even very convincing forgery attempts at that. Gary Burnore, Belinda Bryan <eridani(a)ix.netcom.com>, and William J. McClatchie (aka "Wotan") <wmcclatc(a)primenet.com> managed to harass Jeff sufficiently that he shut the remailer down. At the time, Burnore refused to concede the possibility that any "forgeries" of articles in his name might also have forged headers designed to implicate "cajones.com" as well. Rather he relied on the fact that Jeff kept no logs which could prove the innocence of himself and his remailer. Now the "cajones.com" domain is dead, and yet it's still showing up in forged headers! It looks like another of Gary Burnore's "shoot first and ask questions later" accusations has been cast into doubt. Unfortunately, it's probably too late to undo the disinformation campaign that he waged against Jeff Burchell and other remailer operators. -- Without censorship, things can get terribly confused in the public mind. -- General William Westmoreland

1 0

PGPsdk is out, but not for free
by phelix＠vallnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

First, PGPsdk has been released: http://www.pgp.com/sdk/ The bad news: the licensing fees are so high that there will be no freeware or shareware applications using it. Here's an example of the licensing: License Plan #1 Authentication, Encryption/Decryption, PGP/MIME, Key Management: $25,000 advance on royalties + 2% of product revenues (minimum $1 per client and $35 per server) Add Certificate Server Integration: $5,000 advance on royalties Support/Upgrades (includes email support by a trained developer support technician) $1,500 per year + 15% of royalty payments Oh well, back to hacking an interface to PGPtray. -- Phelix

1 0

Re: [SURVEY] pgp5.x / pgp2.x users
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> wrote: >Fill out and email me, and I'll tabulate results, and post here and on >ietf-open-pgp: >==============================8<============================== >mini straw poll on pgp2.x and 5.x usage: > >1. What are you currently using for everyday use: 2.x or 5.x >[ 2 or 5 ] 2.x. 5.x is purposefully incompatable and crippled. >2. What proportion of people you use PGP to communicate with are using 5.x >[ x / y ] None. If they're using 5.x I by definition can't communicate with them. >3. How many of the 5.x users you communicate with are cypherpunks >[ z ] See above. >==============================8<============================== >The question has come up on ietf-open-pgp as to how important it is >for the OpenPGP standard to support backwards compatibility with >pgp2.x. Very. 5.x right now is nothing but annoying. I can understand wanting to use the new algorithms. However if the authors want to do that and literally force people into upgrading then they need to make sure that every platform which had a version of 2.x has a version of 5.x available, and they need to stop breaking *every* script and program which calls PGP. If they release a version of PGP for one platform before they do others and the new version is incompatable with the old for all intents and purposes, they're just feeding OS wars, frustration, and hostility. >The IETF generally likes to steer clear of patented algorithms as >MUSTs in standards. This encourages implementations, etc. >(Personally I'm pretty keen on this point, though I would like more >backwards compatible pgp5.x implementations -- I've already received >emails I can't read without resorting to the pgp5 command line app, >which doesn't work with my mailer integrated system.) That's exactly my situation. I figure, however, that if somebody is going to send out broken email I won't bother kludging around to read it no more than I will go start X11 and fire off a 20 MB browser (Communicator) because some moron doesn't know how to use HTML as it was originally designed. I'm personally appalled at the number of Cypherpunks using a version of PGP which is completely incompatable with previous versions and outrageously annoying to use unless you run Windows since it breaks everything which is integrated. >So the question arises, just how many pgp2.x users are there. PGP Inc >are pointing to the ratio of RSA keys to DSA/EG keys on keyservers as >showing that pgp2.x users are in the minority. However that ratio is >something like 20,000 to 75,000, and I'm sure we've heard statistics >in the past about there being literally millions of pgp 2.x users. >One suspects that either many pgp 2.x users aren't using keyservers (I >know several cypherpunks who have something against key servers and >avoid them for perceived security or privacy reasons), and/or the >pgp2.x user base is exaggerated. You can't compare the user bases this way. First, 5.x integrates easily into several Windows mailers. This encourages people to go get it and install it over 2.x. Second, 5.x integrates keyserver functions. 2.x does not. It's really no work for 5.x users to submit a key to a keyserver, where it takes some effort with 2.x. Third, most people probably have Windows installed already. They heard 5.x was out, and didn't realize that it was so...well, broken. I know I fetched 5.x when it came out and installed it. I almost sent my key to the servers, then stopped to think about how the generated key doesn't work with 2.x. Fourth, if you're using Windows and communicating with other Windows users there is really no reason not to use 5.x. People communicating with classmates at universities and such are likely to go install 5.x because it's easy to use, send their key to the keyservers because they can, and inflate the numbers. Fifth, there are far more Windows users than users of other OSes. Windows users have no reason not to upgrade, while other users have every reason to stick with previous version. I think the major problem with 5.x right now as it stands is the complete lack of support from http://beta.pgp.com, the forced command-line incompatabilities, and the lack of a stable multiplatform version. Add to that the CMR debacle. Now in defense of PGP 5.x I do like the keyserver integration, expiry dates on keys, and some of the other features. I like how it integrates with the mailers. This entire thing makes me think of a web site which checks your browser and OS. If you aren't running what the author likes, it tells you that you suck, you're a moron, you're behind the times, you're using an inferior operating system, and then doesn't show you the data. This is analogous to what PGP Inc. has done. This compatability thing could have very easily been avoided. Face it, PGP Inc. screwed up. I think it's ultimately going to be the job of Cypherpunks outside of the Land of the Freeh to clean up their mess. Has anyone considered hacking up 2.6.xi to handle the new format? It would have to be saner than 5.x is at this point. I would try, but I'm in the Land of the Freeh where you put your backside on the line to write any crypto software at all. Ah, I love America. CompatabilityMonger

2 1

Re:
by wabe 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

yeah, so ABC has an absolutly discusting thing last night (was that 20/20) that I watched for almost 20 minutes, in which they actually showed the "raptists" (he met and had sex? with a fifteen year old girl.) Who even meets girls on the internet? Then there was a proto-hacker who shut down the porn chat rooms on Aol. (I commend him, if for nothing else, than for developing software that shuts down parts of AOL. :>) Anyways, Mr. Protohacker actually cried on the camera, because he was raped at age 4, and he couldn't believe we let those pornographers on the internet to spread their web of filth. When TV gets into the war against the Internet, it scares me. I don't want a war between the bible belt and the technocrats... _______________________________________ -wabe

1 0